Quote from: Manzanaro;886523I guess it is possible to be a stickler for this and try to figure out exactly what someone could say within a timed combat round, but I don't think that even the most ardent proponents of simulation tend to try and take things to that level.

Why "within"? Why are you assuming all actions need to be contained within a combat round?

Quote from: Manzanaro;886510But I think we can heighten this sense of drama by narratively "dressing up" the combat output. "His sword slams down and you feel a shock down your arm as you intercept the blow. Take 5 HP."

In general I dislike this sort of dramatic language. To me that sort of "narrative" comes across as a bit tedious, uninformative if not outright obfuscatory, and often sounds like lame or hackneyed and purple prose. It is at least as likely to detract from rather than enhance my gaming experience. Descriptions like that become especially tedious in level-based systems featuring ablative, ever-increasing hit points per level.

QuoteWe can insert dialogue into the combat.

I insert dialog when a character talks. Some NPCs are chatty combatants. Some aren't. Some players run chatty PCs. Some don't.

Now it is true that some focused, genre-based games have some dialog expectations, for example I'd expect the players in James Bond 007 to dispense witty (or at least semi-witty) bon mots during their confrontation with the villain or his minions. The same behavior for characters in a straight up game of Call of Cthulhu might well be jarring or even disruptive to the mood or tone of play so I wouldn't expect players to do that. On the other hand if it was a Blood Brother II B-movie based 1-shot, I'd expect the players to ham it up to the max.

QuoteAll of these are things we can do to enhance the narrative qualities of the simulated combat, without overriding the rules of simulation in any way.

And whether these narrative fillips enhance or detract from the play experience depends on the goals, desires, and preferences of the people at the table and not on the narrative techniques themselves.

Which is why I said I my very first post in this thread that your proposed narrative "they all end up being killed very quickly by the dragon" was a perfectly acceptable narrative. It is the chronicle of what happened.

If you don't find that narrative sufficient, then you need to explain
   (a) Why what happened is unacceptable as an outcome;
or
   (b) Why the description of what happened is unsatisfactory as a narrative.  

Quote from: Agkistro;886515Absolutely. But then at the end of the day these decisions generally only affect 6 people sitting around a table, so consensus across the industry is neither required nor desirable.

Oh sure these issues only appear to arise online. I was pointing out that genre is not a well defined term nor is there universal or even general agreement as to the names and boundaries of various genre, sub genre, sub sub genre, etc.

Quote from: Manzanaro;886518No. A player may "step into" a simulation by proxy, but what the player chooses to do is not governed by the rules of simulation. Again player choice is not simulated. it is real choice. What is simulated is the outcome of that choice as if it were the choice of the proxy element and the response of the simulated environment. This may seem like a pedantic distinction but it is key to what I am talking about.

The distinction does not seem pedantic. It is wrong.

Multiple simulations include human decision making as part, sometimes the most important part, of the simulation itself. Using a definition of simulation that excludes common simulations as simulations makes no sense.

QuoteIt's something I've used myself in writing actually. I am not privy to the authorial processes of any widely published authors. But is how common it is really an issue? What does that matter?

It matters because
   (a) while what I do is a dandy method for simulating a world in motion, I strongly suspect it sucks rocks as a method of becoming a successful author.
and
   (b) what also matters is the distinction between decisions made as an author for authorial reasons, e.g. to try to set a mood, advance a plot, create a particular scene, or highlight a character in some specific way and decisions made for other e.g. simulation reasons. For some reason, you want to exclude decision making from simulation and thereby claim all decisions are authorial decisions. That is misguided, wrong-headed, and unproductive.

Moreover, the exclusion of decisions from simulation is entirely unnecessary to having a conversation about what literary or aural story telling techniques a GM might wish to employ to achieve some specific aim in setting some specific tone, mood, advancing a plot, highlighting a character, or whatever. Assuming, that is, that the GM even wants to set a tone or advance a plot rather than simply allowing those elements to develop in play from the situation, the player actions, the world's reactions, and the player's perception of the events.

But having a discussion of useful techniques first requires an explanation of what the technique is supposed to accomplish. You seem to think that it is self-evident what 'enhancing a narrative' means and which narratives are in need of enhancement. And therefore since we all agree on what enhances a narrative that all we need do is list some techniques to accomplish that enhancement.

But if this thread has shown anything it is that we don't agree on which narratives are in need of enhancement, why they need enhancement, much less how to enhance them. Your insistence on using terms like narrative, authorial, and simulation only obfuscates and impedes whatever discussion you seem to want to have about applying literary or story telling techniques to RPGs.

Quote from: Saurondor;886526Now your previous posts seem to go against impromptu rules unless the GM takes a break to get a PhD in whatever is going on in the game at the time so it's "simulationist" enough. Which way is it?

I would be fascinated to see what I said in previous posts that "seem(s) to go against impromptu rules unless the GM takes a break to get a PhD in whatever is going on in the game at the time so it's "simulationist" enough." But let's just chalk that up to misinterpretation on your part.

I am not against impromptu rules, nor do I think that creating a process of simulation on the fly somehow invalidates the larger simulation as a whole if this new process is designed to fill in gaps in the existing simulation.

What I have said is that if you override the rules of the simulation that are in place for reasons of "realism" or indeed, any other reasons at all than you are, very obviously, disregarding the rules of simulation. And if you override the output of the rules of simulation and simply say what happens than you are determining outcomes narratively rather than via simulation. I am not placing any particular value judgement on these things.

QuoteWhy "within"? Why are you assuming all actions need to be contained within a combat round?

I'm making no such assumption. If a round is six seconds, than an exceedingly strict simulationist would not allow anyone to talk for more than six seconds in a round. As I said, I don't know of many people who take simulation to this level though, and certainly, it would be very difficult to adjudicate when simultaneous actions are getting portrayed sequentially, as we see in turn based combat.

Quote from: Bren;886535In general I dislike this sort of dramatic language. To me that sort of "narrative" comes across as a bit tedious, uninformative if not outright obfuscatory, and often sounds like lame or hackneyed and purple prose. It is at least as likely to detract from rather than enhance my gaming experience. Descriptions like that become especially tedious in level-based systems featuring ablative, ever-increasing hit points per level.

I deeply apologize for liking something you don't like, Bren. I don't know what I was thinking.

QuoteThe distinction does not seem pedantic. It is wrong.

Multiple simulations include human decision making as part, sometimes the most important part, of the simulation itself. Using a definition of simulation that excludes common simulations as simulations makes no sense.

The human decision is not part of the simulation. It is meta to it. We say, "This is what my avatar will do," and we author that into the simulation and then the simulation responds to it.

I'm not wrong, you just don't understand me.

Quote from: Manzanaro;886539I deeply apologize for liking something you don't like, Bren. I don't know what I was thinking.

Defensive much?

My point was that what makes a "better" or "enhanced" narrative is not self-evident nor universal.

Quote from: Bren;886540Defensive much?

My point was that what makes a "better" or "enhanced" narrative is not self-evident nor universal.

Not at all. That was an employment of irony intended to make you realize that trying to shut people down just because they are aiming for something you personally don't like is absurd. You personally find HP attrition to be completely satisfying with no narrative dressing. I accept that and it is okay. Can you say the same for me NOT finding it satisfying?

And yes, "good" narrative is super subjective. Guess what? I am actually looking for subjective opinion on how to achieve a subjective goal! Fucking mind boggling, eh?

Quote from: Manzanaro;886508This isn't true. The Sims is a simulation in which character behavior is not authored, but it really is a simulation (other than for the player controlled characters).

As far as tabletop RPGs go there are shitloads of things that are not authored. Did I roll up my character? Than that was not authored. Did I name him and choose his class? Than those things were authored. A classic tabletop RPG is a mix of simulated and authored elements, and I don't find it super hard to discern between the two.

I hardly think rolling stats during character creation is simulation. This is as opposed to character generation in Traveler which actually does attempt to simulate the life of the character prior to the first session of play.

So here's a suggestion.

Rather than create a shit storm with your idiotic definition of simulation, why not aim to be more honest in your language and simply state whether something is decided by player, rules, or dice?

Because aside from yourself, your imaginary friends, and a washed-up GNS theory, everybody is in agreement that something like a mock trial is most certainly a simulation, even though a human will be making willed decisions for the role they play in order to simulate a real judge, lawyer, witness, etc.

Quote from: Lunamancer;886450I often point out that virtually every game in the known universe sets the rules in opposition to the goal. In football, you have to get the ball into the right endzone. But just to fuck with you, they're going to start you on the opposite end of the field, make strict rules regarded forward progress, and.. oh yeah, put 11 really big dudes in your way. Without a doubt, that's what creates the drama and tension. Only in RPGs do we theorize that the rules of the game ought to be aligned with the goal. That said, it does not surprise me in the least when you say that rules specifically crafted to create drama and tension consistently fail to do so.

Well, no.
Sometimes games just mean to give you a level playing field, and have rules that support that.
Some other rules might mean to make it harder, to "raise the difficulty", though it seems a lot of people that play RPGs don't like those.
Other things are constrained for safety reasons first and foremost.

In football, for example, you need to get the ball in the goalzone, but you start in the centre of the field, and 11 guys from the opponent's team are trying to interrupt you. Then again, you have 11 guys, too.
Then again, you can't do the simplest thing and pick up the ball. Instead, only one of your guys can touch it with his hands, but he can't leave his half of the field - the rest of you are kicking it. These two ensure that the defence would have a slight edge, and in general makes the game harder.
You can't attack the other party's players both for safety reasons, and in order to make the game harder and more technical.

There's also a Referee, much like in RPGs, but he only keeps score whether you're following the rules:).

Then again, there are games that only state the win conditions, like chess. You have a playing field, the game doesn't make it harder. A human opponent makes it harder.

In short, I see your point, but I think you're generalizing a bit too much;).

Quote from: Agkistro;886484I'm the last one that would be breaking up a academic dick-waving contest, but I feel like somebody has to point out that the whole "Narrativist/Simulationist/Gamist" thing was made up by some nerd* on the internet in the 90's, and has been used very loosely and by lots of different people in lots of different ways since then.  It's not geometry. It's utterly pointless to discuss what is 'actually' simulationist and what is 'truly' narrativist.  It's not the kind of thing people can be wrong about, so I honestly don't see why there's a fight happening over it.

It seems like there must be some way to actually discuss what you mean without fixating on who's using the proper semantics.


*Yes, I know which nerd.

Sorry, man, but discussing semantics and what words mean is a favourite pastime of many forum visitors:). And "narrative" seems to be the new favourite word to discuss.
Now look at the thread's title;).

Other than that, we're not that bad, and sometimes actually have valid discussions! Just not when someone mentions "narrative" concerns! Then he must be made to admit that he's straying from the pure "game" and "simulationist" concerns - or else some people would be unable to sleep.

Quote from: Lunamancer;886589I hardly think rolling stats during character creation is simulation. This is as opposed to character generation in Traveler which actually does attempt to simulate the life of the character prior to the first session of play.

So here's a suggestion.

Rather than create a shit storm with your idiotic definition of simulation, why not aim to be more honest in your language and simply state whether something is decided by player, rules, or dice?

Because aside from yourself, your imaginary friends, and a washed-up GNS theory, everybody is in agreement that something like a mock trial is most certainly a simulation, even though a human will be making willed decisions for the role they play in order to simulate a real judge, lawyer, witness, etc.

Sorry dude but I've concluded you're an idiot. Peace out.

Quote from: Manzanaro;886541Not at all. That was an employment of irony intended to make you realize that trying to shut people down just because they are aiming for something you personally don't like is absurd. You personally find HP attrition to be completely satisfying with no narrative dressing. I accept that and it is okay. Can you say the same for me NOT finding it satisfying?

So when I point out that the "narrative dressing" that you desire is not universally desirable and that it does not automatically enhance everyone's play experience you see that as shutting you down? Ironically defensive much?

I don't care that you want the GM to add elements of purple prose to your play session. But if that's what you want, say that instead of couching your desire in vague terms like "compelling narrative" or "enhance the narrative" that mean three different things to two different people.

QuoteAnd yes, "good" narrative is super subjective. Guess what? I am actually looking for subjective opinion on how to achieve a subjective goal!

But when you get a subjective opinion that does not accord with your subjective opinion you feel "shut down"?

Grow up.

Quote from: AsenRG;886591Other than that, we're not that bad, and sometimes actually have valid discussions! Just not when someone mentions "narrative" concerns! Then he must be made to admit that he's straying from the pure "game" and "simulationist" concerns - or else some people would be unable to sleep.

Or if you want advice on how to write better prose clarify what you mean by "better" instead of couching your desire in vague terms like making a more "compelling narrative" or "enhance the narrative" that mean three different things to two different people. And then when you get advice that doesn't align with your preconceptions stop yapping about the narrative and just say something like, "that language is too simple and Spartan, that's not what I am looking for" and move on to someone whose suggestion does align with your preference.

Quote from: Bren;886595So when I point out that the "narrative dressing" that you desire is not universally desirable and that it does not automatically enhance everyone's play experience you see that as shutting you down? Ironically defensive much?

I don't care that you want the GM to add elements of purple prose to your play session. But if that's what you want, say that instead of couching your desire in vague terms like "compelling narrative" or "enhance the narrative" that mean three different things to two different people.

But when you get a subjective opinion that does not accord with your subjective opinion you feel "shut down"?

Grow up.

Dude... You've been a near constant presence in this thread with absolutely nothing positive to contribute, and doing nothing but challenging my terminology at every goddamn turn even though you have made it clear you have zero interest in the subject of the thread.

When asked repeatedly why you were even engaging in the conversation you refused to answer.

So where you tell me to grow up? I tell you to fuck off.

I'm done talking to you.

Quote from: Manzanaro;886538I'm making no such assumption. If a round is six seconds, than an exceedingly strict simulationist would not allow anyone to talk for more than six seconds in a round. As I said, I don't know of many people who take simulation to this level though, and certainly, it would be very difficult to adjudicate when simultaneous actions are getting portrayed sequentially, as we see in turn based combat.

First the six second part. To begin with I believe an exceedingly strict simulationist would allow anyone to talk for more than six seconds in a round. This is simply because any human being can speak for more than six seconds and to inhibit such actions in an arbitrary way due to a rule is to "simulate unrealism" (if you'll allow me the expression).

The six seconds can be used as a unit of time to measure and quantify events pretty much like a DSP (digital signal processor) uses it sampling rate (an implied sample time) to break down an analogue signal (real world) into a digital one (computer world), process it and create a real world output. An F1 car samples hundreds of sensors thousands of times a second. Imagine if the suspension could only handle road irregularities lasting less than 1/10000 of a second.

Now regarding time and time compression you mentioned the following:

QuoteAgain, this is based purely on a misreading on your part. I said there were two choices? For who? WTF?? Book=pure narrative and if a book advances in time than the intermediate points get skipped, and any reference to intervening events will be authorially manufactured. GMs can employ this technique. In simulation you can't skip time and still meaningfully call it a simulation. You can compress time but the entire simulated environment will advance completely under the terms of simulation. The only equivalent a GM has to this is rolling the dice faster, as you and I have both agreed.

Uh, no, actually you can also compress information and by doing so require less "simulation" to arrive at an outcome. If for example, the party encounters another group of adventurers who have just barely escaped from a fight with ogres, it is not necessary to "simulate the ogre encounter" to determine the situation of the party. The exact position of the NPCs during the encounter is irrelevant half an hour later when they encounter the players. I can roll on the "express encounter outcome table" (once again if you'll allow me the expression) and determine that the NPCs have barely escaped with their lives. I set hit points and equipment conditions to such a level and walk them towards the party. Did I roll tons of dice to "simulate the NPC-ogre" encounter? No.

Now in the paragraph following the one I just quoted you mention something even more interesting:

QuoteEDIT: This relates to the entire premise of this thread. A good book makes you feel like it is governed by rules of simulation. When a protagonist wins a fight we are supposed to find the narrated fight to give the same results as a simulation of the fight would give. In an RPG we really can have many things governed by rules of simulation. But not everything. Any RPG is going to have elements that are authored rather than being the results of a process of simulation, and even the way we relate the results of the simulation can benefit from good narrative techniques, as opposed to say, "I hit for 4." "He misses." "I hit for 9."

Basically what you're saying is that authored content is indistinguishable from simulated content. Yet in the previous paragraph you mention that books are pure narrative content and any reference to missing [skipped] points would "be authorially manufactured". You seem to imply that the only thing we can distinguish is a poor simulation from a good simulation. Being a poor simulation one in which we lack the sufficient rules to govern some situations that need be resolved. More so it seems you're saying that all RPGs are going to fall into this poor simulation situation at one point or another.

To summarize it seems that your saying the following: a) a simulated fight should give the same results as a narrated fight ("we are supposed to find the narrated fight to give the same results as a simulation of the fight would give"), b) (a) is impossible since a simulation can't cover all of the "things" in the fight ("In an RPG we really can have many things governed by rules of simulation. But not everything."), and c) eventually we fall back to narrating to resolve the fight ("Any RPG is going to have elements that are authored rather than being the results of a process of simulation").

Now...

Quote from: Manzanaro;886538What I have said is that if you override the rules of the simulation that are in place for reasons of "realism" or indeed, any other reasons at all than you are, very obviously, disregarding the rules of simulation. And if you override the output of the rules of simulation and simply say what happens than you are determining outcomes narratively rather than via simulation. I am not placing any particular value judgement on these things.

First of all you're open to accepting rules for the sake of the rule itself. An example of this is the 6 second quantification of time and the compartmentalization of actions in said 6 seconds which forces you to filter out anything a character says that lasts more than 6 seconds. So I'd like to ask. Can I skip a rule and all related rules derived from it as it is clearly not realistic? Clearly you've already answered that "that are in place for reasons of "realism" or indeed, any other reasons at all". So clearly overriding a rule, be it realistic or not, is disregarding the rules of simulation, and I'd be then determining outcomes narratively. Just like in the book! Which happens to be what the simulation rules "wanna-be"! Like you said "we are supposed to find the narrated fight to give the same results as a simulation of the fight would give". So it seems that overriding the rules of simulation - which is "disregarding the rules of simulation" - leads me to "determining outcomes narratively rather than via simulation" - which is the way the book was written (narratively) - which is the goal of the simulation ("A good book makes you feel like it is governed by rules of simulation.").

Why are you even simulating? Or are you simulating that you're simulating?

Quote from: Agkistro;886514Can you give me a hypothetical?

I can give any number of hypotheticals. The batman example is telling.

QuoteIf you did find yourself stuck in such a game, the question of 'what the simulationist would do' comes down to 'what is the simulationist simulating'? If it's 'real life', I suppose he'd have to break the rules in that instant to get his realistic result.  But there are plenty of genres he could be simulating in which gun in mouth -> trigger pull not resulting in instant death is ok.

My bottom line point is it's all about what you're trying to simulate. The purpose supersedes the process. I make no assumptions about "real life." You can simulate whatever kind of world you wish. But the point is that you're always simulating the world. Not the rules. The idea is for things at the table to more or less work as they do in the fictional world. Not just follow rules for the sake of following rules.

QuoteYeah, if the simulationist is trying to simulate 'realism', then that's probably what he would do.  But it would still be a compromise, and not pure 'simulation'.  The simulationist would *prefer* it if the mechanics just took care of this for him. That's what a simulation is- an artificial system of rules or guidelines or whatever that, when initiated, depict a thing.

Two important points here. Sure. Maybe a simulationist would *prefer* if the mechanics took care of everything for him. But we know that's impossible. You know the difference between works in theory vs works in practice? Only bad theory fails to work in practice. Well, this is where bad theory comes from. I'm talking strictly about how people actually play.

As to your definition of simulation, notice your definition implies a purpose--to depict a thing. One of the points I had raised is that when you're trying to depict a human system, the only way any model will even come anywhere close is it must accept human input as part of the simulation.

You said the simulationist wants that model to produce results as close as possible to the real thing, right? Well, then, to simulate an RPG world, it requires human input as part of the simulation.

QuoteI don't think theater is 'simulationist', even if it's an extremely accurate portrayl of a thing that happened. So to that extent I agree with him- a simulationist would want his results realistic, but would want those realistic results determined by a system,

Hold up. I think you have that backwards. Theater would fit Manzanaro's definition of simulation. The actors are simply following a script, which is an extremely simple system. It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Quotenot by his direct fiat.

Careful. Fiat is a four-letter word. I handled this a few pages back as well, that Manzanaro's definition if fiat is far too broad. Not every decision a GM makes is fiat. A good GM almost never uses true fiat.

The dictionary definition of "fiat" is an arbitrary order, or a decree. If the GM notices the rules are sharply diverging from what they're supposed to simulate, like a captain who notices the ship is veering off course, if he makes a correction, this is not "an arbitrary order." It serves the purpose of keeping the game on the course that everyone agreed to. It's also not "a decree." The GM hasn't set a new course. He's acting as a faithful servant to the intended course.

QuoteSo bad rules put a simulationist in a dilemma with no escape that doesn't involve some sacrifice of what it means to simulate.  But, I *expect* most simulationists would choose the horn of the dillemma that preserves the realism of his game, over getting an implausible, realism-destroying result because the rules demand it.

Essentially, yes. Though a couple of poor word choices. Since no rule system is 100% accurate, what you term "bad rules" is really just any RPG rules. And I don't think sacrifice is an accurate word. If the GM recognizes that he could get A by giving up B, and that gets him closer to the ideal, then it's not a sacrifice. It's a clear trade up.

Quote from: Saurondor;886600So it seems that overriding the rules of simulation - which is "disregarding the rules of simulation" - leads me to "determining outcomes narratively rather than via simulation" - which is the way the book was written (narratively) - which is the goal of the simulation ("A good book makes you feel like it is governed by rules of simulation.").

Why are you even simulating? Or are you simulating that you're simulating?

I'd like to answer this. Mainly because I had answered it in a post much earlier but ended up cutting that part out of my post for brevity. So here it is again.

My ultimate goal in playing an RPG is (obviously) having fun. When it's all said and done, I achieve "fun" in two ways. One, at the end of it, I want there to be an interesting story. Two, I want moments along the way to be enjoyable in and of themselves. Not necessarily every moment. But the process itself should be entertaining. It's this second one that really counts. But at any given point, the story up to that point provides context. To have interesting points, there needs to be an interesting story.

Now the way I achieve interesting story is through accurate simulation. The world has to live and breathe. Events have to be character-driven. Players ideally role play their characters well. In their decision-making, they think in terms of what they've come to expect of the world, not math and rules knowledge. And in order to continue to encourage that kind of thinking and planning, the game has to flow according to the world, not the rules.

This is how I actually play. In GNS terms, my "creative agenda" is "narrativist" but the means by which I judge best achieves those ends are not what GNS theory tells me, but rather my means are "simulationist."

In other words, I'm deriving good narrative from simulationist gaming. This is what I've been doing for decades. To the degree the guy who started the thread actually gives a shit about the thread topic, he should shut the fuck up and listen when I say human systems cannot be simulated by math and models alone. It requires human input as part of the simulation. If you define away this possibility, you will never achieve the desired goal. That's what makes this definition fundamental, and NOT an argument over semantics.