Quote from: Manzanaro;886666What do you want me to do? You aren't arguing with things I said. You are arguing with your own poorly formed notion of what I MEANT.

I'm done with that kind of conversation. If you can't understand me after 40 some pages? Fuck additional clarification at this point.

First off let me start by saying that I agree with your opening statement. Issue here is that the last few posts seemed to deviate from it.

Now, to answer your initial question, "How do you, whether as GM or player, promote a good compelling narrative under rules of simulation?" let me say that I've created two modern combat games that have resolution mechanics down to quarter of a second. Which most surely makes you think it takes all week to resolve combat. Well it doesn't. They're not always used and they're used to add to the story and not to slow it down. That's because not every quarter second gets resolved and given a full five minutes of attention. Actions don't get compartmentalized into 250 millisecond cubicles either. Characters are not limited by a fixed set of feet to move per quarter second, second and rounds. So while it is simulationist it isn't simulationist in the way you break down conversation into what and what can't be done in 6 seconds.

Now the Batman and Tarzan thing. Characters in this game have few hit points and they're fixed for life. So dying from a single attack is very possible. Except of course getting hit is seldom an occurrence (well hopefully). Fear of getting hit is actually more important (and realistic btw) than actually getting hit. Rolling for damage is thus seldom. You explore realism and simulation in other aspects that are seldom explored. Batman and Tarzan stay alive through skill and player planning and not by taking hits to their hit points which are "but a flesh wound" until they go down to 0 hit points.

And no none of the rules on their own can recreate a Jason Bourne or Black Hawk Down scenario. Although once the party did rush through a village in their HUMVEEs gunning things down with their 50 cal and yes took a hit and yes Bennet didn't make it. It was very exciting and Black Hawk Downish, but it required more than just rules to make it happen. Actually rules were more like advise that dictated the important things that added to the story instead of dictating the path and damage of every single bullet which in the end takes too much time and adds little value.

Quote from: Manzanaro;886684Altering time scale is not the same thing as skipping tine entirely. Next time you run or play in a game, try to maintain consciousness of scene transitions and what is actually going on between scenes. If time was skipped than, very simply, it was NOT simulated. But I'm done rehashing the same ground.

Hmm, that's an interesting distinction. I won't get into it if it's been touched upon before, but I'll keep that in mind in my answers.

Quote from: Manzanaro;886684As far as the tool handling bit goes, can you expand on that? I would think it is more a matter of framing and focus and things that are NOT inherently part of the simulation, but I may not be understanding you correctly.

I simply mean that scene framing, focusing in or out, time changes, etc, are all just parts of the big GM toolbox.

Are flashbacks considered part of Rules for Simulation?

Quote from: AsenRG;886621Now, if you could quote me the advice you've given, I'd be interested to comment, but I suspect I've missed it pages and pages ago;).

I'm fairly certain you aren't the only one who missed it. Well let's see. I said that "they all end up being killed very quickly by the dragon" is an adequate and possibly even an interesting narrative here.

I said that "I swing at the orc with my sword," followed by "You hit. The orc is dead." Is minimally descriptive and asked if Manzanaro was looking for more for something other than this. To which he replied "No. It's fine." This seemed an odd response given the thread topic so I asked for further clarification.

Quote from: Bren;881576But if you are truly happy with the narrative quality of those two lines and think they need no improvement, then I honestly don't know how you could fail to get a narrative of at least that degree of quality in virtually any portion, of any session, of any RPG, I've played in during the last 42 years.

So I still don't know what you want that you aren't already getting.

Still no answer so I asked again.

Quote from: Bren;881613What is not clear to me is what you mean by "getting a good narrative." Which is why I asked how you would add to or edit the example you gave to make it a "good narrative." Color me still confused. :confused:.

Still receiving no clarification from Manzanaro who remained focused on his semantic and definitional discussions, I moved on to suggest that the type of techniques or tools one might employ might vary based on campaign duration and that 1-shots and short arcs might be more likely to attract players and/or GMs who desired a more literary style and that a desire for a more literary style might make limited duration campaigns more appealing. So there was possibly a positive feedback loop. I followed up in a reply to you on the same topic here.

I made a couple of posts related to the semantic discussion since it seemed to be what everyone, and most especially Manzanaro, was actually interested in. Then I laid out what I thought would be an effective narrative (to use Manzanaro's terms) during play and after play here. Since it is fairly short and on point I'll quote it.

Quote from: Bren;882012An effective 'narrative' in play is a description of what is seen or sensed, what is attempted or the result of that attempt, that is easily understandable and clear to the participants so that everyone is, as much as possible, imagining the same scene and sequence of events. It's not supposed to tell an engaging and enjoyable story, it's supposed to let people accurately imagine the same set of happenings in the game world.

An effective narrative that describes the events after the fact has much different priorities. It must primarily be an engaging story for the reader. Some level of clarity is necessary for it to be engaging, but the sort of exact, round-by-round, strike-rank-by-strike-rank and exact die rolls made presentation of attempts and outcomes that one needs in play is likely to be far less engaging as an after the fact story and really isn't likely to be the point of telling a story after the fact or to almost anyone's taste.

I restated my ideas for effective narration during play and after and re-raised the still open question of whether or not  Manzanaro thought that "killed very quickly by the dragon" and "You hit. The orc is dead." could be considered effective narration. And if not, why not, here.

I expanded upon narration in play and after in discussion with Brendan here and asked for clarification of what Manzanaro meant by "a more emotionally resonant narrative"?  and if that was his aim, goal, or object in wanting to use special narrative techniques.

Rather than explain his meaning, Manzanro instead asked me about my meaning and tangented off on my opinion of John Wick's article about Tomb of Horrors and we have pages of exchanges where Manzanaro asks questions, introduces tangents, talks about the definition of simulation, whether advancing time is something that can be done inside a simulation and a bunch of other goofy semantic shit that serves to further obfuscate whether Manzanro is satisfied with a simple narrative like "they all end up being killed very quickly by the dragon" and if he isn't satisfied wherein lies his dissatisfaction. Hoping to extract something from the train wreck, I pleaded once again for Manzanaro to explain his goal and even tried to make his job easier by speculating one what he might want other than a simple "they all end up being killed very quickly by the dragon" here.

I took a brief respite from the Semantic Wars to share with Brendan an in game technique I've found useful here. And asked questions about techniques for writing up chronicles, summaries, and stories based on game play here. I don't recall any response to those non-semantic questions, but it's possible I missed a response.

Quote from: Nihilistic Mind;886626Can someone give me a recap of the good stuff this thread has produced so that I don't have to wade through pages and pages of nonsense?

Where are we at?
What tools have been established as valid to get a good story out of rules of simulation?

Well, here's a post or two that I find interesting. I'm not going to reply on my own posts, but there are some Bren posts I had missed.

With that said, here's the latest Manzanarro post, and my own point-by-point reply.

Quote from: Manzanaro;885956Well, let's look at some things that a GM might want to accomplish. A GM may want to:

:create characters that seem real and use words to convey the personalities, actions, and dialogue of these characters to other people.

:use description of places and events to establish a particular tone.

:describe action in a way that is clear and compelling.

:set up situations in a way that is compelling and promotes investment.

:convey a sense of drama, comedy, tragedy, or other particular narrative qualities.

:create and describe settings that are vivid and clear to the minds of others.

:foster a feeling of immersion in imagined events and settings.

Just a few things off the top of my head that would be familiar to anyone who crafted narrative, and that I can think of no other way to describe except as "narrative concerns".

Techniques for doing these things effectively are the intended focus for this thread.

Quote from: AsenRG;886292So, with that said, I'm going to stick to the thread's topic.


My technique: read books, fiction and non-fiction (accent on the latter). Talk with people with different backgrounds about their lives.
Borrow traits from the characters. Check with the non-fiction books what other traits a particular NPC is likely to have in addition to the above.
Variant technique: identify what common traits people doing a given job are likely to have. Do you best to show them.
Sometimes, randomly, throw in someone who doesn't fit the above. Because those people exist as well.
Don't hesitate to call for a "read intentions" roll. Sometimes, people do "broadcast", that's what "cold reading" uses...and some people make a living out of cold reading. Tell them that.

Remember that sometimes, people will interact with you, and that doesn't require any decisions. You go somewhere, a cop asks for your documents, they're in order, you show them. But not having the cop there might be weird...so add this, too.


Remember that groups of people with common traits impact the places where they hang, too. Tell that, too.
Use in conjunction with the previous technique.

The following example isn't among my best, but you get what...what I can find quickly.

Spoiler

The teahouse is surprisingly clean when you go inside. The people that are drinking tea there, sitting cross-legged near low tables with only the teapots - are only clean in the physical sense.
Klarius can almost smell the "stink" of being in The Life from some of them. And the heads that turn, look him over, and size him up before nodding politely tell him he has been judged, and found fitting for the place.

Maybe the second story is where the waitresses are earning a second wage. Whatever the case, there are more than a few people here.
On one table, a big tattooed Imperial is munching biscuits from the barbarian Eisengard - filling, if lacking in spices - in addition to his tea. He's talking with a petite woman who seems to have Tienlungian blood, and trying to look up her dress.
They seem to be talking business, though, as her face is calm. His face shows mostly that he hasn't shaved.
A huge, heavy iron-shod staff is sitting next to the table, almost as a line drawn across to warn everyone else from approaching the two.

On another table, three man are drinking tea, and conversing in low voices. They all sized Klarius up when he entered, then politely returned to their tea and conversations. All kinds of daggers are sticking out of their belts.

On the third table that's occupied in the early morning, a richly dressed man is leaning. He's talking in a low voice to a man in simple clothes, while drinking his tea.

There's no teacup in front of the simply dressed man. As the waitress comes to re-fill the only cup on the table, she leans low - lower than necessary perhaps, and she doesn't even offer tea to the other man.

Neither of the two acknowledge your presence, but the hulking brute of a man, sitting behind the small rich guy, does. His face is scarred, and his hands are never too far away from the sabre's handle.

There are four more free tables, which have teapots with boiling water on them. There's also two tables that don't have such things. Those are the tables closest to the three guys.

Short sentences, emotionally-charged words. Remember, elaborate martial arts are harder to describe than "brawling" methods...unless you just decribe the results.
Hint: read REH's descriptions of battles.


A compelling situation has more than one possibility, and more than one threats. If the possibilities (or avoiding both threats) are mutually exclusive, though... well, that's grounds for some introspection.
Or the PCs might make the choice immediately, but that also tells you a lot about them as persons - just in less words.


That's about the words you use, more than anything (and the tone of your voice). A single movement of a brow might change the tone entirely, in the right situation.
Comedy runs best on exaggeration. Tragedy...might as well, as the Iliad shows - but small signs of emotional turmoil, taken together, are just as effective, if not more.
As a player, you can contribute by either joking when the GM's joking, or by giving your answers in a deadpan voice, when your character is trying to contain himself from exploding and doing dramatic action. Dramatic action is best reserved for drama, BTW. Grand gestures in comedy are best kept for actions that somehow fail or waste resources and opportunities.
Examples: the guy that always wanted to show the finger to his boss, but didn't want to get fired, upon getting fired...shows him the fourth finger out of fury.
Achilles, upon hearing the news about his friend's death, runs to momma for help - knowing this will be the death of him - and after she provides him with weapons, starts killing people. It makes sense for some people - let no hurt befall my friends; avenge them if I fail, whatever the cost. And, since after killing Hector, Achilles is destined to die...he can as well enshrine his glory of a man-slayer in eternity, carving his tale in history with the bloodied letters his spear leaves on the bodies of slain Troyans.
Makes sense for a guy who believes he's going to die? Of course it does.


Understand the setting you're using. Make the setting react to the actions of the PCs.


Use things that the characters care about.
Other than that, you can't. You can only avoid doing things that are going to disrupt said immersion.


How about "Idon'tcarewhatyoucallit"?

Again wasting time, you are, young padawan /Yoda.

Quote from: Bren;884055I like to include the occasional family holiday. Without ninjas attacking. Including the holidays of the setting helps ground the setting and is a nice way of marking time.

Oh! Great, I thought I'm the only Referee with such weird ideas. Most seem to be considering this stuff "wasting time".
Me, I call it "establishing relationships to help in immersion".

Quote from: Bren;881501That sounds like a great narrative for the single, surviving NPC mule tender to tell the next group of PCs. Now they may be warned and afraid or challenged and inspired. I wonder what will happen next?

And here's a trick I have used to save the campaign after one of the very few TPKs I've seen.
"...and so they died, said the shepherd. I saw it all from the nearby hill. Since then, the goblins are ever bolder, and the baron's men extract additional toll for protection!"
That was, of course, the intro for the new characters.

Quote from: Lunamancer;886601Two 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.

It seems to me like two things are actually being discussed.  What people do in actual play, and what it means to be 'simulationist' in ideal.   A simulation has two components- one, it has to be semi automated by a system, and two, it has to produce a result that's a facsimile to something.

QuoteOne 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.

If you're trying to simulate a gunfight, sure you need to account for the fact that people do lots of crazy shit in a gunfight.  But if you define 'the GM just picking which shots hit and which ones don't, and how dangerous they are' as 'human input' that is integral to the simulation, that would be a huge equivocation.  The 'human input' is the player actions (and the GM acting through NPC's), not the human input of a GM deciding to ignore rules.  That would be a necessary *failure* of the simulation, not a key facet of it.

QuoteHold 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.

My point is that there has to be a system for it to be a simulation.  Just deciding by fiat what happens is not a simulation.

QuoteThe dictionary definition of "fiat" is an arbitrary order, or a decree.

I don't really care about your, or anybody else's excessively narrow definitions of terms. You know what I mean when I say 'fiat'. If you prefer some other word for this thing that you and I are talking about, then suggest it, and I'll try to remember to use that alternate word when speaking with you.

QuoteIf 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."

Sure. Nevertheless, it's a break from the simulation.  Imagine if you're playing a video game- a flight simulator, and after a couple test flights you discover there's a glitch in the game where when you bank left, the tail falls off the plane.  This makes landing certain missions completely impossible for reasons that do not actually simulate flight.   If you're a hard-core devotee to 'simulation', you have no ideal solution to this problem.  Playing the game and crashing every time you bank left isn't a correct simulation, but pausing the game and declaring aloud "AND THEN I LAND THE PLAN SUCCESSFULLY!" doesn't fix anything. That's essentially what a GM does when they ignore the rules, or make up new ones.  It's not as glaring as that, since the GM speaking aloud is what's happening when things are working, and when they aren't, but in the head of the GM- they are aware of the difference between letting the rules simulate something, and making shit up when the rules fail him. In that case, or in the case of the flight simulator, the simulation simply fails.  Do all simulations fail? Of course they do.  The good ones only fail in rare/niche circumstances.

Quote from: Agkistro;886732It seems to me like two things are actually being discussed.  What people do in actual play, and what it means to be 'simulationist' in ideal.   A simulation has two components- one, it has to be semi automated by a system, and two, it has to produce a result that's a facsimile to something.

Actually it doesn't have to be a facsimile to anything. There are no dragons so you really can't create a simulationist fantasy setting that is facsimile to dragons because there is nothing to be facsimile to.

I'm not sure it even needs to be semi automated either. It need to be repeatable though. Within limits two distinct events under the same circumstances should have similar outcomes. Here is one of the situations in which simulations seem to fail reality. Simulations fail to recreate the very unexpected and very impacting situations that do arise in reality. How do you simulate that?

For example, and taking a cue from your airplane example, lets say the real airplane has a yet undiscovered issue with the landing gear that makes it jam in certain situations. Your simulation can't simulate it because it's not actually simulating the landing gear hydraulics, actuators and locking mechanism.

What if the dragon has a congenital birth defect that affects the heart and it drops dead all of a sudden, in flight, just as it is dropping down to kill the party. It certainly sounds very deus ex machina, but I believe it makes my point.

Quote from: Saurondor;886735For example, and taking a cue from your airplane example, lets say the real airplane has a yet undiscovered issue with the landing gear that makes it jam in certain situations. Your simulation can't simulate it because it's not actually simulating the landing gear hydraulics, actuators and locking mechanism.

What if the dragon has a congenital birth defect that affects the heart and it drops dead all of a sudden, in flight, just as it is dropping down to kill the party. It certainly sounds very deus ex machina, but I believe it makes my point.

I'm unclear what point you are making. If your point is that a simulation is not a perfect replica of the thing that is being simulated...well of course it isn't. Nothing that isn't the thing itself will be a perfect replica and no reasonable person should or would expect a simulation to be identical in every respect to the thing it represents.

Quote from: Saurondor;886735Actually it doesn't have to be a facsimile to anything. There are no dragons so you really can't create a simulationist fantasy setting that is facsimile to dragons because there is nothing to be facsimile to.

That doesn't seem accurate to me at all.  If I had a horseback riding simulator that was agreed to be very accurate, and I stick a horn on the nose of the horses, suddenly it's no longer simulating anything because unicorns aren't real?

A dragon, whatever else it is, is a giant scary beast. It's expected that your interactions with it will involve running away and/or combat. All of that can be simulated just fine.  Even something magical like a 'fireball' can be simulated within the bounds of knowing what fire is, and familiarity with explosions and such.

Imagine if you're fighting a giant dragon in an RPG, and in seems unable to pierce a cotton jerkin with its claws, and dies immediately when somebody punches it in the tail.  You mean to tell me you wouldn't be able to pass judgment on the quality of that simulation just because dragons aren't real?

QuoteI'm not sure it even needs to be semi automated either. It need to be repeatable though. Within limits two distinct events under the same circumstances should have similar outcomes.

That could be accomplished in the pure absence of a system, by a GM who just decides how things turn out based on what seems cool or plausible to him. That wouldn't be a simulation.

QuoteYour simulation can't simulate it because it's not actually simulating the landing gear hydraulics, actuators and locking mechanism.

As I said, all simulations fail...

QuoteWhat if the dragon has a congenital birth defect that affects the heart and it drops dead all of a sudden, in flight, just as it is dropping down to kill the party. It certainly sounds very deus ex machina, but I believe it makes my point.

...and the good ones only fail in unlikely or niche circumstances.

Quote from: Agkistro;886748That doesn't seem accurate to me at all.  If I had a horseback riding simulator that was agreed to be very accurate, and I stick a horn on the nose of the horses, suddenly it's no longer simulating anything because unicorns aren't real?

A dragon, whatever else it is, is a giant scary beast. It's expected that your interactions with it will involve running away and/or combat. All of that can be simulated just fine.  Even something magical like a 'fireball' can be simulated within the bounds of knowing what fire is, and familiarity with explosions and such.

So a simulator ir a means of communication. A means to allow you to experience something by recreating what somebody created in some other place at some other time.

Quote from: Agkistro;886748That could be accomplished in the pure absence of a system, by a GM who just decides how things turn out based on what seems cool or plausible to him. That wouldn't be a simulation.

Why not? If the GM uses a semi-automated means and attained a result that is facsimile to something, why can't it be considered a simulation?

Quote from: Agkistro;886732It seems to me like two things are actually being discussed.  What people do in actual play, and what it means to be 'simulationist' in ideal.   A simulation has two components- one, it has to be semi automated by a system, and two, it has to produce a result that's a facsimile to something.

Yes and no. Yes, you can draw a distinction between simulationist in ideal and simulationist in practice if you like. Here's the thing, though. If you debate over the former rather than the latter, you lose a crucial piece of information. Namely that since in practice we will never achieve the ideal, the simulationist in practice has to prioritize. How the simulation in practice prioritizes in part does define the simulationist in ideal.

Which brings us to part two. The semi-automated system and imitation. Which does the simulationist in practice actually prioritize? Because if he prioritizes imitation over automation, then the simulationist in ideal really refers to ideal simulation. Not necessarily absolute automation.

And I say this only for the sake of argument. Because I reject the very assumption that semi-automation is necessarily part of the equation. Depending what you mean by "semi-automation." Take the example of a mock trial. It is clearly a simulation of an actual court-room trial. There are some parameters put in place, however within those parameters, humans have free choice.

This is a system in the sense that mock trials have proscribed methods. It's automated in the sense that the court stenographer doesn't have to make up the details or constantly intervene in the trial. The mock trial's players produce the sequence of events for the record. But it is also not a computer program left to run overnight.

QuoteIf you're trying to simulate a gunfight, sure you need to account for the fact that people do lots of crazy shit in a gunfight.  But if you define 'the GM just picking which shots hit and which ones don't, and how dangerous they are' as 'human input' that is integral to the simulation, that would be a huge equivocation.  The 'human input' is the player actions (and the GM acting through NPC's), not the human input of a GM deciding to ignore rules.  That would be a necessary *failure* of the simulation, not a key facet of it.

Let's clarify the positions. I am saying there exists simulations that require human input as a part of the simulation. I'm not saying all simulations work that way. I just need to find one example and I'm right. You concocting examples of your own does not disprove or undermine anything I'm saying. Only my examples are relevant on this point.

So here's a relevant example:

PCs are guarding a merchant caravan. Meanwhile, a gang of NPC bandits look on. As GM, I have to decide whether or not the bandit leader attacks. Knowing I have an asshole player at the table named Manzanaro who will cry and complain if his character dies claiming the GM screwed him over by sending an unrealistic gang of suicide bandits at the party, I want to defer the bandit leader's decision to simulation. But again, because I'm going to be called on how realistic the choice is, it has to be an accurate simulation.

Ultimately, it comes down to this. The bandit leader can see the PCs. He's an experienced bandit leader, so he can assess them to get an idea of how tough they're going to be. He knows they're going to be a lot of trouble. The question is will the take be worth all the trouble? He calculates that if the take is over 100k gp worth of stuff, it will definitely be worth attacking. And if it's less than 10k gp worth of stuff, it will definitely NOT be worth attacking.

Here's the problem. Everything is stored in covered wagons. The bandit leader has no idea what the take is. Sure, he's attacked other caravans before. But this one is different. The hired hands are definitely of a special nature. Maybe that means the value of the goods is far, far, far higher than normal and he should attack. Or maybe the value of the goods is nil, and this is all a decoy to draw out the bandits.

In the end, there is no "rational" way to choose. No dice, no rules, no computer simulation could ever be accurate because this is a situation of missing information. The bandit leader simply has to make a gut decision. We can't just have a "gut" stat. That wouldn't be realistic because bandit leaders with certain gut scores will consistently make foolish mistakes and be weeded out. Those with certain other gut scores who are successful will help define the risk traveling merchants face, and the measures they take, in terms of goods and guards, be optimized against those bandit leaders with the "good" gut scores.

Ultimately, this is just a case that requires human input. Like a player in a mock trial, or living up to the term "role playing game" I must imagine myself as the bandit leader, in that situation, and go with my gut to make the simulation complete.

QuoteI don't really care about your, or anybody else's excessively narrow definitions of terms. You know what I mean when I say 'fiat'. If you prefer some other word for this thing that you and I are talking about, then suggest it, and I'll try to remember to use that alternate word when speaking with you.

No, I don't know what you mean by "fiat." I can read the definition from the dictionary. It's not MY definition. It's what the fucking word means. If you choose to mean something else by it, that's your prerogative. Just be respectful and say what you mean. If you don't, you've got no one to blame but yourself if someone misunderstands you.

Quote from: Nihilistic Mind;886687I simply mean that scene framing, focusing in or out, time changes, etc, are all just parts of the big GM toolbox.

Are flashbacks considered part of Rules for Simulation?

I agree that they are part of the GM toolbox, but I would call them part of a narrative toolbox in the sense that they are ways in which we frame events. However, I certainly feel that all of these are things that can be used without violating rules of simulation and so the way we use these things is absolutely within the framework of this discussion.

I can't really imagine a flashback rule being a simulationist rule, though I suppose it's possible. I think that typically flashbacks are used to provide information or add weight to an ongoing event by establishing preliminary events which would typically not be played out under simulation rules, but simply narrated by the GM or the player having the flashback. Again though, I do think flashbacks can be employed usefully in ways which don't violate any principles of simulation and so they are certainly on topic for discussion.

Let's check in and see if Lunamancer is still a prattling twat.

Quote from: Lunamancer;886773PCs are guarding a merchant caravan. Meanwhile, a gang of NPC bandits look on. As GM, I have to decide whether or not the bandit leader attacks. Knowing I have an asshole player at the table named Manzanaro who will cry and complain if his character dies claiming the GM screwed him over by sending an unrealistic gang of suicide bandits at the party, I want to defer the bandit leader's decision to simulation.

...

No, I don't know what you mean by "fiat." I can read the definition from the dictionary. It's not MY definition. It's what the fucking word means. If you choose to mean something else by it, that's your prerogative. Just be respectful and say what you mean. If you don't, you've got no one to blame but yourself if someone misunderstands you.

Yep.

Okay, let's try talking about something concrete rather than the theory crap.

One of the biggest things I run into in my RPG experience that acts as a barrier to getting a powerful emergent narrative is that a lot of the time, nobody at the table really gives a damn about the PCs. So, for example:

1. A PC dies and nobody really cares. Like literally, I have seen parties just strip the dead dude of his valuables and move on without any sort of remark.

2. No one has a sense of who the characters are and what motivates them, and indeed there is a common style of gaming which actually seeks to de-emphasize PC motives because strong individual motives can cause party splits where motives collide and can act as barriers to PCs becoming engaged in the GM's preplanned adventure.

3. The interactions and relationships between PCs go largely, or even completely, unexamined. We don't know which of these characters are friends, rivals, anything at all to each other.

Now, if I read a book or watched a movie which had the same lack of focus in these areas? I would consider that book or movie to have a crappy narrative that left me completely uninvested in the protagonists. No matter how cool the fight scenes were. And I have come to have similar standards for my RPG experiences. I am not interested in following characters nobody empathizes with or cares about.

So how do we promote these things as a GM, while remaining true to the rules of simulation that govern the game?

I have some idea and things that I have found work for me and most players that I game with, but I'd really like to get input from other people as well.

Quote from: Nihilistic Mind;886687Hmm, that's an interesting distinction. I won't get into it if it's been touched upon before, but I'll keep that in mind in my answers.

It's been touched on before. I think I should clarify so you can understand what I'm saying.

Start by imaging an RPG with just one PC. That PC decides to go to sleep. My computer simulation wasn't about RPGs, but in terms of what that simulation did is it would check if there were any future events that would interfere with this. If not, it would skip forward in time to when that action is complete. Approximately 8 hours later in this case.

If there is something that could potentially interfere in the action, then instead time is skipped ahead to that event. So if your PC decides to go to sleep in a dungeon that calls for a wandering monster check every hour, I'm going to skip ahead one hour, roll the die, and assuming it comes up negative, I repeat this each hour for the eight hours.

The other possibility is I might know a certain NPC or event is definitely going to happen between now and when your action completes. If that's the case, I skip ahead to the beginning of the event. If the timing of the event is uncertain, I can roll dice (or do whatever appropriate to the simulation) to find out when it is and skip ahead accordingly.

The idea is, events unfold exactly the same way if we had decided to play everything out round by round. We're just skipping to get the decisions.

In a multi-PC game, let's say the group goes to town and each has their own things they want to do. I take about 5 minutes or whatever to find out what everyone is doing. I cross reference that list to any timed/keyed encounters that are going to happen anyway (because this is a living world being simulated), or any "random encounters" and I skip to the soonest event on the list, whatever it is. We resolve that (maybe first was a random encounter roll that came up negative) and skip ahead in time to the next soonest.

This time-skipping is absolutely 100% true to the simulation as if we played it out. It's a simple algorithm that can actually be executed without much in the way of conscious thought. I mean, it literally meets even Manzanaro's insane criteria, yet he still pretends such a thing doesn't exist. SMH

QuoteI simply mean that scene framing, focusing in or out, time changes, etc, are all just parts of the big GM toolbox.

Hey, you can also do cut-aways 100% sim. Ever have a party split up, when they're each doing totally different things in different places simultaneously? You pretty much have to do cut-aways then.

QuoteAre flashbacks considered part of Rules for Simulation?

I wouldn't 100% rule out flashbacks, after all, you might have some crazy dimension hopping setting where it might all make sense. But when you flash back, at the time the character was actually taking those actions, he didn't know what the future will hold. When you're flashing back, you kind of do. It's a bell that can't be unrung.

So, in general, I'd say no to playing out flashbacks.

Unless you're talking about something like a war vet having flashbacks. I actually ran a sci fi game with pregens where one of the pregens was a vet that did have flashbacks. We didn't play them out. The player just got in character and did his best to imagine the character having flashbacks, imagining what the flashbacks would be and how the character would react.