Quote from: Saurondor;886787Well I see three cases:

a) Airbus 320 simulator
b) Airplane landing gear hydraulic lockup
c) Dragon flight simulator

Case a is the most common one.

Case b is something that's not factored into the simulation because the sim designers did not know the landing gear can lock up in that way.

Case c is the interesting one and the one that concerns us if we enjoy fantasy role playing games. There are no dragons and there is no point of comparison between the simulation and that which it intends to represent.

For case c we have two choices.
(i) There is a description of the dragon that we are trying to simulate. We can compare the output of the simulator to the description of the imaginary creature. If our description includes dragons have nearly impenetrable armor scales but the simulation treats the dragon's armor as tough as thin paper, we can easily criticize the simulation.

(ii) The simulation is the dragon. Whatever output the simulation of the dragon gives is what the dragon gives. They are effectively identical. So if the dragon simulation flies at a speed of 24" per turn we accept that as true dragon speed and move on.

In practice, we would typically use a combination of the two. If there is some a variation between the description and the simulation I will adjust the simulation e.g. give the dragon 12-pt scales instead of 2-pt scales or I will adjust my conception of a dragon. If I accept the speed of 24" per turn, I then figure out how fast that is in KM/hr or Miles/hr and that's how fast a dragon flies in the game setting.

To debate the "accuracy" of the simulation we would first need to figure out if we each have the same description in mind. That will necessary lead to some subjective choices e.g. "I just think dragons should be faster than that" vs. "I don't."

Quote from: JoeNuttall;886902You're doing it again!



I now see for myself why this thread has turned out the way it has...

Cuz people are hung up on stupid ass GNS? Bingo.

On a side note, now that I am just letting these guys argue amongst themselves, it is kind of amusing to watch them working their way towards the same damn things I've been saying all along.

Wow. Look at this. Questions that are unrelated to equivocations on the various definitions of the world narrative or misunderstandings about simulations.

Quote from: Manzanaro;886779...nobody at the table really gives a damn about the PCs.

Three things work.
(1) Ask them to create characters who care about each other. Do some of the character creation together. Ask them to make connections. WEG Star Wars had a great idea by including suggested connections on the character templates. Stuff like, maybe the Failed Jedi is a teacher for the Wannabe Jedi, maybe the Brash Pilot's older brother is the Grizzled Bounty Hunter, maybe the Grizzled Bounty Hunter is the bodyguard for the Republic Noble, or maybe the Old Scout takes the Brash Pilot under his wing.

(2) Run a campaign where the PCs are not orphan, murder-hobo wanderers.

• Make all the characters members of the same extended family (works great for an Icelandic Saga or Vikings Campaign).
• Makes all the characters members of the same age group of a barbarian clan. They've known each other for years. Sure Big Hern is a dumb bully, but he's your dumb bully. You grew up with the big lug and there was that time he protected your sister from two drunken young members of another clan.
• Have the characters all members of the same organization – group of spies, squad of infantrymen, band of mercenaries, crew of a merchant ship, etc.

(3) Despite anything you do or say, some players aren't going to be interested in any given way of playing. In that case you need to get new players who are interested in gaming the way you want to game.

Quote1. 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.

Usually a problem when people play orphan murder-hobo wanderers. First, ask them not to do that.

What about a ceremony?  

• When and where is the body going to be buried, burned, exposed or whatever the cultures in setting do with the dead?
• Is there a funeral, a religious service, a wake? Does the deceased have family?
• Who attends?
• Does another PC say a few words?
• From an in game perspective, depict NPC reactions: Shock. Incomprehension. Anger. Grief.
• Do NPCs ask questions about the circumstances of the death? "Tell, me did she suffer?"
• Does anyone break down and cry on a PC's shoulder?

Quote2. 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.

The problem is some players use PC motives as an excuse to act like an ass. The solution is not play PCs with no motives. It is don't play with people who act like asses.

If I don't understand the motive of a PC and I care about understanding (which I sometimes don't) I ask the player what the motive is for his or her PC. As a GM I may need to know that to properly play NPCs who may be able to discern their motive. Also in some settings e.g. Star Wars  or Pendragon the motive can actually change the PC's stats.

• Sometimes it is the case that the players hasn't thought about it, asking gives them a chance to do that. Sometimes it is the case that they have a great motive but it's not clear to me (or maybe anyone). Asking gives a chance to bring that out. I might then ask, "Is there some way the other characters would be aware of your PC's motive?"

Quote3. 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.

A lot of this can be covered by creating the characters as a group, asking questions about what the relationships are during character creations and periodically afterwards, and getting players who are interested in stuff like that.

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

Talk to the players out of game about the kind of play you want and get them on board. Various suggestions included above.

Quote from: Manzanaro;886811I think that in many cases, if you do this kind of set-up you might just end up with the players just staring at each other blankly, wondering what they are supposed to do, or expecting the GM somehow hand them moments to be played off of.

Like anything it depends.

Type 1. Some players like doing this during play and take to it naturally or will create such opportunities. I've had players who were perfectly happing gaming out long conversations, dinners, pub crawls, and shopping trips with their PCs. Others...not so much. In the thread Chirine/Tekumel thread, he and Gronan mention a lot of opportunities like that. And they are pretty old school gamers.

Type 2. Others don't naturally gravitate to this style of play or find it dull or awkward at first. (And sometimes it is dull to everyone who is on the sidelines. So try to minimize the time spent sitting and watching other players yak.) But with time they can learn to appreciate such opportunities.

Type 3. Still others always find such to be a dull and needless distraction. Which you deal with like type 3 players I mentioned at the beginning.

You need to figure out what type of players you have: type 1, 2, or 3. If you have players of type 3 you probably need to minimize and closely watch the duration of such opportunities. Or run a session without those players for the players who want to spend the night having their characters yak to each other at a party.

If the players are type 2 it will help to explain what you are doing ahead of time rather than just dropping a nothing but talking among the PCs session on the players as that may leave them wondering when ninjas are going to attack. Something like, "I thought it would be interesting to see the PCs interacting with Ragnar's family. So you all get invited over to his father's house for thanksgiving dinner."

Quote from: Lunamancer;886903Polling and mock elections also fail to be accurate predictors. Even polling conducted immediately before the election is less accurate than prediction markets. Prediction markets not only out-perform last-minute polling by a half percentage point on average, they do so much further in advance of the election. How do prediction markets work? Not by "the scientific method" of physical sciences.

They're reliable enough to have people pay for them. I'm quite confident the folks who do these studies don't do then for free.

Anyway getting back to role playing. What I'm interested in is predicting the outcome of an encounter so I can decide if I engage or not, and if I can't evade the encounter I want to be able to choose the best way to come out victorious. Read: tactics.

Now I know encounters don't always turn out the same,  but simulation should provide a ballpark value to make my selection on.  Even then the best of plans may lead to defeat so of course I can always skip this whole prediction work and be certain of a win because it's great for the story regardless of the path to victory. Then I just concentrate on getting really detailed add to how I won. Which by the way is another type of simulation.

Quote from: Lunamancer;886773Ultimately, 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.

This seems like a wasted story.  Of course all RPG simulations require human imput.  My point is that you can't use that catch-all to defend just any old human interaction as 'simulationist'.  There is a difference between a GM deciding whether or not bandits attack, and a GM deciding which arrows hit, how much damage they do, and so on.

QuoteNo, I don't know what you mean by "fiat."

If that were true you wouldn't have spent a paragraph in your last reply to correcting me on what I meant by it. You knew full well I meant something like "GM snap decisions contrary to, and in the absence of, a rule in the game system".  That's why it was so important to you to attack that common definition and replace it with a dictionary definition. Otherwise you would have simply asked what I meant.

Let us add "Indulging your pretending not to know what is meant by common vernacular to score debate points" to the list of things I have no interest in.


 

QuoteIf you don't, you've got no one to blame but yourself if someone misunderstands you.

You looking for opportunities to pretend not to understand people to help you win debates on teh internets is not on me. This is not my first rodeo.

Quote from: Saurondor;886787Case c is the interesting one and the one that concerns us if we enjoy fantasy role playing games. There are no dragons and there is no point of comparison between the simulation and that which it intends to represent.

That simply isn't true.  See my example of the Unicorn. If somebody wanted to make a unicorn-riding simulator, would you *really* say that there is no point of comparison they can use to decide how to design it? A dragon is somewhat less attached to reality than a unicorn, but it's still a large, fearsome animal, an object with mass, etc.

QuoteSo when I claim dragons don't fly a certain way it's my word against the game designer's word. How do I know the simulator is right or wrong?

Well, for example if the dragon is the size of a school bus and the game physics have it bouncing off obstacles like a ping-pong ball.   If the dragon's wings get torn off in a collision and it still flies around just fine.  If the dragon breathes fire, and the result is things getting wet instead of burned. And so on and so forth.  Now, you are free to come up with magical explanations for why things work that way in your simulation (as you say, dragons aren't real, so maybe there's some reason why they can fly with crippled wings unlike a bat), but the entire reason you need those explanations is that without them, your dragon simulator doesn't make sense in light of our very real points of comparison- how large objects move, what wings do, how fire works, etc.

Quote from: Saurondor;886934Now I know encounters don't always turn out the same,  but simulation should provide a ballpark value to make my selection on.  Even then the best of plans may lead to defeat so of course I can always skip this whole prediction work and be certain of a win because it's great for the story regardless of the path to victory. Then I just concentrate on getting really detailed add to how I won. Which by the way is another type of simulation.

That's an interesting turn.   When I approach a situation tactically in an RPG, I'm relying on the rules to allow for reality and common sense to guide my decision making. I'm not thinking specifically about the rules except when the rules are bad or extremely abstract (Protagonist Points, the occaisional magic system).  To me, good simulationist rules allow people to make correct tactical decisions without knowing the rules.

Quote from: Agkistro;886958That's an interesting turn.   When I approach a situation tactically in an RPG, I'm relying on the rules to allow for reality and common sense to guide my decision making. I'm not thinking specifically about the rules except when the rules are bad or extremely abstract (Protagonist Points, the occaisional magic system). To me, good simulationist rules allow people to make correct tactical decisions without knowing the rules.

Word. Though I must add "once you have all the relevant information".
Which, funnily enough, allows to treat LotW as a very detailed simulation, probably surprisin to the authors.

Quote from: Manzanaro;886920Cuz people are hung up on stupid ass GNS? Bingo.

On a side note, now that I am just letting these guys argue amongst themselves, it is kind of amusing to watch them working their way towards the same damn things I've been saying all along.

I don't follow you.

I said the thread was characterised by posts saying "but that's not simulation!"  and you answered with "but that's not simulation!" which kinda proved my point.

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.

It would not be hard at all if you started by actually defining, instead of by throwing around your odd usage of "simulation" and "authoring." The bigger problem, though, is that your fetish has nothing to do with what people really care about.

Quote from: Lunamancer;886504They're controlled by a computer program. Let's not ask who wrote the program.

It must simply have evolved without a person's involvement, per the atheistic view of -- Can you guess? -- the real world!

Thus, only reality itself can be a simulation (Of what? one wonders), and every so-called simulation is really an author telling a story.

Different day, same fucking rabbit hole.

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?

Not that Manzanaro pays any attention (being all about bizarre semantics), but for the rest of us:

Drama comes from situations involving interesting choices.
Choices are interesting mainly because they put at risk things characters value, while being live choices.
Sheer uncertainty in the outcome when there is no viable alternative can also be exciting, but again it matters to the extent that the character's goals matter to us.

So, interesting characters in interesting situations make it more likely that you'll get events worth telling a story about.

Quote from: Phillip;886998It must simply have evolved without a person's involvement, per the atheistic view of -- Can you guess? -- the real world!

I'll grant you that a computer program is closer analog to a watch than either is to the universe.

Quote from: Saurondor;886646Now I understand what he wants. He wants the mechanics to lead the way. Have them create emergent dynamics in which the mechanics surprise everyone, even the GM. In a way in which I write the novel and read it at the same time and I discover its ending as it is being written.

And you see a problem with that because...?

Quote from: Agkistro;886732Sure. 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.

That's just worth repeating.
Also, all simulations fail unless you decide not to stress test them.

Quote from: Manzanaro;886779Okay, 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.

What Bren said, and on top of it:
Play Artesia. They will not, ever, do that mistake again:D!

Quote from: Bren;886932Wow. Look at this. Questions that are unrelated to equivocations on the various definitions of the world narrative or misunderstandings about simulations.

Three things work.
(1) Ask them to create characters who care about each other. Do some of the character creation together. Ask them to make connections. WEG Star Wars had a great idea by including suggested connections on the character templates. Stuff like, maybe the Failed Jedi is a teacher for the Wannabe Jedi, maybe the Brash Pilot's older brother is the Grizzled Bounty Hunter, maybe the Grizzled Bounty Hunter is the bodyguard for the Republic Noble, or maybe the Old Scout takes the Brash Pilot under his wing.

(2) Run a campaign where the PCs are not orphan, murder-hobo wanderers.

• Make all the characters members of the same extended family (works great for an Icelandic Saga or Vikings Campaign).
• Makes all the characters members of the same age group of a barbarian clan. They've known each other for years. Sure Big Hern is a dumb bully, but he's your dumb bully. You grew up with the big lug and there was that time he protected your sister from two drunken young members of another clan.
• Have the characters all members of the same organization – group of spies, squad of infantrymen, band of mercenaries, crew of a merchant ship, etc.

(3) Despite anything you do or say, some players aren't going to be interested in any given way of playing. In that case you need to get new players who are interested in gaming the way you want to game.
Usually a problem when people play orphan murder-hobo wanderers. First, ask them not to do that.

What about a ceremony?  

• When and where is the body going to be buried, burned, exposed or whatever the cultures in setting do with the dead?
• Is there a funeral, a religious service, a wake? Does the deceased have family?
• Who attends?
• Does another PC say a few words?
• From an in game perspective, depict NPC reactions: Shock. Incomprehension. Anger. Grief.
• Do NPCs ask questions about the circumstances of the death? "Tell, me did she suffer?"
• Does anyone break down and cry on a PC's shoulder?

Also yes. Artesia.
And lead by example. Have an NPC stop to take care of the dead. Have the other NPCs show gratitude and respect. It doesn't hurt if they're thanking him for preventing the dead to raise as undead, too!

Quote from: Manzanaro2. 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.

My solution is to ask all players to write one or more of each of the following on their character sheet: A long-term goal, a short-term goal, a vice, a noble impulse, an abstract passion, a thing that scares them, a person they trust, a person they despise (usually 3-5 of those only).
Those might change with GM permission, when it makes sense. And XP is linked to achieving your goals and acting within personality. And running from what you fear gives you a bonus, as well as working with passion, or fighting for your vice...
Is this simulation? Of course it is. Real people do fight better when their psychology aligns with it, and vice versa! In the extreme situation when their mind doesn't allow fighting, they don't fight, and die/get mugged/you get the idea. A crack addict fighting for his dose is an enemy I don't want to fight.

Quote from: BrenThe problem is some players use PC motives as an excuse to act like an ass. The solution is not play PCs with no motives. It is don't play with people who act like asses.

If I don't understand the motive of a PC and I care about understanding (which I sometimes don't) I ask the player what the motive is for his or her PC. As a GM I may need to know that to properly play NPCs who may be able to discern their motive. Also in some settings e.g. Star Wars  or Pendragon the motive can actually change the PC's stats.

• Sometimes it is the case that the players hasn't thought about it, asking gives them a chance to do that. Sometimes it is the case that they have a great motive but it's not clear to me (or maybe anyone). Asking gives a chance to bring that out. I might then ask, "Is there some way the other characters would be aware of your PC's motive?"

A lot of this can be covered by creating the characters as a group, asking questions about what the relationships are during character creations and periodically afterwards, and getting players who are interested in stuff like that.

Talk to the players out of game about the kind of play you want and get them on board. Various suggestions included above.

Also, in addition to the above, this.

Quote from: Manzanaro3. 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.

Use lifepath character generation and group chargen. Seriously.

Also, as Bren said, lead by example - and if that doesn't help, get better players.

Quote from: BrenLike anything it depends.

Type 1. Some players like doing this during play and take to it naturally or will create such opportunities. I've had players who were perfectly happing gaming out long conversations, dinners, pub crawls, and shopping trips with their PCs. Others...not so much. In the thread Chirine/Tekumel thread, he and Gronan mention a lot of opportunities like that. And they are pretty old school gamers.

Type 2. Others don't naturally gravitate to this style of play or find it dull or awkward at first. (And sometimes it is dull to everyone who is on the sidelines. So try to minimize the time spent sitting and watching other players yak.) But with time they can learn to appreciate such opportunities.

Type 3. Still others always find such to be a dull and needless distraction. Which you deal with like type 3 players I mentioned at the beginning.

You need to figure out what type of players you have: type 1, 2, or 3. If you have players of type 3 you probably need to minimize and closely watch the duration of such opportunities. Or run a session without those players for the players who want to spend the night having their characters yak to each other at a party.

If the players are type 2 it will help to explain what you are doing ahead of time rather than just dropping a nothing but talking among the PCs session on the players as that may leave them wondering when ninjas are going to attack. Something like, "I thought it would be interesting to see the PCs interacting with Ragnar's family. So you all get invited over to his father's house for thanksgiving dinner."

Yeah, this.

And writing all of this made me realise that I can't wait for the UA3 to go on Kickstarter;)!

Quote from: AsenRG;887017And you see a problem with that because...?

And you see I see a problem because?