Quote from: Manzanaro;887046Don't worry about getting my point.

Why would I when you don't worry about getting mine?

Quote from: JoeNuttall;887108Why would I when you don't worry about getting mine?

I get your point. It's that people are arguing about simulation and you don't like it.

The simple fact is that I know what simulation is. Manufacturing narrative coincidences is not simulation. Point blank. If you believe otherwise, chances are you let Ron Edwards pull some wool over your eyes.

My point, since you see that I got yours, is that even if you think what you said falls under rules of simulation, it is not what I am looking for. I did politely thank you for the input, as you may have noted, but to my mind "authorially mandating coincidences in the style of Victorian literature" would fall under the purview of "How to Get a Good Narrative Under Rules of Narrative" which is somewhat trivial.

Quote from: AsenRG;887103Manzanaro,  Bren, put each other on ignore at least temporarily! I generally like discussions with both of you, but that's not going to happen while you are needling each other.
I try to quote everything that's on topic, so you'll see everything the other one says regarding the actual topic.

Asen, I appreciate your efforts at conciliation. It is really not my style to put someone on ignore though. If people want to needle me pointlessly they are going to get called on it in no uncertain terms. That's just me.

Quote from: Manzanaro;887115Asen, I appreciate your efforts at conciliation. It is really not my style to put someone on ignore though. If people want to needle me pointlessly they are going to get called on it in no uncertain terms. That's just me.

You're wasting way too many nerve cells for my tastes, but it's your call. I'm just going to skip those posts.
Though I admit all these posts make reading the thread and getting any actual information much harder.

Still, any reply to my suggestions about your "nobody cares about the PCs" issues? Or any other questions in that vein?
Those would be appreciated.

Quote from: AsenRG;887117You're wasting way too many nerve cells for my tastes, but it's your call. I'm just going to skip those posts.
Though I admit all these posts make reading the thread and getting any actual information much harder.

Still, any reply to my suggestions about your "nobody cares about the PCs" issues? Or any other questions in that vein?
Those would be appreciated.

Nah, my nerves are fine. And typing gives me something to do at work while everyone else is asleep. But that said, yeah, people just talking shit to me may be entertaining to me, but it isn't doing much for the thread.

As far as your last suggestions. I'm honestly not big on "Play this particular system" type suggestions, as I have more than enough systems as it is.

And here:

QuoteMy 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.

I like the first bit. Having actual written down goals to focus on is excellent advice, and will spare a GM a lot of potential effort in not focusing on areas that will be of no interest to the characters or their players.

The remainder I would have to think about more. I get why you call it simulation, but it still carries a feeling of meta puppeteering to me to some degree.

And as far as you backing up Bren's suggestions? I read them. I liked some of them. In fact I probably would have commented had he not prefaced his suggestions with the snide derogatory remarks aimed my way. Dude hates me but seems to really want my attention... almost like... Nah, must be my imagination.

Quote from: Manzanaro;887114I get your point. It's that people are arguing about simulation and you don't like it.

Not at all.

Quote from: Manzanaro;887114The simple fact is that I know what simulation is.

I think we can safely say we don't all agree on that.

Quote from: Manzanaro;887114Manufacturing narrative coincidences is not simulation. Point blank. If you believe otherwise, chances are you let Ron Edwards pull some wool over your eyes.

I'm actually diametrically opposed to Ron Edward's views on the matter.

Quote from: Manzanaro;887114My point, since you see that I got yours

But you didn't so I think I'll stop here.

Quote from: Manzanaro;887073If your method of simulation is dependent upon the the random generation of variables you are going to only reproduce those same variables randomly. If all variables are predefined and constant this is not the case.

First of all, what makes you believe the first (fully simulated) environment is not using random values in its simulation? Secondly, why do you think so many RGPs use random values from dice? What is the origin of this? Well, the origin is that in wargames you had tables full of stats and you roll and obtained an outcome. If for example you rolled 34 and that fell between the range 28 and 35 that indicated some outcome then that outcome was the result of the roll, not 34, not 33, not any other value between 28 and 35. So rolling 28 or 35 was exactly the same. Just like a knight attacking a peasant and rolling a 15, 13, or 18. They all hit.

Now lets take a game that has hit points and do a three round encounter many times over. First time around I hit and do 6 hp of damage, then I hit again and do 6 and finally I hit and do 6 killing the opponent. The second time around I miss, miss and then hit for 18. The third time I hit for 2, hit for 10 and hit for 6, and I can go on creating combinations that add up to 18 in various ways. The question here is: is my opponent limited in any way when it suffers damage? If not then all encounters are exactly the same! Sure, they're mechanically different, sometimes the damage is spread out through the attacks, sometimes it's the first attacks with serious damage and sometimes it's the third attack with carries the burden of the kill, but my opponent always dies after the third round and I see no weakening of my opponent throughout the encounter. It is all but a flesh wound!

This raises the question as to what is a "reproduction" of the scene. Working off the Airbus example, is it expected to have the same exact turbulence 23 minutes into the flight? Will the pilot (PC?) rotate the aircraft for liftoff at the same exact speed? This leads the aircraft to take off a few feet early or later which in turn leads to an earlier or later gears up which all converts to a bit more or a bit less fuel usage. Will this fuel usage play a significant role in the whole simulation? This slight difference in course can lead the aircraft through a cloud or not increasing drag or not. Will the crew member contact the captain at the same exact 45 minutes into the flight? Will dinner be served exactly at the same time (possible PC choice here)? Does any of this really matter? Will the pilot roll a 1 and crash the airplane for no apparent reason?

Now the fully simulated environment is a nice concept, but utterly useless as it is clearly no achievable in our context which is tabletop RPGs. So what are we left with? Well a not fully simulated environment based on random values.

What keeps coherence in this world of random outcomes from die rolls? What keeps it from falling into the total chaos of incoherent random outcomes? More importantly what amount of this chaos have we already assimilated as coherence by the habit of playing with a certain set of rules? Like the most experienced pilot rolling a 1 (5%) and crashing the airplane. Let's say the pilot is Chuck Yeager and he succeeds on a 2 or better on a d20. He never fails, but when he does so does so catastrophically. Is it just me or do I see a meme coming out from this?

So he never has a bad day flying the X1 except the day he flies it into the B29 and dies by rolling a 1. That sound pretty repeatable to me, but also a bit troubling on that odd chance of getting a 1.

Let me get my dice ...

We're playing the "Breaking the sound barrier" module and I'm playing Chuck Yeager. Here goes the roll for the flight test: 11. Ok, let's repeat the adventure, roll: 3, and again: 12, again 20, again 6, 2, 12, 7, 5, 9, 4, 20, 16, 13, 19, 20, 18, 3, 12, 20, 8, 11, 5, 8 and 4. I've rolled a d20 25 times (for real) and not once did I fail to fly the X1. On four occasions I got a 20 which could be an outstanding success. What happens then? This could be considered a different outcome from simple success, but it's still success.

Not much of a story to tell is there? If we had 25 different tables in a convention playing the same module the story in all 25 would be the same. Sure, maybe 4 get something better to narrate, but nothing heart breaking. So there you go, a non-fully simulated environment with random values and all 25 gaming tables told pretty much the same story here.

So this turned out to be a bit boring didn't it. Let's make Chuck a little less good at it. He needs a 16 or better to fly the X1. We'll have to add a few more rolls along the flight, and will add flight points so it's "fair" to the players. We don't want to gamble all on a single roll do we? So now even if the player rolls low Chuck doesn't fail, we can just drop a few points and only if they reach 0 does Chuck crash. Here we go: 8, 3, 18, 17 17. Whoa! Real rolls there! Chuck began to lose it there, an 8 and a 3 and luckily no 1s. Lost a few flight points there (didn't actually roll for them, just imagine it). In the end though he got the grip of it and landed the X1 successfully.

Now if we visit the other 25 tables in the convention we might see different stories. Some flat spins and some smooth flights. Having the roll at 16 really makes it harder and a lot of things begin to occur "in between". Different tables will begin to have different stories to tell and some may even turn out with a crashed X1. Some tables may even complain that it's unfair, why 16? That's too high because it's Chuck and you know, bla bla bla. We need modifiers, 16 is a normal difficulty for an X1, but Chuck should have skills, or feats or even aspects.

So now I have test pilot +3, a flat spin recovery feat that adds +2, and resist disorientation. Lets roll again: 14, 20, 6, 18, 15. They all add +3 so only the 6 is a failure as it becomes a 9. Now again: 20, 15, 12, 16, 14. Wow! Excellent release from the B29 with a 20, good initial drop then trouble. That twelve becomes a 15 with my test pilot skill and still not good enough so I use my flat spin recovery feat and add 2 turning it into a 17 and succeeding. All other rolls are great since the 14 becomes a 17 with the +3 from skill. Whoa! That  was a close call! Thank goodness for feats in the game.

So under first impression it seems like these die rolls are making a difference. Like you say they remove repeats unlike the fully simulated environment which is not subject to die rolls and their effect. Now stories begin to distinguish them from one another. The question here is what do these die rolls represent? Do they represent the behavior and performance of the X1? Do they represent Chuck's skill? Do they represent the weather conditions for a particular day in which the X1 is flown? Or do they represent all these three and more variables? It's the same X1 all the time and it's always Chuck (the PC). So it's the weather that's important here?

So it turns out that what we thought was an "Entering the space age" RPG is actually "The Weather Channel" RPG because as a player I'd always make the right choices (I'm Chuck Yeager after all) and the X1 should always behave the same know way, so it's really the weather's influence that's hanging on the flip of a coin (or roll of dice). Influence I can eliminate by adding enough modifiers so I always roll 16 or better in my 5 check rolls, or I can skip all this and roll a single 4dF add a few points conclude it was a good day and then author the details of how good a flight it was adding a few bits about turbulence and a close call. BTW, it obviously is not a Weather Channel RPG, internal elements of the X1 and Chuck himself also factor in. Does Chuck always make the right choice? Well yes! He's Chuck Yeager! But are these choices always the same? Is there a better good choice and a worse good choice? How do we model this?

Before I continue here are a few observations from this simple exercise:

• I was able to create a totally repeatable "simulation" based on die rolls. Simply by increasing the success rate to a point that rolling basically became irrelevant. I could have just authored the story from that point on.
• Adding more die rolls as a type of "magnifying glass" to look at subevents (5 check rolls per flight instead of one) allowed more detail to emerge, but also added more risk as the odds of a 1 increase.
• Adding such rolls was only relevant if the risk of failure was increased. This in turn required me to add "flight points" to prevent an all out failure on the first unsuccessful roll. Flight points are a buffer to failure, in a way similar to hit points. Flight points also prevent instant failure which is also unrealistic.
• Risk of failure was also mitigated by adding modifiers for skill or feats which reduce the base chance of failure. I can work these modifiers to always achieve success and fall back to the first point: random values yield the same "successful" story.
• I never considered the effect of an outcome in future steps. Is the X1 damaged after a flat spin? If my second roll takes me into a flat spin from which I recover, how does this affect future fourth and fifth rolls? This is similar to the combat example. I miss or hit, only difference is damage and the damaged opponent keeps on fighting as if nothing happened. "It is but a flesh wound, it is but a flat spin"
• Should I create a micro-simulation of the X1 (including rules, diagrams etc.) stop roleplay for say 3 hours while I figure out damage and then apply this effect on future rolls? Or should I just author the damage from the flat spin and factor it in the next two rolls? Authoring which can be as good a result as a lengthy simulation if I do my research well prior to the game. Don't you think?
  

So now back to your opening post

QuoteI do not tend to like games where narrative principles are too heavily encoded in the rules of the game. I don't want to know for a fact that the main characters are not actually in danger because they are narratively protected by the rules of the game. I don't want a final outcome that is never in doubt. I don't want to be railroaded along some predetermined plot trajectory. I don't want the villain to always escape because that is how it works in the source material.

I created a simple example of a game in which there are no narrative principles encoded in the game to begin with. Chuck is good so he always lands the X1, so this leads to a boring story that seems the same every time I run it. Rolling a 3 was the same as rolling an 18. As long as you rolled 2 or better you won.

I then made it a bit more difficult, but had to add a buffer (flight points) to prevent what you mention as "Batman and Tarzan die pretty early on and the Fellowship of the Ring is lost under a tide of orcs.". But still if you rolled 16 or better you won. Add to this modifiers and what not and it begins to get pretty predictable with only a hint of possible failure. The final outcome is never in doubt, Chuck will most surely fly the X1 successfully.

We did manage to make the process a bit more complicated. From a single roll I went to 5 and then added some modifier complexity. After going full circle did I get anything substantial from my simulation? Why didn't I just interpret the initial rolls when I was rolling a single d20 for outcome? For example a 2 was a pretty lousy flight, a 16 a very good one and an 18 an awesome one! A 20 is outstanding success, but why only 5% of the time? Which BTW is the same odds of outstanding success as a pilot fresh out of flight academy.

Personally I believe too many dice mechanics are too uncertain to base a story on by themselves. They fall into the Batman/Tarzan thing. Countering this requires mechanisms that "buffers risk", make the game more complex (sometimes titled "simulationism", but it's simply just complexity) and add no extra value because in the end the outcome (not the value) is what matters, and this outcome is either success or failure with little or no shades in between (you win the encounter with but a flesh wound regardless of the damage suffered).

Let me recall the scene from the Martian in which Watney contemplates a binary (yes/no) communication with NASA with a 20 minute lag in between vs something a bit more efficient which he develops later.

If you're asking your game rules yes and no questions that take 20 minutes to answer, your game is going to move along very slowly versus questions that have 4, 6, 10 or more possible outcomes and require a minute or two to answer.

So maybe the solution isn't so much about the detail of the random dice based simulation vs the fully simulated environment and more along the questions we're asking and the answers we are getting, and how we're interpreting those answers.

Quote from: Lunamancer;886795A common style of gaming? Is that what they're doing at the kiddie table these days? Early-Mid 90's style of 3+ page background notes was definitely ridiculous and counter-productive. A 3-line max explanation of what drives the character, however, triggers the imagination.
.

 Three lines? I think that's a pretty subjective call.

Quote from: Saurondor;887199First of all, what makes you believe the first (fully simulated) environment is not using random values in its simulation?

You are asking this question in response to this statement from me:

QuoteIf your method of simulation is dependent upon the the random generation of variables you are going to only reproduce those same variables randomly. If all variables are predefined and constant this is not the case.

Do you see how your question makes assumptions about what I believe that are in no way supported by what I actually said?

If what you are calling a "fully simulated" environment makes use of random variables to determine outcomes, than you could not expect those outcomes to be reproducible, other than to the extent that probability dictates (so in other words, if something has a 60% chance of occurring you will get more deviation from the norm than if it had a 99% chance of occurring).

As far as the rest of your post... I can't really see where it ties into the discussion to be honest. I mean, that's fine... I just don't know what your point is.

To tell the truth I don't even get the point of the reproducibility topic, but you guys were tossing it back and forth a lot and I thought the answer was pretty self evident.

Quote from: Manzanaro;887123Nah, my nerves are fine. And typing gives me something to do at work while everyone else is asleep. But that said, yeah, people just talking shit to me may be entertaining to me, but it isn't doing much for the thread.

Your call, man:). I gave you my advice.

QuoteAs far as your last suggestions. I'm honestly not big on "Play this particular system" type suggestions, as I have more than enough systems as it is.

Well, even if you don't play it, check a review to see how it's imposing behaviour that's realistic for the setting by fully IC rules;).

QuoteAnd here:



I like the first bit. Having actual written down goals to focus on is excellent advice, and will spare a GM a lot of potential effort in not focusing on areas that will be of no interest to the characters or their players.

Yeah, I must add that I still focus on areas the players might not be interested in. If they go to the area where the Bra of Eternal Perkiness is found (to borrow a Gronan example:p), they might find it - even though they have never thought to look it. But what they do with it is what's important.

QuoteThe remainder I would have to think about more. I get why you call it simulation, but it still carries a feeling of meta puppeteering to me to some degree.

You can look at it in this way, too. Or you can think it's part of one, part of the other.
OTOH, getting people to care about stuff they didn't consider caring about is necessarily, at least in part, puppeteering. You do want them to do something they wouldn't have done naturally, right:D?

QuoteAnd as far as you backing up Bren's suggestions? I read them. I liked some of them. In fact I probably would have commented had he not prefaced his suggestions with the snide derogatory remarks aimed my way.

You now have three tries to guess why I think that reading the unedited posts doesn't help the discussion you started:D!

QuoteDude hates me but seems to really want my attention... almost like... Nah, must be my imagination.

It's your imagination, IMO;).

Quote from: AsenRG;887285OTOH, getting people to care about stuff they didn't consider caring about is necessarily, at least in part, puppeteering. You do want them to do something they wouldn't have done naturally, right:D?

Ah, here is where we are crossing signals it seems. No!

It isn't unnatural when we read a book or watch a TV show and find ourselves caring about the characters and interested in the situations unfolding in the narrative. It is totally natural!

If players have no desire to play interesting characters with some depth to them? I actually don't probably want those players in my game.

But a character is not interesting in isolation; they are interesting in the ways that they interact with other people and their environment. And a lot of scenes that might happen in a movie or book serve to promote investment in the characters being depicted, but many of these kind of scenes just dont occur within a typical RPG because it is stuff that gets skipped over entirely.

Like, we are travelling for 3 weeks to the lost temple? I want to see some stuff that happens on that trip in terms of character interactions outside of the principle focus of play. Instead what I find 95% of GMs will do is roll for monster encounters for that 3 weeks and then skip to the dungeon. And if there are random encounters? They tend to just be meaningless combat; the kind of stuff that would put me to sleep in a book or movie, and comes close to doing the same thing in an RPG for that matter.

Quote from: Manzanaro;887282If what you are calling a "fully simulated" environment makes use of random variables to determine outcomes, than you could not expect those outcomes to be reproducible, other than to the extent that probability dictates (so in other words, if something has a 60% chance of occurring you will get more deviation from the norm than if it had a 99% chance of occurring).

It's nice, but once again what's the value of the fully simulated environment if it can't be attained. It seems like some holy grail you keep bringing into the conversation to say "oh, but see!" without any real game design lessons to be learned and applied to what concerns us which are the randomly generated and considerably simpler RPG environments.

Regarding the point of my post. Let me point out that it has quite a few. First of all to point out that it is possible to create a random based reproducible simulation. This is contrary to your statement that it was not and shows it's a function of the odds of an event occurring (as you mentioned above btw). It's a simple matter of increasing the odds of it happening to a point it becomes monotonous.

This monotony then led me to develop a simple system to add "detail" in a way similar to many RPGs and particularly similar to D&D. I made the annotation that decreasing the odds of success by requiring a 16 instead of a 2 or better made "the adventure" a bit risky so I added flight points in an attempt to mitigate risk. Obviously Chuck Yeager has as many flight points as I have hit points, which is absolutely zero! These point mechanisms are just constructions meant to serve a purpose and can't be called "realistic" and so are questionable elements of a "simulation" meant to represent reality. I made a quick reference to this by mentioning that Chuck can fail on the initial drop sequence anymore than a high level D&D character can be killed in the first round. Although I agree that while it is possible to find such situations, overall it is impossible in situations it would otherwise be possible. For example a high level PC should be able to be killed by a very lucky (albeit very rare) sword thrust from a kobold, but while this is possible in lower PC levels it becomes impossible at higher ones, and by impossible I mean literally impossible not just highly improbable. This comes to show that the simulation, detailed as it may seem, is not realistic.

You seem to have a few "dogmatic" views probably trained from previous role playing experiences and this might have lead you to skip this point and disregard it completely. I don't mean to be offensive in anyway by saying this, but when I raise the 6 second round and your answer is to fit "conversation into whatever can be said in 6 rounds", well, I seems you're molding character reality around the rules instead of molding the rules to the real requirements (character reality).

After I develop the flight point mechanics and multi-roll X1 test flight I raise the point about relevance. Each of the 5 rolls can have success or failure as outcomes, but what's the outcome of failure? Unless I fail continuously and deplete all my flight points I really don't fail, the X1 suffers no lasting damage and Chuck is in no way injured temporarily nor permanently. So I'm spending all this time doing math and adding rolls for no effective impact on the story. So once again, random as they may be, the dice (random) based simulations guarantee a success, guarantee an outcome. This ties the example directly to your opening statement. You said:

QuoteI don't want to know for a fact that the main characters are not actually in danger because they are narratively protected by the rules of the game. I don't want a final outcome that is never in doubt.

The whole post is meant to show in a few paragraphs how you can go from a simple system to a more detailed one and still arrive at an "outcome that is never in doubt", and do so by "simulationist" mechanics and not by "narrative pampering".

I close the post by raising the point of interpreting the die rolls as more than a binary success-failure role. Which is meant to address your question:

QuoteHow do you, whether as GM or player, promote a good compelling narrative under rules of simulation?

Suggesting that instead of focusing your attention in this struggle between realizable, but imperfect simulations, and this ideal fully simulated environment that would give you all you want but is truly unattainable, you should focus on extracting more out of your current (less detailed simulations).

This was at the very end of the post. So even if you got all confused about the middle part (I have to admit it was a bit lengthy) you could just jumped to the end and still grasped the essential question presented by the post. What have you thought about it? Just to be clear, I'm referring to quicker mechanisms that produce more than true/false, success/failure?

Saurondor... I have not in any way advocated or wished for a "fully simulated environment". I have, in fact, mentioned multiple times that the very notion of comprehensive rules of simulation for a TTRPG are ridiculous.

Nor have I said anything about wanting to control or predict outcomes. Not my interest at all.

And are you saying that that whole section about how you could have a system of simulation in which things were never in doubt was a response to my saying I didn't want a system where outcomes were never in doubt?

Again... Talk about whatever you want, but you are continuously misreading me and attributing motivations and goals to me that are directly counter to what I have actually expressed and I find it very puzzling.

What I would suggest, if you actually are interested in understanding my perspective, is to not extrapolate, like AT ALL, from what I have actually SAID. Because you are jumping to one false conclusion after another. If you think I mean one thing when I say another? Just ask!

You know the old phrase, right? "Assuming" only makes an "ass" out of "u" and "Ming"!

To answer your question, I'm all for mechanics that provide outcomes beyond a binary pass/fail. But I don't find them essential.

Quote from: Manzanaro;887335Saurondor... I have not in any way advocated or wished for a "fully simulated environment". I have, in fact, mentioned multiple times that the very notion of comprehensive rules of simulation for a TTRPG are ridiculous.

Nor have I said anything about wanting to control or predict outcomes. Not my interest at all.

And are you saying that that whole section about how you could have a system of simulation in which things were never in doubt was a response to my saying I didn't want a system where outcomes were never in doubt?

Again... Talk about whatever you want, but you are continuously misreading me and attributing motivations and goals to me that are directly counter to what I have actually expressed and I find it very puzzling.

What I would suggest, if you actually are interested in understanding my perspective, is to not extrapolate, like AT ALL, from what I have actually SAID. Because you are jumping to one false conclusion after another. If you think I mean one thing when I say another? Just ask!

You know the old phrase, right? "Assuming" only makes an "ass" out of "u" and "Ming"!

You have so far produced no content that adds to the opening statement. I have asked and you have not answered beyond going over and over again about me not understanding your perspective, even going to the point of calling me an idiot.

I'm not here to understand your perspective, I'm here to answer your opening question:

QuoteSo what I thought might be interesting to discuss is tools and techniques for doing this. How do you, whether as GM or player, promote a good compelling narrative under rules of simulation?

I keep raising points and presenting examples which you insist in converting into some sort of failed attempt to understand your perspective. They're not points and examples meant to understand your perspective, they're points and examples meant to broaden your perspective. If they fit within your perspective they'd fail to answer your question because obviously you'd already know them as part of your perspective. Now if what you want to do is "discuss tools and techniques" within the scope of your perspective then I believe your question is a bit loaded and you're looking for a conversation in which we can all pat ourselves on the back as we discuss the same rules and mechanics over and over again, feeling all good about ourselves, but that would not be answering your question. Do you want answers to your questions or are you just looking for a feel-good moment among fellow role-players?

Quote from: Manzanaro;887100By the way,
This is pretty close to being dead on.

Remember this Manzanaro?

It was a response to my statement:

QuoteNow 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.

So somehow I'm

QuoteThis is pretty close to being dead on.

And simultaneously

Quotebut you are continuously misreading me and attributing motivations and goals to me that are directly counter to what I have actually expressed and I find it very puzzling.

Which one is it?

PS, rhetorical question. Not really interested in its answer, I'd much rather you answer the other more game related questions I've put forward to you.