I answered your question at the end of my last post. I didn't notice the question at first and edited my answer into the post, most likely while you were replying to it.

Have I missed other questions you have asked?

And hey, I'm not "converting" shit. Please don't act like it's a faulty reading on MY part. Your posts really are full of places where you state what I have supposedly said and think, where in fact I have said and thought nothing of the sort.

And come on. "Which one is it? Am I right or wrong?" Since you have made more than one statement, it isn't a binary issue. The one thing you conjectured about what I was looking for was fairly close to being right, and I said so. Doesn't change the many other occasions that you have completely misattributed words and thoughts to me.

Why don't you find non binary outcomes not essential?

Quote from: Manzanaro;887074Why didn't you make comments to the guys, including you, who were discussing this subject for the last 3 pages, asshole?

Because...

• They didn't start the thread.
• They seemed happy talking to each other about simulations.
• They didn't complain about how no one was talking about the original point of the thread.
• They didn't ignore posts related to the original point of the thread in favor of talking about simulation.

Quote from: ManzanaroLike, 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.

Preventing players from doing what they want to do? Those are crap GMs, and based on what I've seen your 95% draw is the kind of spectacularly bad luck that normally can be avoided by looking for decent GMs instead.

It's also a crap GM who railroads players like a director herding actors into "character development scenes" they don't want. It is of course another matter if they do want to be treated that way. If you don't like those games, you can play different ones with actually interested people.

Quote from: Manzanaro;887288It 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!

The question is how does something from a linear-story medium translate to an RPG. And it depends on whether the scene is central to the story or if it's merely expose. In an RPG "central to the story" is decided upon by the participants. If no one is making the sorts of choices that lead to these scenes happening, it's not central to the story by definition. So is it expose? The audience in an RPG are also the participants. No expose is necessary for player characters. For NPCs, the GM, in roleplaying the NPC, may choose to make an overt act. Or players could choose to learn more about the NPCs they're dealing with. But if nobody cares, then it just doesn't happen.

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

"Characters with some depth" could mean a lot of different things. There are certain types of so-called depth (and I'm speaking real life here) that I consider to be so insignificant I don't want to give it any attention. I observe petty personal drama fills the vacuum left by a lack of big, important goals. So I find petty drama among PCs in an RPG, who often do have big, important goals, to be not only a distraction but also unrealistic.

I have no desire to foster that sort of play. This may be a focus of some stories, but they're generally shitty stories about characters I really don't care about and have little sympathy for. If you feel differently, you're certainly welcome to introduce some element of that yourself. I don't think you get to expect others do the same.

QuoteBut 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.

QuoteI don't know there's anything about a "typical" RPG that calls for skipping over explicit actions players want their characters to take. If it is typical for character development scenes to be skipped over, it's either because players a) aren't skilled enough to play their own characters, or b) really just don't give a shit about "character development" they feel is insubstantial.

QuoteLike, 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.

"I want to see some stuff that happens" can mean a lot of things. MUSH sites were homes to proto-narrativism, where emotes like having a bird land on the characters shoulder--shit that was not within the character's ability to make happen but happened anyway. Some people play that way. To me, it's goofy shit.

Regardless of "play styles" though, players always DO have the power to say what their characters are doing. If the players want their characters to take some specific action during 3 weeks of travel, they are completely free to do so. If you really "want to see some stuff that happens" your character needs to take some specific action. The specific, 100% simulationist time-skipping procedure I use always skips to the next PC action unless something like a "random encounter" would happen first, in which case we do the random encounter THEN the next PC action.

Quote from: Phillip;887456Preventing players from doing what they want to do? Those are crap GMs, and based on what I've seen your 95% draw is the kind of spectacularly bad luck that normally can be avoided by looking for decent GMs instead.

It's also a crap GM who railroads players like a director herding actors into "character development scenes" they don't want. It is of course another matter if they do want to be treated that way. If you don't like those games, you can play different ones with actually interested people.

Except the GM is not even looking at it as preventing them from doing what they want to do. It just does not occur to the GM (OR to the players) that anything of note rather than wandering monster battles can occur during overland travel.

And in answer to your second paragraph: this is what I meant when I said earlier that the GM trying to set this stuff up himself is just going to draw blank looks from the players.

GM: Okay, it's Thanksgiving dinner... Go ahead and play it out!

Player 1: Ummm. I guess we just eat? I mean, uh, does anything interesting happen during dinner?

GM: That's what I want to know! You tell me!

Player 2: Uh.. I guess I will go watch the football game after dinner?

And instead of compelling character development and exploration, you get scenes of meandering tedium.

So yes, it is basically impossible for a GM to productively railroad players into this kind of stuff. It has to come from the players, and in order for that to happen they need to have the power to set scenes up themselves (where appropriate and accceptable under the rules of simulation) and they need to understand that scenes of character development and exploration are actually KEY to the game. This is the stuff that lets everyone at the table start caring about the PCs (to the extent that we care about any imaginary characters).

One other thing I meant to add...

It's actually fairly common when I'm GMing and have to roleplay NPCs that the NPCs want to know what sort of people they're dealing with, what sort of people the PCs are. A lot of times, players are thus put in the position to explain their characters, say something about where they come from and what they're doing.

There is no shortage of character interaction if you simulate what the characters involved would actually do by accurately portraying them through role play.

Quote from: Phillip;887456It's also a crap GM who railroads players like a director herding actors into "character development scenes" they don't want. It is of course another matter if they do want to be treated that way. If you don't like those games, you can play different ones with actually interested people.

The GM ultimately controls scene framing, though. They can take cues from the players, but if they limit themselves strictly to the scenes that players explicitly or implicitly request the game isn't going to work very well.

And, IME, most players are usually either reactionary (i.e., something happens to them and they react to it) or they are focused on their next goal (i.e., I want to go to the dungeon). They generally don't consider things that happen between where they are and where they want to be. It's the GM's responsibility to look at that span of time and/or space and figure out whether or not something interesting might happen in it.

Sometimes it won't and you can just cut to where the player wants to be (i.e., the dungeon entrance). Other times it will and you'll cut to that moment -- whether it's "An orc jumps out and attacks you!" or "So you settle around the campfire for the night, what do you talk about?"

(It's certainly possible for a player to say, "I want to take the opportunity to chat up Sarah tonight around the campfire." It's also possible for them to say, "I want to go find some orcs in this forest." What I'm saying is that this is not the be-all and end-all of campfire chats and orc encounters on the way to the dungeon. Of course, the good GM will also recognize when to cut away from these scenes.)

Quote from: Manzanaro;881707Skipping the boring stuff is a narrative principle, not one of simulation.

Not necessarily. Instead of using a narrative principle of "interest" to determine the moment you cut to, you can instead use a simulationist principle of "interest" (i.e., the next decision which will have a meaningful impact on the simulation).

For example, my characters leave a city and head west. I have simulation mechanics that tell me how far they can travel in a watch or a day, and I see that they're going to run into a river about midway through the afternoon. That's the moment I cut to, because that's the moment where the simulation of "where do they go" needs new information to continue (do they cross the river, follow it upstream, follow it downstream, or do something else entirely).

A lot of simulation mechanics will also cue you for the next interaction. For example, a typical hexcrawl structure will query the players about their direction of travel per hex, per day, or per watch.

Quote from: Omega;881852Nope. Most GMs I have known. and myself, have ended a session at whatever looks like a good pause point. Be that right after combat, making camp, or returning to town. As a player I'd find ending on a cliffhanger damn annoying. Not entertaining.

Interesting. As a GM I tend to mix it up: I usually end at a good "pause point" because a cliffhanger every week becomes monotonous, but occasionally the players' understanding of the entire goddamn universe blows up and you want to give them some time to process that.

Quote from: Manzanaro;887486Except the GM is not even looking at it as preventing them from doing what they want to do. It just does not occur to the GM (OR to the players) that anything of note rather than wandering monster battles can occur during overland travel.

It "just does not occur to the GM" falls under the category of inexperienced or crap GM.

QuoteAnd instead of compelling character development and exploration, you get scenes of meandering tedium.

It was tedious because the players weren't interested playing out the dinner.

• They may not have been interested because the GM didn't bother to introduce the Thanksgiving Dinner idea out of game and the players were caught by surprise by a style of play that was unfamiliar. It the GM is driving this bus, an out of game discussion ahead of time would be in order.
• They may not have been interested because Thanksgiving Dinner was a poor choice for intra-PC interactions for these PCs.
• They may not have been interested because these players have no interest in intra-PC interactions.

QuoteSo yes, it is basically impossible for a GM to productively railroad players into this kind of stuff. It has to come from the players...

This is true.

Quote...and in order for that to happen they need to have the power to set scenes up themselves...

I'm not certain what you mean by "have the power to set scenes up themselves"? The players are already able to set up scenes by saying what their characters do. If the players want to have Thanksgiving dinner one of the PCs can invite the other PCs over to their house and the other PCs can accept. Then play out what happens at dinner. If Agatha wants her PC Ragnar to flirt with Bob's PC Theodora she can do that by saying "When Theodora is on watch, Ragnar will bring her some coffee and talk to her..." Then play out.

No special rules are required. You just need the players to be interested. If they are interested in, then they already have what they need. I've had players set up those types of interactions in those sorts of ways. If the players aren't interested, no rules are going to give that group an interesting Thanksgiving dinner.

Quote from: Lunamancer;887495There is no shortage of character interaction if you simulate what the characters involved would actually do by accurately portraying them through role play.

That's a good point. People like to know things about and to understand those around them. NPCs are likely to ask questions. Either directly by asking the PC or indirectly by asking other PCs or NPCs.

Morever, if PC behavior is confusing, inexplicable, frightening, or bizarre NPCs should be reacting to this in some way...

• Asking questions.
• Being wary or defensive.
• Possibly even reading a weapon or spell.
• Withdrawing from the PC in question.

They should do something.

:forge:

this is my initial reaction now ill be honest if there is a way to pull this off im interested but im doubtful

Quote from: kosmos1214;887628this is my initial reaction now ill be honest if there is a way to pull this off im interested but im doubtful

My conclusion is that you can't get narratively interesting results from simulationist mechanics / simulationist GM rulings with any sort of reliability unless you are making strongly narrative-focused decisions somewhere else.

Essentially, if you set up a situation with a ton of narratively interesting potential, then resolving the outcome of that potential as a simulation will still often result in high narrative interest.

For example, consider the film John Wick: If I create a PC who's an ex-mafia assassin and then the GM infuses the setting with an entire mafia assassin culture and uses a scenario hook of having the son of my PC's former mafia boss kill the dog left to me by my dead wife... Well, we can probably just simulate what happens next and we'll get something filled with a lot of narrative interest.

(I've also realized that this largely describes my default approach as a GM: Set up a shit ton of narratively interesting things and then sit back and see what happens.)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;887637My conclusion is that you can't get narratively interesting results from simulationist mechanics / simulationist GM rulings with any sort of reliability unless you are making strongly narrative-focused decisions somewhere else.

Real life is full of interesting stories. It required no outside force to set it up, at least not in the past few billion years.

Now I'm always weary whenever nerds use adverbs. So the term "narratively interesting" is suspect. Sort of a trojan horse where you can smuggle in counter arguments to thwart criticism. I know what the word "interesting" means. I know enough to know it's not always predictable what people will find interesting. In that sense, regardless of whatever adverb we may be using, asking for interesting results with reliability just isn't realistic.

To the extent that some people have to be interesting for a living, there are two key approaches to being mostly reliable at something that is inherently unreliable. One is to just have an arsenal, being quick to go to the next thing when one thing isn't working. Essentially a trial-and-error method. This is used by cold readers, con artists, and psychics.

The other approach, if you know your audience, is more of a surgical strike. And it's more about effective communication than anything else. No matter who the person is and what interests them, you're always communicating the same thing, what changes is how you communicate it. In this sense, is helpful to exorcise the modern literature baggage from the term "narrative" and stick to what the word actually means.

The simulation tells you WHAT happens. The narrative is all about HOW you communicate what happens. Because while I can't always predict what will or will not be interesting, I can tell you with absolute certainty that if it's just a bunch of bullshit made up to make for the sake of telling a tidy and neat story, my interest will drop to zero.

Quote from: Lunamancer;887645

Real life is full of interesting stories. It required no outside force to set it up, at least not in the past few billion years.

Yup, but a tabletop RPG is not reality and comparing it to reality is as pointless as Manzanaro's fully simulated environment, a truly entertaining intellectual exercise that's totally useless in practice.

Personally I see simulationist mechanics and narrative mechanics as the same thing: a means to provide information to the ongoing story which adds to such ongoing story. Many believe them to be different, but the underlying difference I see in their arguments is objectivity vs subjectivity, simulationist being objective and narrative being subjective. Simulationist comes from this far away and mystical place imprinted in the rule books and narrative just kinda gets spun at the moment by the GM and players. Rules and thus simulationism seems to have this title of authority and thus leads us to believe it's more realistic when it's not. Folks, we don't have hit points, and no, swords are not the best weapon against fully armored knights, and no it doesn't make sense that a knight hits an an unarmored peasant half the time while only 10% of such hits are double damage whereas the peasant hits the knight 10% of the time and half those hits are double damage.

Many simulationist mechanics create their own reality which must be understood to be able to play the game. That is, to control a character within that reality. As a player you might make decisions and narrate actions (narrative mechanics) which clash with the simulationist mechanics producing situations which are sub-par (not exactly what you wanted) or simply impossible to achieve. I believe this is the starting point for the standoff between simulationist and narrative stances. Narratives keep tripping over the outcomes of the simulationist created reality, and they don't like it. Yet if we go back to the basic D&D sets, a game thought by many to be the source of all that which is simulationist and the antithesis of narrative, we find a 1 minute combat round. One whole minute to roll a single dice and narrate whatever you feel like. Doesn't seem to anti-narrative if you ask me, and it certainly isn't realistic. Someone with real medieval dueling experience would expect something totally different from a D&D encounter.

So how do we reconcile simulation and narrative? Or more to the opening question:

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

What if for a moment we consider the narrative to be rules of simulation as well?

What if narrative is also a part of the simulation? Manzanaro already pointed at this when he mentioned that a passage from a novel (a combat for example) should be able to be reproduced by rules of simulation. Yet as he breaks the paragraph into bits and pieces it seems he never actually manages to reconstruct the whole scene from the individually simulated elements. He seems to believe that rolling more dice faster and adding more rules in a holy grail quest for his fully simulated environment will eventually produce the cherished passage from the novel. Why is this not so? What simulation rules is he missing? Well, the rules of narrative. Narrative is the part of the simulation he is missing.

Call me crazy, but let me put forward a simple example.

I create a game called C&C, or A&A, or Z&Z, whatever, a letter and ampersand and another letter. I start playing with my friends, I roll a d20, make up this rules that represent the combat mechanics for Z&Z, I keep adding more stats to the weapons and items and then I publish Z&Z as a fantasy rollplaying game. Where did the mechanics come from? Did they come from a thorough analysis and reproduction of medieval hand to hand combat? No. Real medieval combat is quite different and weapons behave and are used in a different manner. The internet and particularly youtube has brought us a great deal of content that shows us that and has spun countless discussion about armor, arrows, swords, etc., you know "oh see, I can move like that in full plate" or "hey see, I can shoot so many arrows in a round" or "wait, see, long swords are useless against full plate", or "told you, he holds the sword by the blade", etc. etc. etc.

So if rules didn't come from a thorough reproduction of reality, where did they come from? They came from narrating a story. Gygax and more so Arneson were first and furthermost telling a story.

I'll put forward another questions:

Quote from: Saurondor;887679I'll put forward another questions:

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

Feel free to open a new thread:D! I'd have fun debunking your logic, because the thing you're missing is that narrative itself is a simulation of reality.
But for this one, this is wildly off-topic;).``

Quote from: AsenRG;887699Feel free to open a new thread:D! I'd have fun debunking your logic, because the thing you're missing is that narrative itself is a simulation of reality.
But for this one, this is wildly off-topic;).``

It sure would be fun watching you debunk yourself. Feel free and go ahead.