Quote from: Maarzan;887827But you will probably also not know whether someone has a point with some action. And the time needed will also be rather subjective.
And the showing is done by doing whatever someone wanted to do.

So I think it is best politics to just let it run and ideally someone gets the feeling no one seems really invested anymore and then asks if speeding up is acceptable.

Yes, asking for a slow down for some focus is completely compatible with simulation in my eyes. So no differences there.

It's super easy to know that they have a point if you give people some guidelines to encourage this kind of thing in the first place and include in those guidelines the idea that player framed scenes of this nature should have a point.

Now, you may find that scenes that illuminate and develop the PCs flow fast and furious without such encouragement. If so? You hardly need this kind of advice! But in my experience this kind of stuff needs to be encouraged if you want to see it.

Quote from: Manzanaro;887828It's super easy to know that they have a point if you give people some guidelines to encourage this kind of thing in the first place and include in those guidelines the idea that player framed scenes of this nature should have a point.

Now, you may find that scenes that illuminate and develop the PCs flow fast and furious without such encouragement. If so? You hardly need this kind of advice! But in my experience this kind of stuff needs to be encouraged if you want to see it.

I don´t understand you here.
If someone is asking for a scene he will of course habe a point there. Why else would he ask for this scene if he himself doesn´t see a point?
The question would be if you recognize and value his view.
Correspondingly I don´t need to find those scenes. If I need such a scene I ask for it and if someone else needs one he will get his - as long as it stays in some rather flexible limits of courtesy. Inside of these limits fast and furious are also not necessary.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;887803Definition of reliability.

Pick a random chunk of an average person's life and you are not going to reliably find an interesting narrative there.

The title of this thread is: How to Get Good Narrative From Rules of Simulation.

You may find adverbs like "good" and "interesting" suspect, but if that's the case you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this thread.

Talk about living in a glass house.

I never said I found adverbs like "interesting" suspect. Especially since in your ramblings I quoted, the adverb was "narratively", not "interesting." Strike one.

Strike two--you utterly failed to address my point that "interesting" is not something that can happen on a "reliable" basis. Your citation of the definition of "reliable" with no further explanation not only displays a lack of social awareness on your part, it's actually a nail in the coffin of your argument.

Finally, I have no idea what an "average person's life" has to do with anything. Average being the suspect word here. That would be strike three. Feel free to prove me wrong by wearing weights and jumping into the middle of a pond whose average depth is only 4 feet. Let me know how it goes.

So congrats. The only thing dumber than your original idea is your rebuttal.

Quote from: Manzanaro;887826As far as you saying, go ahead and do it? (The coin purse toss) Well sure... Unless of course travel time is just skipped.

You've been harping on this point throughout this entire thread without ever once addressing the point that TIME DOES NOT GET SKIPPED if the player specifies their character is doing something.

Maybe you had a shitty GM who touched you in a bad place. Maybe you ARE that shitty GM. Either way, you're the only one who has this problem. You're whining on and on and on about a problem that as far as I or anyone else can tell doesn't exist and then refuse to address the simple solution and/or the fact that your gripe is imaginary.

Perhaps your problem is in your use of language. The idea that the player wants to do a scene. No. The player doesn't get to "do a scene." The player gets to decide his character will take an action. The "scene" occurs when the PC takes that action.

Quote from: Maarzan;887830I don´t understand you here.
If someone is asking for a scene he will of course habe a point there. Why else would he ask for this scene if he himself doesn´t see a point?
The question would be if you recognize and value his view.
Correspondingly I don´t need to find those scenes. If I need such a scene I ask for it and if someone else needs one he will get his - as long as it stays in some rather flexible limits of courtesy. Inside of these limits fast and furious are also not necessary.

1. The concept of asking for scenes at all is alien to many players and playstyles.

2. Not all scenes and situations steered towards by players have any particular purpose. Sometimes players depend upon the GM to make things happen.

3. Ideally, people aren't watching someone's roleplaying out of courtesy, but are actually enjoying it. I don't read books or watch movies out of courtesy, but of genuine interest. If people aren't genuinely interested in events involving other PCs than their own, than I think there is room for improvement.

Quote from: Lunamancer;887835You've been harping on this point throughout this entire thread without ever once addressing the point that TIME DOES NOT GET SKIPPED if the player specifies their character is doing something.

Maybe you had a shitty GM who touched you in a bad place. Maybe you ARE that shitty GM. Either way, you're the only one who has this problem. You're whining on and on and on about a problem that as far as I or anyone else can tell doesn't exist and then refuse to address the simple solution and/or the fact that your gripe is imaginary.

You are both stupid and unpleasant: a truly unfortunate combination.

Quote from: Manzanaro;8878361. The concept of asking for scenes at all is alien to many players and playstyles.

2. Not all scenes and situations steered towards by players have any particular purpose. Sometimes players depend upon the GM to make things happen.

3. Ideally, people aren't watching someone's roleplaying out of courtesy, but are actually enjoying it. I don't read books or watch movies out of courtesy, but of genuine interest. If people aren't genuinely interested in events involving other PCs than their own, than I think there is room for improvement.

1.) Unless it is a novice GM already in over his head and you don´t want to make him break down, a "Stop, I want to ... first" is something I have seen in all kinds of games from the start. There are some (in my experience minority of) players that don´t find the resolution to do it, but it was not something depending on gaming style.

2.) In this case the GM has some idea regarding this scene or it is an offer that he can and should short cut if no one is interested - but only then.

3.) Of course it is courtesy. And if you are doing it good enough to catch their enthusiasm or do something important to them this will change.

Quote from: Manzanaro;887838You are both stupid and unpleasant: a truly unfortunate combination.

Well, I guess this sure proves me wrong about the fact that you refuse to address the point.

Quote from: Maarzan;8878401.) Unless it is a novice GM already in over his head and you don´t want to make him break down, a "Stop, I want to ... first" is something I have seen in all kinds of games from the start. There are some (in my experience minority of) players that don´t find the resolution to do it, but it was not something depending on gaming style.

2.) In this case the GM has some idea regarding this scene or it is an offer that he can and should short cut if no one is interested - but only then.

3.) Of course it is courtesy. And if you are doing it good enough to catch their enthusiasm or do something important to them this will change.

I feel like our communication is breaking down at this point as 2 out of 3 of these points translate to, " No you are wrong."

Not really interested in just butting heads.

Quote from: Manzanaro;887842I feel like our communication is breaking down at this point as 2 out of 3 of these points translate to, " No you are wrong."

Not really interested in just butting heads.

Then what are you thinking of at these points?

2) if the players steer to some scene I would think they have some trigger for doing so.
Then the GM checks the current status, players act and depending what was available it takes longer or shorter.

3) What do you expect the other players to do instead? Enjoyment is based on the quality of the performance according to the taste of the person that is to feel enjoyment or not. It is not something you can demand.

Quote from: Maarzan;887845Then what are you thinking of at these points?

2) if the players steer to some scene I would think they have some trigger for doing so.
Then the GM checks the current status, players act and depending what was available it takes longer or shorter.

3) What do you expect the other players to do instead? Enjoyment is based on the quality of the performance according to the taste of the person that is to feel enjoyment or not. It is not something you can demand.

2) Example: PCs shop and want to play it out. GM roleplays some shopkeeper. Tedium ensues. No one has a point. They are just playing out a scene for no reason. I mean... I don't know what else I can do here but give examples of scenes in which there is no particular point, yet they still get played out. If you have never seen anything like this happen? Cool. But it does happen. One way to avoid it is to go into scenes with a point. If you say the players always have a point in your experience? Than we are golden.

3) Some players are completely unwilling to get enjoyment out of spectating. They want their pc in on every single scene. If you can't enjoy watching your friends roleplay scenes (assuming they are not pointless or interminable scenes) than you (figurative you) are a detriment to the fun of the table in my opinion.

At the same time, if I am gaming and just find myself aping interest out of courtesy? That's what I would consider a failure on the narrative level and I'd really rather just play board games with my friends than have everybody feigning interest in something dull.

Quote from: Manzanaro;887826Here's another edit: Can you mechanically simulate personality? Sure... But that doesn't mean it is the only way. Generally speaking character personality is player authored. Like I have said before, no RPG is going to operate purely on principles of simulation. There is always going to be authored content and narration.

Why would you want to mechanically simulate personality if you already have a human interpreting the character who is better adapted to interpreting a personality and considerably faster than a mechanical "solution".

You raise some interesting points and I perceive two ways of having simulation and narrative interacting here. Is simulation central to the creation of narrative or is narrative central to the resolution of the simulation?

It seems clear from the past few posts that narrative isn't always desired if it does not add to the story. Taking time to narrate a scene a player "must" play out may seem boring to others and counterproductive to the gaming experience as much narrative centered as the group may be. If a player continuously takes 20 minutes to narrate how the character sits down to observe the sun set every day, well that can slow things down a lot.

Couldn't we take a lesson from this and apply it to simulation and simulate only that which has value to the story?

Questions to ask:
Does this bit of simulation I'm resolving add anything to the story?
Is the outcome of the simulation significantly different enough from me narrating it (authoring) to be worth the effort of "simulating it"? That is, I have two processes which add to the story and although they are significantly different in nature they produce similar results one is faster than the other. I'd be best advised to use authoring instead of simulation as simulation appears to provide no real value and on the other hand it slows down play.

Quote from: Manzanaro;8878462) Example: PCs shop and want to play it out. GM roleplays some shopkeeper. Tedium ensues. No one has a point. They are just playing out a scene for no reason. I mean... I don't know what else I can do here but give examples of scenes in which there is no particular point, yet they still get played out. If you have never seen anything like this happen? Cool. But it does happen. One way to avoid it is to go into scenes with a point. If you say the players always have a point in your experience? Than we are golden.

3) Some players are completely unwilling to get enjoyment out of spectating. They want their pc in on every single scene. If you can't enjoy watching your friends roleplay scenes (assuming they are not pointless or interminable scenes) than you (figurative you) are a detriment to the fun of the table in my opinion.

At the same time, if I am gaming and just find myself aping interest out of courtesy? That's what I would consider a failure on the narrative level and I'd really rather just play board games with my friends than have everybody feigning interest in something dull.

2) The point of shopping is experiencing the life of the character, being prepared, making a deal, finding something nice and/or meeting people and/or probably hearing news and gossip. Not everyone is into this kind of fun, but it is not "pointless". It is participiating in the world.
And thus I see no benefit in eliminating those scenes as long as they stand in an acceptable relation to the time other scenes take.  

3) I think there is a distinct difference between enjoying and running over the fun of someone else. And there we are with the "courtesy" regarding the focus scenes of other players.

And your complaints regarding 3) look for me exactly as the equivalent to the behavior you show regarding point 2).

People not liking your scenes are "a detriment to the fun of the table" while if you don´t like their scenes they produce "a failure on the narrative level".

With people of different tastes at the table there will be phases with (according to the personal standard) less exiting things going on. As long as it is not taking excessive shares, take it with style and courtesy.

Quote from: Saurondor;887850Questions to ask:
Does this bit of simulation I'm resolving add anything to the story?
Is the outcome of the simulation significantly different enough from me narrating it (authoring) to be worth the effort of "simulating it"? That is, I have two processes which add to the story and although they are significantly different in nature they produce similar results one is faster than the other. I'd be best advised to use authoring instead of simulation as simulation appears to provide no real value and on the other hand it slows down play.

If you got into the simulation focused game on purpose, chances are, that "story" is very low on your list of preferences.
And using the simulation is the point of having one in this case - even if you can´t either see or value it.

Quote from: Manzanaro;8878462) Example: PCs shop and want to play it out. GM roleplays some shopkeeper. Tedium ensues. No one has a point. They are just playing out a scene for no reason. I mean... I don't know what else I can do here but give examples of scenes in which there is no particular point, yet they still get played out. If you have never seen anything like this happen? Cool. But it does happen. One way to avoid it is to go into scenes with a point. If you say the players always have a point in your experience? Than we are golden.

I've had this happen. There's not much to do about it, IME, accept let the curtain fall and summarize the rest. Sometimes people's interest wanes, they find something they thought was going to be interesting isn't or just feel they've done all they can. Having good communication with your players or a knack for reading the room help immensely with pacing in these situations.