Quote from: Saurondor;887850Why 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".

He doesn't. He just insists on using words that don't mean what he wants them to mean, like insisting "simulation" is mechanical by definition when a simulation is really just a facsimile. And then insisting "narrative" means authoring even though (even if you look up the definition specifically in the context of literature) it means an account of things.

I know, I know, if you actually say what you mean, it doesn't lend itself to 70+ pages of idiocy.

But hey, it's worth a try. So here's the topic of the thread translated into English according to Manzanaro's definitions: "How to become a good author by rolling dice." And here's the thread topic translated into English according to the dictionary: "How to get a good story from an RPG."

Quote from: Lunamancer;887864He doesn't. He just insists on using words that don't mean what he wants them to mean, like insisting "simulation" is mechanical by definition when a simulation is really just a facsimile. And then insisting "narrative" means authoring even though (even if you look up the definition specifically in the context of literature) it means an account of things.

I know, I know, if you actually say what you mean, it doesn't lend itself to 70+ pages of idiocy.

But hey, it's worth a try. So here's the topic of the thread translated into English according to Manzanaro's definitions: "How to become a good author by rolling dice." And here's the thread topic translated into English according to the dictionary: "How to get a good story from an RPG."

Yes, he's using terms in different ways and yet myself and others seem to understand what he means, and even if we don't agree on the usage of such terms nor the position we still have an entertaining conversation. Refraining from using words such as idiocy goes a long way towards enjoying a good exchange of ideas, as odd and possibly poorly informed and articulated as they may be.

Being reminded of the existence of this thread has at least eventually led me to an interesting (to me) thought, which is that what this thread seems to ask really seems like opposite of my intended approach to gaming and GM'ing, yet this thread has led me to think about what ways I actually may be not noticing that I am screwing with that and actually messing with my world's logic by influencing how the game plays out artificially, in the interest of having it flow well or meet some desire or expectation, instead of what I think I want, which is logic and consistent cause & effect.

As much as I want my gaming to be about creating a game actually about the situation / world it is about, I think there's always some level of trade-off with focus and interest and fun and player happiness and so on, which it's worth bringing awareness to. I still have a goal to have the gameplay be interesting and fun, which at least influences what I put in the game world, but also many other levels of what gets attention and detail, and what the decisions of the NPCs are, and so on.

But the "narrative" for me is pretty much always a separate and later step and lesser/subordinate consideration, to having a game world that works as it ought to, logically. As soon as events start to happen because it'd make a better story, I get peeved because that's not the universe/reality I want to game in, and there's already so much of that screwery in our fiction. I don't want it polluting my gameplay.

But this thread has led me to take a new critical look at how I may have not done that. e.g.
* These guys should flee if they want to live, but it'll be more interesting and/or entertaining if they put up a bit more of a fight...
* Hmm, I just rolled that no one is noticing each other, and the PCs are about to decide to leave a really interesting and developed place. Maybe I should give them a little more detail to hint there's something interesting here...
* New player to the game, just spend 3 hours creating a character. NPC can target him or two other ally NPCs, and could roll a one-shot-kill on the PC... shall I give a fair chance for the PC to be the target, and possibly be immediately killed, or have the NPC target a non-PC first?
* Do I really want to track shield & armor damage at this point, and make players do maintenance and repairs, or shall we skip that and get on with the action?

Quote from: Maarzan;8878512) 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.

2: If experiencing the life of the character is the goal, than perhaps we shouldn't skip ANYTHING. Play out every waking moment. Surely tedium is impossible in the face of such a goal! Or is it?

3: There is a difference between ""not enjoying" and "not being willing to give a chance at all". Admittedly this may be a subtle distinction that may make it sound to you like I am contradicting myself, but I'm not.

Quote from: Saurondor;887850Why 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".

Well, you may wish to ask Maarzan this question as he brought the point up. Though I have nothing against the simulation of personality traits, and we can see this done in games from Pendragon, to Gurps and Champions, to any game where we roll up personality traits randomly on a table.

Quote from: Manzanaro;887907Well, you may wish to ask Maarzan this question as he brought the point up. Though I have nothing against the simulation of personality traits, and we can see this done in games from Pendragon, to Gurps and Champions, to any game where we roll up personality traits randomly on a table.

Well that sounds more like seeding than simulation. You're setting up initial parameters not really simulating their ongoing effect in the game. I determine my character traits through a mechanism and then I interpret then without the aid of such a mechanism.

Quote from: Maarzan;887816I also have no idea what "immersion in the portrayal" would look like. I have met immersion as "immersion in character", I have seen it as immersion in the "flow"/"thrill" - be it challenge or story -, but "portrayal" is currently beyond my understanding.

Sounds to me like what happens when an actor is so into his own scene chewing and hamming it up that he no longer is aware of how he is upstaging the other actors and causing the audience to roll their eyes in disbelief.

Quote from: Manzanaro;887826So all those things that you say it might be about? Show that. The point is that if it isn't about anything? We don't need to play it out.

Do you actually play out a lot of action that isn't about anything or that bores everyone? If so, why do you as a group do that?

It seems far more likely that someone involved in the action thinks what they are playing out is about something they care about. Now maybe what they care about bores you, but that is hardly the same thing than them having no purpose or goal in mind. The idea that a bunch of players boringly go on and on about nothing until stopped by an outside force seems odd to me. These things tend to be self regulating like any social interaction.

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.

Exactly.

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

Presumably the concept of saying what their character does is not e.g. "My character stands on the river bank gazing intently at his purse. After a time he shudders, then tosses the purse into the river. He watches it fall and then makes a washing motion with his hands before turning and striding decisively away from the river bank."

Notice, no one asked for a scene and yet what you seem to call a scene certainly has been described.

Quote2. Not all scenes and situations steered towards by players have any particular purpose.

Why would players have their characters do things for absolutely no purpose? That seems peculiar. It seems more likely that they have a purpose, but that it is one you don't find gripping. Do you have a few examples of what you mean?

Quote3. Ideally, people aren't watching someone's roleplaying out of courtesy, but are actually enjoying it.

Ideally, yes. In practice we are amateurs engaged in a hobby not paid, award winning performers. Therefore courtesy, regarding the normal social rules of sharing and turn taking and feigning polite interest as a means of indulging one's fellows, will often be involved in actual practice.

Quote from: Saurondor;887910Well that sounds more like seeding than simulation. You're setting up initial parameters not really simulating their ongoing effect in the game. I determine my character traits through a mechanism and then I interpret then without the aid of such a mechanism.

Yes, my last example was of merely determining personality traits via tools of simulation, but the specific games I mentioned are examples of games which do indeed mechanically model the traits themselves, at least to some degree.

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.

You provided their reason. They are shopping. In my experience many players enjoy shopping. Some enjoy it a lot. Maarzan's post is pretty apt.

Quote from: Maarzan;8878512) 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.  

If the shopping is boring, cannot someone who finds it boring speak up and say "I find roleplaying out the purchase of trail rations, arrowheads, and iron spikes dull. Would it be OK if we just used the price list to figure out what we bought?"

QuoteIf 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.

Since one never knows how a situation will actually play out, a better way would seem to be to say, "Hey people this seems boring to me. Is there a point here to this conversation or can we just buy stuff using the price lists, assume someone cooked the dinner tonight and we all brushed our teeth afterwards, or otherwise move forward to play something more exciting?"

Quote3) 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.

Some people shouldn't play together. Such will always be the case.

QuoteAt 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.

There is a vast gulf between some people needing to feign interest some of the time during play and everyone feigning interest all of the time.

Quote from: Manzanaro;8879042: If experiencing the life of the character is the goal, than perhaps we shouldn't skip ANYTHING. Play out every waking moment. Surely tedium is impossible in the face of such a goal! Or is it?

Gosh you sure have a hate on for shop keepers. You must love ATMs, the self checkout line in the grocery store, and online shopping. Maarzan didn't even remotely suggest playing out anything and everything. Maarzan simply suggested that some people find interesting that which you seem unwilling to even feign interest in.

Bren, I actually have an almost uncontrollable passion for shopkeepers in reality. I also like eating, sleeping, reading books, and all kinds of other things that I recognize as being narratively boring in most cases.

If you yourself find stories about shopping to be narratively compelling? Don't be insulted that I don't. Tastes vary and that's okay.

See? This is part of why I never answered your frequent demands to define what a "good narrative" is. Because I knew your response would be exactly this: "people like different things". Of course they do.

So where I want to focus in on scenes that show me who characters are and how they evolve (and have talked about specific techniques for doing that), you may want to run a game that focuses on shopping or whatever. Maybe instead of doing nothing but challenging me at every turn, you could talk about how you would go about ensuring that shopping scene emerges as an interesting narrative? Unless you don't care about that either, in which case I continue to be puzzled by your participation in this thread at all.

By the way, I also find it amusing how you ask me for an example, and then when you find I have provided one, you treat the text of that example as being the whole of my point: "You sure hate shopkeepers! Hurr hurr!" Good faith debate, indeed.

Quote from: Manzanaro;887913Yes, my last example was of merely determining personality traits via tools of simulation, but the specific games I mentioned are examples of games which do indeed mechanically model the traits themselves, at least to some degree.

Right, many games do indeed do that although mostly as guidelines.

This has brought another point to my attention. Many games have a puzzle rather than a simulation. A set of values and mechanisms that generate outcomes whose operation can be seen as a puzzle to solve and once solved they lose their value as narrative elements(min maxing for example).

Many simulation mechanisms use one or two character traits instead of many and many times not on opposing ends of player interests.  For example wisdom and intelligence are seldom used as combat stats. Now let's suppose wisdom or intelligence provide an initiative bonus (your character can predict or guess your opponents next moved faster), strength grants a range bonus with bows, dexterity an aim and constitution a rate of fire bonus. In this model it is hard to have high stats in all and no stats can be considered dump stats.

Each character will have a particular benefit and drawback from this. This adds to the narrative potential as characters are not polarized along a single line of benefits and drawbacks that are easy to min max.

The same multivariate design principle can be used in other parts of the game such as personality traits.

Quote from: Manzanaro;887921If you yourself find stories about shopping to be narratively compelling?

There is a difference between including shopping in a session and having a game that is only about shopping. Presumably you can recognize the difference. Setting your shopping hyperbole aside, it is fairly easy to avoid extended boring play of any sort. I've already suggested a method. If you find shopping, or scene chewing dramatics, or any other thing in the sessions boring then try this.

First, look around the table and try to tell if the other people are interested or if they are also bored.

1) If they seem uninterested, then say "Hey people, this seems uninteresting to everyone. Would it be OK if we moved on to something more interesting?" If you are correct that they are uninterested then they will be happy to move on. Problem solved.

If you are incorrect about their lack of interest, then presumably they will say something like, "No, actually I am enjoying talking to this shopkeeper" or whatever it is that they are doing that you find boring and you can instead proceed to 2 below.

2) If they seem interested, then be a polite fellow and sit back while they enjoy themselves. Presumably they will be equally nice when it is your turn to do whatever it is you find interesting. As you said, "Tastes vary and that's okay." Again, problem solved.

QuoteMaybe instead of doing nothing but challenging me at every turn, you could talk about how you would go about ensuring that shopping scene emerges as an interesting narrative?

I already suggested this answer in my other posts. I spelled the method out in detail above. Success requires a willingness for clear and open communication with the people at the table and a certain tolerance for other people's likes and dislikes so it may not work for every table out there. But if people can't or won't attempt to communicate clearly and openly and aren't at all tolerant of the likes and dislikes of the other people at the table, the game is going to suck rocks no matter what.

Quote from: Lunamancer;887834Strike two--you utterly failed to address my point that "interesting" is not something that can happen on a "reliable" basis.

And you've utterly failed to address the fact that this claim is nonsense predicated on ignoring the definitions of common English words.

It's ironic that you're upset with Manzanaro specifying the definitions of words he's using in order to establish his points when you're engaged in the same behavior in order to... be an asshole? Not really clear what your actual agenda is supposed to be when you're just obsessed with the paranoiac suspicion that other people are using words according to their common English definitions in an effort to "trap" you in some way.

QuoteFinally, I have no idea what an "average person's life" has to do with anything. Average being the suspect word here.

Your claimed that "real life" is full of interesting stories and, therefore, simulationist mechanics can reliably create those interesting stories without the GM or players making decisions motivated in selecting for those stories.

Simple question: Pick a random person. Pick a random day of their life. Are the events of that day likely to make an interesting story?

The answer is self-evidently no. So your claim that real life is so full of "interesting stories" that you will reliably encounter them even if you don't go looking for them is false.

If you want purely simulationist mechanics and GM rulings to result in "interesting stories", then you're going to have to make decisions somewhere else that are aimed at creating interesting stories: You're going to need characters who are more likely to do interesting things. You're going to need to put them in an environment that's more likely to have interesting things happen. You're going to need scenario hooks that connect to interesting scenarios.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;888170And you've utterly failed to address the fact that this claim is nonsense predicated on ignoring the definitions of common English words.

Wrong.

You're so wrong and you know it you didn't even bother to cite an example of what you're talking about.

QuoteIt's ironic that you're upset with Manzanaro specifying the definitions of words he's using in order to establish his points when you're engaged in the same behavior

Wrong.

Manzanaro is making up definitions that do not match his words. I'm using actual English definitions.

QuoteYour claimed that "real life" is full of interesting stories and, therefore, simulationist mechanics can reliably create those interesting stories without the GM or players making decisions motivated in selecting for those stories.

Wrong.

I never, never, never claimed anything about any sort of mechanics creating interesting stories without GMs or players making decisions. I have been arguing the exact fucking opposite. Whether it's real life or a life-like game world, they include human decisions. A simulation, in order to do a serviceable job at representing either real life or a life like fictional world necessarily must incorporate human input as part of the simulation.

Manzanaro's bizarro definition doesn't just defy the dictionary. It assumes away the single most essential element to this entire topic.

QuoteSimple question: Pick a random person. Pick a random day of their life. Are the events of that day likely to make an interesting story?

Why did you stipulate it must be random? It's not like you're selecting a test at random. You're very specific about your stipulations. Why is that? If you're somehow insinuating that  choosing a life at random is somehow a fair or accurate gauge, then shouldn't your test be likewise chosen randomly?

QuoteThe answer is self-evidently no. So your claim that real life is so full of "interesting stories" that you will reliably encounter them even if you don't go looking for them is false.

Your claim that I made that claim is what's false.

QuoteIf you want purely simulationist mechanics and GM rulings to result in "interesting stories", then you're going to have to make decisions somewhere else that are aimed at creating interesting stories:

Wrong and wrong.

First, you're using "simulationist" in the non-English, self-contradictory sense that Manzanaro is using. I speak English and use consistent definitions. So I'm not saying any of those things you claim I'm saying.

Second, it is certainly not true that aiming to make something interesting actually makes it interesting. If I look to the real world to someone who is interesting, like, I dunno, say Einstein. It's not like he got out of bed every morning and thought, "Gee, what interesting thing can I do today?" He just set out to accomplish things that were important to him.

Interesting is a result. Not necessarily an intention. When "interesting" is an intention, "interesting" is not necessary the result. "Not necessarily" can also be read as "not usually."

Interesting is not a direct action. A person can comply when commanded to stand at attention. A person cannot comply with a command of "be interesting." This is because no person, no object, no action, no world, no story can be in the state of being interesting. Interesting is in the mind of the beholder.

The only thing a person can do to try to be interesting with some degree of consistency is to have a process and focus on the process. Always the process, never the result. My process? Simulating an organic game world.

Quote from: Bren;887931There is a difference between including shopping in a session and having a game that is only about shopping. Presumably you can recognize the difference. Setting your shopping hyperbole aside, it is fairly easy to avoid extended boring play of any sort. I've already suggested a method. If you find shopping, or scene chewing dramatics, or any other thing in the sessions boring then try this.

First, look around the table and try to tell if the other people are interested or if they are also bored.

1) If they seem uninterested, then say "Hey people, this seems uninteresting to everyone. Would it be OK if we moved on to something more interesting?" If you are correct that they are uninterested then they will be happy to move on. Problem solved.

If you are incorrect about their lack of interest, then presumably they will say something like, "No, actually I am enjoying talking to this shopkeeper" or whatever it is that they are doing that you find boring and you can instead proceed to 2 below.

2) If they seem interested, then be a polite fellow and sit back while they enjoy themselves. Presumably they will be equally nice when it is your turn to do whatever it is you find interesting. As you said, "Tastes vary and that's okay." Again, problem solved.

I already suggested this answer in my other posts. I spelled the method out in detail above. Success requires a willingness for clear and open communication with the people at the table and a certain tolerance for other people's likes and dislikes so it may not work for every table out there. But if people can't or won't attempt to communicate clearly and openly and aren't at all tolerant of the likes and dislikes of the other people at the table, the game is going to suck rocks no matter what.

I have to say that stopping the game to have a discussion about whether or not what is going on is boring sounds like a very big immersion breaker, not to mention, probably even more boring than the boring scene itself.

As a GM, the way I handle stuff like this is:

1. Not make it a scene in the first place. You want to shop? The price list is on page 17. Shop away.

or 2. Just reduce it to a single roll. You want to gather information from your guild contacts? Well, make a social roll of some sort. Though there may be cases where this stuff would get played out more fully. Like I have said, a lot of stuff comes down to pacing, which to my mind is primarily a GM responsibility and not something we constantly interrupt the game to take votes on.

or 3. Subtly bring scenes to a close that have overstayed their welcome, or that I find purposeless.

EDIT: By the way... It actually seems that your advice here is aimed at players more than GMs? As a player, My approach is twofold:

1. Try to make my character interesting in any scenes that they are prominent in. Despite the fact that some people seem to believe it is impossible to be intentionally interesting it actually isn't (well, than again maybe it is impossible for some people... heh). It just takes practice and focus. I have people who don't even remember my name that still recall the names of characters I played in games with them 20 years ago. I guess something stuck with them.

2. More importantly than 1? I look for opportunities to bring out interesting aspects and characterization of other people's characters, doing my best to draw them into scenes which they will find compelling or will frame their characters in ways that I think they will enjoy. I do this because, while a lot of people are not used to this approach? If done properly they will almost invariably enjoy the results.