Quote from: Manzanaro;888265Also, what is "millions who make skilled authors"? Are you suggesting that there are millions of published authors? Or what? I think your orders of magnitude got away from you.

i think he means the readers.

Quote from: Manzanaro;888253Why do people so seldom play out things like, fear, lust, cowardice. Surely we would expect to find these things represented within any kind of simulation of people involved in extremes of violence? Meta principles.

because they're not James woods or Christian  bale or Daniel day-Lewis

I have this funny image now of a player so immersed in his d&d character that he will talk in character outside the game like those actors supposedly do.

immersion  deserves a topic of its own with its own semantic  war.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;888293because they're not James woods or Christian  bale or Daniel day-Lewis

I have this funny image now of a player so immersed in his d&d character that he will talk in character outside the game like those actors supposedly do.

Its funny to picture but can be really tragic when it actually happens. A woman gamer here had a break down like that. Starting as just constantly talking about her character and how she'd do this or she'd like that eventually grew to her thinking she was  character. She was having some other issues, some she never shared. I guess she wanted to escape them.

Quote from: Nexus;888311Its funny to picture but can be really tragic when it actually happens. A woman gamer here had a break down like that. Starting as just constantly talking about her character and how she'd do this or she'd like that eventually grew to her thinking she was  character. She was having some other issues, some she never shared. I guess she wanted to escape them.

Delusion was not exactly what I had in mind. More like when method actors and such go to great lengths to 'inhabit' their characters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5xA21Qoxaw

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;888315Delusion was not exactly what I had in mind. More like when method actors and such go to great lengths to 'inhabit' their characters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5xA21Qoxaw

I thought so but the comment just brought that incident to mind.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;888290Your obvious lie is obvious.

Congrats. You've proven you're a dishonest person. We can now move on.

QuoteMy assertion is that you need to make non-random selections based on a specific criteria. And you want to test these non-random selections by... making the selections random?

Explain how you can possibly think that makes a lick of sense.

It doesn't. The point was to throw back your own (lack of) logic against you. It doesn't make sense because YOU don't make sense.

QuoteThe fact that you're implicitly extending this claim to conclude that a specific group of 4-8 people could never, ever agree that something is interesting is self-evidently pure nonsense.

I never made that claim.

Look. I get it. You have nothing useful to add. That doesn't mean you have to repeatedly make shit up and then say other people claimed that. You're just behaving like a fucking child at this point.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;888290Your obvious lie is obvious.

You quoted my exact claim and put it side by side with your version of my claim, and you honestly don't see the difference? Your version is about twice as long. That should be your first hint that you just made shit up.

Real life is full of interesting stories. Everything in your version after that point are your words, not mine.

In fact, the whole point in citing real life was to point to an existing system that includes human choice as part of its internal workings to show, no, if you have a good and honest simulation of a living world, you don't need nudging from outside that system.

But unfortunately, you and Manzanaro are blinded by definition diarrhea, because you insist on using a wrong definition of simulation which defines out the possibility of human decision-making internal to the simulation, which is a key characteristic of a living world. Like the real world. Or even the fictional ones most of us would like to create.

QuoteMy assertion is that you need to make non-random selections based on a specific criteria.

You didn't actually assert that. You asked me to pick something at random. I thought you asking that was stupid and pointless.

QuoteExplain how you can possibly think that makes a lick of sense.

It doesn't. That's exactly what I had explained--why your test is stupid and pointless.

QuoteSure. Different people will find different things interesting. The leap you're making from that to the claim that therefore the concept of "interesting thing" doesn't exist is complete nonsense.

To be fair, everything you say is complete nonsense.

My claim is that "interesting" is not, for instance, a physical property of an object. You can't put a diamond under a microscope and say, "Hey guys, I found teh interesting. Let's chisel it out and put it on that lump of coal, then everyone will want the coal instead." Because it turns out whatever you think teh interesting is, it isn't. It's merely the sum total of opinions people hold.

QuoteThe fact that you're implicitly extending this claim to conclude that a specific group of 4-8 people could never, ever agree that something is interesting is self-evidently pure nonsense.

I never said anything even close to that. Seriously dude. Tell the foreman in your bullshit factory to ease up a bit.

Here's a question for Manzanaro. (It was actually my concluding sentence, but I think sometimes it works better to put that up front. If you want more context, come back to the question after reading the rest of my post.)

Is the distinction for you that when you stop play to have a discussion about what the next scene is and how it will be framed to highlight Betty's character that since play is stopped that discussion, no matter how long or how out of character it is, isn't immersion breaking? Whereas if you pause play during a scene to say, "Seems like this isn't interesting. Shall we move on?" that yanks you out of your immersion and ruins the scene?
 

Quote from: Manzanaro;888231I 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.

Well if you find looking around the table at the other players before suggesting the group move on to be a big break in immersion...then I guess that helps explain why your group ends up stuck in boring scenes. (Parenthetically, I find it odd that you think a conversation about what people you game with like or don't like is boring. I am interested to hear what my players like and don't like. Sometimes I am surprised by what they say.)

Frankly I don't see how you are going to have less of a break in immersion when the GM decides without gauging player interest or asking their opinion to suddenly wind up the current activity. How does the GM wind up a scene without any out of character conversation? Does the bartender suddenly refuse to answer any more questions or converse with the PCs, walk away from the PCs, teleport away, do Ninjas attack, what? I guess you can't just yell "CUT!" as that too is an out of character, immersion breaking utterance.

QuoteAs 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.

That seems like a good way to avoid scenes that you as a GM dislike. But since none of us are mind readers, it doesn't sound like a better way to ensure that the other people at the table get to play out stuff that they like. Part of my job, as a GM or as a player, is to have a certain tolerance for allowing people to play out stuff at the table that they like, even if it is not something I find fascinating. That's what some of us mean by sometimes feigning interest in what the other people at the table enjoy.

QuoteLike 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.

Pacing is something that players can often decide on their own. As in, if they want to talk to bartenders and ask about rumors, or haggle with shopkeepers, or search for the best swordsmith in town, then they will have their PCs do those things. As the GM, I take player choice as the best proxy for what players find interesting. Only if their choices lead them to things they seem to find uninteresting or if their choices lead them to things that I find incredibly uninteresting do I see a need to mediate the action. I'm not a film editor. An RPG is not a movie. There is no outside audience. As long as the participants seem to be enjoying themselves that's enough of a reason to continue playing out a scene that in a budgeted movie, might end up on the cutting room floor.

I see the key role for the GM in pacing decisions is ensuring that time and attention at the table is shared fairly among the players. This includes making certain that the quiet get their turn and can voice their opinions, that the socially aggressive are checked, and that the socially dominant don't unduly hog the spotlight and dominate play. Oddly enough, turn taking and even initiative systems can be used to assist this sort of pacing. Going around the table to ask each player what their PC is doing/saying in a situation is often an effective method of involving the quiet and checking the aggressive.

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

If you aren't gauging the players' level of interest and you aren't asking their opinions out of game then you are making decisions on what scenes have "overstayed their welcome" or are "purposeless" solely on how you personally feel about the scene? Is that correct?

Also, it might help if you gave an example of how you "ubtly bring scenes to a close" without any out of character conversation or breaks in play.

QuoteEDIT: By the way... It actually seems that your advice here is aimed at players more than GMs?

Nope. It works fine for GM or for a player, but mostly I GM.

QuoteAs 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.

Some of the players and characters I remember most from convention and open gaming are the guys who were annoying, abrasive, spotlight hogs. I remember them not because their play was enjoyable, but because it was unenjoyable. I'm not saying that you play that way, but if you don't gauge the interest of the other people during play and you don't ask them whether things are interesting or dull because those interruptions shatter your immersion, then how do you really know in the moment that they are actually interested?

Quote2. 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.

I'm confused how you can reliably draw someone into a scene or frame a scene without using any immersion breaking, out of character conversation? What's an example of that?

Quote from: Manzanaro;888251Not true. If a narrative feels artificial, I would almost always call that a negative quality.

You might want to look up the word "artifice" or even just the word "acting." To paraphrase Sir Lawrence Olivier - That it is artifice and not natural is why they call it acting dear boy.

Quote from: Manzanaro;888253Except this is bullshit. Nobody roleplays without meta principles in mind.

Why do these dudes who feel no hesitance about killing others and taking their stuff not turn their eyes to the stuff of their fellow PCs? Meta principles.

(A) Many do take the stuff of their fellow PCs.
(B) It's sometimes called honor among thieves. Also see any example of in-group vs. out-group distinctions regarding the morality of killing and theft.

QuoteWhy do these characters decide to stay together like they are joined at the hip? Meta principles.

Often they don't. I've had quite a few parties split up or PCs go off on their own.

QuoteWhy do people so seldom play out things like, fear, lust, cowardice. Surely we would expect to find these things represented within any kind of simulation of people involved in extremes of violence? Meta principles.

Many people want to play characters who are braver than they are. That's mostly why you don't see a lot of fear and cowardice played out. Some systems include some mechanics to simulate fear, but left to their own devices most players don't want to play cowards. Lust, on the other hand, is something I've seen more than a few times.

QuoteMost 'immersively playing a role' that I have seen is people just acting like themselves except "weakness free", and with gigantic balls and no aversion to killing, while simultaneously adhering to conventions of gameplay as established by years and years of roleplaying experience. If you are immersed in a role, than that role is just going to basically be you through a filter and all your characters are basically going to be the same dude.

While the former is frequently the case (as I aluded to above) some players really do like to play and can successfully play characters who are different than they are in some significant respects. Obviously there is a limit. It's probably not possible to play a character whose motivation you can't even comprehend.

QuoteI do want immersion, but immersion in playing a role and in portrayal of character. I would not try to put it in these terms with someone incapable of distinguishing the difference, but there is a difference. It is the difference between "what would I do" and "what would this character that I created do".

Yes, I see the distinction. The latter doesn't require narrative framing or techniques though. It just requires the player to act as their character. (Whether they act like Hoffman or like Olivier is something I think is best left to the player to decide for themselves.)

QuoteI might come back to this because I don't think i am conveying what I am talking about as well as I could, but it will have to be another time if I do.

The difference between acting as the character and acting as oneself, but oneself with the special abilities of the game world, seems pretty clear to me. I find most players fall along a spectrum. But acting as your character no more requires narrative techniques than any other kind of roleplaying. I think you are being misled by the different meanings of the word "acting." When I say, "acting as the character" I don't mean acting like an actor on the stage. By "acting" I mean choosing actions and behaving like the character. So if my character is greedy and bloodthirsty, that is how they act, even if I am, in reality, generous and meek. Similarly, if my character is honorable and brave, I do the brave and honorable thing even if it may be risky to my characters life. Because that is what the character would do in that situation regardless of how brave or honorable I am in reality.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;888293because they're not James woods or Christian  bale or Daniel day-Lewis

I have this funny image now of a player so immersed in his d&d character that he will talk in character outside the game like those actors supposedly do.

immersion  deserves a topic of its own with its own semantic  war.

Well, that's the least we can do about poor immersion. Care to start it;)?

And I'm afraid that this thread is now officially devoid of any narrative qualities, or in other words, it's fucking boring watching people debate definitions:D!

Some ideas for threads:

Semantic War I: Define Narrative
Semantic War 2: Define Simulation
Semantic War 3: Define Immersion
Semantic War 4: Define Science
Semantic War 5: Define Magic
Semantic War 6: Define Supernatural
Semantic War To End All Wars: Define Semantic

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;888381Some ideas for threads:

Semantic War I: Define Narrative
Semantic War 2: Define Simulation
Semantic War 3: Define Immersion
Semantic War 4: Define Science
Semantic War 5: Define Magic
Semantic War 6: Define Supernatural
Semantic War To End All Wars: Define Semantic

Not going to work. No matter who out-pedants everyone in this thread, he's not going to be such a great pedant as to constantly out-pedant them all;).
Why, yes, this is a play on a "Witcher" quote:D!

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;888381Some ideas for threads:

Meh. We've already had extremely heavy doses of 1 and 2 in this thread seasoned with a bit of 3 and even some of 7. And there was some other thread that was pretty much all 4-6 all the time.

Define "heavy"

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;888394Define "heavy"

More lines posted about those definitions than any other topic.