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.

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:

...
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.

What would you think about a GM that would say "Talking about your chars dead brother? - do it on your way to the lavatories - we are killing orcs here"?

Point late A2/ A3 should be part of the GM work, but not regarding any taste or story dependent criteria but when (and only then) someone is trying to overdo and there are other players at the desk too, that want to get their shot at a share of excitement.

Point B2: This one has some truth: Make people doing your dirty work. They will be entertained and you get to live longer and prosper ...

Quote from: Justin Alexander;888170Your 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.

Simulation will create interesting events - if not each event, but in the longer view.

And regarding stories/narratives - according to the use here it can be everything that is a communication of something happening, which all role playing scenes are qualifying for.

The request for higher criteria for narrative has been denied and left to the poster, so don´t complain if those narratives are not fitting higher standards of "story". They are narraives and they are interesting (and that can be "Bob IV,  the wizard finally cleared out the dungeon of doom where Bob 1 to Bob III met their early end or Valomir the vain traveling around the best artisans of the realm to pretty up his new castle (and comparing their offers to the last copper - because, hey it will get expensive or will the new colony reach a stable level, self sufficient or will it crash)
Edit: or HanIV is the first one to successfully navigate the asteroid field and set a new speed record to Kessel.

But you are right that the mix of characters should have an idea what they want to do and front loading conflicts from these interests or environmental influence (and if that is compatible between the players) is surely good for making the whole game more interesting for all - but still probably not according to higher narrative standards if the player interests are not really fitting to those.


Regarding text book definitions:
It doesn´t help that each definition is formally correct, when you jump wildly between different possible definitions.

Quote from: Manzanaro;888242You can not expect rules of simulation to emulate narrative convention. Instead you need to focus on narrative devices as ways to frame and present what emerges from rules of simulation.

How? Well that is what we are discussing.

Exactly and starting with "from rules of simulation" the correct answer is in my opinion : "sorry this is simulation, you will not get happy here - the story tellers are at the next desk...!"

Quote from: Manzanaro;888246And 'story games' have noting at all to do with the topic here. If the point being made is that rules of simulation can't create a good story and only games that are expressly 'story games' can? I call bullshit.

They can (depending upon what you call "good" again) - by chance! But doing more than some small setup tricks that will be benevolent generally trying to manipulate relevant details for story is damaging the value as a simulation and will meet resistance from those, that did join the desk because of the proposed simulation style.

Regarding meta principles:
There are some elements that are necessary to make it a common social event.
There is no nothing that leads from those socially necessary elements to enpowering other unrelated meta elements.

Quote from: Maarzan;888411Regarding text book definitions:
It doesn´t help that each definition is formally correct, when you jump wildly between different possible definitions.

Another definition was provided by some to help specify the problem.
   Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

But that definition didn't go anywhere productive either.

Quote from: Bren;888422Another definition was provided by some to help specify the problem.
   Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

But that definition didn't go anywhere productive either.

I was going to get into some of your earlier points tonight. But here you come with that same insulting and dismissive bullshit. Where do you claim that I am equivocating exactly? Why do you even do this?

If you don't find the conversation productive, I sure as fuck am not going to bother myself overly much in responding to your points.

As far as Maarzan's complaining that no one is providing him some universal list of features of "good narrative"? That request is as silly as it was when you were the one making it. That does not mean that "therefore all conception of narrative technique is false and all narratives are equal". It just means it is subjective, and I have talked AT LENGTH about some of my own subjective criteria at multiple points throughout this thread. Hell you just RESPONDED to some of those points.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;888170Your 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.

All of those sound like great ideas to me. Though I'd note that there are enough people that like "slice of life" stories that even this is a viable solution:).
The odds of all players in the group liking them is somewhat low, though;).

Quote from: Manzanaro;888428I was going to get into some of your earlier points tonight. But here you come with that same insulting and dismissive bullshit. Where do you claim that I am equivocating exactly?

But instead of discussing that which you say you are interested in, you chose to focus on something that makes you angry. Quelle surpise! Since you asked, the primary example of equivocation was the different meanings you've used for the word narrative. That topic was covered in multiple posts by multiple people who included your quotes discussing your use of different meanings of the word narrative. They are in the first half of this thread. You commented on several the first time around so I'm not going to go back and resurrect them.

QuoteWhy do you even do this?

The comment was not directed to you but to Maarzan who appears to have arrived in the thread after the main discussion about equivocation. Since equivocation is the word in English that describes changing between different definitions of a word with multiple definitions, which was what Maarzan was discussing, I thought it was relevant.

One might ask, why do you alternate between different definitions of a word like narrative in the same discussion since it confuses your topic? One might ask why you claim not to be interested in semantics and definitions when most of the posts that you make in this thread argue about semantics and definitions? More than person has asked. One might also ask, why do you choose to focus on that which annoys you rather than focusing on posts that relate to the topic you say you are interested in?

QuoteIf you don't find the conversation productive, I sure as fuck am not going to bother myself overly much in responding to your points.

You seem far more interested in insulting anyone who doesn't agree hard enough and fast enough with your every post and in debating definitions and semantics than you are in having a productive conversation about the actual topic. If you don't want to engage with the topic that you say you are interested in, I certainly can't make you engage.

Quote from: Manzanaro;888428As far as Maarzan's complaining that no one is providing him some universal list of features of "good narrative"? That request is as silly as it was when you were the one making it. That does not mean that "therefore all conception of narrative technique is false and all narratives are equal". It just means it is subjective, and I have talked AT LENGTH about some of my own subjective criteria at multiple points throughout this thread. Hell you just RESPONDED to some of those points.

If you ask how to get a good narrative from rules of simulation, then of course the first question would be what you mean with "good narrative".

Ok, it is possible to do it in a brainstorming way, but then it has to be to accepted that people are really using it on the definition that makes sense for them - even if it is the lowest rung - and that you find their ideas dull. But you can´t go open with brainstorming about someone else home turf and then expect that they keep silent, when you start to make statements that are incompatible with the style you just have asked to get ideas for.

So for me narration is an input to the game only as far as "narration = communication of events". The result will have a rather random quality on higher levels of "narration", but as it is of least importance, any improvement to this chance of higher narrative quality is only by chance itself when things get prepared to put a focus on things that make other elements more interesting fitting to the simulation idea.
And if any conflict regarding decisions should occur, "story" will be one of the first to lose.

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.

Major Fail on your reading comprehension. The millions decide whose works are best sellers, and that Homer and Shakespeare and Faulkner are worthy subjects of careful literary study, while most writers remain obscure.

Your opinion that the creation of fiction (or even non-fiction) is not an art is certain also to remain obscure, and I'll bet that with it you (once again) contradict your own previous statements.

Quote from: Phillip;888531Major Fail on your reading comprehension. The millions decide whose works are best sellers, and that Homer and Shakespeare and Faulkner are worthy subjects of careful literary study, while most writers remain obscure.

Your opinion that the creation of fiction (or even non-fiction) is not an art is certain also to remain obscure, and I'll bet that with it you (once again) contradict your own previous statements.

I chalk it up to your punctuation fail. And where did I say creating fiction was not an art? Hell, even plain old speaking can be an art.

Ah, I see Bren. You were referring to something from 50 or 60 pages ago that you say I actually addressed at that time? But as far as details about this complaint? Well, you'd be the last to dredge up old crap. Gotcha.

As far as me insulting anybody who doesn't agree with me? Not at all. Have I insulted Maarzan? I insult only those who it is appropriate to insult.

Quote from: Manzanaro;888579Ah, I see Bren. You were referring to something from 50 or 60 pages ago that you say I actually addressed at that time?

If by address, you mean ineffectually denied the obvious, well sure. I only mentioned that you replied since that meant you might have read those posts before replying to them and thus you should be able to find those posts in the thread all by yourself. After all, the forum has a search function.

QuoteBut as far as details about this complaint? Well, you'd be the last to dredge up old crap. Gotcha.

Well if you read the recent posts, you can see that Maarzan raised the issue of the use of multiple definitions for the same word and how it caused confusion in the thread. I responded to his post. You then replied to me. If you feel like the term equivocation is directed at you, well hey, if the shoe fits...

QuoteAs far as me insulting anybody who doesn't agree with me? Not at all. Have I insulted Maarzan?

Not that I noticed. But Maarzan hasn't been in the thread all that long and there is still time.

QuoteI insult only those who it is appropriate to insult.

Right. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Manzanaro;888242Okay sure, let's return to the sudden death Star Wars.

Let us imagine that the movie itself ended this way. Han heads into the asteroid field, gets hits by an asteroid, and the credits roll. Wrap.
...
You can not expect rules of simulation to emulate narrative convention. Instead you need to focus on narrative devices as ways to frame and present what emerges from rules of simulation.

Here are my two cents regarding this. My angle is from a action thriller styled RPG.

First point, make hit points (or equivalent) low. Issue: you get hit you die. Pretty much like the Millennium Falcon getting hit by an asteroid. Fail your roll and it's over.

So how do the likes of Jason Bourne and John McClane survive?

Well by not getting hit, obviously.

How do you keep a story interesting if you're not rolling for hit points?

Well you bring other things to the stage to fill the show.

In the particular case of my game the outcome is quite often suppression. You want to perform an action or achieve something, I don't need to kill your character or NPC to achieve that. I just need to make it impossible (life threatening to continue the present course of action). The issue here is if suppression is the only outcome the true risk is forfeit. So this requires die rolls that assign very low odds to actual death, but present enough to be factored into the game.

For example, is 5% chance of death acceptable? If not then d20 is out of the equation. Is 1.2% odds of death per die roll too much also? Then fudge dice are out of the equation.

Now Han Solo is well, Han Solo. He made the Kessel run in 12 parsecs. He can't just crash into an asteroid. So what is failure for Solo? Hit an antenna? A blaster cannon?  How do we represent this in game mechanics?

The granularity of your outcome depends on the granularity of your die roll. If you can't have a roll that happens 0.021% of the time you really can't represent such small odds in a single roll. Of course you can arrive at such small odds by successive rolls, for example rolling three consecutive 1's on a d20, but that adds overhead to the resolution and complexity to the rules. Something along the lines of "well if, such and such and you roll d20 and get a 1 and the roll again and get a 1 again and again, well... you just crashed head on into an asteroid... credits roll".

Now, it is possible to create a buffer mechanism similar to hit points so Han Solo can't crash by failing once. It requires the depletion of all points for Solo to crash into the asteroid. Now it looks better, up until you get the Tie-Fighters or Buba Fett into the game or some droid vessel. How many flight points do these ships (and pilots) have? Can I eliminate them at once? No, I have to reduce their buffers (flight points) to zero before they crash. This makes certain story-lines "unreachable" unless we get flexible with our interpretation of the rules. It's impossible to crash a TIE fighter into an asteroid from the first maneuver because of flight points.

Quote from: Bren;888588If by address, you mean ineffectually denied the obvious, well sure. I only mentioned that you replied since that meant you might have read those posts before replying to them and thus you should be able to find those posts in the thread all by yourself. After all, the forum has a search function.

Well if you read the recent posts, you can see that Maarzan raised the issue of the use of multiple definitions for the same word and how it caused confusion in the thread. I responded to his post. You then replied to me. If you feel like the term equivocation is directed at you, well hey, if the shoe fits...

Not that I noticed. But Maarzan hasn't been in the thread all that long and there is still time.

Right. :rolleyes:

And for all this discussion, you have never given a single actual example of my equivocating. How odd!

Quote from: Lunamancer;888355But 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...

Okay, I'll bite: Why do you believe that GM rulings don't involve human decision-making? Are you playing with a robot for your GM?

Quote

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

You didn't actually assert that.

Your obvious lies are still obvious.

QuoteMy 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."

I've already conceded that this is obviously true, but it also remains completely irrelevant to anything I've written here.

Perhaps it would behoove you to reread my posts without assuming that Manzanaro and I are the same person?

Quote from: AsenRG;888441

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: 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.

All of those sound like great ideas to me. Though I'd note that there are enough people that like "slice of life" stories that even this is a viable solution:).

I actually think getting good narratives from slice of life situations would be even more difficult to pull off in an RPG if you aren't actively making narratively-motivated decisions at the gaming table.

If you look at a good slice of life story, they are very precise in their scene-framing and the selection/presentation of conflict. You can get a little sloppy in your presentation of slaying dragons and rescuing princesses and still have a pretty satisfying pulp narrative; but if you get sloppy with a slice of life story you just end up watching Susan wash her clothes.

(Note the crucial distinction between people who enjoy a slice of life simulation as a simulation and trying to get a good slice of life narrative out of simulationist mechanics.)

I believe there is a confusion here between random sampling and the actual randomness or what is being sampled. If I randomly sample a power socket in my house I might get values such as 0V, 34V, -12V, 120V, -90V, etc. yet this doesn't mean the sine wave is random, on the contrary it is quite predictable. Now if I sample the signal on my telephone line (assuming analogue), or the output of a speaker or headphone jack in a PC I might get values such as 0V, 0.123V, -0.23V, etc. Now since I don't know what will be said in the conversation (I'm not doing a playback) the the signal is random, and not random as in random noise (white noise) I mean random as I'm not sure what the person is going to say next or if the person will remain quite.

Now in games we tend to believe that randomness means dice, but randomness also means player input (and I'm considering the GM as a player too). Do we know what fellow players are going to say? Well we have somewhat of an idea. If we're playing medieval fantasy it's very improbable that lasers and starships would be mentioned in the upcoming minutes. Now we might think it's not random because it's us, and you know the whole feeling of "I'm not under the control of anyone, etc., and I'm making my own story 'cus I'm great, bla bla bla". This is true, and as I'll point out soon enough it's true to a certain point. Now, have you ever been in a game that the GM says something along the lines of "I didn't see that coming" when a player takes an unexpected action? Players can take the story in odd directions, more so than dice. Players can be even more unpredictable and thus more random than dice. Have you ever seen a d20 roll a natural 21? Dice won't surprise you with truly unexpected values, but players will.

Now since players themselves make decisions based on things such as character conditions which in turn are defined by the flow of the adventure which in turn is influenced by dice, players themselves can't know for certain what they'll say ten minutes from now. Will their character still be healthy? Alive?

Could we not define a railroad as an adventure in which this randomness is reduced considerably? Sure there will be slight differences if it is run again and again, but overall the outcome will be the same regardless of the path taken.

Let us for a moment stop thinking of randomness as dice only, but rather as possible paths in our story. We're going to write three paragraphs in our "novel" and they can be written in multiple ways. The game mechanics will assist us in writing it in a particular way which is one of the multiple ways (paths) it could be written. We're going to "pick" so to speak a particular printout of the three paragraphs out of an "imaginary shelf" that contains 1000 pages with different versions of the three paragraphs. Why did we pick that page and not any of the other 999? What led us to that choice? Was it solely the narrative input of us as players? Was it the sole outcome of rules and die rolls? Or was it a mixture of the two? And if so, to what degree?