Quote from: Saurondor;889242More so, and based on the D&D centered response, I'd like to add that leaving the option for players to opt out of combat and go for dialogue also removes a great deal of what is "dice centric randomness". As you well know D&D is not very simulationist in the dialogue department, at least not in comparison to the combat department.

Meh. I don't equate rules with simulation. If verbal interaction is limited to third-person summaries like, "I tell the old elfin woman our story of how we came to be here and ask for her help", I don't consider that very simulationist. They aren't simulating the conversation, they're skipping over detail and nuances that may prove to be relevant to the adventure, etc. If, however, the GM is requiring the players to speak in character, that's  simulationism in the extreme akin to the mock trial.

It's worth considering that mock trial doesn't require RPG-like rules in order to create a very detailed simulation on account of the fact that participants in the mock trial generally know a thing or two about the law. In D&D, of course, players generally don't know how to fight, cast spells, or steal, so the game provides rules for that. We do assume, on the other hand, that they know how to talk, so no rules are needed there.

QuoteThe point is that a great deal of uncertainty comes from the players. They can decide on courses not anticipated by the GM and are thus uncertain and can be viewed as random.

Saying "can be viewed as random" is a vast understatement. Unpredictability that results from human action fits into the Knightian uncertainty, as opposed to Knightian risk. Uncertainty is a far more radical unknown. Think of blackjack vs poker.

In blackjack, you can calculate the odds of going bust if you hit. You can also figure the odds of the dealer going bust based on what he has showing. You make your choice, and it could turn out good for you or bad. But no matter how it turns out, if you played the odds correctly, you have no regrets in the sense that if you had to do it all over again, you'd choose the same thing.

In poker, sure, if you're really good at math you can look at your hand and calculate the odds of there being someone else at the table who can beat you. But then some players fold. Selection bias sets in. It stands to reason that the players who stayed in the game have better than average hands. But better than yours? There's no way to say. There's no longer anyway of calculating the odds because selection bias has introduced uncertainty. On top of that, someone might be bluffing. What are the odds of that? No way of knowing.

When the dice determine what happens, it's like playing blackjack. When some human actor determines what happens, it's like playing poker.

QuoteIt could be the case that you, playing your character, find the act of being dragged downriver as a divine intervention and then decide to quit going to point B. Instead you return to your temple and question your beliefs, make a sacrifice and find some other way to achieve whatever it was you wanted to achieve at point B. Me, as a GM, would not be well advised to force you again and again to go to point B, that would be railroading.

I wrote my example in the first person to make it clear that I, as player, am the authority on what my character's goal is. It's not a case of a GM railroad to continue to point B in the face of adversity.

QuoteNow this may seem like a very unlikely outcome, but your entitled to it. What's interesting is that it is probably so uncommon it would be less than 5% or 1% chance of occurring. To create a table with your probable outcomes would require odds so small it would be hard to roll with most common die rolls. You really can't address or index all the options you have available as a player.

This is true. Player choice is generally a matter of case probability and creates uncertainty. Trying to quantify the probability will always be subjective. It is an important fact, however, that the probability is non-zero. This fact alone has ramifications for strategy. It actually overturns what game theory has to say about the finite play prisoner's dilemma.

Lunamancer, two simple questions. Can you know for certain what a player will say before the player says it? Can you generate a table or relationship between player options (what can be narrated) and dice so there's a die roll for every option available to the player at any given time?

Btw "a player" can be the gm as well.

RE: The dialogue thing.

I would have to consider actual dialogue to be representation but not simulation in anything but the most broad sense that reduces the value of the term to essentially nil.

I mean, right now, are we having a simulated discussion? When a writer creates dialogue for  a character is that simulated dialogue?

A simulationist approach to social interactions would be something like:

"Bob tries to persuade the dragon to let him live."

"Okay, make a roll modified by Bob's charisma and pertinent skill ratings."

Note that the player is still authoring Bob's action in a general sense, but he is not directly standing in for Bob and speaking his exact words. Instead we refer to the rules of simulation to find the outcome based on general intent, and modeling pertinent factors along with a random variable to represent unknown factors.

Again, if the GM simply acts out a dialogue and doesn't call for a roll, he is simply determining by fiat the outcome. Whether said fiat is fair or biased isn't the issue. There just is not a lot to be said about GM fiat, at least not that relates to the intended thread topic. Yes, the great majority of simulation based RPGs require a whole shitload of GM fiat to fill in the gaps in the rules, but that is neither here nor there when the point of discussion is getting a good narrative while explicitly following rules of simulation to determine outcomes. (Please think about that sentence a bit before replying.)

I really think you are both making the issue a lot more complicated than it is.

As far as the potential lethality of random encounters (or even just combat situations in general)? I definitely feel like it is an issue. I believe that many GMs very often find themselves in circumstances where they are either fudging dice, or sparing the PC party by various forms of fiat. I have seen this frequently in my own experience and really dislike it. And sometimes I don't even think the GM realizes he is doing it.

And yes, meaningless party wipes can definitely detract from the level of satisfaction that we get from the emergent narrative of play. MUST it be unsatisfying? No... but it sure as hell can be, especially if it happens a lot.

One solution that I find valuable? Don't rely so much on battles to the death as a staple of gameplay. Hell, don't even rely on combat so much as a staple of gameplay. Because an overabundance of these thing is boring. It really really is.

Maarzan asked earlier how I would respond if I went to roleplay a character building scene and the GM told me "Knock it off! We are killing orcs here!"

Firstly, I probably would not launch into a soliloquy about my character's dead brother in the middle of a fight with orcs (unless the brother had been killed by orcs I guess?)

But the more straight forward answer is that if I am at a table that is all about killing orcs? I'm at the wrong fucking table. Because that sounds boring as shit in terms of narrative. OR gameplay... or any other level that I can think of.

Quote from: Manzanaro;889282RE: The dialogue thing.

I would have to consider actual dialogue to be representation but not simulation in anything but the most broad sense that reduces the value of the term to essentially nil.

I mean, right now, are we having a simulated discussion? When a writer creates dialogue for  a character is that simulated dialogue?

A simulationist approach to social interactions would be something like:

"Bob tries to persuade the dragon to let him live."

"Okay, make a roll modified by Bob's charisma and pertinent skill ratings."

Note that the player is still authoring Bob's action in a general sense, but he is not directly standing in for Bob and speaking his exact words. Instead we refer to the rules of simulation to find the outcome based on general intent, and modeling pertinent factors along with a random variable to represent unknown factors.

Again, if the GM simply acts out a dialogue and doesn't call for a roll, he is simply determining by fiat the outcome. Whether said fiat is fair or biased isn't the issue. There just is not a lot to be said about GM fiat, at least not that relates to the intended thread topic. Yes, the great majority of simulation based RPGs require a whole shitload of GM fiat to fill in the gaps in the rules, but that is neither here nor there when the point of discussion is getting a good narrative while explicitly following rules of simulation to determine outcomes. (Please think about that sentence a bit before replying.)

And you can prove that the GM act +  roll is better than the GM fiat? If so how? And how can you prove it is also unbiased?

Quote from: Saurondor;889273Lunamancer, two simple questions. Can you know for certain what a player will say before the player says it?

Of course not. There's always a non-zero probability a human actor will do something else.

The only thing knowable with certainty about human action is that they will act according to what they believe best fulfills their ordered rank of preferences at the time of action. But preferences and beliefs of another are not knowable with 100% accuracy. And there's certainly no reason they can't change from one moment to the next.

We can thus know the logic of action with certainty. I can say with certainty that throughout all the dice and decisions of an adventure, the player is going to tend to move the results towards the player's priorities and desires. What I can't say with certainty is what those priorities and desires may be.

QuoteCan you generate a table or relationship between player options (what can be narrated) and dice so there's a die roll for every option available to the player at any given time?

It's possible. It's not that hard to create a dice mechanic whose possible outcomes are not only infinite but uncountably infinite. At the very least, you can generate a random number of words, between 0 and infinity, and then for each word randomly choose them from a table of every word in the language.

It would of course include a lot of gibberish that makes no grammatical sense. Then again, you can't guarantee a human won't speak in gibberish that makes no grammatical sense. If you even wanted to account for the possibility that humans might occasional may mispronounce words, you can also include a provision of it stringing together sounds rather than just stringing together words.

However, I wouldn't consider it to be a very good simulation. No matter how sophisticated the tables, it lacks the capacity to pursue a purpose. It merely executes code, so to speak. It can't attempt to communicate a specific idea. It will only do so by chance. It would require human input to make a for a simulation that is any good.

Quote from: Saurondor;889227Is it possible to create rules to determine all this that I'm coming up with? Yes. Is it possible to create a simulation that simulates this? Yes! Of course! But then you'd be simulating me, and I don't believe I'm a particularly gifted GM so you're pretty much simulating a GM through the rules. Why would you want to write out a long, heavy and boring to read book that simulates GM creativity if you already have a GM at the table? Because of "pure subjective speculation" or should I say the desire of its absence?

I don´t think that we are there to completely simulate a GM (or we would already have implemented him on a PC)
So what we have is a framework that should set orientations and give examples how things are intended to work out and with new or intensified foci there would and should be more stuff about for example social dynamics than rather technical combat simulation.
And the important thing is then not to follow the letter of the book but its spirit. And any hints to "story" are there a very red flag - at least coming from my experiences!

Personally my impression is, that simulation is kind of semidead and only giving occasional stuff to plunder for gamism.

I would quote like to see more thought poured into for example encounter design.

But with so few love for simulations anyone trying to steer away even further will meet resistance from the few last fans of this style.

Quote from: Lunamancer;889268Meh. I don't equate rules with simulation. If verbal interaction is limited to third-person summaries like, "I tell the old elfin woman our story of how we came to be here and ask for her help", I don't consider that very simulationist. They aren't simulating the conversation, they're skipping over detail and nuances that may prove to be relevant to the adventure, etc. If, however, the GM is requiring the players to speak in character, that's  simulationism in the extreme akin to the mock trial.

It's worth considering that mock trial doesn't require RPG-like rules in order to create a very detailed simulation on account of the fact that participants in the mock trial generally know a thing or two about the law. In D&D, of course, players generally don't know how to fight, cast spells, or steal, so the game provides rules for that. We do assume, on the other hand, that they know how to talk, so no rules are needed there.

There I want to vehemently object too, but this would probably be a complete new can of worms - aka new thread.

Quote from: Manzanaro;888598And for all this discussion, you have never given a single actual example of my equivocating. How odd!

So what you really want to discuss in this thread is semantics? Good to know.

Quote from: Saurondor;889167Many games have a lot of detail in the ammo department. How much a certain weapon does. This is specially true with firearms in games. If a bullet misses you it does no damage, regardless of caliber. If it hits you in a critical spot it's way more damaging than an impact on the hand, regardless of caliber. Some may argue that that's what weapon damage is for to determine the quality of the shot. But wasn't that what the to hit roll was for? But since the to hit only answers yes or no we only know we hit, but not how well. So we need to roll for something we could have gotten beforehand. More so we can end up with contradicting rolls, a great to hit but little damage.

Hitting and damaging aren't the same thing though some systems prefer not to separate hitting and generating damage. A bullet that grazed your head (successful hit, good hit location, bad damage) is not an example of contradicting rolls.

Quote from: Manzanaro;889282I would have to consider actual dialogue to be representation but not simulation in anything but the most broad sense that reduces the value of the term to essentially nil.

The thing of it is, I'm not the one that decided mock trials are simulations. That's pretty much the whole world. What the word "simulation" actually means includes mock trials. If you're concerned about the definition being overly broad, maybe you ought to consider cutting out some of the things you consider to be simulation.

Like random attribute generation.

I can actually liken it to something outside of the realm of RPGs. Actuarial tables. No one would ever call them life simulators. I would never promise you I'm going to simulate your entire life, roll some percentiles, reference the actuarial tables and say, "Okay, the totally accurate simulated outcome is you die at this age."

What makes this not a simulation? It's not just that it's so vague that it doesn't tell us anything. It's that you can't actually simulate a life by rolling dice, because human choice involves radical uncertainty. It's an example of case probability. Only when you step back and examine an entire population can you create a class that enables the use of class probability.

This is important. It's not made explicit, but what actuarial tables are really doing is simulating a population. Not an individual. Same thing is true of generating attributes, especially according to a bell curve mechanic. The probability curve simulates a population. Not the individual. So random attribute generation is NOT a simulation of that character's life prior to the start of play.

QuoteI mean, right now, are we having a simulated discussion?

I have no idea what YOU'RE doing. Me, I'm not playing a character. I'm not simulating anything. I'm actually discussing things.

QuoteWhen a writer creates dialogue for  a character is that simulated dialogue?

Different writers may have different methods.

QuoteA simulationist approach to social interactions would be something like:

"Bob tries to persuade the dragon to let him live."

"Okay, make a roll modified by Bob's charisma and pertinent skill ratings."

Meh. It's a very poor simulation. It's far from the epitome of simulating social interaction. It certainly doesn't characterize it. It's not a useful example to measure others up against to decide whether to categorize them as simulation or not simulation.

It's actually a lot like the actuarial table thing. If your abilities, skills, modifiers, et al, amount to a certain percentage chance that you will be successful in persuasion, that's a class probability. And it's based on a population. If your odds of success is 70%, that just means if I lined up 100 people, you'd get 70 of them to agree with you.

But if I choose one specific individual, say one of the 30 who don't, it's not like you have a 70% chance of persuading them. Your chance is basically zero. And that's because the individual has a specific set of motives which may not be at all compatible with what you're pitching. Or maybe he just doesn't trust people who look like you.

Now I persuade for a living. Not only that, I train people to persuade as well. And not only that, I am able to get results that were previously thought impossible before I joined the company, and I'm also able to train in a way that jacks up retention higher than was thought possible before I joined the company. I'm able to do this because I have a deep knowledge of the science of persuasion, above and beyond what's taught in psychology or even ivy league universities. They're not my own ideas I made up. I read a lot of books, including a lot of obscure ones, to actually find this knowledge and put it into practice.

Using this experience and knowledge, I created a procedure for use in RPGs. And I call it a procedure because I'm not adding any new rules. You can use it in most RPGs. You don't have to change the rules. It teaches you how to use the choices you make while role playing to effectively persuade in a way that's organic, doesn't require "mind control" mechanics, and would work on a PC without impeding on player agency at all. My very first post on this website was outlining the procedure. It's there.

It allows for skill checks. That all depends on the specific system. But really it requires word-for-word character dialogue. It requires players to make those kinds of choices. It requires players to come up with the persuasive arguments. Since it involves players so much, it can be used very effectively in something like 1st Ed AD&D, which otherwise limits its "social mechanics" to initial reactions, loyalty, and morale. Actually, it works incredibly well in 1E.

So riddle me this. I have a specific system in place. It doesn't rely on rolling dice at all. It also doesn't rely on any kind of GM fiat. People aren't just making up shit like an author. Even the arguments players craft are arrived at almost inevitably by early interactions in my procedure. What excuse will you use to disqualify this as a simulation. I disqualify your version of social simulation on the basis that it is simulating populations, not individuals, and therefore is not appropriately called simulation in an example of the kind you listed.

Quote from: Lunamancer;889355I disqualify your version of social simulation on the basis that it is simulating populations, not individuals, and therefore is not appropriately called simulation in an example of the kind you listed.

The truth is probably in the middle.

"Just a (single) skill roll" has nothing about the situation. Extreme example: You might be able to convince 70% of the people you meet to give you their possessions, because you are 7 feet tall, with muscles and a big sword. These arguments are loosing weight against 20 tons of armored fire breathing spell casting lizard.

"Talking it out in 1. person" is forgetting about the person and its position in the gaming world.
On this other hand the situation for the dialogue will be a lot different from the point of the thug than for his player that sits savely at the desk and counts on the idea that his little brother GMing will not risk a TPC at this point of the game.

And it is possibly also not fitting for a barbarian thug with low mental scores to start talking with silver tongues about enlightment and how to much wealth will hinder you to reach it to make the dragon comply anyway.

Quote from: Maarzan;889337So what we have is a framework that should set orientations and give examples how things are intended to work out and with new or intensified foci there would and should be more stuff about for example social dynamics than rather technical combat simulation.
And the important thing is then not to follow the letter of the book but its spirit. And any hints to "story" are there a very red flag - at least coming from my experiences!

Personally my impression is, that simulation is kind of semidead and only giving occasional stuff to plunder for gamism.

I would quote like to see more thought poured into for example encounter design.

Oh simulation is alive and doing well. Of course there are those like yourself who enjoy dividing things into segments such as simulationist, gamist and narrativist. A bit like talking about gravity with newtonean or relativistic models, you explain it differently, but it's still the same gravity. Nonetheless you keep using newtonean physics and complaining that you can't achieve FTL travel. Well duh!

Personally I believe you're playing a bait and switch strategy. Playing this whole "how to get more narrative from simulation" only to pursue your narrative agenda of disproving it can be done. Yet you're unable to grasp other ways to simulate things and thus keep making the same mistakes over and over again,

Quote from: Saurondor;889359Oh simulation is alive and doing well. Of course there are those like yourself who enjoy dividing things into segments such as simulationist, gamist and narrativist. A bit like talking about gravity with newtonean or relativistic models, you explain it differently, but it's still the same gravity. Nonetheless you keep using newtonean physics and complaining that you can't achieve FTL travel. Well duh!

Personally I believe you're playing a bait and switch strategy. Playing this whole "how to get more narrative from simulation" only to pursue your narrative agenda of disproving it can be done. Yet you're unable to grasp other ways to simulate things and thus keep making the same mistakes over and over again,

With using narrative and simulation in the headline it was not me that introduced the segments into the discussion here.

But I think I recognize a bad apple, if someone tries to sell me one.

Quote from: Saurondor;889359Oh simulation is alive and doing well. Of course there are those like yourself who enjoy dividing things into segments such as simulationist, gamist and narrativist. A bit like talking about gravity with newtonean or relativistic models, you explain it differently, but it's still the same gravity. Nonetheless you keep using newtonean physics and complaining that you can't achieve FTL travel. Well duh!

Personally I believe you're playing a bait and switch strategy. Playing this whole "how to get more narrative from simulation" only to pursue your narrative agenda of disproving it can be done. Yet you're unable to grasp other ways to simulate things and thus keep making the same mistakes over and over again,

You know that Maarzan is not me, right? We just use some of the same letters in our name.

Lunamancer, I didn't say that calling a mock trial a simulation was not technically accurate. But that does not mean that every possible sub element of the trial arises as a product of rules of simulation.

You can call a painting of a vase of flowers "simulated flowers" and again, you may be technically accurate, but it doesn't bring much to the conversation.

Quote from: Manzanaro;889415You know that Maarzan is not me, right? We just use some of the same letters in our name.

All I know is that Maarzan is different from Manzanaro. That is all.

Quote from: Saurondor;889441All I know is that Maarzan is different from Manzanaro. That is all.

Uh... Okay...

Cuz, you were responding to him as if he had started the thread and were calling him out for expressing opinions that differed from the expressed intent of the thread.

But he didn't start the thread, I did; and the reasons that his opinions are different than mine is that we are different people.