Quote from: Manzanaro;889443Uh... 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.

You're right and I might have gotten confused with that given his recurring points regarding simulation which I found very similar to yours. Now regardless of this his post had a bait a switch tone to it nonetheless.

Quote from: Saurondor;889446You're right and I might have gotten confused with that given his recurring points regarding simulation which I found very similar to yours. Now regardless of this his post had a bait a switch tone to it nonetheless.

Well, I promise I did not engage in a 84 page thread just to say, "ha ha! Got you! My whole premise was bullshit all along, intended to trap you all into admitting that simulation was worthless!"

While some may feel that way, I certainly don't.

Quote from: Manzanaro;889449Well, I promise I did not engage in a 84 page thread just to say, "ha ha! Got you! My whole premise was bullshit all along, intended to trap you all into admitting that simulation was worthless!"

While some may feel that way, I certainly don't.

What did you engage the 84 page thread for then?

Quote from: Saurondor;889471What did you engage the 84 page thread for then?

Read my first post. If you still have questions, keep reading.

Quote from: Maarzan;889358The truth is probably in the middle.

That's a nice, centrist sentiment, but it really doesn't have anything to do with what I'm talking about. I call how I handle the broad category of activities that fall under "persuasion and influence" a procedure because I am not making rules. It tells players and GMs alike how they can use what decisions the existing system allows them to make in a way that grounds things in the reality of how persuasion and influence really work.

I would also say just being "in the middle" isn't necessarily going to make for a better simulation or even a better game. It could potentially be worse than either extreme. It's not about what percentage of the game is dice versus what percentage is choice. It's about applying dice and choice, rules and rulings, in the most appropriate ways.

Here is a good rule of thumb as to what makes for good/accurate simulation:

• Any purely physical phenomena (we're talking things that would fit under the umbrella of chemistry and physics--in a fantasy game world, you could possibly also add magic to that list) probably ought to be determined by rules. These "rules" are often unwritten because a lot of things in the RPG are common to the real world.
• Any sort of human action or social interaction probably ought to be determined by willed choice.
• If a situation includes a lot of unknowns that are common to similar situations, the unknowns form a part of a class and are most appropriately represented by risk-model randomness (roll of a die, draw of a card, etc). Far from being part and parcel of a good simulation, this is actually a patch for where there's a gap in information necessary for the simulation. To the degree we want a better simulation, if we can eliminate this crutch, we should.
• If a situation includes a lot of unknowns but is unique or unprecedented, or the situation may be common but the unknowns are unique, this is best represented by uncertainty model "randomness" which calls for a ruling. Note that because the unknowns from one unique situation to the next are not the same, there is no reason the ruling, once made, should be set in stone as a rule. Inappropriately converting a ruling into rule or dice does not a better simulation make.
• If there is a gap that needs to be filled between player knowledge/ability and character knowledge/ability, a skill check is appropriate. Skill checks, however, may be employed according to any of the above. How much weight the character can lift generally doesn't vary much from one attempt to the next. So D&D's "max press" is appropriate. Doors can vary, so rolling to "open doors" is also appropriate.

Most of what happens in an RPG is actually a combination of two or more of the above. Some examples:

A character is pushed off of a cliff. By rules, we know the character will fall, and in fact his velocity will accelerate the longer the fall. On the other hand, how harmful the fall is depends on a number of unknowns like exactly how he lands. A falling body is a matter of pure physics, and the unknowns are common to most cases of a person falling. So, it's appropriate to call for dice rolls to vary harm, while (by rule) on average the harm is proportional to the fall.

Combat. You have to choose if you attack, who to attack, and with what. Whether or not you actually hit your opponent in the chaos of battle depends on a lot of unknowns that are common to other battles. Of course, your skill it not only handling the weapon but adjusting to the chaos justifies skill to be some factor in this. If you hit, the amount of damage it causes is a matter of physics and biology. However their determination may depend on few other unknowns such as where precisely the blade struck, how deep it cut, and so forth.

So it's appropriate that the player (or GM for NPCs) makes choices in combat that are never deferred to rolls, rules, or rulings. Once those choices are made, dice rolls determine if and how the opponent was struck. From there, unyielding rules determine how that strike is applied. Note that a player choosing whether to use the axe or the dagger is not "outside" the simulation and is an integral part of simulating the battle. Also note that damage is according to rules, not dice. If the player does choose the battle axe over the silver dagger, it will do no damage to the werewolf. The dice are only place holders for the common unknowns of battle.

Persuasion & Influence. The secret of motivation is that you can't motivate anyone. Period. People already have motives. The trick is to discover what motivates the person and then appeal to those motivations. That's how persuasion really works. It has nothing at all to do with a silver tongue. A silver tongue may help in some ways, but it is absolutely damaging in others.

How do you discover what is motivating a person? Well, you could always ask. You do have to ask the right questions, otherwise you could get vague or dishonest answers. Or even perfectly honest and specific answers that just don't help you. You could also try cold reading. Once you know the motivation, the next step is to appeal to it.

In some cases, their motivation is completely incompatible with your own. The persuasion attempt is doomed to failure, and if you've done everything right, you know it right then and there. If you haven't done everything right, you'll waste a lot of time and probably make the person angry. In other cases, the motives aren't completely incompatible, but they are pretty far apart. It requires a certain degree of creativity to even come up with a way to appeal to the other person's motives. And of course, in other cases, it's obvious and fairly easy how to proceed.

Once you've done all that, the guy you're persuading may have questions. If you've done a great job, he probably won't. Once you've handled the questions to his satisfaction (and indeed, it's possible that these questions will reveal you missed something crucial in discovery and have to start all over again), then the person will render their decision. If you've done everything right, it's going to be a really quick and easy yes. In other cases, it's going to require a nudge. In some it's a blatant no.

So how to ideally simulate all of this? Well, since these are mainly human decisions, it shouldn't call on rules, dice, or rulings so much. There are places where these things might be applicable in a legitimate simulationist sense. Suppose on way in which you're discovering his motive is through cold reading. Cold reading techniques are an example of difference between player and character knowledge, so a skill check is appropriate there. Of course, before any of this can happen, the other person has to be willing to listen in the first place. There is a sort of "introduction" step which covers first impressions. In AD&D, this is covered by the reaction table, which of course is modified by Charisma.


Now some RPGs may have more rules for character interaction than others. An RPG might have a skill for "interrogation" for example. You could remove all the roleplay from the discovery step and replace it with an interrogation check. And that's fine. I'm not looking to re-write an RPG. I'm not looking to create rules here. And persuasion attempts would still be better off, more meat to them, more to play, and closer to how they actually work, if you go through the steps I outlined, even if you replaced all the role play with a skill check.

But as I said when I listed my standards for what makes good simulation versus bad, to sum up with a die roll is a patch when there are unknowns we can't deal with. There's no reason why we can't actually role play out two people getting to know each other. In fact, if we sum it up as a die roll and try to just communicate the cliff's notes version, I feel like a LOT of information would be lost in the shuffle. So if you're asking me, which is more simulationist when it comes to character interaction, a game that has a mechanic for getting information vs one that just has you roleplay it out, I'm going to choose the latter every time.


Note, everything I'm saying here is not necessarily what makes for a great game. Just what makes for a great simulation (and for me, that does tend to help make for a better RPG). I've observed in this thread a lot of people cling to one or two of the above categories and assume all simulation fits that form. They revolt against examples where a different take on simulation better fits a different category of action, disingenuously applying the differing definition to an example of action from a category their own definition is best serving.

As in, "Oh, you're just going to arbitrarily decide whether my uber skilled fighter hits or not?" No. No one is suggesting that. Including some stubborn NPCs in the game world makes it true to life and good simulation. Having stubborn NPCs whose stubbornness automatically shuts down your attempt at persuasion is simulating their dispositions in good faith. It's not the same thing.

When it comes to the motivations of imaginary characters, well, they don't actually HAVE motivations other than what we supply for them. So when, in the context of an RPG we are trying to adjudicate a persusion attempt that is dependent upon motivation we either:

1. Simulate the persuasion attempt, generally by some sort of skill or reaction check. We can either modify the check based on preexisting motives that we HAVE already defined, or allow the skill check to define motives by the result of the check with a bit of narrative input: "Critical success on the persuasion attempt? It turns out this guy really just wanted to get out of this situation entirely snd go home and relax."

2. Author in motives on the spot ( if neccesary) and simply play out the persuasion attempt entirely through back and forth narration. Note that if we are simply stating the outcome, than we are NARRATING the outcome. This holds true even if the foundation of our narration rests upon solid real world principles. Authoring outcomes doesn't mean we are just saying what happens on a whim, authoring outcomes simply means that a thing happens in the game world purely because we SAY it happens.

Quote from: Manzanaro;889530When it comes to the motivations of imaginary characters, well, they don't actually HAVE motivations other than what we supply for them. So when, in the context of an RPG we are trying to adjudicate a persusion attempt that is dependent upon motivation we either:

1. Simulate the persuasion attempt [...]
2. Author in motives on the spot

Motives can be long established before the situation arises. They could arise logically as a consequence of prior interactions. It could be the result of a spell. They could have been generated during adventure design. Or during world building. In any case, it could be in published material. It might have even been randomly generated from a table of NPC motives included in one of any number of adventure design cookbooks, both in formally published form or floating around on the web. And some games, it's even part of character creation.

Are you really trying to argue that one particular method of simulating a specific character interaction is not a valid simulation because some human had a hand in creating one of the character's motives 10 years ago?

QuoteNote that if we are simply stating the outcome, than we are NARRATING the outcome.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Narration is an account of characters or events. Even if you go and look for a specialized literature definition, that's still what the definition of the word is. It doesn't mean anything else. It's not events. It's an account of events.

What the outcome actually is? Has fuckall to do with narration. Narration takes place when you make your account of what happens. There are any number of ways of describing the exact same thing. "Brogan's swings his axe viciously" vs "Brogan swings his axe skillfully." All that really happened in the game space was Brogan swung his axe. Different people might see it different ways. The GM or player may choose to narrate it in one way over another, whether to set a certain mood, or to portray Brogan in a certain way.

Where confusion on this point crept into RPGs, probably actually originated with text-based MU*'s that allowed players to get creative with emotes. "Redthorn stares into the horizon in solemn grace and a small bird flutters in an rests on his shoulder." That sort of thing. This is considered narration because these things didn't have any game effect to them. So they weren't creating events in the game space.

Some gamers ended up liking this creative part of the game more than anything else and wanted them to be part of what was acknowledged by the game. At this point, these things ceased being purely narrations. There might be a game that gives you a bonus for describing swinging the axe. Or a bonus for including another character, for including an element established by another, or including the scenery. Regardless of whether you swing it viciously or skillfully, whether you swing from a chandelier or jump from a table, it has the identical game effect. In this sense, it's a poor simulation. In the sense that it had some game effect, though, it was also no longer pure narration.

Nonetheless, since the game provided a stick-and-carrot to encourage you to embellish on your narrations, no matter how goofy they were, people started to call these things "narrativist." Again. Despite the fact that by design, these games did not have players engage in pure narrative. That part is always left out. What also gets left out is that there's no reason to believe these things would ever create better stories, or even good ones.

The irony is, if the palpable flaw in this set-up is that different narratives don't really produce different effects and so there's nothing to bind the narratives together, to ground them, a very effective solution would be an emphasis on simulation. For swinging "viciously" to actually be different than swinging "skillfully." And some games have attempted to do that, but have done so in a limited way, because it would be impractical to have a different proscribed game effect for every possible description a player might come up with.

A human GM, on the other hand, could adjudicate on the fly, being able to handle anything the players could narrate and translate it into a game effect in a way that remains faithful to the shared world it's simulating. Thus narrativism and simulationism are not two completely different radio stations you tune into depending on your tastes. This has been the flawed thinking of Forge theory. Rather, both are best satisfied simultaneously.

Narrative that is actually any good is clearly dependent upon simulation. And simulation is dependent upon narrative because some things can only be legitimately and accurately simulated through human choice, and some things require more than one human mind operating to accurately simulate. This means what happens actually has to be communicated to hold it all together. This means narrative is required.

QuoteAuthoring outcomes doesn't mean we are just saying what happens on a whim, authoring outcomes simply means that a thing happens in the game world purely because we SAY it happens.

Note a couple of things.

One, "Authoring" is not the same word, the same meaning, or the same thing as "Narrating."

Second, "we" don't say anything happens. The game does. Have you ever noticed that in D&D, the DM says "Because I said so", we may think he's a jerk, but there's a certain understanding that's just how the game goes. That would never be acceptable in a game of Monopoly or Chess.

How does monopoly work? It leaves your moves each turn up to the dice. On certain squares it allows players a choice. Buy or not buy. Pay the fine or roll the dice to get out of jail. It also allows total freedom in players to trade properties amongst each other. And when one player holds a monopoly, they are permitted the choice of building houses and hotels.

D&D is different from those games because the rules, for better or for worse, had a bunch of things it decided would be determined solely by the DM. Some other things would be determined by hard rules. Others would be determined by dice. And still others (decisions made by the main characters) were left to players.

Everything in the game space happens because the game says so. How it assigns what or who will determine each part and event of the game space will determine how well the game is set up to do good simulation.

So the idea of narrating outcomes is nonsensical? That isn't how the word works? Like, you read "narrating outcomes" and it doesn't parse?

Ludicrous.

And yes. I an not saying narrating outcomes is agsinst the rules.In fact I talked early on about "narrative authority" and who has it over what elements of the gameworld. Most "sim" based games give this authority to the GM other than in areas exclusively related to the PCs ( and that is as it should be). I am differentiating between something happening as a result of a rule of simulation as opposed to happening because it is narrated.

It is really really really really SIMPLE.

When you understand this you will understand the title of my thread and how it is different than asking about " how to get a good narrative out of rules that allow us to just say what happens".

EDIT: On the motive thing? Come on. I am sure you realize that people have multiple motives working within themselves at all times. Are you saying you keep track of complex interactions of motive within all your characters and use this to process their behavior? Having your characters do what you think they would do is not simulation. It just isn't. I am not saying its BAD. I am just talking categorically.

EDIT: One final note. I actually agree with you about a GM ideally taking plain language statements of intent from the players and translating them into game terms and then delivering a more or less plain language account of the outcome of the action after consulting with whatever actual rules of simulation are appropriate.

I find very little to detract from narrative quality more than constant references to things in game terminology other than the very minimum required.

Quote from: Manzanaro;889549So the idea of narrating outcomes

No! I was responding to "stating outcomes" which you wrote in the line from you that I quoted and should have been clear from the context. Don't go back to being a douche.

Quoteis nonsensical? That isn't how the word works? Like, you read "narrating outcomes" and it doesn't parse?

Ludicrous.

No. You're being a douche, considering I explicitly stated that narratives were necessary to communicate the outcomes.

QuoteAnd yes. I an not saying narrating outcomes is agsinst the rules.In fact I talked early on about "narrative authority" and who has it over what elements of the gameworld. Most "sim" based games give this authority to the GM other than in areas exclusively related to the PCs ( and that is as it should be).

No. No one has "narrative authority." Everyone is free to account events whatever and whenever they wish.

QuoteI am differentiating between something happening as a result of a rule of simulation as opposed to happening because it is narrated.

Nothing happens "because it is narrated." That's just not what that word means. Something happening IS what's narrated. Not because it's narrated.

QuoteIt is really really really really SIMPLE.

Yes. It is.

QuoteWhen you understand this

I do understand it, as was clear in my post. I understand what I mean by it. I understand what other people mean by it. And I understand when people are misunderstanding it.

Quoteyou will understand the title of my thread and how it is different than asking about " how to get a good narrative out of rules that allow us to just say what happens".

I never said fuck about rules that allow us to just say what happens. I made clear that was a bad thing. Again. You're not some misunderstood victim. You're an asshole who projects all of your own misunderstandings (which themselves were born out of your true intent, likely to antagonize) onto other people. Before you can communicate, you must first listen. If all you're doing is scanning posts for something to disagree with, you are not engaging in conversation. You're being an asshole.

QuoteOn the motive thing? Come on. I am sure you realize that people have multiple motives working within themselves at all times.

I never suggested otherwise.

QuoteAre you saying you keep track of complex interactions of motive within all your characters and use this to process their behavior?

We track skills. Wounds. Spells. All kinds of game stats. If we care about this sort of play, why wouldn't we track it?

QuoteHaving your characters do what you think they would do is not simulation. It just isn't. I am not saying its BAD. I am just talking categorically.

This is unsurprising since I think this thread has done a great job establishing that you have no clue what a simulation is. I'm not saying your ideas are bad. I'm just saying you're wrong categorically.

If a character says something in a game it happens because a player said it happens. If my fighter attacks an orc, he does so because I SAID he does, tjan we refer to rules of simulation to see how it turns out.

I don't even know what you are thinking when you say that stuff doesn't happen just because someone says it does.

And as far as the concept of "narrative authority"? Look. If you are the GM and I am a player and I say "Just then, I find a million gp in a bag of holding" and you say " no you don't," which one of us is right? You are! Because you are the GM. All narrative authority IS is the ability to NARRATE an event and HAVE IT BE TRUE in the gameworld. Without it, you could not even roleplay.

I think you are coming around to what I am talking about. You are just treating it as way more complex and provocative than it is.

It is REALLY amusing to see you raging against the idea of rules that allow us to simply SAY what happens in the gameworld. How would we even play without such rules?

"I walk down the corridor."

"Dude.... You can't just SAY what happens!"

I am still just shaking my head here... I am starting to feel like the communication barrier is due to some kind of weird superstitious thinking on other people's part.

Like I say, "Players author the dialogue and actions of their own individual characters," and I am stating an uncontestable truth. Players state what their imaginary CHATACTERS do.

And the response I get is "Nobody is authoring shit! They are saying what their characters would really do!" or "they are simulating the motivations of the character".  Bullshit! You are MAKING THESE THINGS UP IN YOUR HEAD. Just like an AUTHOR does when he writes a NARRATIVE about a character. And so those are the words I use. If you truly have some procedural method of determing a characters words and actions? Fine you are simulating. And we DO see this stuff in sone games. Pendrsgon, for instance, actually SIMULATES personality traits that can govern behavior. Me THINKING TO MYSELF " this imaginary dude will accept the bribe cause he wants to buy a car" is PURE authoring.

Quote from: Manzanaro;889549I am differentiating between something happening as a result of a rule of simulation as opposed to happening because it is narrated.

It is really really really really SIMPLE.

Sounds more like your forcing a difference between narrated and simulated and making things very very very very HARD on you.

I'll give you an example of a mechanism I worked on for a modern warfare game (the type we usually think of as simulationist) and you tell me if I'm simulating or narrating.

I took two die rolls, opposing, one for the GM and one for the player. Each die roll represents the "reality" of each side and what matters is actual roll difference and not who is higher or lower than who. If the die rolls are similar the "realities" match if they're very different the "realities" are quite distant. If I want to hit you and we roll very similar to each other or even a 0 difference it so happens that you're standing in the wrong place at the wrong time and you just got hit. If the difference is very large then my "reality" was not able to "impose itself" on yours and you walk off unscratched.

With this simple system in mind I then took off to talk with people who've served (aka experts) and watched loads and loads of videos (combat cams) and researched a lot. I then made this small program that ran thousands of thousands of sample combats and I twitched the modifiers, values and ranges until I saw what I deemed a good representation of what I had gathered through my research. I took note of these values and then wrote them down into a rulebook. I had "trained" the system.

Now, technically I'm not simulating every single element in using a weapon, or combat maneuver or whatever. I didn't break down combat into its components in hopes that the resolution of these individual steps would lead to a "combat simulation". Clearly you can't really say that there are a lot of steps that lead up to this thing called "simulation", but yet, by interpreting some simple rolls you can "narrate" a pretty awesome (and realistic) gunfight without too much delay.

The question to you is: When using this system, am I simulating or narrating?

Quote from: Manzanaro;889578Pendrsgon, for instance, actually SIMULATES personality traits that can govern behavior. Me THINKING TO MYSELF " this imaginary dude will accept the bribe cause he wants to buy a car" is PURE authoring.

Is there a way to differentiate this as an observer? Say you're looking at a player interpreting her character, she has some "key points" that define her character. She's playing out what the character does which has nothing to do with what she would actually do in such a situation. Can you, as an external observer, notice if she's "authoring" this as you say or playing by "pendragonish" character simulation rules? If so, what gives her away?

Quote from: Manzanaro;889578Like I say, "Players author the dialogue and actions of their own individual characters," and I am stating an uncontestable truth. Players state what their imaginary CHATACTERS do.

No it is not an uncontestable truth. Players actually state what their character attempts to do, not what their character does. Often this attempt is stated as an action e.g. "I walk down the hall to the door on the right"; "I tell the guard that we are mercenaries looking for work";  "I hit the Orc with my axe"; or "I leap over the chasm."

Some attempts are, in most situations, a given so that the statement of attempt naturally leads to success e.g. walking down a normal street in decent light while unencumbered and uninterrupted, a character saying something in normal conversations, a character drawing a sword when unimpeded. Other attempts require some sort of adjudication e.g. attempting to hit an Orc with an axe, jumping across a 15' chasm, persuading the guard to allow an armed stranger to enter the town. Unless the adjudication indicates that the attempted action was successful, saying "I hit the Orc with my axe!" does not actually result in the Orc getting hit with an axe. It results in "You missed the Orc with your axe."

Quote from: Saurondor;889592Can you, as an external observer, notice if she's "authoring" this as you say or playing by "pendragonish" character simulation rules? If so, what gives her away?

Pendragon would typically involve dice rolls for opposing Traits or Passions. So you might notice that.

For example, if you want to see if your character will accept the surrender of the infamous Black Knight who killed your father. You might choose to make an opposed roll of your Mercy trait vs. your passion of Hate the Black Knight. If Mercy wins, your knight accepts the surrender. If Hate wins you refuse his surrender and probably continue to attack the Black Knight. If neither roll wins, you the player are free to decide what your character does.