So Bren. When I say I am interested in ways of getting a good narrative from rules of simulation, you don't care what I MEAN. You are simply demanding that I include judgement calls in which the GM states what happens based purely on his own personal feelings as 'rules of simulation'.

Is that right?

If you think about this, you will understand why I say you aren't as smart as you think you are.

When I call people "stupid fucks" and the like, there's no temper tantrum involved. Just cold blooded analysis.

Anyway, you clearly LIKE being insulted or you'd just, you know, fuck off.

Quote from: Manzanaro;890790You are simply demanding that I include judgement calls in which the GM states what happens based purely on his own personal feelings as 'rules of simulation'.

Well it wouldn't be much of a judgement call if it's based on personal feelings. Would it? Let's see, for example, there's no specific rule on how swords should behave in a particular situation we've come upon. Now my tummy hurts and I just remembered that last session you ate the last slice of pizza, so I'll just rule against you blocking the door with your sword because I just felt like it instead of making a good judgement call based on things such as sword size and material, door size and construction.

Quote from: Manzanaro;890790So Bren. When I say I am interested in ways of getting a good narrative from rules of simulation, you don't care what I MEAN.

Well Manzanaro, I  started posting in the thread by asking you what you meant by a "good narrative". Several times. You refused to answer. Several times. Over the course of your many posts about semantics its become apparent that you can't articulate what you mean by a good narrative. Now as far as what you mean by the word "simulation", no I'm not particularly interested in what you mean. The word already has an accepted meaning that contradicts your meaning.

QuoteYou are simply demanding that I include judgement calls in which the GM states what happens based purely on his own personal feelings as 'rules of simulation'.

Is that right?

No Manzanaro, that's incorrect.

First, I haven't demanded that you include anything in your personal play. I have pointed out that there are several types of simulation that include human judgment as part of the simulation to disprove your claim that the term simulation should be restricted solely to mechanical or automated processes and that a simulation does not include any human judgment.

Second, you erroneously conflate "human judgment" with mere whim or what you called judgment "based purely on...personal feelings" and from context (e.g. participants in a moot court, judges and referees in war games and miniatures battles, and DMs in old D&D) mere whim was clearly not what is meant by human judgment. Your assertion to the contrary is either extremely poor reading comprehension on your part or a feeble attempt to create a straw man argument by caricaturizing what I did say.

QuoteIf you think about this, you will understand why I say you aren't as smart as you think you are.

Manzanaro I think we all know why you said that. As I've already pointed out, it's because you have the emotional maturity of an eight year old. You've also shown that your "cold blooded" analytical ability is on par with your emotional maturity, i.e. nearly nonexistent.

Quote from: Saurondor;890815Well it wouldn't be much of a judgement call if it's based on personal feelings. Would it?

No a judgment call based purely on personal feelings wouldn't be much of a judgment call. However it would be Manzanaro's type of judgment call.

Let's get to the bottom of this.

Quote from: Bren;890829Well Manzanaro, I  started posting in the thread by asking you what you meant by a "good narrative". Several times. You refused to answer. Several times. Over the course of your many posts about semantics its become apparent that you can't articulate what you mean by a good narrative.

Yeah, I caught that. I caught it every fucking time you asked, over and over. I caught it when you kept asking even after I told you that "good" narrative was subjective and I was looking for subjective answers. What part of that did you not understand? What part of the word 'subjective' do you find inarticulate?

QuoteNow as far as what you mean by the word "simulation", no I'm not particularly interested in what you mean. The word already has an accepted meaning that contradicts your meaning.

Your head is so far up your own ass that you seriously don't understand that words have more than one definition, do you? I mean, I quoted the fucking dictionary. You are using the word in a broad sense. You can't demand I use it in that same broad sense.

Well you can, but it would be fucking stupid.

Oh... Right.

QuoteFirst, I haven't demanded that you include anything in your personal play. I have pointed out that there are several types of simulation that include human judgment as part of the simulation to disprove your claim that the term simulation should be restricted solely to mechanical or automated processes and that a simulation does not include any human judgment.

Okay, except read this sentence closely: I have not demanded people use the word 'simulation' how I am using it. I have explained the sense in which I, myself, am using it.

And seriously, look up 'simulation' on wiki or something, go beyond a dictionary. Do many things that people consider simulations include elements that are not dictated by rules of simulation? Yes. Now take 2 minutes (or more if you need it) to consider how this relates to my thread title. Think about how the title of the thread is not "How to get a good narrative out of a simulation". I am using my words very precisely. You just don't get it. You think you do. You don't.

QuoteSecond, you erroneously conflate "human judgment" with mere whim or what you called judgment "based purely on...personal feelings" and from context (e.g. participants in a moot court, judges and referees in war games and miniatures battles, and DMs in old D&D) mere whim was clearly not what is meant by human judgment. Your assertion to the contrary is either extremely poor reading comprehension on your part or a feeble attempt to create a straw man argument by caricaturizing what I did say.

It has nothing to do with 'whim'. I have said this over and over.It is about whether something is a result of simulation or of being authored.

Why do I make this distinction? Because getting a good narrative out of a game in which things are authored is trivial. That is not the subject of discussion.

Anyway, I love how you talk about me conflating "whim" and "human judgement" and then accuse ME of using a straw man argument. Talk about fucking irony. Seriously, are you purposefully misinterpreting me at every turn in order to "win" the discussion? Or are you seriously this stupid?

QuoteNo a judgment call based purely on personal feelings wouldn't be much of a judgment call. However it would be Manzanaro's type of judgment call.

A judgement call based on one's personal feelings about what is logical or appropriate wouldn't be much of a judgement call?

I suppose you think judgement calls are objective, and not based on one's subjective feelings and opinions?

I'm sorry man, but you really are a fuckhead.

For all the crying Manzanaro does that nobody gets what he's saying, it seems to come down to one simple thing, and it is Manzanaro who doesn't get it. It goes to the nature of human action, that action is motivated towards some ends.

This is why a set of rules and some simple randomness, however sophisticated, will always be an inferior simulation than something that embraces human choice as part of the machinery.

But it's also why he is so far off the mark on how he interprets human choice. Because he doesn't understand the nature of human action, he cannot imagine how a human mind, working towards the goal of faithful simulation, will actually produce simulation more competently than rules or dice. He fails to grasp the essence of goals and motivation, and so when he sees human choice, all he reads is free-for-all.

From Wikipedia:

QuoteSimulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time. The act of simulating something first requires that a model be developed; this model represents the key characteristics or behaviors/functions of the selected physical or abstract system or process. The model represents the system itself, whereas the simulation represents the operation of the system over time.

"OMG! What do they mean about time? What do they mean about modeling key behaviors and functions of a system as opposed to just saying how the system behaves? OMG! Those wiki guys must be dummies like Manzanaro!"

While we're at it:

QuoteA narrative or story is any report of connected events, actual or imaginary, presented in a sequence of written or spoken words, or still or moving images.

Narrative can be organized in a number of thematic and/or formal categories: non-fiction (such as definitively including creative non-fiction, biography, journalism, transcript poetry, and historiography); fictionalization of historical events (such as anecdote, myth, legend, and historical fiction); and fiction proper (such as literature in prose and sometimes poetry, such as short stories, novels, and narrative poems and songs, and imaginary narratives as portrayed in other textual forms, games, or live or recorded performances). Narrative is found in all forms of human creativity, art, and entertainment, including speech, literature, theatre, music and song, comics, journalism, film, television and video, radio, gameplay, unstructured recreation, and performance in general, as well as some painting, sculpture, drawing, photography, and other visual arts (though several modern art movements refuse the narrative in favor of the abstract and conceptual), as long as a sequence of events is presented. The word derives from the Latin verb narrare, "to tell", which is derived from the adjective gnarus, "knowing" or "skilled".

OMG!

Quote from: Manzanaro;890852It has nothing to do with 'whim'. I have said this over and over.It is about whether something is a result of simulation or of being authored.

Why do I make this distinction? Because getting a good narrative out of a game in which things are authored is trivial. That is not the subject of discussion.

It might not be the subject of discussion because you don't get it, but obtaining good narrative out of a game in which things are authored is NOT trivial. It is hard to write a good book, and like you mentioned in your quest "a good simulation should be able to recreate the encounter read in a novel". So in the first place the fight described in the novel needs to exist. This is the goal the simulation aspires to simulate, and such goal was authored when the novel was written, pure and simple. If such a combat described in the novel is "trivial" then we might as well skip the complexities of a simulation and arrive at the trivial solution directly. Right?

Now, getting good narrative out of a game in which things are authored within the constraints of a simulation is harder still. The issue is that your refuse to accept that the human mind can be part of that simulation and your wikipedia definition does not exclude this. Your wiki quote:

QuoteSimulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time. The act of simulating something first requires that a model be developed; this model represents the key characteristics or behaviors/functions of the selected physical or abstract system or process. The model represents the system itself, whereas the simulation represents the operation of the system over time.

The model exists within the mind itself and the operation of this model over time is the simulation. A firefighter who determines the cause of a fire, a coroner who determines cause of death, a warrior that anticipates the sword swing, a general that leads an army into victory; they all have models in their heads that allow them to get their job done. This model is gained through experience, research and learning and a bit of talent. This model requires dedication and time to cultivate and talent alone will not do it.

You, it seems, lack both the talent and dedication to achieve this so you quest for a set of rules that fills this for you. For freak's sake you wanted a set of rules capable of "passing judgment calls" LOL, what a nutcase! First I though you were one of those crappy TPK GMs who just wanted to externalize responsibility for your actions to a set of rules and also have the rules fill in the lack of narrative talent. Now though I believe you're more of a rules lawyer player who wants a "Personal GM" to play with. That way the rules can both simulate and narrate a great story because nobody wants to play with you anymore because you're just so freaking rude when you express yourself. I'd bet you've kicked the table over, miniatures and all, more than once when you got upset.

Quote from: Manzanaro;890857From Wikipedia:



"OMG! What do they mean about time? What do they mean about modeling key behaviors and functions of a system as opposed to just saying how the system behaves? OMG! Those wiki guys must be dummies like Manzanaro!"

Mmhmm. The aim of simulation is imitation. Just like I said it is, just like you said it isn't. And if we're talking about simulation in an RPG context, what are the "key behaviors" we should model? If you ask me, when it comes to human action I would say it's purposeful behavior. A mechanical system of rules & dice don't imitate that very well. It improves the simulation if human choice is part of the model.

Note, human choice isn't disqualifying this from being a simulation. We still have a model, and we're still imitating key behaviors of the process of character interaction in our fictional world. That fits the definition of simulation to a T.


As to what you posted about narrative, notice plain as day, it is a report of connected events. It is not the creation of those events. Just like I've been saying.

Quote from: Manzanaro;890852What part of that did you not understand?

The part where you thought we could tell you how to get what you want without you telling us what it was that you wanted. Here's how that conversation looked.
   Manzanaro: How can I get what I want?
Bren: What do you want?
Manzanaro: I can't tell you that. It's subjective.
Bren: Well unless you can tell me that, I can't tell you how to get what you want.
Manzanaro:
Bren: :idunno:

QuoteYour head is so far up your own ass that you seriously don't understand that words have more than one definition, do you?

I know words have more than one meaning. But to have an intelligent conversation you need to pick one of the definitions to use. But you refuse to do that. I already pointed out the fallacy of your switching back and forth between different definitions of "narrative" and "author". The fallacy, by the way, is called "equivocation."

QuoteYou are using the word in a broad sense. You can't demand I use it in that same broad sense.

I am using the word simulation in the sense that is meaningful when talking about table top RPGs. Which is what you said you wanted to discuss.

You are using "simulation" in a sense that is possibly relevant to some computer RPGs but that doesn't apply to tabletop RPGs. You can do that - obviously you have been doing that - but there is no reason we have to agree to use the wrong definition to talk about tabletop RPGs instead of using the correct definition.

QuoteOkay, except read this sentence closely: I have not demanded people use the word 'simulation' how I am using it. I have explained the sense in which I, myself, am using it.

Your definition of simulation is inappropriate for what tabletop RPG simulation is, therefore any conclusion you draw, specifically regarding simulation vs. narrative or authoring is nonsense. And we are right back to the original problems of you equivocating on different definitions and you refusing to say what it is you want.

QuoteA judgement call based on one's personal feelings about what is logical or appropriate wouldn't be much of a judgement call?

That isn't what you said though. What you said was

Quote from: Manzanaro;890790So Bren. When I say I am interested in ways of getting a good narrative from rules of simulation, you don't care what I MEAN. You are simply demanding that I include judgement calls in which the GM states what happens based purely on his own personal feelings as 'rules of simulation'.

Basing something "purely on" personal feelings is the antithesis of basing something on considerations other than personal feelings. Logic is not a personal feeling. Ergo, you excluded logic from consideration.

A whim is a sudden or unexpected urge. A decision based purely on personal feelings fits that definition. Decisions based on logic and appropriateness are going to be neither sudden nor unexpected.

QuoteI suppose you think judgement calls are objective, and not based on one's subjective feelings and opinions?

I think that a good RPG simulation will include GM judgments based on logic, appropriateness, and setting consistency as part of the simulation. Without human judgment you will get an inferior simulation. You have said many times that you think simulations in RPGs are a mechanical or computerized set of rules or instructions in which human judgment has no place. Those are inferior simulations. Using and inferior simulation when a superior one is available is foolish.

When someone says a perfect simulation is not possible they are right (trivially so).
This is even more true with the limited amount of resources and the almost in-time characteristic of a role playing game and that you also have to keep the characteristic of a shared social activity - the game.  

But the trick and aim for this certain style of play is to get as true as possible.

Part of that is filling the inevitable holes with a game master.  
And the critical aspect of this game master for simulation style is that he is doing his "narration" with a decided priority for keeping the internal consistency and logic.

There will be (with dedicated sim players rare) times where you want to deviate from this path (remember: game and social group activity), but in this case "you" is the whole group at the desk that has to come to a solution and not some single person deciding what "is best".

This is not directed to Maarzan.

You other three? Your posts above are completely riddled with fallacies, misunderstandings, unsupported claims about things I have said, and most wearisomely of all? Willful incomprehension.

At this point you are desperately scrabbling to misunderstand. To take one word from the wiki quotes and claim that to support your bullshit positions.

Those definitions, which I had never read before, COMPLETELY ALIGN with every fucking thing I have said in this thread, and you can damn well see it. And you STILL want to weasel with words about how wrong I am.

You don't want to understand because that would mean losing. Fucking sad.

Quote from: Manzanaro;891087This is not directed to Maarzan.

You other three? Your posts above are completely riddled with fallacies, misunderstandings, unsupported claims about things I have said, and most wearisomely of all? Willful incomprehension.

At this point you are desperately scrabbling to misunderstand. To take one word from the wiki quotes and claim that to support your bullshit positions.

Those definitions, which I had never read before, COMPLETELY ALIGN with every fucking thing I have said in this thread, and you can damn well see it. And you STILL want to weasel with words about how wrong I am.

You don't want to understand because that would mean losing. Fucking sad.

And what have you produced? What have you answered? Or was your question merely rhetorical one? What did you expect? To have everyone align themselves to your expectations of an objective automated elaborate self contained simulation?

You asked, you got answered, deal with it.

:boohoo:

Quote from: Saurondor;891093And what have you produced? What have you answered? Or was your question merely rhetorical one? What did you expect? To have everyone align themselves to your expectations of an objective automated elaborate self contained simulation?

You asked, you got answered, deal with it.

Dude.... You didn't answer shit. You, in particular, are largely incoherent. Like, seriously, I tried to talk to you at first, but you just move from one non sequitur to another, demanding explanations of remarks no one has made. Really... Where the FUCK are you getting the idea that I want comprehensive rules of simulation? How many times have I said TO YOU no less, that such a thing is impossible? Have you not understood one fucking thing I have said?

Bren is a guy with about 110 IQ who thinks that makes him brilliant.

And Lunamancer is just nuts.

And all any of you are doing is pure thread crapping. None of you have the slightest interest in the topic of the thread.

I started this discussion because it interested me. You guys seem to be taking part in it purely to be assholes who disagree even in areas that you very clearly have an extremely limited understanding of. If there is any other reason you are here, I have not seen it.