This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: How to Get a Good Narrative From Rules of Simulation  (Read 64568 times)

Saurondor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 232
How to Get a Good Narrative From Rules of Simulation
« Reply #1290 on: June 04, 2016, 10:41:15 AM »
Quote from: Manzanaro;901408
Saurondor, if you want me to consider your position, go ahead and tell me what it is. That would be super refreshing compared to your continuous bizarre misunderstandings of everything I say.

Ok. Well you're talking about the hard encoded rules in a game (written rules) and how these lead to the resolution of things. In your words from the opening post:

Quote
So there are rules for how to determine the winner of a fight, how magic works, what various monsters can do, and etc.

You also mention "narrative rules" or in your words "narrative principles", and I used the word rules previously because you refer to their "encoding":

Quote
I do not tend to like games where narrative principles are too heavily encoded in the rules of the game.

Regarding these principles you mention:

Quote
I don't want to know for a fact that the main characters are not actually in danger because they are narratively protected by the rules of the game. I don't want a final outcome that is never in doubt. I don't want to be railroaded along some predetermined plot trajectory. I don't want the villain to always escape because that is how it works in the source material.

So far we're in agreement and I follow you that far. Now the other side is my point of view which is quite different and that doesn't mean I misunderstand you. I'm saying I view things differently.

You have two set of rules as far as I understand: simulationist which concern themselves with the resolution of things and narrative ones which can be encoded into the game an in a way "protect the storyline" from the former rules (simulation). They can "protect the storyline" by narratively protecting the main characters, guarantee a certain outcome or railroading the story, among other methods.

You also draw a line between narrative and simulationist in that simulationist is "written down" as rules and that which resolves something in the game while at the same time not acting as a narrative principle is for you "authored". Said authored content can act as one of the narrative mechanisms to protect the protagonist and story.

So far so good. I understand you and I see your point. Yes I can resolve the outcome of a gunshot through rules of simulation, or I can author it and dictate the outcome. Outcome which can be interpreted as part of a narrative principle to protect the character, story or plot. I understand you and agree with you so far within the context of this point of view.

Now comes my point of view which is quite different and the cause of your belief that I don't understand you.

I see things from the point of view of outcomes and not processes leading to the outcome. Narrative principles, simulationist, authoring, etc., they're all the same thing, means to move the story forward. What I'm concerned about is if that outcome was within the ballpark of the expected, was it challenging enough to be interesting and easy enough to be attainable without being too easy to be boring. Did it get resolved fast enough to be engaging, was it detailed enough to please the players involved? I'm not stupid and I'm quite clear on the differences of simulation and authoring as you portray it, or the usage of narrative principles. I just don't care, because after taking a closer look at them I've found many to be similar to others.

Simulationist rules can be used as narrative principles. Can I narratively protect the protagonists with simulationist rules? Sure I can, just saturate the roll so it's not possible to fail. Can I guarantee an outcome? Yes, see previous point about saturating the roll. Can I railroad an adventure in spite of using mostly simulationist rules? Sure, I believe many of us have seen it happen.

Can I author a combat scene without rules of simulation, dice and all that which we are used to? Yes. Can I do it without narrative protection? Sure I can, it's hard, but possible. Can I resolve the scene with rules of simulation and still introduce narrative protection? Yes, just work the dice mechanics to one's favor. Just take a moment to reconsider all the conversations about dice curves and the focus on "words" over "numbers" over clear cut probabilities over uncertain outcomes. For example, I strongly believe that Lunamancer champions the d20 and d100 and flat probability distributions because they are easy to understand and easy to arrive at a "number" on which a decision is made. I take X percent, add Y, subtract Z and arrive at P. Based on the value of P I can then decide to take the action or not. If as I player I only have "good" or "excellent" and some required outcome of 5 or better or 10 which is quite harder, so 0 is trivial, 4 is achievable, 8 is hard and 10 is near impossible, but I don't have an associate 80%, 40%, 20%, etc. it gets hard to "easily decide". What I see here are players applying "narrative principles" under the guise of "simulationist concerns or principles".

If you take a step back and get an eagle's view of the situation it seems quite the same. Both simulationist players and narrative players start at point A in the story. Narrative players apply rules and things get all goofy, but through narrative principles they get to alter the story and arrive at B. Simulationist players understand the mechanics and work the system to get the results that lead directly to B. Arriving at B was never in question, one did the correction after the fact and one prior to the fact.

This is the reason I always keep going back to the black box analogy. Can you tell the difference between one and the other if you can't see into the black box and observer what is taking place? I'm not saying that they're the same. If I get my electricity from a nuclear power plant, a coal power plant, solar cells or a gas operated generator at home I really can't tell the difference if they're all 120V 60Hz. It powers my laptop just as well. Each means of generating power pollutes differently, has different risks, etc., they're clearly not the same, but the outcome is.

When you begin to look at it that way you'll see that narrative and simulationist terms are just constructs to group "similar mechanisms", but none is exempt from the vices of the other and separating them into two terms can inhibit your game from enjoying the virtues of the other. Namely I can author something "as if simulated" and could very well be considered a simulation (although you would not agree with this position). This has been mentioned over and over again, I can simulate things without a mechanical, math and die based procedure and still call it a simulation. The issue here is that I can slip in narrative principles to "protect the protagonist" and such a task would be easier than using a clear cut and written out rule set, but as I've mentioned I can also work the rule set to "infuse" it with narrative protection.

If you go back to my posts you'll see a focus on things such as:

Mechanics that hide the percentages and odds from the players. Why do players need to know the exact odds of something happening?
Die rolls with a broad range of outcomes instead of the binary ones of success/failure. This gives the GM a broader "narrative range" when narrating outcomes.
Die rolls with really unexpected outcomes. There's more than one critical outcome.
Higher lethality in the game. Getting hit kills you quickly.
More to combat than just hitting. Getting hit is actually rare. What about the tension and drama of combat without all that damage being delivered?
If combat isn't the easy way out of a conflict then other "narrative" elements take the stage.
emes u cuch a ppic a pixan

Saurondor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 232
How to Get a Good Narrative From Rules of Simulation
« Reply #1291 on: June 04, 2016, 10:56:50 AM »
Quote from: Manzanaro;901408
Saurondor, if you want me to consider your position, go ahead and tell me what it is. That would be super refreshing compared to your continuous bizarre misunderstandings of everything I say.

Ok. Well you're talking about the hard encoded rules in a game (written rules) and how these lead to the resolution of things. In your words from the opening post:

Quote
So there are rules for how to determine the winner of a fight, how magic works, what various monsters can do, and etc.

You also mention "narrative rules" or in your words "narrative principles", and I used the word rules previously because you refer to their "encoding":

Quote
I do not tend to like games where narrative principles are too heavily encoded in the rules of the game.

Regarding these principles you mention:

Quote
I don't want to know for a fact that the main characters are not actually in danger because they are narratively protected by the rules of the game. I don't want a final outcome that is never in doubt. I don't want to be railroaded along some predetermined plot trajectory. I don't want the villain to always escape because that is how it works in the source material.

So far we're in agreement and I follow you that far. Now the other side is my point of view which is quite different and that doesn't mean I misunderstand you. I'm saying I view things differently.

You have two set of rules as far as I understand: simulationist which concern themselves with the resolution of things and narrative ones which can be encoded into the game an in a way "protect the storyline" from the former rules (simulation). They can "protect the storyline" by narratively protecting the main characters, guarantee a certain outcome or railroading the story, among other methods.

You also draw a line between narrative and simulationist in that simulationist is "written down" as rules and that which resolves something in the game while at the same time not acting as a narrative principle is for you "authored". Said authored content can act as one of the narrative mechanisms to protect the protagonist and story.

So far so good. I understand you and I see your point. Yes I can resolve the outcome of a gunshot through rules of simulation, or I can author it and dictate the outcome. Outcome which can be interpreted as part of a narrative principle to protect the character, story or plot. I understand you and agree with you so far within the context of this point of view.

Now comes my point of view which is quite different and the cause of your belief that I don't understand you.

I see things from the point of view of outcomes and not processes leading to the outcome. Narrative principles, simulationist, authoring, etc., they're all the same thing, means to move the story forward. What I'm concerned about is if that outcome was within the ballpark of the expected, was it challenging enough to be interesting and easy enough to be attainable without being too easy to be boring. Did it get resolved fast enough to be engaging, was it detailed enough to please the players involved? I'm not stupid and I'm quite clear on the differences of simulation and authoring as you portray it, or the usage of narrative principles. I just don't care, because after taking a closer look at them I've found many to be similar to others.

Simulationist rules can be used as narrative principles. Can I narratively protect the protagonists with simulationist rules? Sure I can, just saturate the roll so it's not possible to fail. Can I guarantee an outcome? Yes, see previous point about saturating the roll. Can I railroad an adventure in spite of using mostly simulationist rules? Sure, I believe many of us have seen it happen.

Can I author a combat scene without rules of simulation, dice and all that which we are used to? Yes. Can I do it without narrative protection? Sure I can, it's hard, but possible. Can I resolve the scene with rules of simulation and still introduce narrative protection? Yes, just work the dice mechanics to one's favor. Just take a moment to reconsider all the conversations about dice curves and the focus on "words" over "numbers" over clear cut probabilities over uncertain outcomes. For example, I strongly believe that Lunamancer champions the d20 and d100 and flat probability distributions because they are easy to understand and easy to arrive at a "number" on which a decision is made. I take X percent, add Y, subtract Z and arrive at P. Based on the value of P I can then decide to take the action or not. If as I player I only have "good" or "excellent" and some required outcome of 5 or better or 10 which is quite harder, so 0 is trivial, 4 is achievable, 8 is hard and 10 is near impossible, but I don't have an associate 80%, 40%, 20%, etc. it gets hard to "easily decide". What I see here are players applying "narrative principles" under the guise of "simulationist concerns or principles".

If you take a step back and get an eagle's view of the situation it seems quite the same. Both simulationist players and narrative players start at point A in the story. Narrative players apply rules and things get all goofy, but through narrative principles they get to alter the story and arrive at B. Simulationist players understand the mechanics and work the system to get the results that lead directly to B. Arriving at B was never in question, one did the correction after the fact and one prior to the fact.

This is the reason I always keep going back to the black box analogy. Can you tell the difference between one and the other if you can't see into the black box and observer what is taking place? I'm not saying that they're the same. If I get my electricity from a nuclear power plant, a coal power plant, solar cells or a gas operated generator at home I really can't tell the difference if they're all 120V 60Hz. It powers my laptop just as well. Each means of generating power pollutes differently, has different risks, etc., they're clearly not the same, but the outcome is.

When you begin to look at it that way you'll see that narrative and simulationist terms are just constructs to group "similar mechanisms", but none is exempt from the vices of the other and separating them into two terms can inhibit your game from enjoying the virtues of the other. Namely I can author something "as if simulated" and could very well be considered a simulation (although you would not agree with this position). This has been mentioned over and over again, I can simulate things without a mechanical, math and die based procedure and still call it a simulation. The issue here is that I can slip in narrative principles to "protect the protagonist" and such a task would be easier than using a clear cut and written out rule set, but as I've mentioned I can also work the rule set to "infuse" it with narrative protection.

If you go back to my posts you'll see a focus on things such as:

Mechanics that hide the percentages and odds from the players. Why do players need to know the exact odds of something happening?
Die rolls with a broad range of outcomes instead of the binary ones of success/failure. This gives the GM a broader "narrative range" when narrating outcomes.
Die rolls with really unexpected outcomes. There's more than one critical outcome.
Higher lethality in the game. Getting hit kills you quickly.
More to combat than just hitting. Getting hit is actually rare. What about the tension and drama of combat without all that damage being delivered?
If combat isn't the easy way out of a conflict then other "narrative" elements take the stage.
Focus on high speed resolution of steps. The perception of reality is better than thorough reality if it's fast paced enough. The high resolution video at low frame rate vs low resolution at high frame rate.
Focus on the information that really matters. Take a look at the MTTD graphs, representing combat as a single roll and looking at the real value of initiative.

I'm less concerned about these terms simulationist and narrative and how they tend to divide games and more about the underlying events taking place. What can be done to improve this and create a more fluid and a the same time richer experience for the player.

As a closing comment I'll let you ponder on the following. In many games, many combat centered games, combat is the narrative principle. It is highly "simulated" in the sense that there are rules for all sorts of things during combat and clearly fall into your "non authored department", but in many cases the outcome is ensured, there's even the term "balance" being thrown in. Encounters are "balanced", there's a rating system for the adventure, the hit points and recovery rates are set in a way that guarantees player success. They're systems that don't use Fate points or beanies or other classic "narrative principles", but in truth they manifest all that which you associate narrative principles to: secure story protagonist, final outcome was never in doubt, aside from small story deviations the encounters are pretty well known and the boss will be the boss and the boss will be defeated.  Even random encounters which at first may seem random are in truth quite predictable because they're rolled off a known table, a table probably set for the character's level. A gold dragon could come up, but that's from the Lvl10+ table and "totally unfair now" and players will whine because they can't kill it, and will also complain because actually roleplaying the encounter is uncertain (the GM has to author it) and that can get their characters into a big mess unlike combat which is clear cut and understandable with d20s and damage rolls.
emes u cuch a ppic a pixan

Manzanaro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • M
  • Posts: 531
How to Get a Good Narrative From Rules of Simulation
« Reply #1292 on: June 04, 2016, 11:16:31 AM »
Here's the problem. You tell me you get what I am saying and just disagree. You then go on to talk a LOT about stuff that I have (supposedly) said, but is ACTUALLY and MOSTLY stuff that you have INCORRECTLY INFERRED from what I've said. Just as an offhand example of an incorrect inference is your idea that there are narrative PLAYERS and simulation PLAYERS. But you entire lengthy post is riddled with large conceptual errors.

Basically? I have already covered all of this stuff at length. You could reread the thread, I guess but probably wouldn't help.

Anyway, what I am going to do rather than to reply to that labyrinthine post, by repeating things I have already said again and again, is just stop talking to you. Sorry.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2016, 11:24:35 AM by Manzanaro »
You're one microscopic cog in his catastrophic plan, designed and directed by his red right hand.

- Nick Cave

Saurondor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 232
How to Get a Good Narrative From Rules of Simulation
« Reply #1293 on: June 04, 2016, 12:22:12 PM »
Quote from: Manzanaro;901582
Here's the problem. You tell me you get what I am saying and just disagree. You then go on to talk a LOT about stuff that I have (supposedly) said, but is ACTUALLY and MOSTLY stuff that you have INCORRECTLY INFERRED from what I've said. Just as an offhand example of an incorrect inference is your idea that there are narrative PLAYERS and simulation PLAYERS. But you entire lengthy post is riddled with large conceptual errors.

Basically? I have already covered all of this stuff at length. You could reread the thread, I guess but probably wouldn't help.

Anyway, what I am going to do rather than to reply to that labyrinthine post, by repeating things I have already said again and again, is just stop talking to you. Sorry.

Please point out what I claim you said in post 1289 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?34039-How-to-Get-a-Good-Narrative-From-Rules-of-Simulation&p=901580&viewfull=1#post901580) that you didn't actually say. Simple, a line in which I claim you say something you have not said. I mean some point I say "you said bla bla bla" and "bla bla bla" is not something you actually said. BTW, text in quotes quoted to talk about the text and not actually quoting you is not valid, we've been over that already. It doesn't count either when I say something you've said in slightly different words but with the overall same meaning. That is paraphrasing to mean the same thing you mean with other words does not count as putting words in your mouth.
emes u cuch a ppic a pixan

Manzanaro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • M
  • Posts: 531
How to Get a Good Narrative From Rules of Simulation
« Reply #1294 on: June 04, 2016, 12:48:48 PM »
If you want responses you need to post SMALL DISCRETE THOUGHTS not founded in conjecture. You are very bad at conjecture.

When I asked for your position I didn't expect a manifesto riddled with faulty assumptions. I should have, but I didn't.

What I expected was something more like, "I think that the rules of simulation should be ignored whenever I feel me just saying what I want to happen as the GM makes for a better story. I just don't let my players know I am doing this."

That is 2 easy to understand sentences and it SEEMS TO ME to be how you feel. Can you write something like that? You don't need to tell me what you think MY position is to tell me YOUR position. Do you?

And please stop fucking paraphrasing me. If you are going to claim to be responding to my words, USE MY ACTUAL WORDS. NOT WHAT YOU THINK IS AN ACCURATE PARAPHRASE.

And there is no way in hell I am rereading that post with a kitty litter scooper trying to sort the litter from the cat poop. THIS WAS A METAPHOR.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2016, 12:56:01 PM by Manzanaro »
You're one microscopic cog in his catastrophic plan, designed and directed by his red right hand.

- Nick Cave

Saurondor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 232
How to Get a Good Narrative From Rules of Simulation
« Reply #1295 on: June 04, 2016, 10:50:53 PM »
Quote from: Manzanaro;901595
If you want responses you need to post SMALL DISCRETE THOUGHTS not founded in conjecture. You are very bad at conjecture.

I am indeed bad at conjecture. That's why when I point something out I actually graph it out or place something to back up my position. Like when I say "such and such die rolls behave like this other single die roll" I actually show the graph that proves it instead of having you take my word for it. Like the MTTD roll I presented a while back. I could have claimed that initiative rolls carry little weight unless the odds of the encounter are such that those involved will perish within one round of each other. Instead I actually took the time to graph it out and back it up. So yes, at least the "not founded on conjecture" part is covered. I'll then focus on the small discrete thoughts as it seems that your reading comprehension doesn't allow for much more at any one given moment.

Quote from: Manzanaro;901595
What I expected was something more like, "I think that the rules of simulation should be ignored whenever I feel me just saying what I want to happen as the GM makes for a better story. I just don't let my players know I am doing this."

Interesting point that is not very far from reality. As you mention:

Quote
The thing is that none of these rules are geared towards narrative concerns; they don't factor in who the 'protagonist' is in a combat, or how to use the rules to bring drama and tension to the game, or how to get the players of the game's characters to act in a manner consistent with what we might expect from a fantasy novel.

It seems that "whenever I feel me just saying what I want to happen as the GM makes for a better story" is the way to go when addressing events outside those covered by the rules. As you mentioned:

Quote
So there are rules for how to determine the winner of a fight, how magic works, what various monsters can do, and etc.

So when addressing things outside that list (considering "etc." to be a compact set) then the GM must just say what is believed to be a better story. Even within the context of such things as fights, magic, and monsters, there can be elements not contemplated by the rules on which the GM must rule. The rules are either complete (cover every single possibility) or consistent (don't have contradictions with itself). The more extensive the rule set the less prone to leave something up to the GM, but also the more extensive and harder to learn and apply. It is also possible that given its extensive nature there are sections that come into contradiction with others or seem hard to apply at times.

So here's a small discrete thought. What's the minimum expression of a rule set so it can address narrative concerns without it actually having narrative principles encoded in it? The rule set should be extensive enough to cover as many cases as possible, but also small enough to be easily learned and applied and have as few contradictions as possible. Namely can a set of rules be used to resolve combat as well as resolve a dialogue, a court case, a problem in the farm, etc.
emes u cuch a ppic a pixan

Skarg

  • Venerable Gamer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2380
How to Get a Good Narrative From Rules of Simulation
« Reply #1296 on: June 06, 2016, 12:36:03 PM »
Hi Lunamancer,

I was nearly finished with a long reply when my computer died, losing my post. Trying again...

Quote from: Lunamancer;901031
Two things. First, I think Manzanaro nails it when he talks about how these things often have built-in meaning in combat but not other skill areas. This is why I don't like degrees of success built-in to the mechanic. The age hold hit roll + damage roll is brilliant in that capacity. The damage roll is your de facto degree of success roll, but the system only has you roll it as a standard thing when, as a standard thing, it has meaning.
Yes severe success/failure results can be a problem when the GM doesn't know what appropriate odds and results should be, and it's even worse when he and the players don't realize the odds of important results are way off.


Quote
... We only call them crits because you rolled a natural 20. As far as the math is concerned, though, only half of those natural 20's are really doing something beyond ordinary. So while you think the game is having you crit 5% of the time, in terms of numerical effect, you only really crit 2.5% of the time.

So I'd like to suggest that the probability of producing an effect above and beyond a normal hit is different from what the RPG says it is on the face.
Yes, though to nitpick, double is still double even if you don't also roll a high number on the damage roll - it's still double the damage it would have been if you hadn't rolled double damage, even if it's not higher than it possibly could've been on a normal hit. I agree the word "crit" has an issue with word meaning. The issue with face word meaning can be solved by succinct language, though. In the first RPG I learned, TFT, the terms were "double damage" and "triple damage" and that was what they did, too. Other systems or player groups could be more literal in their terms to avoid that particular issue.


Quote
I'd also like to suggest that there IS a degree of situation-dependence to this. If you're fighting a goblin with 7 hit points, I would argue a damage roll of 7 or 8 on what the game terms a normal hit is pretty damn critical, as it slays the goblin. So against weaker foes, your "crit" chance as determined by effect (rather than system naming convention) can become far more probable. On the other hand, against stronger creatures, say a 200 hit point demi-god, even a max damage crit doesn't even amount to 10% of the guy's hit points. There is essentially zero chance for a real crit. A natural 20 is a CHINO--critical hit in name only.
Um... ok, though the reason I don't play D&D is because the combat system is that abstract and gamey/predictable. It's not bad as a semi-predictable fiction simulator, where the important characters are insured against getting actually killed by weapons until a respectable amount of effort has been put in against them, and it provides the work-reward of letting all attacks have some effect that can build up, and avoids upsets from sudden unexpected PC loss or anti-climax when facing "big badguys".

I don't even like that kind of cause & effect in my fiction, though. I want a more "realistic" simulation in the sense that if a deadly weapon is used on someone, I want there to be some chance that makes sense (from the realms of reality & logic, not from comic book / Hollywood drama or player upset protection, nor author outcome forcing) of a deadly result. Which is also why I then want the level of play in combat to be much more detailed and explicit, so that players can do something about it. Don't want to be killed in combat? Figure out some ways to minimize the odds.


Quote
This is probably my biggest beef against crits and fumbles (which, to be clear, I DO use crits and fumbles, and find they work well the way I use them). You know what you describe feels like to me? Playing a video game where for the most part you're controlling the character in real time, but as soon as you do some magical combination, the character goes on auto-pilot for a second or two to do his cool move, only after it's done do you resume control. So for the most part in RPG combat, we know how it works and feel a great deal of control through our decisions. But, fuck, as soon as the "fumble" comes up, I'm suddenly spinning 180 degrees and plugging the party mage.

To me this is not fun for a few reasons. One, as I was alluding to, at that point I'm not actually controlling my guy. He's just off doing goofy shit 'cause the dice said so.
Ok, yes. For an abstract combat system with not enough detail and/or weird results on the crit table that you have no control over and don't make sense based on what you wanted to do, yes.


Quote
Two, it even undermines agency in the bigger picture. I alluded to in an example a couple pages ago, if you're at the firing range, let's say, certain precautions are taken to eliminate the chance of accidentally shooting someone. Of course this is at the expense of being able to do cool shit like shit the chandelier to make it drop. You have to stick to the boring old paper target. But that's the trade off. You give an inch of what you'd like to do to eliminate even the small probability of a mile's worth of damage. I mean, in the shooting-the-mage fumble, my guy's an archer, he'd be well suited in behind the party so enemies can't get at me. So why am I shooting from in front of the mage, exposing myself to the dangers of my enemies? To avoid a tragic friendly-fire incident. Want to say my bow string breaks? Fine. That can be coded into the system. Want to just throw out this abstract thing called a "fumble" and require even the totally illogical to happen just because the dice told us something bad needs to happen is, quite frankly, stupid. Which segues into the third point. It hurts suspension of disbelief. Sadly, however, that's how probably the majority of RPGs are designed.
Again yes, for systems like that. I always play combat with detailed maps, though, and "shoot your friend" is not on the crit fail table. There's only a chance to shoot friends when you choose to shoot through their location to hit something else (or at something in front of their location). At most there might be a wild shot result somewhere, but it would be buried under appropriately large mountains of unlikeliness, and your skill, facing, and the positions of everyone would be taken into account.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2016, 12:41:39 PM by Skarg »

Xanther

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • X
  • Posts: 922
How to Get a Good Narrative From Rules of Simulation
« Reply #1297 on: June 06, 2016, 08:19:10 PM »
Quote from: Saurondor;900521
...

I use the term "creative bandwidth" for the point you're addressing. The amount of "perceived reality" for a given unit of effort (rolling, adding dice, adding modifiers, rolling again, etc.). I use the term perceived instead of create or determined because the mind can augment certain detail or filter out other. This is similar to watching a video on a slow connection, the frame rate is more important than the resolution. All the high detail of a low frame rate stream would get lost and on the other hand the low detail of a high frame rate stream would get augmented...

.

Well said.  My goal has always been verisimilitude to the kinds of adventures and genre I love.  These days I've been converted back to low resolution which allows the high frame rate.