Quote from: Phillip;881547The key to maximizing dramatically satisfying outcomes is to make the situation so interesting that almost any course of events will be dramatically satisfying.

The key to making this a big problem is to get hung up instead on deciding in advance that you must have "victory for the heroes" or some other narrow criterion, that anything else must be counted as dramatically unsatisfying. If you're doing that, then a healthy recognition of reality is that what you want is not the kind of game implied by reference to the traditional RPG form, and probably not much of a game at all.

Hmmm. It is hard to argue against the idea that making something incredibly interesting is going to be key to making something succesful as a narrative.

But my experience tells me it isn't as easy you're making it sound. Certainly I have played in many games that, had they been books, I would have abandoned by the 2nd chapter.

In particular, I find many games rely almost entirely on violence for drama, and that it is often violence for which I have no real investment as a player. Oh, bandits are attacking? Uh okay, I guess it's time to roll initiative.

The thing is that 'game' implies a challenge, a context of objective one may fail to attain, of winning and losing. A rigged game is a false game, a sham.

'Simulation' refers to the nature of that context, the perspective from which it is engaged and the causes of success or failure. An airplane does not crash because that is "dramatically satisfying"; it crashes because (for instance) I mistook which way was up and pushed the stick the wrong way, or got below stall speed and didn't correct quickly enough.

It is certainly possible to make a game of making a narrative. For instance, the final scene might be preset and players can compete in wielding influence on how the story ends up there. That however typically takes us both away from simulation and away from role-playing, substituting an authorial perspective.

A limited domain of (basically 'godlike') roles can bridge the gap, but that's not the kind of role people are usually interested in playing.

Quote from: Manzanaro;881549In particular, I find many games rely almost entirely on violence for drama, and that it is often violence for which I have no real investment as a player. Oh, bandits are attacking? Uh okay, I guess it's time to roll initiative.

Many books and comic strips and movies and radio serials and TV shows are also centered on violence or other hazards to life or limb. That's popular with audiences because we are primed instinctively to be interested in immediate threats to survival, and we have mechanisms (such as mirror-neuron response) that get us engaged with visceral activities we are merely witnessing or imagining.

It's popular with purveyors because it's popular with audiences and easy to produce.

Quote from: Manzanaro;881549... In particular, I find many games rely almost entirely on violence for drama, and that it is often violence for which I have no real investment as a player. Oh, bandits are attacking? Uh okay, I guess it's time to roll initiative.

Sounds like either you aren't interested in combat & tactics, or the combat system you're using is pretty bland. I often play, watch films, and even read books, for the combat details.

Huh, and I realize people seem to have ignored my posts, but I notice too that my disappointment in The Force Awakens and my appreciation of A New Hope are (in addition the points I belabor about how TFA makes no sense) about the quality of the action/combat scenes. TFA combat seems like "well that's spectacular but not really interesting and doesn't really seem like anything that would happen that way, and those don't really seem like real human reactions".

Quote from: Phillip;881551The thing is that 'game' implies a challenge, a context of objective one may fail to attain, of winning and losing. A rigged game is a false game, a sham.

'Simulation' refers to the nature of that context, the perspective from which it is engaged and the causes of success or failure. An airplane does not crash because that is "dramatically satisfying"; it crashes because (for instance) I mistook which way was up and pushed the stick the wrong way, or got below stall speed and didn't correct quickly enough.

It is certainly possible to make a game of making a narrative. For instance, the final scene might be preset and players can compete in wielding influence on how the story ends up there. That however typically takes us both away from simulation and away from role-playing, substituting an authorial perspective.

A limited domain of (basically 'godlike') roles can bridge the gap, but that's not the kind of role people are usually interested in playing.

"I swing at the orc with my sword."
"You hit. The orc is dead."

That is narrative. You are experiencing the narrative of an RPG session as you play it, just like you are experiencing the narrative of a book ax you read it.

The narrative of a book forms out of the words on the page that were created by an author. The narrative of an RPG forms out of player statements and dice rolls and rules and interpretations. They are still both forming narratives in your mind as you experience them.

This idea of a preset conclusion or ptedefined narrative path is not something I have been advocating or even trying to talk about. In fact I thought I had been pretty clear in saying that it was something I expressly did not like.

In RPGs, the seminal influence came not only from popular fiction but also from the wargame hobby of which they started as a branch. Early players of D&D, T&T, etc., were coming from an acquaintance with games modeling the battles of Hannibal, Napoleon, Robert E. Lee, Field Marshal Rommel, and so on; the context of a clash of arms was familiar, the mainstay of the hobby-game scene.

Quote from: Skarg;881553Sounds like either you aren't interested in combat & tactics, or the combat system you're using is pretty bland. I often play, watch films, and even read books, for the combat details.

Actually I am, but not for their own sake. I find combat very interesting unless it is reduced to an expected and meaningless staple, or if it becomes just an exercise in system mastery that bears little resemblance to the way violence really plays out.

And I liked your post actually and agree that RPGs can be a fun way to look at a piece of work with narrative conventions stripped away. I just have not been replying to longer posts much because of my difficulties doing complex responses via mobile device.

I actually am appreciative of all the input the thread has received even if I have not responded to every single post or seen eye to eye with every poster.

Quote from: Manzanaro;881558Actually I am, but not for their own sake. I find combat very interesting unless it is reduced to an expected and meaningless staple, or if it becomes just an exercise in system mastery that bears little resemblance to the way violence really plays out.

Ah ok so it's the combat system and/or lame/dull/forced combat situations?

Quote from: Manzanaro;881554"I swing at the orc with my sword."
"You hit. The orc is dead."

That is narrative. You are experiencing the narrative of an RPG session as you play it, just like you are experiencing the narrative of a book ax you read it.

I already remarked upon that. This is a (not especially inspiring) example of "narrative effects" that do not depend on railroading -- which, as I mentioned, I highly doubt that anyone has sought to deny. The simple matter-of-fact presentation gives a different view than would a more elaborate one involving connotations of surprise, delight, horror, etc. The variation can be (with sufficient skill) an effective means of conveying the differences in viewpoint -- the differences in character -- among various characters.

QuoteThis idea of a preset conclusion or ptedefined narrative path is not something I have been advocating or even trying to talk about. In fact I thought I had been pretty clear in saying that it was something I expressly did not like.

I expect that if you were to state plainly what interests you it would turn out not to be so terribly profound and confounding.

Quote from: Skarg;881559Ah ok so it's the combat system and/or lame/dull/forced combat situations?

Honestly? Not even so much that... I just get tired of combat as being a reflexive and largely unexamined problem solving tool. I am totally down with a good combat... but I want it to mean something. I want it to have a context that makes me feel invested in the outcome.

It's like a lot of 80s action movies. So full of violence that you just stopped giving a crap after the 1st 15 minutes. Especially if the risk of battle ends up being largely illusory.

Quote from: Phillip;881560I already remarked upon that. This a (not especially inspiring) example of "narrative effects" that do not depend on railroading -- which, as I mentioned, I highly doubt that anyone has sought to deny. The simple matter-of-fact presentation gives a different view than would a more elaborate one involving connotations of surprise, delight, horror, etc. The variation can be (with sufficient skill) an effective means of conveying the differences in viewpoint -- the differences in character -- among various characters.



Then you seem to be going out of your way to obfuscate, and I expect that if you were to state plainly what interests you it would turn out not to be so terribly profound and confounding.

If you haven't picked up on it by now something tells me it isn't happening.

Quote from: Manzanaro;881558Actually I am, but not for their own sake. I find combat very interesting unless it is reduced to an expected and meaningless staple, or if it becomes just an exercise in system mastery that bears little resemblance to the way violence really plays out.

QuoteI just get tired of combat as being a reflexive and largely unexamined problem solving tool. I am totally down with a good combat... but I want it to mean something. I want it to have a context that makes me feel invested in the outcome.

So, why do you do that? I'll hazard the answer that you've been taught "that's how it's done," but I reckon I speak for a lot of old timers in disagreeing.

Why, in a supposed role-playing game, does the simulation not include the characters' interests? Or if it does, why do you choose to play characters whose interests are boring to you?

Quote from: Manzanaro;881554"I swing at the orc with my sword."
"You hit. The orc is dead."

That is narrative. You are experiencing the narrative of an RPG session as you play it, just like you are experiencing the narrative of a book ax you read it.

The above narrative reads like a minimally descriptive interaction that might occur during an RPG session. From context, I assume you find this interaction unsatisfactory. Can you explain what problem you perceive to this narrative? What is it you dislike? What would you want added or changed to make it more to your taste?

Quote from: Phillip;881567So, why do you do that? I'll hazard the answer that you've been taught "that's how it's done," but I reckon I speak for a lot of old timers in disagreeing.

Why, in a supposed role-playing game, does the simulation not include the characters' interests? Or if it does, why do you choose to play characters whose interests are boring to you?

You're making a number of unwarranted assumptions here, but that's okay.

So why do I reduce combat to a meaningless staple with very little narrative value? I actually try not to.

Why do I see it so often? I could hazard some guesses.

In many RPGs you create your character and then you buy gear. A prominent part of gear selection tends to be lists of weapons and armor. So quite often you buy them and I think this creates the expectation of combat as a primary problem solving tool.

And then you fight shit. I could not even guess the number of random bandit attacks I have endured in RPGs. Too many for me to feel very invested in a narrative of random bandit attacks unless it is VERY well done.

Your experience may be different. You may experience many powerful narrative moments within RPGs outside of the context of combat. If so, discussion of how you feel this was achieved is entirely welcome and appropriate here.

As an example, let's look at your concluding remarks where you express puzzlement as to why my character's interests aren't being incorporated into the simulation. This is also an excellent point of discussion relating to the premise of this thread.

So, hypothetically, let's say my character is very interested in the game of chess. How, as a GM, might you incorporate that into the game in a manner that is interesting?

Quote from: Bren;881569The above narrative reads like a minimally descriptive interaction that might occur during an RPG session. From context, I assume you find this interaction unsatisfactory. Can you explain what problem you perceive to this narrative? What is it you dislike? What would you want added or changed to make it more to your taste?

No. It's fine. My point is that I consider this to BE narrative, which some people seem to be objecting to. Not trying to say anything about the quality of my example.

Just trying to avoid a huge subdiscussion about the events of gameplay not actually being 'narrative'. Because those kinds of discussions suck.