Quote from: Manzanaro;881587I get the feeling that you are talking about solo games here?

No. I am however talking about games played with people who are interested in having fun with me, not with assholes. Assholes are the problem, full stop. The cure for assholes is don't play with assholes. How the fuck is the advice of us strangers supposed to change them when they don't care enough about their relationship with you? Get real, kiddo.

QuoteI get how it might work in a book. I am wondering how you would make it work in the context of an RPG.

Same way. Boring situation is boring. Interesting situation is interesting.

Quote from: Manzanaro;881590estar, let me be blunt. You're basically replying to my topic by telling me my whole premise is off because I am not using your particular definition of words.

Thus I find your input less than useful and am far from interested in continuing in a discussion on semantics.

Happily, at least a few people seem to understand me so I will just make do with their input.

I am not the only person telling you your premise is off. And while we are all not in 100% agreement, there is a bunch gamers here who have decades of experience with tabletop RPGs telling you one or more parts of your premise and conclusion is off.

Seriously what if you are wrong. What that would me that mean in terms of you being able to enjoy tabletop RPG?

I used to have a negative opinion of classic D&D. I respected it place in history but did not enjoy playing as much I enjoyed playing GURPS or the Hero System. But then I read a book by Matt Finch that totally turned my opinion around. I still enjoy playing GURPS and Hero System. But now I do the same with classic D&D.

I was wrong and the gamers that stuck with the classic D&D were right.  D&D was never a broken game. It makes sense on it own terms. And most important it can be as fun as any other RPG can be. And my world didn't shatter because suddenly I found D&D enjoyable.

What I am saying to you if you look at tabletop RPG as a virtual reality where you overcome challenges rather than an unfolding story then you will have more fun with the game. And if funny voices, method acting, and rich detailed character backgrounds are your things there nothing incompatible there.

Quote from: Phillip;881594No. I am however talking about games played with people who are interested in having fun with me, not with assholes. Assholes are the problem, full stop. The cure for assholes is don't play with assholes. How the fuck is the advice of us strangers supposed to change them when they don't care enough about their relationship with you? Get real, kiddo.



Same way. Boring situation is boring. Interesting situation is interesting.

I shouldn't find it funny when people get disproportionately upset while talking about RPGs... But I kind of do. Maybe I am another asshole?

Kidding aside though, I'm really not asking you to repair my relationships with anybody. Slow down a little! I'm trying to discuss particular approaches to playing RPGs.

And yeah... Not to sure that being a mediocre or even outright poor GM makes somebody definitionally an "asshole". Heh!

Hell, I've known people who were flat out stupid that were still decent folks. Probably couldn't GM their way out of a wet paper bag though...

As a reader of this thread I find it is you that has the attitude problem Manzanaro.

Quote from: Manzanaro;881599Kidding aside though, I'm really not asking you to repair my relationships with anybody. Slow down a little! I'm trying to discuss particular approaches to playing RPGs.

Try thinking about what we tell you instead of just running your mouth insisting we're wrong. It's just the plain simple truth that we make interesting characters and scenarios for games the same way as for stories. Try it, instead of blathering vaguely about it not being the same when you don't know what you're talking about (so we can't possibly know what you're talking about either).

Quote from: Snowman0147;881601As a reader of this thread I find it is you that has the attitude problem Manzanaro.

lol.

I'm already feeling more at home. Thanks.

Quote from: Phillip;881602Try thinking about what we tell you instead of just running your mouth insisting we're wrong. It's just the plain simple truth that we make interesting characters and scenarios for games the same way as for stories. Try it, instead of blathering vaguely about it not being the same when you don't know what you're talking about (so we can't possibly know what you're talking about either).

Gotcha.

Hey that reminds me. Is it permissible to tell people to fuck off on this site?

Quote from: Manzanaro;881579Let me put it this way: If an entire session went by with the narrative not rising above that quality? Time to find a new gaming group.

But I'm not going to jump up and start screaming if I hear those 2 example sentences as part of a gaming session.

Like, I'm not trying to assert that every sentence spoken at the gaming table needs to be Shakespeare.

The quality of those two sentences had absolutely nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.

As far as what I want that I'm not getting. I did say in my OP that the point was to talk about techniques for getting a good narrative from a simulationist game right? Heck it's right there in the title!

What is not clear to me is what you mean by "getting a good narrative." Which is why I asked how you would add to or edit the example you gave to make it a "good narrative." Color me still confused. :confused:

Quote from: Manzanaro;881605Hey that reminds me. Is it permissible to tell people to fuck off on this site?

It is permissible, but they seldom obey.

Quote from: Manzanaro;881476So is everything leading up to the BBEG fight just basically filler? And if things do take a bad turn and there ends up being a TPK, do you still find the narrative satisfactory? Do the players? Not being facetious here.

Because traditional hp don't reset, any resource attrition on the way to the BBEG increases tension - so not just filler. And because they only give a buffer, not immunity, there can still be some fear of defeat in the earlier fight.
I find the narrative that ends in TPK against the BBEG satisfactory, yes. I have had player requests for a do-over, but I doubt they'd frame it in narrative "That was unsatisfying!" terms, more Gamist - "give us one more shot!".

Quote from: Manzanaro;881476EDIT: Let me try and give a specific example of what I mean. Let's say that as part of the interesting (to me) world that I create, there is a powerful evil dragon living in the mountains west of the city where the PCs live. The PCs get wind of this dragon and march to the mountains and directly into the dragon's lair. For some reason they thought this was a good idea, but they all end up being killed very quickly by the dragon. Is this a good satisfying narrative? Are there ways to make what feels like essentially a random TPK into a satisfying narrative experience?

It can be a satisfying narrative - perhaps a picaresque one of hubris & nemesis as seen in eg The Dying Earth or Thieves' World. Or a tale of tragic fate (Fafhrd/Mouser The Bleak Shore). Or of men driven to their doom by social pressure. I'd need to know the context, but I have certainly seen satisfying tales emerge from such events.

I would agree that a TPK caused by pure "must bite the plot hook" thinking probably won't be satisfying - drama arises much more from sandboxes than from railroads.

Quote from: RosenMcStern;881491I think we have discussed the subject to the death in recent threads: "immersiveness" is subjective. Your statement that element x is "objectively anti-immersive" is completely unfounded. They are anti-immersive for you, not for humanity.

It might be "completely unfounded" if I had said it. Which I didn't. Try not adding words like "objectively" to what other people write. You'll find far less to get het up about.

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.

Nope. Not at all.  100% incorrect.  That may be what YOU are thinking, hence why you made this thread.  That is NOT what I am thinking, at all.

When I am attacking an orc, my declaration is not text, it is not dialogue, it is communication to the GM of my intent.  The GM's response is a description of what happened.  Roleplaying is a communication medium.  The fact that communication becomes a mere stand-in for physical action is something people like Robin Laws and yourself never quite got.

In my life, if I wanted to kill someone, I wouldn't say to myself "I pick up an axe and chop the burglar with it." I would actually pick up an axe and actually chop the burglar with it.  I can't do that in an RPG with an orc, so communication has to happen between GM and player.

That is not narration, that is not storytelling, that is not a creation of any kind.  If you're roleplaying immersed in character, you are not experiencing the combat as if you were watching Braveheart, you are experiencing the combat as if you were William Wallace.

Put simply, when you say "roleplaying" you do not mean the same thing that I do.  You mean looking at your character from the outside as if you were experiencing the events of their lives in the third person, watching or reading, not living.  You're controlling the character, you aren't the character.  I am.

So the satisfaction you're looking for is the passive satisfaction of a good movie, book or tale.  The satisfaction I'm looking for is the active satisfaction of being alive, accomplishing goals, and being better off the next day then you were the day before.

The difference between the in-character roleplayer and the narrative meta-layer roleplayer is all too frequently, the latter assumes their experience is universal and applies to all, while the in-character roleplayer knows there's a whole 'nother way to experience roleplaying.

That's why you're getting so much pushback when you say "Oh no big deal, events or narration, movie or game, story or setting, same thing potato, potahto"  It's not the same thing. At.All.

You don't see the difference.  We do.

Quote from: Manzanaro;881571In 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.

So if the author of the game had a degree in Music, and filled the Equipment List with every musical instrument under the sun we could conclude that music is our primary problem solving tool?

Horseshit.

Campaigns devolve to meaningless combat when the GM doesn't create a living, breathing, interesting World in Motion.

Quote from: Manzanaro;881571And 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.

Why are you always running into bandits?  Is there a powerful force behind them seeking to destabilize things?  Are people being unjustly branded outlaws by a corrupt magistrate?  Are they woodsmen driven to crime because some other force has displaced them from their homes?

Meaningless combat comes from a meaningless setting.

Quote from: Manzanaro;881571Your 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.

I don't experience any kind of narrative moment when I roleplay, powerful or otherwise.  I have experienced many powerful emotional moments outside of combat when I roleplay.  It happens when I am involved with things my character cares about.

Quote from: Manzanaro;881571So, 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?

• By determining how Chess or a similar game is used in that world, culturally or socially.
• Based on that, determining what opportunities for play there would be, and the effects, if any, success or failure would have to the character's reputation.
• Determining to what degree the game allows people to rise above their social station for the duration of the game and what advantages that might be for a player.  
• Determining what players exist, particularly those whose professions or standings may lead PCs to seek them out.

Once I know all that, the PC will be able to explore their interest in the setting and get what they want out of it.  

If the player wants me to come up with adventures specifically set around chess and present them in an interesting way so that they can shine.  Not gonna happen.  GMs are not storytellers.  You explore the world, and I'm doing my job, you'll find interesting answers to your questions.

Quote from: Manzanaro;881461So what I thought might be interesting to discuss is tools and techniques for doing this. How do you, whether as GM or player, promote a good compelling narrative under rules of simulation?

Good stories, in RPGs, and other media, come from interesting characters and interesting situations.

You set them up the same way: create an initial setting full of potential and characters that are designed to engage with it, and shit will go down.

Some best-practices:

Have dynamic, engaging NPCs whose plots and actions are likely to create conflict with the PCs.

Create PC's that have a reason to work together. One of the reasons that traditional D&D works so well is that the Party of Adventurers is designed from the ground up to cohere.

Create PCs that are designed to engage with the game situation. Again, the "Party of Adventurers" is a classic example -- you don't make a guy who would never go down in a dungeon unless you're being a prick (or you also create a reason he has to go down).

Create a situation & world that has a lot to do in it. If you're going for a long-running game, you want a lot of depth so that the interesting stuff doesn't run out.

These are the basics, I think.

You can get a pretty good story out of a complete sand-box game that way.

If you want something that's more focused and literary, you just be more explicit about character parameters and more detailed about the situation.

Example: Many years ago, I ran a one-shot game where the PCs were all medical students who were invited to have dinner with a frenemy of their beloved instructor.

I conceived of the game as a horror-story where -- ideally -- the game would play out with a literary arc: introduction, conflict, rising action, climax, end.

In this case, the introduction would be the PCs and NPCs eating dinner and their host would ask them why they wanted to become doctors. The man was a dark magician, looking for a host for his Mad God. He would select the most-venal of them but would aim to kill off anyone who didn't do it for the purest of motives.

In the "conflict" he would show them -- after dinner -- real magic: spontaneous generation of life -- and then offer to teach them 'real power' if they would procure a cadaver for him (a special one).

What they did next would be entirely up to them, but if they went along with it, he would try to get the most venal of them to be the Recipient of the Homoculous and then, if they submitted to the ritual, the demon-infested character would go full NPC and slaughter the rest of them.

------------------------------

I didn't plan to rail-road anything. If they'd decided to skip dinner and go joy-riding California, nothing would have stopped them... I wouldn't have much planned, and it would have been a very strange way for the game to go... but it wouldn't have been out of bounds.

During the game, I resolved to play it completely straight. The characters could have decided to attack the magician / teacher. They could have decided to go to the police. They could have decided to go full-cultist...

I had NPCs that I expected to drive interesting reactions -- they had motives and goals that would intersect well with magic (intellectual curiosity, lust for power, fear of failure, etc.)

I also wanted the tension to increase: in the beginning there was no real sense of danger (some ominous window dressing). I had ideas for humor and snappy banter, and some light interpersonal conflict so the characters could get to know the NPCs and have some experience playing their PCs.

Of course things would get serious after demonstration of magic was grotesque and unnerving, but also striking. Still there wasn't exactly danger yet.

The mission to get the cadaver was actually violent, and criminal and dangerous. There was a good chance of combat and real risk of injury to the characters.

I figured after that things would either fall apart or the PCs would go through with the ritual and then a slaughter, leaving only the innocent.

-------------------------------------------------

As it actually played out, the game was gripping and intense. The action rose the way I wanted it to, building to an a very interesting decision (an NPC was gravely wounded during the mission, and one of the PCs volunteered for the ritual to try to get magic to save him).

The actual ending wasn't what I expected though: one of the PC's had enough combat skill and luck to actually kill both the housekeeper and the mad doctor and the demon-possessed PC. Virtually all the NPCs were dead, the survivor stumbled out of the house covered in blood into the morning sunlight.

---------------------------------------------------

I think games set up this way, and allowed to unspool wherever the PCs take them can make for optimal roleplaying. I can't imagine getting anything like that level of satisfaction or emotional engagement (immersion?) from a game where action was driven mechanically.

Cheers,
-E.

Manzanaro send me a PM and I will comp you a PDF copy of my Scourge of the Demon Wolf.

It will show you what what I am talking about when it comes to creating interesting adventures with a strong plot without having to resort to narrative mechanics or railroading. The Scourge only works  well if the players act if as they are there as their characters.

You can read a review about it here.

http://tenfootpole.org/ironspike/?p=1307