>Narrative and Simulationist results can be equally realistic AFTER THE
>FACT. Simulation determines the factors beforehand, rolls the dice,
>and reads the result. Narrative rolls the dice, then decides what the
>factors MUST HAVE BEEN to produce that result. ...
Not the way I run it, it doesn't.
To me narative V. simulationist is much more about scenario design than than it is about actualy running the game. Of course the two cross over, as quite often a Narrator will have to adapt a scenario on the fly to take into account unanticipated choices by the players.
A Narative scenario designer might set a winter scenario during a snow storm to provide an interesting and challenging obstacle to the players, in addition to the main plot line. A simulationist GM will roll randomly for the weather based on the climate tables for the region in which the game is set. Which is most realistic? To me that's not an interesting question. So long as a snow storm in that season and in that region is credible, why does it matter? In another situation I might substitute a rain storm, or a sand storm. Do you think William Shakespear randomly rolled for the weather when he started writing The Tempest? I don't think so.
I actualy disagree quite strongly with Robin's approach to narative gaming. To me, the way in which the players try to tackle a problem and describe their character's actions should have a strong influence on the outcome of a contest. Fortunately HW provides plenty of mechanisms for this. The AP bid reflects the riskyness on a character's actions, while appropriateness modifiers and ability enhancements can change the target number rolled against.
Every diced game notionaly requires that the player and GM come up with an rationalisation for why a character succeeded or failed at an ability roll, should they be interested in knowing it.
Andreas Mueller :
>> Why do you think that naratively determined rules are going to be
>> any less realistic than strictly simulationist ones?
>
>Because they are inconsistent nearly 70% of the time.
*Boggle*
...
>You are right. But in short: These numbers are not going to be printed
>_but_ are design guidelines for official scenarios. I'd like to have
>consistent numbers which may be influenced by scenario needs, but are not
>solely based upon them. No player is going to understand, why it's very
>hard to read the tracks of a camp (when the narrator feels, that the
>outcome isn't important or worse, doesn't want to be distracted from his
>story line or doesn't want to make something up at that moment) and the
>pursuit of the main enemy through waters and creeks to the place of the
>final showdown is comparably simple or same target number.
I don't think any of us would agree with such a plainly ridiculous GM ruling. I don't see what that's got to do with narative Vs simulationist.
The information contained in your tables is good and usefull information, but from a narative point of view, I think it's the wrong way round. Your table says that if the players are in terrain the modifier is +X, what I'd like to know is if I want tracking to be hard for the players, what kind of terrain or environmental factors will make it hard? It's just another way of looking at the same problem. I'd also like the freedom to determine the modifiers myself. After all, not all snow is the same depth, powderiness, etc. Maybe tracking on this rocky ground is easier than on that rocky ground, etc. The numbers aren't important to me, but the factors that I as GM might need to take into account are. That's why your tables are usefull.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail