Indeed. And as the conversation has developed, we've identified this as the distinctive element in narrative games as opposed to "simulationist" ones. (There's been some dissatisfaction expressed about that word.)
Purely as a mathematician, I would say it requires there to be some mathematical 'transform' which can map a state of Y onto a state of X. So, if I were to take the current positions velocities, and masses of the planets, and Newton's Laws of Motion, and his Law of Gravity, I can write a pretty good simulation of the Solar System in the sense that this is enough data to extrapolate their positions, or at the very worst a set of positions that are a plausible outcome of the current state, some time into the future. There is some sort of relationship that would hold between X (the actual positions/velocities of the planets at some future time) and Y (the outcome of my simulation). Thus I can say this is truly a simulation, and it might even reveal as-of-yet-unknown traits of the real system, like orbital resonances, or modes of instability that exist in both the simulation and the real system which ARISE NATURALLY in each due to analogous components of both systems. This is the sort of thing that is generally meant by 'simulation'. In engineering the meaning is similar, a simulation of a nuclear power plant will model a core meltdown when the main coolant loop fails, not because this is coded into it, but because the model itself represents the essential elements of the real system such that its state will evolve in a way that is related to the state of the real system under analogous inputs.
Right, and those differences are, potentially, meaningful in terms of what sort of game results, how the fiction plays out, what choices exist for the players, etc.
precisely. In no way is my commentary directed as some sort of derogatory statement. It is simply intended as a point from which explication can start. My intent is to show the common ground between different approaches to running games. I see the subject matter of this thread, plot armor, minions, and presumably similar stuff if I can extrapolate from the OP a bit, as closely related to the 'sim' question. I personally think that if we sheer away answers to questions like "why would we not use minions" that amount to "they aren't good simulations of monsters" then we can analyze more fundamental aspects of the question, answers that get us closer to understanding the essence of WHY we choose certain patterns of RPG game design as well as play techniques.
That dramatic importance is kind of interesting to me, from a literary perspective, because it suggests a set of narrative 'rules' in terms of what things can and can't mean to the story as a whole. Meanwhile, I can certainly think of stories where the dramatic importance comes ironically, from the meaninglessness of the events in a greater thematic sense-- subverting the seeming narrative and pointing to the ephemerality of life or some such. I think its somewhat contextual to our time and place that the second thing is such a vitally important consideration, the prioritization of plot as the purpose and driver of the story.
Sure, such stories exist. I think seeking such stories through RPGs is likely to be a pretty rarefied taste, but it's a big world! I certainly don't have much interest in playing that out.
Well, I certainly cannot disagree. OTOH I don't think victory, ultimately, needs to be assured in what we call big 'N' narrative games. That is, the Wandering Souls in our BitD game absolutely could be crushed like bugs and fail utterly in achieving their ultimate agenda, yet that would be a fine and dramatic outcome. Heck, when we discussed the potential final states of the game, the primary conclusion was that it probably DOES NOT end in some sort of big victory. Not being defeated is probably going to look more like the character's riding off into the sunset like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. The story is ALL ABOUT the journey, the destination is, at most, sort of like the last chapters of Return of the King, an interesting epilogue basically.
Yes. As I said above, we don't insist the dragon be slain. Only that the result be moving, that it drive character development and plot, no matter what happens.
Oh, that's for sure. I don't really see a meaningful difference when it comes to challenge between "success is assured, regardless of how smartly characters act", "failure is assured, regardless of how smartly characters act", "the outcome is decided by tallying Victory Points, regardless of how smartly characters act" or even "somebody at the table just decides, prioritizing good story, regardless of how..."
