Quote from: Manzanaro;897579Here is the thing. If you don't understand something I am saying? You could just ASK me. And not by jumping to unfounded conclusions about what I'm saying, but by saying things like, "What do you mean when you say ?"

I understand what you're saying. The issue is that the last few posts have been clarifications of what I've said which you seem to misinterpret. I don't need to ask myself what I mean and since you're always so rude and trigger happy to call me an idiot I thought it right to mock you with the term manzanarian.

That aside, do you have anything of value that I can take to my gaming table to get good narrative from rules of simulation?

No I do not.

Quote from: Saurondor;897508My point is not that "I don't use numbers", it's that I don't use numbers to represent skills nor difficulties (be that task or conflict), I use prose. Prose is converted to numbers (die rolls) and the outcome back to prose. Numbers are used, just not used to "store skill sets on the character sheet". Unlike Manzanaro's position which seems to require numbers to represent skills which can be used in a "simulation". I'll state this again so Manzanaro can get it even when reading this in Manzanarian, it's not a requirement to store character skills in a numerical way on the character sheet for such information to be usable in a simulation.

As long as you can compare skill level A with skill level B in terms of greater-than, less-than, or equal-to, and so long as whenever A > B and B > C it is automatically true that A > C, then your set of skill levels shares all of the relevant properties as numbers.

I understand you're basically saying that Manzanaro was trying to twist what you were saying so he could play a game of gotcha.

I'm also criticizing what your saying. But I'm coming at it from a different angle. Namely that storing information as prose the way you are doing does absolutely nothing that storing it as numbers won't do.

Contrast this with how I described Health in the Lejendary Adventure RPG. Because it combines mental and physical aspects, so the game numbers aren't painted on the characters' chests. High health could mean a physically hulking figure, or it could be a small but mentally tough Harry Houdini type. Because Health rating interfaces with the game mechanics, it saves a step to just give it a number. Meanwhile, the prose is saved for the individual character. It's not limited to a set of 6 or whatever adjectives.

And the effects of the prose? Which character is going to best be able to slip through the narrow passage? Harry Houdini or Beefy Biff? And which of the two companions would be better for the rogue to follow closely behind if he wishes to remain unseen? They are different, but not in a way that can be compared in terms of greater-than, less-than, equal-to. These descriptives cannot be substituted with numbers like yours can.

QuoteThere's a point in which temperature can be both seen as warm or cold. In a similar way a character's skill may be kinda experienced, more expert than experienced, less masterish than master, or somewhat masterish.

You have to be careful here. This does not necessarily follow. Just look at temperature alone. Is temperature fuzzy? Yes, if you're asking people about the weather. But the answer is no if you're leaving out a dish of water overnight. It's either cold enough to create ice or it isn't.

I could choose to use broad terms and say Johnny is a better guitar player than Alex. But then I observe that Alex is actually better at playing these six songs. Does that mean their skill levels are fuzzy? Not necessarily. Maybe the reason Alex is better at those six songs is because they have personal meaning to him, he has a passion that drives him to practice harder than Johnny on those six songs, and a passion that comes through in his renditions. Johnny still has a higher skill rating in an absolute sense. It's just that passion is more salient than skill. So when the passion factor comes into play on these six songs, it trumps skill.

QuoteNotice the black beginners line reaching far below the legendary curve. There are very small odds of winning, but none the less beginner's luck is there!

That's not the beginners luck I was talking about. I was imagining a system where in the beginner is superior to the legendary character, who in turn is superior to the experienced character, who is in turn superior to the beginner. Kind of like rock-paper-scissors. A system like that would have thwarted the argument that skill ratings are all just numbers.

But what you provide are probability distributions, which in turn are defined sets, which in turn can be up for Pareto-style comparisons. And the way your probability distributions are generated ensures that the legendary character is always superior in a Pareto sense than the others. This, again, means the stats are ordered and transitive, meaning they can be treated as linear quantities. And by linear here, I mean line not as opposed to "curve" but line as opposed to "plane". In other words, I mean one-dimensional. Up and down a number line. The same way simple numbers work.

Quote from: Lunamancer;897686As long as you can compare skill level A with skill level B in terms of greater-than, less-than, or equal-to, and so long as whenever A > B and B > C it is automatically true that A > C, then your set of skill levels shares all of the relevant properties as numbers.

Back in grade school my teacher used to line us up in alphabetical order by last name, effectively ordering us by a comparison operation. Yet my last name is not a number. I really can't multiply my last name with yours for example.

Secondly, an experienced character may at times beat an expert one so the expression ' experienced' < ' expert' is sometimes true and sometimes false. This is not consistent with numbers. Ten isn't greater than nine sometimes and then smaller some other time. It's always greater than nine.

That skills are converted to numbers is true. This is done by the die roll that provides the numerical value on which the actual operation is performed. An expert pc may roll a 12 and an expert npc an 11. In this case pc > npc although expert = expert.

This is not complicated. Summary:

It was suggested that a simulation could be run purely based on narrative text, like, "Bill is a strong warrior".

I stated that this narrative information needed to be converted into numeric form in order to function as a model under rules of simulation.

It was suggested that I was wrong because words could be corresponded with specific numeric variables, like "Expert equals 2d6".

I observed that this was no different than I had just stated.

Simple, right? Yet it takes multiple pages of "debate" which doesn't go anywhere at all.

This is what you stated.

QuoteVery often, we seek to simulate a given thing by first abstracting it and then quantifying it. And one idea that we often end up with is that things like skills and abilities can be given numeric ratings so that one person has Farming skill 3 and another has Farming skill 5. Does this map precisely to how things work in reality? Of course not, but a) it is certainly more precise than a verbal description of equivalent length and b) numbers tend to lend themselves to processes of simulation much better than text descriptions do.

Your claim is that it's more precise than a verbal description of equivalent length. I commented that it's not necessarily so and gave the language example in which it can be inferred that my character knows a local language due to the time spent deployed. I don't need to write down Pashto 3 on the character sheet, nor deny the player a roll if the language isn't written down.

In the example Pashto is nowhere on the character sheet, not as number not as text. It maps much better that the list format you mention and you even point out that yourself that lists aren't the best option.

Regarding b, yes, numbers do lend themselves better to a process of simulation and that's why skills are converted to numbers by using die rolls. But they're not stored as numbers. Farming at 3 and farming at 3x2 makes numerical sense, it's three and six respectively. Farming expert and farming expert x 2 does not. What's the value of expert x 2? If the experts work together at a task do I roll expert x 3? What value would that be?

Farming Skill 4 is shorter than Farmer Skill Expert.

Regarding precision "expert" is by no means a precise term. If it has a precise meaning in your system it is one that you have precisely assigned beyond the standard meaning of the term.

Similarly writing down "I was stationed in Okinawa for 2 years," does nothing whatsoever to precisely communicate my fluency in Japanese. The statement, in regards to a character, may lead you to certain narrative assumptions. It may lead me to OTHER assumptions that entirely are possible, given the statement.

The fact that such a statement would be seen by you as a precise indicator towards further assumptions not actually conveyed by the statement explains a great deal.

Quote from: Manzanaro;897747Farming Skill 4 is shorter than Farmer Skill Expert.

Regarding precision "expert" is by no means a precise term.

Farming X, U, M, L, etc. is even shorter!

It may not be precise numerically, but if I don't know the system farming 4 means nothing.

That's right. Neither does 17 Strength, or 22 HP. These things are terms of the simulation. I am not talking here about their precise narrative clarity (which is going to be abstract) but clarity for purposes of the rules of simulation. So while your X, U, and etc. may be as precise as raw numbers, this only holds true if you are able to decode their actual meaning of 2d6 or 2d8 or whatever. And note that you are decoding the symbols into numeric variables before actually being able to use them in your process of simulation. You would be unable to DIRECTLY plug in words like "strong" or "talented" or "possessing 4 years military experience" into any rules of simulation I am aware of.

Is that more clear? Do you understand me now? It is okay to say "yes".

Quote from: Manzanaro;897747Farming Skill 4 is shorter than Farmer Skill Expert.

Regarding precision "expert" is by no means a precise term.

Farming X, U, M, L, etc. is even shorter!

It may not be precise numerically, but if I don't know the system farming 4 means nothing.

Quote from: Manzanaro;897755That's right. Neither does 17 Strength, or 22 HP. These things are terms of the simulation. I am not talking here about their precise narrative clarity (which is going to be abstract) but clarity for purposes of the rules of simulation. So while your X, U, and etc. may be as precise as raw numbers, this only holds true if you are able to decode their actual meaning of 2d6 or 2d8 or whatever. And note that you are decoding the symbols into numeric variables before actually being able to use them in your process of simulation. You would be unable to DIRECTLY plug in words like "strong" or "talented" or "possessing 4 years military experience" into any rules of simulation I am aware of.

Is that more clear? Do you understand me now? It is okay to say "yes".

Yes I understand you, I just don't agree and not agreeing with you doesn't mean I don't understand you and that you need to repeat it.

Sure, I can't plug words directly into the simulation, I need to convert them to values the simulation can understand. But I more interested in "plugging" then into the player's mind and facilitate usability. To the inexperienced player unskilled, expert, master and legendary mean more than 2, 5, 7, 9, etc. If the player is used to games with skill ranges between 1 and 20, 4 may seem little if the game's range is not initially known our understood.

Yeah, why agree with me when you can just change the subject without even mentioning what you disagree with? Agreement is weakness!

Quote from: Manzanaro;897764Yeah, why agree with me when you can just change the subject without even mentioning what you disagree with? Agreement is weakness!

In what way am I changing the subject?

lolz

Quote from: Manzanaro;897776lolz

LOLZ? are you following at all? It's the more narrative from rules of simulation thread. I'm talking about a prose representation of the character that's converted to a numeric representation for simulation purposes and back to prose to narrate outcomes. This is different from your discrete list of skills and numbers, but hardly off topic. Now, you might not agree with it, but that doesn't make it off topic because the thread doesn't include "according to Manzanaro" in the title.