Quote from: Bren;891095:boohoo:

I'm probably being unfair to you Bren. So go ahead and just lay out your point. Just explain your interest in the thread and what it is you want to say.

Quote from: Manzanaro;891097Dude.... You didn't answer shit.

Not in the last post I did not. You're right at that! But I've answered quite a bit over the past few posts and to be honest you really can't blame me for reader comprehension, or lack thereof.

Quote from: Manzanaro;891097You, in particular, are largely incoherent.

And I've not even gotten around to talking about information entropy and dice mechanics, but well..

Quote from: Manzanaro;891097Like, seriously, I tried to talk to you at first, but you just move from one non sequitur to another, demanding explanations of remarks no one has made.

Maybe not made, but implied; certainly. More so, you've raised the issue of some sort of "non plus ultra" simulation mechanism that would theoretically spare us the undesirable experience of authored content. Unaware of the complexity implied in creating something like AlphaGo to play a game of Go you want to sponsor the idea of developing AlphaRole to play a role playing game and actually simulate human "judgment", and all of this with the computational power of pen and paper and a few dice. Now you claim this to be impossible, but then refuse to accept human contribution to the simulation process. For you a human ruling is not "good enough", "not real enough"; a "perversion of simulation" if you'll allow me the expression. If you want to work on the abstract, then great! I'll follow along. I really love that sort of stuff. On the other hand if you want practical solutions that are applicable to a tabletop, with tabletop resources, within acceptable time limits so the pizza doesn't get cold by the time we finish determining damage, well, you've really got to yield somewhere. Last and not least, if you want to be taken seriously with your ideas; no matter how upset and pissed you are, don't use bad words, it just makes you look less smart.

[/QUOTE]

Quote from: Saurondor;891109Maybe not made, but implied; certainly. More so, you've raised the issue of some sort of "non plus ultra" simulation mechanism that would theoretically spare us the undesirable experience of authored content.

Except, here is the thing. Your extrapolations of my implications have proven to be unerringly faulty. And I actually brought this up before. I asked you not to extrapolate from what I am saying and expect me to respond to it. Remember? Because you are putting words in my mouth that have nothing to do with anything I have actually said.

Just for example, you say I have raised the idea of a "non plus ultra" etc. that would spare us the "undesirable experience of authored content"? The thing is, I have done no such thing. Seriously, go back and look. You won't find it because I didn't say it. This is one of your faulty extrapolations.

In no way do I find authored content "undesirable" except in specific cases where it is being passed off as a product of simulation, such as when someone fudges the dice. I have covered this in multiple places by now I am pretty sure.

And human input into an RPG is obviously fine. It just isn't simulation. e.g. the human input is a real unsimulated thing. It is meta to the simulation. When I say what my character does, I am not simulating his thought processes and words, I am just making that shit up.

Please don't extrapolate from this. If anything just think about what I am saying.

And as far as my using bad words making me look stupid? That's just my way. When people come at me confrontationally instead of in the spirit of actual discussion? Fuck them.

Quote from: Manzanaro;891121Except, here is the thing. Your extrapolations of my implications have proven to be unerringly faulty. And I actually brought this up before. I asked you not to extrapolate from what I am saying and expect me to respond to it. Remember? Because you are putting words in my mouth that have nothing to do with anything I have actually said.

Just for example, you say I have raised the idea of a "non plus ultra" [simulation mechanism] etc. that would spare us the "undesirable experience of authored content"? The thing is, I have done no such thing. Seriously, go back and look. You won't find it because I didn't say it. This is one of your faulty extrapolations.

In no way do I find authored content "undesirable" except in specific cases where it is being passed off as a product of simulation, such as when someone fudges the dice. I have covered this in multiple places by now I am pretty sure.

And human input into an RPG is obviously fine. It just isn't simulation. e.g. the human input is a real unsimulated thing. It is meta to the simulation. When I say what my character does, I am not simulating his thought processes and words, I am just making that shit up.

Please don't extrapolate from this. If anything just think about what I am saying.

And as far as my using bad words making me look stupid? That's just my way. When people come at me confrontationally instead of in the spirit of actual discussion? Fuck them.

OK the issue here is that I see human content as simulation. Others here see human contribution to the story as part of the simulation as well.

You are right, you have not said "non plus ultra" etc. that would spare us the "undesirable experience of authored content" and if I go back and grep the hell out of this thread I will find no word by word match. Nonetheless that is what you have implied. Let me quote you again just in case the bold part was not clear enough:

QuoteIn no way do I find authored content "undesirable" except in specific cases where it is being passed off as a product of simulation

So if I try to pass something off as a product of simulation you will find it to be "undesirable" authored content. Now why would I try to pass something off as a product of simulation? Well because myself as well as others believe a human mind can apply a model over time to create a simulation.

So let me try to put this all together. My thesis is:

Quoteyou've raised the issue of some sort of "non plus ultra" simulation mechanism that would theoretically spare us the undesirable experience of authored content.

You claim that to be false and add to this that I'm putting words in your mouth. Yet you say the following:

• In no way do I find authored content "undesirable" except in specific cases where it is being passed off as a product of simulation
• And human input into an RPG is obviously fine. It just isn't simulation. e.g. the human input is a real unsimulated thing
• When I say what my character does, I am not simulating his thought processes and words

So according to 1, authored content not product of a simulation is "undesirable". Corollary 1a: there must be authored content product of a simulation which is "desirable". Namely "authored content product of a simulation".

According to 2 human input is not a simulation. Since there is nobody else but humans at the table all RPG input must be of human origin. so there is clearly human input which is product of a simulation. Namely (according to corollary 1a) authored content product of a simulation.

Now this authored content product of a simulation requires that the simulation be able to handle all the situations that arise or make a "judgement" call to resolve it if no rule exists at that point. To allow a judgement from outside the simulation would be to taint it and the authored content would not be purely a product of simulation and thus "undesirable".

It is this ability to make a judgement call what I refer to as a "non plus ultra" simulation mechanism. It is this which I have referred to as AlphaRole, a tabletop role play game rule set that's self aware and able to expand itself by making judgement calls in a way a human does, and by doing so author content independently form human intervention. It is this content which you are happy to accept as simulation and is thus "desirable".

Now let me make a pause and refer to point 3. You don't simulate your character's thought processes. You probably don't simulate your NPCs thought processes either when the NPCs say what they say. So whatever you provide as NPC input in the form of words and actions is authored content of the "undesirable" kind. Unless of course it is product of the simulation itself. To do that though you need AlphaRole, a system capable of making judgement calls on behalf of your NPCs. A system capable of taking certain character parameters and "emulating" human decision. These parameters may start at something like the Pendragon game, but soon you'll find these limited and the game will have to grow. You can't grow it on your own because judgment has to come from the simulation. A simulation so elaborate it might make Skynet look like an abacus.

At that point you might realize that all you've done is simulate human intellect and that such a simulation may be just as arbitrary, impulsive and unreliable as you expect your fellow human beings to be. It's a bit of a philosophical question. Can you create a system that simulates human thought without bringing over certain other human features as unwanted baggage? And if you do, and can do so with just pen, paper and dice, then what the heck are you doing here wasting your time with us? NASA needs you. Go colonize Mars. Get out of here!

Anyway, tell us, how do you play a character? Do you always play yourself in armor with a sword? Or maybe you're the magic user type and play yourself in a robe. Point is, if you're not simulating your character's thought process then you clearly don't have a model (by the definitions you've provided). Nothing that represents what your character is, nothing that represents what your NPCs are.

From your wikipedia quote:

QuoteThe model represents the system itself, whereas the simulation represents the operation of the system over time.

Roleplaying a character is clearly an operation over time as your character exists "in game" and there is an "in game" perception of time (as well as an out of game one). It seems you might be lacking a model, why else is it not a simulation?

You have nothing that represents your character, it is simply you. If you at least had a few guideline values in the way Pendragon has then you might be on the right track. For you describing your character in that way and applying such a model over time represents a simulation (if you're playing Pendragon like games), but oddly enough playing out your character around a set of "implicit" attributes is not a simulation when playing other RPGs simply because they "lack rules"?

By now you're surely back to your opinion that:

QuoteYou [Saurondor], in particular, are largely incoherent.

The path to making all this coherent again is accepting that humans can produce a simulation by applying a model over time and that such a model can be a character description I have nowhere else but in my head. More so I'd add that particularly in character interaction you can't tell the difference. What are you expecting to do? Look into the character model in the simulation and conclude what the NPC will do like you can look into the barrel of a gun and estimate projectile trajectory based on what you see? Is this the real reason behind this quest for "simulation" so you may see and examine the model so you can play the system to your advantage? Or complain with the GM that the NPC would not do that because according to "the model" the odds of such a decision is 1.24% and it's impossible it just happened, it must have been GM fiat.

Because if it's not what you seek then you're just in a futile quest for AlphaRole the "non plus ultra" simulation mechanism.

QuoteSo according to 1, authored content not product of a simulation is "undesirable".

This is wrong. In fact it is pretty much the opposite of what I said. And so every bit of extrapolation down the line has nothing to do with anything that I said.

You are still extrapolating, and I am sorry but you are not good at it.

There is, to my mind, no such thing as authored content that is a product of a simulation. It is one or the other. Something happens in an RPG because either a) the rules of simulation (such as combat rules) dictate it happening, or b) someone said that it happened and they had narrative authority.

That is it. That is my premise. Neither of these things are bad. I have not said they are bad.

Look. How about instead of me individually refuting all of your ideas about what I mean? You just don't extrapolate at all. You accept what I actually say as what I actually mean. Do you think you could do that?

Are any of these sentences confusing to you?

Quote from: Manzanaro;891153Something happens in an RPG because either a) the rules of simulation (such as combat rules) dictate it happening, or b) someone said that it happened and they had narrative authority. That is it.

or the vast majority of RPG happenings, c) someone was roleplaying.  Oh yeah, that's right, there is no such thing, only creating stories as you play.  I forgot.

Good to know at least the thread is still true to form and hasn't really left page 1.

Quote from: CRKrueger;891156or the vast majority of RPG happenings, c) someone was roleplaying.  Oh yeah, that's right, there is no such thing, only creating stories as you play.  I forgot.

Good to know at least the thread is still true to form and hasn't really left page 1.

Roleplaying is saying what happens. It falls under category B. This isn't rocket science.

Quote from: Manzanaro;891157Roleplaying is saying what happens. It falls under category B. This isn't rocket science.

Roleplaying has nothing to do with narrative authority, and you're right, that's not rocket science, it's self-evident in fact.

Quote from: CRKrueger;891183Roleplaying has nothing to do with narrative authority, and you're right, that's not rocket science, it's self-evident in fact.

It is saying what a character does and says. What characters you are allowed to do this for is indeed a matter of narrative authority.

Quote from: Manzanaro;891191It is saying what a character does and says. What characters you are allowed to do this for is indeed a matter of narrative authority.

Right,  so making it a simulation would require you to simulate human or humanoid responses through the rules. This is like trying to run a NES64 emulator inside a NES64 to run old NES64 games. You already have the NES64 so just run the games on it directly. You already have the human player so let the player role play the character and call it a simulation.

Quote from: Manzanaro;891153

QuoteSo according to 1, authored content not product of a simulation is "undesirable".

This is wrong. In fact it is pretty much the opposite of what I said. And so every bit of extrapolation down the line has nothing to do with anything that I said.

The content I'm referring to is that which derives from judgment calls made by the players and not judgment calls made by the simulation. That is when the set rules are not complete enough to cover a situation at hand and the player has make a ruling.

Quote from: Manzanaro;891153There is, to my mind, no such thing as authored content that is a product of a simulation. It is one or the other. Something happens in an RPG because either a) the rules of simulation (such as combat rules) dictate it happening, or b) someone said that it happened and they had narrative authority.

The issue arises when A) the rules of simulation fail to address an issue and a ruling must be made and B) when the elements controlled by authored/narrative content overshadow the mechanics of the simulation.

Under A you quest for AlphaRole, a system whose simulation rules can make judgment calls of its own. Under B you want to simulate PC and NPC decision making so the GM can't arbitrarily place the NPC in a spot the bow and arrow can't reach and in doing so trash you plan.

It seems you see all human decision to be bias and specifically biased against you. You want to get rid of this human bias and still keep the narrative aspect so the game doesn't seem like this cold mathematical lecturing process.

The catch is that is easier to grow up and become a mature GM or player than it is to create AlphaRole. There is no guarantee AlphaRole will be better and less biased than a human peer in making a "simulated judgment". Such systems are "not programmed to win" they're programmed to "learn", winning comes after a learning process, and the decision making process is based on learned experience. If AlphaRole's learning process is different than yours the decision making process will be different and you can perceive it as biased, just like you do with us in this thread.

So sit back and take a moment to ponder on the fact that we may not be as thick as you believe, not as stupid as you think and not just asses as you have us made out to be. Maybe we're just different iterations of AlphaRole, each with different gaming backgrounds. We're just trying to express our point of view. Maybe you should just entertain the idea of a human based simulation, if only for theoretical purposes, and see where that leads you to.

Quote from: Saurondor;891212Right,  so making it a simulation would require you to simulate human or humanoid responses through the rules. This is like trying to run a NES64 emulator inside a NES64 to run old NES64 games. You already have the NES64 so just run the games on it directly. You already have the human player so let the player role play the character and call it a simulation.

Yeah, basically.

I was thinking of it like this.

Imaging stepping into a Star Trek style Holodeck. Is the Holodeck a simulation? Unquestionably, yes.

Now what if the designers of the Holodeck came to realize that no amount of computer code could satisfactorily imitate human behavior. Turing test and all that jazz. So in a great sci-fi twist, somewhere in the galaxy is a farm of humans whose every move is monitored and relayed to the holodeck computer. Whenever you, inside the holodeck, do something, that action is transmitted over to the farm where a true-to-life projection of you does that thing in the presence of the humans on the farm, how they act or react in turn is then transmitted back to the holodeck computer so the holodeck can display to you a realistic simulation.

RPGs are kind of like that, with a couple of major exceptions.

1) RPGs are more ethical because we're using willing participants instead of a farm of guinea pigs.
2) RPGs are not that high-tech. We do it without the super computer.

But also note, we haven't cut out the "middle man" entirely. When I speak in character, my character speaks those words. But the character doesn't necessarily have my voice, my body language, etc. If he's not a smooth talker, he may stumble on the words. Alternatively, if I speak in a facetious tone, let's say due to some out-of-character humor that's going back and forth across the game table, that doesn't mean my character is speaking in a facetious tone.

In other words, I am not my character and my character is not me. I am a human cog. Just like when a computer program calls a function, it passes in certain parameters (just like the GM passes me the game state through his narration), and I return a value. In this case, what I return is a string of text that says what the character is doing. The main program assimilates this into the game state and calls the next function--say, the NPC speaking back to me, and now the GM is the cog, the function that spits back text based on the parameters of the game state.


Now Manzanaro only has five options from here. Based on my understanding of human action and motivation, and hearkening back to my example of a character being swept down river and how it still doesn't keep him from adjusting course to push forward toward the goal, I'm guessing he'll probably choose E:

A) Say I'm wrong because I'm mistaken on exception #1 above. Only unethical means of extracting human information count as simulation.
B) Say I'm wrong because I'm mistaken on exception #2 above. Only high tech super computers can run a simulation.
C) Say I'm wrong because when doing character dialog, you ARE your character and vice versa and your character is speaking with your every tone and inflection and body language and conviction, and if I'm playing a female character, too bad, she's speaking with my bass-baritone voice.
D) Admit that A, B, and C are ridiculous, my case is air-tight, and I'm right.
E) Continue to prove his lack of desire for any real discussion and just refuse to engage in any semblance of logic.

Maybe this will help clear up this mess of a thread.

In Manzanaro World

   simulation = (1) a set of rules that are followed mechanically without interpretation or variance, (2) something that can be automated or programmed into a computer.

judgments by the GM  = (1) an author writing what happens next in their story, (2) a storyteller saying what happens next in their story.

GM rulings =(1) the "GM states what happens based purely on his own personal feelings", (2) judgments by the GM.

In Everybody Else World
   judgments by the GM  =  the GM determining something within the game world, see GM rulings.

GM rulings = the GM using a combination of logic, consistency, setting knowledge, and subject matter knowledge to determine what happens in a situation where existing rules don't cover the situation. Note that due to the problem of incompleteness, rulings are an integral part of any RPG that isn't extremely narrow in scope.

simulations include not only mechanistic or automated systems but can also include actions and judgments of human beings; examples include referee mediated wargames, live training exercises, health care training using standard patients, disaster preparedness exercises, market and portfolio simulations, and of course, most tabletop RPGs.

Quote from: Manzanaro;891191It is saying what a character does and says. What characters you are allowed to do this for is indeed a matter of narrative authority.

Nope.  PCs have no narrative authority in a roleplaying game with no OOC mechanics because they cannot guarantee or skew results.  Saying "I attack the goblin" isn't narrative authority because roleplaying a character who is attacking a goblin isn't a form of narration or a form of storytelling, no matter how many times you want to pretend it is.  It's simply communication to the GM of what the character is doing because we're not doing a Boffo LARP.  Pretending that communication is a narrative so that you can then use every other possible definition of narrative to get the end result of "Roleplaying is creating stories" doesn't make it so.

The GM in a traditional game has full narrative authority.  Everything the characters intend to do is subject to the approval of the reality of the setting as determined by the GM.  Even the simple act of having a character say "Alaraun the Archmage is behind the attack on the city". may not actually occur because the PC might be subject to some form of Charm or Geas they don't know about.

The GM has perfect knowledge, and is the author, the PCs do not, they are experiencers and explorers, not storytellers by any sane accepted definition until they actually tell a story in character.

Quote from: Bren;891242Maybe this will help clear up this mess of a thread.

In Manzanaro World

   simulation = (1) a set of rules that are followed mechanically without interpretation or variance, (2) something that can be automated or programmed into a computer.

judgments by the GM  = (1) an author writing what happens next in their story, (2) a storyteller saying what happens next in their story.

GM rulings =(1) the "GM states what happens based purely on his own personal feelings", (2) judgments by the GM.

In Everybody Else World
   judgments by the GM  =  the GM determining something within the game world, see GM rulings.

GM rulings = the GM using a combination of logic, consistency, setting knowledge, and subject matter knowledge to determine what happens in a situation where existing rules don't cover the situation. Note that due to the problem of incompleteness, rulings are an integral part of any RPG that isn't extremely narrow in scope.

simulations include not only mechanistic or automated systems but can also include actions and judgments of human beings; examples include referee mediated wargames, live training exercises, health care training using standard patients, disaster preparedness exercises, market and portfolio simulations, and of course, most tabletop RPGs.

Let's not forget the...unique definitions of roleplaying and storytelling in Bizzanaro world as well.