Hey Saurondor, remember how in the past few posts I have asked you to stop extrapolating made up positions for me to defend?

Quote from: Saurondor;891215It 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.

You're still doing it. You seem to do it in almost every post you make.

I can not even imagine how you drew this conclusion from anything I said.

At any rate, I'm done responding to you making up perspectives for me that I don't have and have not suggested in any way.

Quote from: Lunamancer;891228Yeah, 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.

Thanks for laying out my options for me, but lets see if I can find an F).

First of all, let me say this whole premise is very bizarre and betrays that you are still grappling unsuccesfully with the idea of what simulation is.

Unless this hypothetical computer simulation takes place on a simulated "farm" that is a copy of the one you mention, it is not going to be very good at getting an accurate reaction from the real people.

But let's say you want to simulate someone's reaction to getting punched in the face. So, according to your model... you have someone get punched in the face and see what they do. So where does simulation come in? This guy is really getting punched in the face. How is that simulation?

But okay... Let's say for the sake of argument that it is.

So you go on to say that this is what we do in RPGs. So if you want to see how an imaginary person reacts to getting punched in the face, you just find some real person to volunteer for a face punching and then have the imaginary character react the same way? And you see this as simulation?

I have no words.

And then you go on to imply that humans are actually machines? Am I reading you right? And so anything we say happens in an RPG is a simulation processed by us as organic machines?

And then you ask, in a very round about way, whether I agree. Agree with what exactly? Can you sum up what you are asking me to agree with in a single sentence?

Here's how I look at it, using the same face punching example. A PC punches an NPC in the face: how does the NPC react and how did I determine that reaction as a GM?

Well, it depends on the game.

It may be that some actual rule of simulation applies. So I may ask the player to roll intimidation or have the NPC make a morale check or the like. Such a mechanic may then explicitly generate the NPCs reaction, or it may simply give me guidelines to narrate exactly how the NPC reacts.

Or, I may just make up a reaction that seems appropriate based on what I know of the situation. I may take into account any number of factors related to the PC and the NPC in terms of known characteristics and their relationship with each other. But even so, if I just decide what the NPC does, there is no simulation involved. I am just authoring the NPCs reaction. I can say that I am doing this based on tenets of simulation but it is not an actual simulation.

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.

Certainly I would not suggest that rules of simulation need to be followed without interpretation. I may decide to give a situational bonus to a roll that is not accounted for in the rules and I would still consider that operating on rules of simulation. But point 2? Yes.

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

This is silly. No writing is involved for one, and I have not said anything about 'stories' at all. To author is to create or originate. Not all GM judgments involve authorship,

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

Again you betray your willful incomprehension. I have never said that all GM rulings are based purely on personal feelings. What I said is that IF the GM makes rulings in which he determines what happens in the gameworld based upon nothing but his own personal feelings than this would not be a matter of simulation, but of authorship.

Quote from: CRKrueger;891323Nope.  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 PCs have no narrative authority, you say? Frankly I would not expect an imaginary character to have narrative authority. I am pretty sure you mean the "players' have no narrative authority, but I find it telling that you are unable to properly differentiate between a player and a character.

At any rate, you are wrong. "I attack the goblin" IS narrative. But I cannot overcome your inability or unwillingness to understand this, and frankly I'm not interested in pursuing this particular element of the discussion any further.

QuoteThe 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.

"Perfect knowledge"? How ludicrous.

The GM has authority to make shit up and have it be accepted as facts of the gameworld. That is what narrative authority means. It is not the same as perfect knowledge by any stretch of imagination.

Quote from: Bren;891242simulations 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.

One further note here. There are plenty of partial simulations that still get referred to simply as simulations. So for instance, we may have a live fire combat exercise that we call a 'simulation' and that's fine. But one would have to be quite foolish to suggest that the entire exercise was governed by rules of simulation, or that every element of said simulation were a simulated element. The people involved in the live fire exercise, for instance, are entirely real and unsimulated, as are the decisions and courses of action that they follow during the exercise.

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.

Dude, earlier on in the thread he tried to tell me it's not a simulation if you skip time, despite the fact that I literally wrote code for a computer simulation that does exactly that.

I think what's really going on is he seems to assume anything he didn't think of, or anything he lacks the intelligence or knowledge to see clear must not exist. The crackpot definitions are just a way of justifying his asinine dedication to his ill-informed conclusions in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

From Wikipedia article on simulation, opening paragraph:

QuoteSimulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time. The act of simulating something first requires that a model be developed; this model represents the key characteristics or behaviors/functions of the selected physical or abstract system or process. The model represents the system itself, whereas the simulation represents the operation of the system over time.

You ought to sort those crackpots over at Wikipedia out, Lunamancer.

Quote from: Manzanaro;891362One further note here. There are plenty of partial simulations that still get referred to simply as simulations. So for instance, we may have a live fire combat exercise that we call a 'simulation' and that's fine. But one would have to be quite foolish to suggest that the entire exercise was governed by rules of simulation, or that every element of said simulation were a simulated element. The people involved in the live fire exercise, for instance, are entirely real and unsimulated, as are the decisions and courses of action that they follow during the exercise.

In this case you are completely ignoring the purpose of the simulation.
Simulation is not only a completely closed system but also simulation up to a certain boundary with defined interfaces so that the simulation can be used for training, education, research or entertainment - like RPGs.


Regarding content control capacity (narrative control is too loaded I think):
Surely players and especially the GM has the opportunity to use it at several points of the game.
You could use it to influence the events in regard of narrative qualities, which is most often at odds with simulatoric intents.
But it also can count as simulatoric - if you apply the same mind frame and standards you would use when you intend to write simulating rules.

Quote from: Maarzan;891372In this case you are completely ignoring the purpose of the simulation.
Simulation is not only a completely closed system but also simulation up to a certain boundary with defined interfaces so that the simulation can be used for training, education, research or entertainment - like RPGs.

No, actually I'm not. Why do you even say this other than you don't like what I'm saying for some reason?

And if you want to call an RPG, for instance, a simulation? Go ahead. But do you really think that everything that happens within an RPG is the result of a process or rule of simulation? Surely not. If you do think so I can give any number of examples otherwise. And I can give you examples because I recognize the difference between a simulated element and an unsimulated element. It really is not even that hard to do.

Quote from: Manzanaro;891356Certainly I would not suggest that rules of simulation need to be followed without interpretation.

Interpretation is a human judgment which is not programmable.

QuoteThis is silly. No writing is involved for one, and I have not said anything about 'stories' at all. To author is to create or originate. Not all GM judgments involve authorship,

Whether or not writing is involved when a player states what his character is attempting depends on the medium of play. Online games make use of text or chat where statements are written. Tabletop play that is concerned with limiting out of character knowledge typically uses written notes as a way to communicate between a single player and the GM. So writing is definitely something that is used in RPGs.

Author is a word with a number of meanings. Many of those meanings come with a lot of baggage regarding telling stories, writing fiction, etc. You can just say "the GM determines" or "the GM creates." You don't need to say that the GM authors anything. Why use the word author at all?

QuoteAgain you betray your willful incomprehension. I have never said that all GM rulings are based purely on personal feelings. What I said is that IF the GM makes rulings in which he determines what happens in the gameworld based upon nothing but his own personal feelings than this would not be a matter of simulation, but of authorship.

It's not my willful incomprehension it's your poor writing and analytical ability. You are the person who introduced the idea of GM rulings based purely on personal feeling not me.

Now in my view, good GM's don't make rulings based purely on personal feeling. They might decides what color shirt an NPC wears based on purely on personal feeling, but deciding the color of the NPCs shirt is hardly a GM ruling.

Quote from: Manzanaro;891367From Wikipedia article on simulation, opening paragraph:

If you actually read beyond the opening paragraph you'd get to the part of the article that describes various simulations that include human participants making judgments and decisions.

Quote from: Manzanaro;891362One further note here. There are plenty of partial simulations that still get referred to simply as simulations. So for instance, we may have a live fire combat exercise that we call a 'simulation' and that's fine. But one would have to be quite foolish to suggest that the entire exercise was governed by rules of simulation, or that every element of said simulation were a simulated element. The people involved in the live fire exercise, for instance, are entirely real and unsimulated, as are the decisions and courses of action that they follow during the exercise.

Partial simulation is a term you just made up. It certainly isn't in the Wikipedia article on simulation that you previously cited as authoritative.

The people in the live fire exercises simulate acting in actual combat. That is the simulation. The participants make decisions that simulate the decisions they would make under actual combat conditions. Their decisions are part of the simulation.

We all understand that you don't agree with the definition of simulation including things other than mechanistic processes. However your dislike doesn't change the actual definition nor does it make your weird partial definition correct.

Quote from: Manzanaro;891375But do you really think that everything that happens within an RPG is the result of a process or rule of simulation?

The only person who thinks that a simulation only includes a process or rule is you. Everyone else recognizes that human judgment is not circumscribed by a process or rule and that human judgment is part of many types of simulations, among them, tabletop RPGs.

Make that 102 IQ.

Seriously... You have stooped to quibbling about my word choices now?

Why do I use the word 'author' which is precisely what I mean, rather than the longer, clumsier, and less correct phrases which you would find less confusing?

Because I'm not used to having to write down to stupid fucks. You know, like the kind of stupid fuck that thinks putting the words "partial" and "simulation" together is some kind of linguistic violation?

Or the kind that doesn't understand why I keep talking about rules of simulation when it is right there in the fucking thread title?

Oh, and 'partial definition' is a term you just made up. lolz

Quote from: Manzanaro;891375No, actually I'm not. Why do you even say this other than you don't like what I'm saying for some reason?

And if you want to call an RPG, for instance, a simulation? Go ahead. But do you really think that everything that happens within an RPG is the result of a process or rule of simulation? Surely not. If you do think so I can give any number of examples otherwise. And I can give you examples because I recognize the difference between a simulated element and an unsimulated element. It really is not even that hard to do.

Because I got the impression that you reject any "human factor" in connection with a simulation, because the human doesn´t get simulated.
But for quite a few types of simulation the interface with the human user is the directly in the purpose of the simulation.

Simulation is a style of RPG. It has to make some concessions in regard to being a shared social activity and limited resources.
So it is not the best simulation possible but with the fitting type of players it tries to be the best one possible under these circumstances.
This directly sets the limits what is acceptable for someone "authoring" here - and usually these are exactly the limits where sim players clash with players with other preferred styles.  

But I would like to see some of your examples.

Quote from: Manzanaro;891358"I attack the goblin" IS narrative. But I cannot overcome your inability or unwillingness to understand this, and frankly I'm not interested in pursuing this particular element of the discussion any further.

That's because when any of your Bizzanaro definitions are challenged, the House of Cards falls.  

I didn't know Walter Fisher had a cult, but it would explain much.

Quote from: Manzanaro;891427Why do I use the word 'author' which is precisely what I mean, rather than the longer, clumsier, and less correct phrases which you would find less confusing?

We continue to talk about semantics because you refuse to be consistent in your use of definitions and terms.

I think we know why you use the word "author" when you could just as easily avoid using a word with story creating associations. It's so you can equivocate on the different meanings of the word author by claiming the players and the GM are authoring every time they determine what a character attempts in the game world. That allows you to switch to authoring in the literary sense so you can then talk about how authoring can give you a better narrative. You then equivocate on the meanings of the word narrative to get to authoring to get a better story. It's the same song and dance you've been doing from page 1.

QuoteBecause I'm not used to having to write down to stupid fucks.

What you aren't used to doing is writing a reasonable and coherent argument. What you are used to doing is yelling and swearing like an eight-year old throwing a tantrum because mommy wouldn't give him a sweetie. And obviously you are much more interested in throwing a tantrum about semantics than you are in talking about what makes for an interesting RPG session. Your posting preferences make that quite clear.

QuoteYou know, like the kind of stupid fuck that thinks putting the words "partial" and "simulation" together is some kind of linguistic violation?

The only partial simulations are imaginations inside your head. The simulations I've mentioned and that others have mentioned use human judgment and decisions as an integral and essential part of the simulations. Yet those are actual simulations (they were listed right in the article you mentioned) not some sort of hybrid or partial simulation.

QuoteOr the kind that doesn't understand why I keep talking about rules of simulation when it is right there in the fucking thread title?

I don't understand why you can't comprehend that there are simulations that are not reducible to mechanical steps. You can string words together to form a coherent sentence (at least every now and then) so it is hard to believe you are just too fucking stupid to understand how simulations, like a refereed war game, actually work. But there we are.

Either you have some bizarre mental defect that prevents you understanding how human judgment and reason work or you are possessed by the spirit of Ron Edwards which causes you to foam at the mouth while mindlessly shouting Author, Author! Narrative, Narrative! :rolleyes:

Quote from: Maarzan;891372In this case you are completely ignoring the purpose of the simulation.

I've raised that point before, but in a different context. Namely that the purpose of simulation is imitation

In this context, however, I feel what he is ignoring is perspective.

QuoteSimulation is not only a completely closed system but also simulation up to a certain boundary with defined interfaces so that the simulation can be used for training, education, research or entertainment - like RPGs.

And this hits the nail right on the head.

Consider a mock trial. Sometimes these are run so an attorney can get some practice. From that attoney's perspective, it's no different from stepping into a holodeck. Every aspect, every human action and reaction, are all part of that simulation experience.

In an RPG, from the perspective of each individual player, the player may see himself as a player in a game. But to others, he's part of that holodeck experience. He's part of the simulation.