Quote from: gleichman;253691If you think I should be out the door, the proper action is not to be posting replies to me keeping me here. It's to shutup and get out of the way.

Right, but you think you should be out the door, right? So the proper thing for you to do is to stop posting replies that keep you here, it's to shut up and get out of your own way!

But you're right: if I'm keeping you here, and I want you to go take a break, I shouldn't continue to reply. So no matter how untrue and ridiculous the things you say from now on in this thread, I'll not attempt to argue with you. I'll just say, "Lollipop," and that'll be our secret code for, "I think you're incorrect, but to dispute you would be to unfairly keep you here."

Now, that means you'll be gone today, right? This thread's all wrapped up - yes, in a lollipop sort of way, but wrapped up - the religion results thread hasn't had anything since yesterday, and the gaming style hasn't had any action since 30 September. So you're done, right? We'll see you later?

Quote from: gleichman;253694By defintion the die abstraction covers all influences on the outcome of the event it covers expect for those influences directly reflected otherwise.

Thus if morale is not mechanically covered- it's abstracted into the die roll (for systems that use dice anyway).


You know, I didn't think you were this stupid. Are you refusing to understand something that simple out of spite, because I can't really imagine any other cause?

Ok...I'll raise my hand...I'm stupid...

Let me see if I can piece this together, out loud such as it is in a forum...

Anything not called out specifically is, by definition, included in the abstraction, in most cases represented by the roll of one or more dice.

Since morale is not called out specifically in System A, it can therefore be concluded that morale it part of the abstraction.

Is that correct?

ETA: We can continue this elsewhere if that is the consensus. As difficult as it may seem, Mr. Gleichman often has, IMHO, insightful things to reveal. Nothing good is free, as they say. So if you'd like, Mr. G, I'd be happy to question yo over at my place...

Quote from: gleichman;253682You know, I'm only following the advice you yourself gave me here: http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=252318&postcount=38

You're ability to give that advice, and then turn around and attack me for taking it is a nice hallmark of your character.

You know you love me really.

Quote from: Engine;253697Right, but you think you should be out the door, right? So the proper thing for you to do is to stop posting replies that keep you here, it's to shut up and get out of your own way!?

I made a promise to you that I'd post this thread, and I tend to keep promises unless something changes the conditions under which they were made.

One made, I also have a implied requirement to see it through.

Quote from: Engine;253697But you're right: if I'm keeping you here, and I want you to go take a break, I shouldn't continue to reply.

I'm starting to think you need a break Engine, even when you end up saying someone else is right- first you have to attack them as you did in the first quote. If I'm right, I'm right- and that should be the end of it.

Quote from: Engine;253697So no matter how untrue and ridiculous the things you say from now on in this thread, I'll not attempt to argue with you. I'll just say, "Lollipop," and that'll be our secret code for, "I think you're incorrect, but to dispute you would be to unfairly keep you here."

Why must you comment at all? Do I really control you that much?

Quote from: Engine;253697Now, that means you'll be gone today, right?

When the thread drops to the second page after a two or three days of inactivity.

Quote from: Engine;253690You're saying a morale system is unnecessary because it's reflected in the die-rolling abstraction, but unless the abstraction is based on morale in some way, it's really not. It gives the appearance of being there, yes, but unless it is effected by a morale factor, the abstraction cannot meaningfully represent morale; it just stands for "random factors," which are not specific.

Sure, you can say morale is one of those random factors, and that's cool, but morale will not actually have any effect: two characters who are identical in every way save their ability to be effected by morale will get the same results on the same die roll, meaning morale is not reflected in the abstraction. Omitting any attribute or factor which represents morale means that every character has the exact same ability to resist morale effects, which certainly doesn't meaningfully include morale, either.

I would agree with this. An abstraction is an abstraction "of" something. That is to say, you cannot say an abstracted combat has factors of the effects of a nearby super nova because you think it should. This makes no sense. You could make the argument that hit points decreasing is a reflection of morale but then you are making unfounded assumptions on the design of the system. So, in this manner, if you wanted, you could say similarly that fatigue, armor effectiveness, and environment are all abstractions of the hit point system. However, if Constitution was a factor in determining your hit points now you would have a basis for an abstraction. With morale, you have no factor figuring into your combat effectiveness and thus it would not follow that it is a part of the abstraction.

As you say, if morale stat was present, part of a hit point calculation, this would be an abstraction. However, without any reference to morale and it not factoring into combat somewhere, it would not be an abstraction.

Bill

Quote from: One Horse Town;253700You know you love me really.

Actually there are times I really rather admire your posts. Believe it or not, reading them is one of the reasons I visit here.

Which is why a stunt like you just pulled is so disappointing...

Quote from: James J Skach;253698Ok...I'll raise my hand...I'm stupid...

You are never stupid James.

Quote from: James J Skach;253698Let me see if I can piece this together, out loud such as it is in a forum...

Anything not called out specifically is, by definition, included in the abstraction, in most cases represented by the roll of one or more dice.

Since morale is not called out specifically in System A, it can therefore be concluded that morale it part of the abstraction.

Is that correct?

Completely.

Well, there's one exception.

If it's specified up front that something doesn't exist in that setting, it can't be assumed to be covered by the abstraction. Thus if a campaign says that our heroes are always brave- morale likely isn't part fo the abstraction for them (although it could still be for the non-heroes).

In the same way, those things that aren't an influence on the outcome aren't part of the abstraction. That's rather common sense. So proper pumbing repair isn't likely to be part of a melee combat abstraction.

Quote from: James J Skach;253698ETA: We can continue this elsewhere if that is the consensus. As difficult as it may seem, Mr. Gleichman often has, IMHO, insightful things to reveal. Nothing good is free, as they say. So if you'd like, Mr. G, I'd be happy to question yo over at my place...

We may have to end up doing that although I'm not sure given some of the members of that site if it would be an improvement.

Quote from: gleichman;253705You are never stupid James.

My wife begs to differ

Quote from: gleichman;253705Completely.

Well, there's one exception.

If it's specified up front that something doesn't exist in that setting, it can't be assumed to be covered by the abstraction. Thus if a campaign says that our heroes are always brave- morale likely isn't part fo the abstraction for them (although it could still be for the non-heroes).

In the same way, those things that aren't an influence on the outcome aren't part of the abstraction. That's rather common sense. So proper pumbing repair isn't likely to be part of a melee combat abstraction.

OK, so there are flip sides. Could we assume that something is part of the abstraction except...

• If something is specifically called out not to be part of the abstraction.
• If something that would normally be part of the abstraction  does not come into play because of genre or setting.
• Things that aren't normally part of the outcome are not covered in the abstraction (I'm assuming unless specifically noted).
• Things that are normally part of the outcome, but are otherwise addressed with specific mechanics, are not part of the abstraction.

Is that a decent list?

Quote from: gleichman;253705We may have to end up doing that although I'm not sure given some of the members of that site if it would be an improvement.

Eh - given the traffic level there

Quote from: gleichman;253701I'm starting to think you need a break Engine, even when you end up saying someone else is right- first you have to attack them as you did in the first quote.

Um, no. I made two true statements, neither of which contradicted the other, neither of which were "attacks," both of which were "right."

Quote from: gleichman;253701Why must you comment at all? Do I really control you that much?

It's strange that the guy who won't leave until we've all not said anything for "two or three days" would try to make some sort of play out of how much he controls us! :rotfl:

Quote from: gleichman;253701When the thread drops to the second page after a two or three days of inactivity.

Ah, so no one can discuss them at all, even amongst themselves, even if you're not involved. Man, it's starting to sound like you're never going to leave. Ah, and it nicely removes the lollipop clause: clever.

In that case, I'll make sure you stay a good long time.

Quote from: James J Skach;253706OK, so there are flip sides. Could we assume that something is part of the abstraction except...

• If something is specifically called out not to be part of the abstraction.
• If something that would normally be part of the abstraction  does not come into play because of genre or setting.
• Things that aren't normally part of the outcome are not covered in the abstraction (I'm assuming unless specifically noted).
• Things that are normally part of the outcome, but are otherwise addressed with specific mechanics, are not part of the abstraction.

Is that a decent list?

Points 1 and 2 are basically the same, with point 2 just specifying why something was called out to not be part of the abstraction. IMO, point 2 may be the most common reasons (for people who think about their reasons)- but that's just IMO.

Point 3 as I said is rather common sense. A abstraction should only cover (i.e. conceal) those things that influence the outcome of whatever is being abstracted. It would be sad indeed to see someone contest this.

Point 4 is correct.

I would say however that after one moves from a very general abstraction (single roll combat resolution say) to a more detailed one- that it may become difficult to determine where a certain influence is covered as those subsystems are abstractions themselves. Forrests and trees as it were. I don't feel this impacts the concept itself, but thought I should mention it.

Quote from: James J Skach;253706Eh - given the traffic level there

As long as some of the people not posting there don't suddenly start posting there again

Engine, I can see that you're having a very hard time with this.

Would it help if I put you on ignore? I think it would be less embrassing for you when (if) you regain your senses and look back on this.

Quote from: gleichman;253703Actually there are times I really rather admire your posts. Believe it or not, reading them is one of the reasons I visit here.

Which is why a stunt like you just pulled is so disappointing...

I'm honoured (truly). I guess i'm fed up with getting the feeling that you're always running a measuring stick against folks you're talking with. Well, it's not even a feeling really - you state it pretty often too. It's as though you're keeping dossiers or something.

Anyway, FWIW, you have my apology. I'm at home and bored and over the last week it's showed.

Quote from: One Horse Town;253712I'm honoured (truly). I guess i'm fed up with getting the feeling that you're always running a measuring stick against folks you're talking with. Well, it's not even a feeling really - you state it pretty often too. It's as though you're keeping dossiers or something.

Anyway, FWIW, you have my apology. I'm at home and bored and over the last week it's showed.

Apology accepted, and it's worth a great deal to me.

And you're correct, I do sadly run a measuring stick. It would be better if I didn't in a way. But I do, and I'm too honest to conceal it.

Quote from: gleichman;253710Points 1 and 2 are basically the same, with point 2 just specifying why something was called out to not be part of the abstraction. IMO, point 2 may be the most common reasons (for people who think about their reasons)- but that's just IMO.

Point 3 as I said is rather common sense. A abstraction should only cover (i.e. conceal) those things that influence the outcome of whatever is being abstracted. It would be sad indeed to see someone contest this.

Point 4 is correct.

I would say however that after one moves from a very general abstraction (single roll combat resolution say) to a more detailed one- that it may become difficult to determine where a certain influence is covered as those subsystems are abstractions themselves. Forrests and trees as it were. I don't feel this impacts the concept itself, but thought I should mention it.

OK, I can get behind your comments on that list, except to not that while I agree that #3 is common sense, I still like to include it for the sake of being as thorough as possible. I also thought that, after writing it, 4 and one were close to the same - so I'll break it down a bit differently...

So I end up with a list that looks something like...

The following things are not assumed to be part of a mechanic's abstraction:

• Something normally part of the outcome but excluded directly through inclusion in a separate mechanic.
• Something normally part of the abstraction, but excluded indirectly, such as:

[LIST=a]

• genre
• setting

• Something not normally part of the outcome.

Closer?

Quote from: gleichman;253710As long as some of the people not posting there don't suddenly start posting there again

You know me, sir - everyone is pretty much welcome (until given a reason to be considered otherwise - which, thankfully, has yet to come up). Sometimes it helps just to get out of here for a while, I've found...

Quote from: gleichman;253711Engine, I can see that you're having a very hard time with this.

And I can see that you're having a very hard time with this. But let's stop trading barbs and discuss the issue, shall we? I'm not going anywhere, you're not going anywhere, and we're not understanding each other very well, so what the hell.

There are some factors which roleplaying chooses to abstract, by letting a die roll stand in for those factors. That die roll is generally modified by the factors of the game which aren't abstracted: your attack roll is modified by your strength, or agility, or your skill in attacking. Those static factors are combined with the abstracted factors - wind speed, acceleration due to gravity, whims of the gods - to produce the result.

Wind speed, though, isn't really meaningfully included in the abstraction: it's literally just ignored, and a die roll substituted for it and a dozen other abstracted factors. Wind speed - unless there's a mechanic for it - isn't part of the abstraction: it's "in there," but it produces no unique effect in its own part. So if you abstract morale completely - your die rolls aren't in any way influenced by a static morale factor - then it's being abstracted into meaninglessness; it has the same effect as wind speed and gravity and gods' whims: 1d20. Or whatever.

Two characters in a system in which morale is abstracted in this way - just made part of the die roll, with no static factor to change the result - could have utterly different abilities to resist morale effects but be otherwise identical, and their attack roll would be exactly the same unless you got a different die result, and that die result is an effect of out-of-game conditions, not the morale ability of the character. Morale thus abstracted is as meaningless as the wind [in a system in which wind has no static factor].