Quote from: Serious Paul;253686This thread really isn't about gaming any more, and doesn't belong in the Gaming Forum.

Naw- as of the last few posts, they got back to the actual gaming talk.


 Again, I argue its best not to worry about "realism" and instead just go with something if its plausible.  The kind of thing where in some Action comedy movies and Tv shows ...1 character says to another after a weird, but believable explanation of something:

"Yeah, I can see how that could happen"

-OR-

"Yeah, that could happen"

-OR-

"Damn! I wish I'd been there! That sounds like it was fun."


As for leaving or not leaving this forum. The cause of some of that stress just got banned, plus it was the sockpuppet of a previously banned poster. As he started the thread that gave Gleichman convcerns in the first place - I'd say problem mostly solved and everybody on here keeps posting

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;253727The kind of thing where in some Action comedy movies and Tv shows ...1 character says to another after a weird, but believable explanation of something:

"Yeah, I can see how that could happen"

Yeah, now, see, there's a style difference, right there: I hate that kind of thing! There's been a real trend lately in science fiction TV shows - okay, "forever" - to simply handwave aspects of realism, often when they don't need handwaved at all. Some shows have descended to a sort of sick pseudoscience: close enough in technological terms to present-day reality, shows like Eureka and Bones and Fringe and Heroes use the nomenclature of today's science without bothering to learn anything of the substance of that science. [Not that I want to give a pass to shows like Star Trek and Stargate, which just use their own made-up nomenclature and don't really pay attention to science much at all.]

Most people don't care. Hell, most people aren't going to notice! If Sheriff Carter starts talking about how "dark matter" is going to suck the town into oblivion, hey, most of the audience doesn't know what dark matter is anyway, so it seems reasonable. But it's not, and for people - like science fiction fans, I would have thought! - who know better, it's grating and painful and it's holding us back. And yes, I desperately enjoy some of these shows, despite their lack of realism, but the lack of realism prevents me from enjoying them more.

I think there's a market for entertainment that takes reality seriously, that creates dramatic situations out of realistic ones. Certainly occupational dramas have been doing [approximately] this for most of their run; CSI, for all its flaws in role and pacing, at least bothers [or used to] to get the science right, and still manages to be exciting about it.

Roleplaying is, for me, no difference. Now, some people know real martial arts is nothing like what you see in Wushu: the RPG, but they don't care, because it's fun, and that's fine. But I like realism, and my ability to suspend disbelief is dependent upon at least some fair portion of it. A game that doesn't take into account situational factors, for instance - rain, fog, high winds, broken terrain - would find short shrift with me, because those factors are important. Oh, the game can leave out the realism of the 0.00001 inch diversion of the bullet from its course due to atmospheric pressure, because that's beyond the resolution of the system anyway, and too many static factors leads to long lookup tables that I don't like much.

Quote from: James J Skach;253715So 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?

Those work.

The only hang up is with item #1 as mechanics that cover an influence are in turn abstractions and in a system with a number of mechanics it may be come difficult to tell what influences are covered by what abstractions- but I also think it's unnecessary for the most part.

So, yes. I think those work.

Engine,

 That kind of lines happens even in non-Sci-Fi movies.

THE BLUES BROTHERS:

QuoteElwood: I traded it.
Jake: You traded the Bluesmobile for this?
Elwood: No, for a microphone.
Jake: A microphone?
[pause]
Jake: Okay I can see that. What the hell is this?
Elwood: This was a bargain. I picked it up at the Mount Prospect city police auction last spring. It's an old Mount Prospect police car. They were practically giving 'em away.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;253727Naw- as of the last few posts, they got back to the actual gaming talk.

It's been a mix, and it's my fault. I didn't want to make a new thread of it, but did want to inform certain people, and didn't expect it to derail this thread.

I should have used a PM, and the whole problem would have been avoided (although I'd worry about missing people). The error is completely mine.

But most of it has been game related IMO.

Quote from: Koltar;253727Again, I argue its best not to worry about "realism" and instead just go with something if its plausible.

I'd go you one further, it's best not to worry about anything unless that's one of your defined goals.

Realism may will be a defined goal. IMO making that your primary goal would be a serious mistake, but it's one people make for whatever reason. My advice is that when one does make this error, it's better to focus on removing unrealistic elements than it is to attempt to model realism directly due to lack of data and agreement.

And never ever brag about the realism of your game. That never turns out well.

Quote from: Koltar;253727As for leaving or not leaving this forum. The cause of some of that stress just got banned, plus it was the sockpuppet of a previously banned poster. As he started the thread that gave Gleichman convcerns in the first place - I'd say problem mostly solved and everybody on here keeps posting

I gave that serious thought when I saw the banning. However it was for the crime of being a sockpuppet, not for a public call to murder. Meanwhile there were a number of people who echoed that call and/supported it in abstract. So my concerns about the nature of the site was not address.

Plus one should remember, I'm having time pressures behind this and need to turn my attention elsewhere in any case.

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?

You are technically building an assumption not an abstraction. An assumption frames an abstraction and I believe that is where the confusion is coming from. An abstraction cannot be assumed to be inclusive without the framing assumptions. So, if it is an abstraction of combat, you may well have morale as an assumption of that abstraction, but only the designer would know. Morale may have no function within the abstraction or may be core to it but as observers of the final system, we cannot know what is included or excluded unless there are precedents or leading factors (things like a morale stat). Otherwise, you are making your own assumptions and applying them independent of design. This leads to faulty analysis. This is also Engineering 101.

Bill

Quote from: Engine;253723And I can see that you're having a very hard time with this.

No, I'm having a very easy time with this. It's yourself that's getting tied up in the concepts.

For example, you state a correct thing in one sentence

Quote from: Engine;253723There are some factors which roleplaying chooses to abstract, by letting a die roll stand in for those factors.

and then break it by in the next sentence saying something silly in the next:

Quote from: Engine;253723That 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.

I'm sorry, but those modifiers are also an abstraction. The baseline hasn't been changed. You've only pointed out that designers added mechanics to highlight elements of the abstraction by giving those elements their own abstraction.

By confusing this you pass on a much more interesting exchange- what elements can and should be so highlighted? What reason drives what answers?

Let me try to explain it another way:

The outcome X of a game design can be expressed as the sum of it's abstraction mechanics (M1, M2, ....).

Let's assume that for the goals of the design, a single die roll table result produces exactly the desired results. It has one abstraction mechanic- a single die roll against some sort of results matrix. The abstraction contains all possible influences on the outcome. This example can be expressed as follows:

X = M1

This mechanic contains all possible influences upon the outcome by defintion.

Now, add all the sub-mechanics you wish for whatever you wish that's one of the influences. Strength, Skill, Height & Weight, etc.

The new system can be expressed as:

X = M2 + M3 + M4.... + Mx

With each of the values of M being their own abstractions in turn. The thing is, unless you've altered the value of X- the following must hold true.

M1 = M2 + M3 + M4 ....+ Mx

Given that M1 contained all influences upon the outcome, so must M2 + M3 + M4 ....+ Mx.

Thus the lack of any subsystem in M2 + M3 + M4 ....+ Mx does not indicate that any specific influence is now missing. It is in fact impossible for that to be the case.

Quote from: gleichman;253634The only thing stupid about this thread is your sudden appearance in it.

The only thing stupid about this thread is your continual pseudo-intellectual fappery. If you're gonna leave, then leave. If you're gonna stay, then stay...but please spare us the lamentations of the poor, persecuted gleichman. You could have sent PMs to the parties you wanted, and quietly left the site, without performing this "drama queen" song and dance. Honestly, if we keep this thread going for three years, will you stay the entire three years, and whine, "But they kept me here! I promised not to leave until the thread was over! I alwayses keeps me promises!"

Quote from: gleichmanNo it's not, as I showed above morale is already present (in EXACTLY the way you say- i.e. not control of the character but in an impact on the outcome of the battle) within the abstraction of the game system.

The ONLY reason to include it explictly is because you wish to modify the behavior of the players.

You showed Jack Shit about morale, and Jack left town. All mechanics have an impact on the outcome of a battle. If we take your silly statements to their logical conclusion, then you'd be forced to admit that all game mechanics modify the behavior of the players.

Comprende?

Sacrificial Lamb there is no requirement that put up with you. Everything you posted has been covered in the posts since the one you answered.

You've presented nothing but unfounded (and frankly rather stupid) claims and insults, and I'd rather deal with more interesting people than such as you. So into the ignore list, you bore me.

And at least Engine never did that.

Quote from: gleichman;253754No, I'm having a very easy time with this.

No, you're having a very hard time with this. Also, I'm rubber, and you're glue. Seriously, can't we do this without the little asides and rejoinders?

Quote from: gleichman;253754I'm sorry, but those modifiers are also an abstraction. The baseline hasn't been changed.

We've got two levels of abstraction: the die roll, which doesn't include any static factors, and the modifiers, which include static factors. The modifiers do change the baseline to which the die roll is added [or subtracted from, or whatever, depending on your system].

Quote from: gleichman;253754Let's assume that for the goals of the design, a single die roll table result produces exactly the desired results. It has one abstraction mechanic- a single die roll against some sort of results matrix.

In this example, is morale included in the results matrix, or is it simply included in the die roll? If it's only included in the die roll, it's not meaningful, because no amount of morale effects the eventual roll, correct?

Quote from: gleichman;253754Thus the lack of any subsystem in M2 + M3 + M4 ....+ Mx does not indicate that any specific influence is now missing. It is in fact impossible for that to be the case.

If X is the eventual result of the die roll + modifiers, and there is no modifier for morale, X is not modified by morale: that specific influence has no effect on X.

Let's look at this in a similar fashion. If X is the eventual result of the die roll + modifiers, and Y is the die roll itself, and Mx are the modifiers:

X = Y + Mx

If Y, as a variable, is determined only by the die roll, and no M stands for Morale, the value of Y is unchanged by varying morale conditions: it is solely determined by the out-of-game factors controlling the die roll.

The only way to make Morale alter X is to make it an M which is added to the resolution. Now, maybe you don't want Morale, in which case it's fine being random, but if you want a morale system in your RPG, it must be a static factor [an M] and cannot simply be considered Y, because that's just the die roll.

Now, if you can show how morale can change the value of Y - not just the value of X, which can include changed static factors - then yes, morale is meaningfully included in a system without specific static factors for M, but I don't know how a character's bravery or lackthereof can influence a player's die roll.

Quote from: gleichman;253762Sacrificial Lamb there is no requirement that put up with you. Everything you posted has been covered in the posts since the one you answered.

You've presented nothing but unfounded (and frankly rather stupid) claims and insults, and I'd rather deal with more interesting people than such as you. So into the ignore list, you bore me.

And at least Engine never did that.

Does it really matter if you ignore me? You're "leaving", remember?

Quote from: Engine;253772No, you're having a very hard time with this. Also, I'm rubber, and you're glue. Seriously, can't we do this without the little asides and rejoinders?

As soon as you start making sense.

For example:

Quote from: Engine;253772We've got two levels of abstraction: the die roll, which doesn't include any static factors, and the modifiers, which include static factors.

The original example M1 did not have modifiers. You've added something that wasn't there and then went on to claim all sorts of things that had no relationship to what I was saying.

Stop for a moment inflicting your viewpoint on my examples, and read them without the bias you're insisting on and free of any conclusions. Indeed, even for the moment assume it's true, ask yourself why you're not seeing it- play your own devil's advocate.

You may be surpised at the result.

Quote from: gleichman;253775As soon as you start making sense.

You, first. Nah, nah, nah.

Quote from: gleichman;253775The original example M1 did not have modifiers. You've added something that wasn't there and then went on to claim all sorts of things that had no relationship to what I was saying.

I can't help but notice you don't make any comment at all about the truthfulness of what I'd said. In fact, you've not really addressed anything I've brought up for quite some time, in favor of demeaning it and then repeating something you've said previously in a different way.

Yes, your original M1 had no modifiers. That's why I said, "Let's look at this in a similar fashion," and not, "I'm using all your variables to mean what you meant," which I couldn't do, because you hadn't specified your variables particularly well.

Quote from: gleichman;253775Stop for a moment inflicting your viewpoint on my examples, and read them without the bias you're insisting on and free of any conclusions.

Dude, seriously, how do you not expect me to say the same thing back to you? You're quite set on what you believe, and anything that doesn't agree with what you believe, you completely ignore it. So stop inflicting your bias on my examples, and read them without the bias you're insisting on.

Quote from: gleichman;253775Indeed, even for the moment assume it's true, ask yourself why you're not seeing it- play your own devil's advocate.

You're not getting it, because you're not listening, and even when you're listening, you're not letting anything you hear change your mind, because you're absolutely convinced not only of the rightness of your position, but also of your own desperate need not to lose this argument, which is ridiculous since it doesn't need to be an argument at all. Your demeanor and your lack of any attempt to question or understand other views tells me everything I need to know about your behavior, and it doesn't surprise me at all.

See, you're not the only guy who can be a dick in an argument. I just don't see how doing it has helped us. Why not let's stick to the issue, and take the bullshit personality crap out of it?

gleichman, even though you've probably put me on your ignore list, and thus will never read this post, I'd like to offer you an apology for so obnoxiously snapping at you. I've been unnecessarily snippy lately, and there's no good excuse to be that way even when people strongly disagree. My apologies, sir...

Quote from: Engine;253777I can't help but notice you don't make any comment at all about the truthfulness of what I'd said.

I'm sure you believe what you're saying...

Quote from: Engine;253777In fact, you've not really addressed anything I've brought up for quite some time, in favor of demeaning it and then repeating something you've said previously in a different way.

Yes, your original M1 had no modifiers. That's why I said, "Let's look at this in a similar fashion,"

And here you prove that you've done what you just accused me of.

And I did look at it that way, that's the "M2, M3, M4....Mx" series. The difference was that I showed how they related and you dropped the ball completely.

Quote from: Engine;253777Dude, seriously, how do you not expect me to say the same thing back to you?

I didn't expect anything else. Makes me rather sad to be proved right however.

Quote from: Engine;253777See, you're not the only guy who can be a dick in an argument. I just don't see how doing it has helped us. Why not let's stick to the issue, and take the bullshit personality crap out of it?

It hasn't helped us.

Help me believe that doing something else actually would.