Luke,

It's fucking hopeless with these guys. Don't waste your breath.

I'm trying, Sett, to put that together. I'm really trying hard. I'm aware there's a language barrier that you do a damn fine job of getting around when you're not being intentionally vague and obfuscatory to prove a point (the point being, I think, that you like others can be a dick sometimes). I'm also aware I'm three drinks into my third day off.

But could you, or someone else, maybe boil that down to a single coherent thought? I want a laser of words, not this clusterbomb effect.

In some ways, some of us are here because it's "hopeless" with us. Because we've decided that no, we cannot be indoctrinated into Forgespeak.

Which would make your efforts precisely what besides...and I considered this word very carefully...subversive?

Mmm.

I can´t boil it down more, it was one big truth per line, I can´t possibly condense it even more.

I will sleep ove it, maybe I can rephrase.

I was trying to be as crystal clear as I could.

Quote from: Christmas ApeI'm trying, Sett, to put that together. I'm really trying hard. I'm aware there's a language barrier that you do a damn fine job of getting around when you're not being intentionally vague and obfuscatory to prove a point (the point being, I think, that you like others can be a dick sometimes). I'm also aware I'm three drinks into my third day off.

But could you, or someone else, maybe boil that down to a single coherent thought? I want a laser of words, not this clusterbomb effect.

I think what he's trying to say is that there are already established, researched methods of studying game play as well as games in general (the game studies he linked to, as well as actual real game theory - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory) that provides a very good foundation for starting to develop explanations of how and why rpgs are played. This I actually agree with - my impression is that many of the people who started with "theory" as we call it felt like they were doing it from scratch and they never looked into what work had already been done in the arena of games in general. So they went on their merry way developing "theory" while being completely ignorant of the enormous body of theoretical work dealing with games in general. I've seen this ignorance come up in a couple of ways:

• "I hesitate to call rpgs games" - Actually, yes they are games because they have rules and players.
• "My game has no math in it, you compare colors to get a result" - That would be nice, if comparisons weren't math. You mean your game has no arithmetic in it. Next!
  
• "I don't like x game because it has a definite ending (like My Life With Master). I like my games to be unlimited" - Unfortunately, all games have end conditions, it's in the definition of what makes a game. What you mean is that the end condition for the game is not decided upon before hand.

There are likely other examples out there...what I'm really getting it is that looking at established game theory might be very, very helpful. RPGs have some unique aspects, but they are still games and have a lot in common with other types of games.

Huh.

Alright, cool. I'm gonna get some sun, maybe go play some Necromunda - I've got a wicked new Cawdor assault gang that needs blooding - and come back to actual Game Theory.

And I must be honest, I didn't get anything that looks like that from Sett's post. Not even if you back up a little, tilt your head, squint real hard, and smack yourself in the forehead with a pipe wrench.

What do you say in english when you want to say something has multiple factors in it?

Dimensions?
Aspects?
Approaches?
Values?
Factors?
Facet?

Maybe facet is better then dimension?

Like when I ride a car, there is my need to get to point B from my point A =
one facet of driving.
There´s also the fun in getting the engine up to 220 kilometeres per hour, another facet of my driving.
Then there´s the privacy of my car, the music I can hear: just another facet of me digging my ride.
Again, there comes the landscape I zoom through = facet four
There´s the feeling of control, to be in charge = facet five.
There´s the fact I already own my car

They are all together. They can be talked about seperately, but only ceteris paribus.

Facets of fun?
Is this more clear?

Quote from: WilI think what he's trying to say is that there are already established, researched methods of studying game play as well as games in general (the game studies he linked to, as well as actual real game theory - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory) that provides a very good foundation for starting to develop explanations of how and why rpgs are played. This I actually agree with - my impression is that many of the people who started with "theory" as we call it felt like they were doing it from scratch and they never looked into what work had already been done in the arena of games in general. So they went on their merry way developing "theory" while being completely ignorant of the enormous body of theoretical work dealing with games in general. I've seen this ignorance come up in a couple of ways:

• "I hesitate to call rpgs games" - Actually, yes they are games because they have rules and players.
• "My game has no math in it, you compare colors to get a result" - That would be nice, if comparisons weren't math. You mean your game has no arithmetic in it. Next!
  
• "I don't like x game because it has a definite ending (like My Life With Master). I like my games to be unlimited" - Unfortunately, all games have end conditions, it's in the definition of what makes a game. What you mean is that the end condition for the game is not decided upon before hand.

There are likely other examples out there...what I'm really getting it is that looking at established game theory might be very, very helpful. RPGs have some unique aspects, but they are still games and have a lot in common with other types of games.

I'd focus on the last point, personally. I can see what the end game is for Monopoly.  Now pwople might think it's giving-up-because-it's-late-and-whoever-has-the-most-wins. so they equate this with the long-term D&D campaign that ends because everyone moves to different parts of the country (back when this could cause a game to break up). But really, there's is no definite end-point to a D&D game - except maybe the death of the players.

So if the definition of game requires an end condition...

Not that I'd quibble.  I like Sett's basic premise which I think you've got right...that there's a lot of game theory to be drawn upon.

It wasn't your choice of language, dimensions was fine. I'd say as good as facets if not better.

I just...it felt like a buckshot shell full of ideas and points, and I couldn't watch them all. I kept waiting for you to finish a thought, but it seemed to jump to the next one right before that.

I seriously might just be more wrecked on this gin than I think, though. I'm just anal about fixing typos so it's hard to tell.

@Christmas Ape: In that line where I linked that thread, I wanted to say what  Wil said. I thought the on line would be enough, as the link speaks for itself.

You follow the link.
You review it.
You see no Forger idea ever enter actual scientific debate.
And especially vice versa!
You draw conclusions.

Maybe I should elaborate more, to get the point across.

Quote from: Christmas ApeHuh.

Alright, cool. I'm gonna get some sun, maybe go play some Necromunda - I've got a wicked new Cawdor assault gang that needs blooding - and come back to actual Game Theory.

And I must be honest, I didn't get anything that looks like that from Sett's post. Not even if you back up a little, tilt your head, squint real hard, and smack yourself in the forehead with a pipe wrench.

That's exactly how I came to that conclusion!

It could just be that it was really all over the map...because even seeing Sett's reply I don't quite get it. I still stand by the idea that all of the rpg theorists could use a dose of game theory in their ponderings...

Oh, shit, there was a link? I totally missed it. :deflated:

You know... the inability to communicate with others is usually the first sign of clinical insanity.

Quote from: James J SkachI'd focus on the last point, personally. I can see what the end game is for Monopoly.  Now pwople might think it's giving-up-because-it's-late-and-whoever-has-the-most-wins. so they equate this with the long-term D&D campaign that ends because everyone moves to different parts of the country (back when this could cause a game to break up). But really, there's is no definite end-point to a D&D game - except maybe the death of the players.

You know what...I'm suffering from the same thing I accuse the rpg theorists of. I had read somewhere that all games have end conditions, but there is in game theory infinitely long games which somehow I missed.

An interesting thing from Wikipedia on infinitely long games: "The focus of attention is usually not so much on what is the best way to play such a game, but simply on whether one or the other player has a winning strategy. (It can be proven, using the axiom of choice, that there are games—even with perfect information, and where the only outcomes are "win" or "lose"—for which neither player has a winning strategy.) The existence of such strategies, for cleverly designed games, has important consequences in descriptive set theory."

Quote from: WilYou know what...I'm suffering from the same thing I accuse the rpg theorists of. I had read somewhere that all games have end conditions, but there is in game theory infinitely long games which somehow I missed.

An interesting thing from Wikipedia on infinitely long games: "The focus of attention is usually not so much on what is the best way to play such a game, but simply on whether one or the other player has a winning strategy. (It can be proven, using the axiom of choice, that there are games—even with perfect information, and where the only outcomes are "win" or "lose"—for which neither player has a winning strategy.) The existence of such strategies, for cleverly designed games, has important consequences in descriptive set theory."

Brilliant! I'm off to read Wikipedia!