Borrowing from Josh's post towards the end of this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15124&start=45), I'd like to offer a distinction between "participating in" the SIS and "contributing to" the SIS.
"Participating in" the SIS involves engaging in an ongoing, constantly-in-flux assesment of and contribution to play. Over time, IMO, a computer will currently (always? I've no idea, and sugest we shouldn't try to answer that question - or the "is a human just an organic computer"? question - here at the Forge) fail to satisfactorily engage in that process. That there are moments when it does not fail is not an invalidation of the distinction, merely an acknowledgement that it takes time to fully draw the distinction.
What a computer unquestionably, always does do is contribute to what an individual is imagining. The programming obviously has an impact on what the individual is thinking about play, how they imagine it, and what meanings they draw from it. So does their childhood, what mood they are in, and what they ate at their last meal - but usually, the computer's contribution will be significant.
Take "computer" and "programming" in the above two paragraphs and replace them with "Mike Stackpole, author of solo module 'The City of Terrors'." The statements remain entirely true. We can and should expect the programmer(s)/solo author(s) to contribute to an individual's imagination.
But let's draw a line; "They" are not participating. If there is only one player, that player is the only one imagining - and their imagining has been influenced (perhaps heavily) by the programmer(s)/solo author(s). If you want to personify that influence and thus allow us to call an individuals' IS an SIS ("shared" between the individual and what they are imagining these personified influences to be contributing), that's OK by me - in fact, I like that person-by-proxy way of thinking about it. But let's NOT confuse that with being the SAME as an actual person actually participating as play continues.
This is also (it seems to me) how a game designer influences the play of their game in standard group play: they shape the SIS by contribution, not participation.
Participation in the SIS is a contribution to it, but contributing to it does not require participation in it. Participation is a higher bar - but that doesn't mean that contribution isn't significant. At least, so it seems to me,
Gordon
I'd like to submit that what you have in such a case is a one-way sharing. Let me see if I can explain...
Quote from: Gordon C. LandisBut let's draw a line; "They" are not participating. If there is only one player, that player is the only one imagining - and their imagining has been influenced (perhaps heavily) by the programmer(s)/solo author(s).
Well, from my own experience creating scenarios for muds and writing solo adventures, the designer is
also imagining. Thus, there are at least two people involved in imagining things for the game. The designer then attempts to communicate what he/she is imagining through the media of the game or solo adventure -- in the case of the solo adventure, the written descriptions, NPC/monster writeups, maps, and choices given for the adventure.
In a face-to-face game, the same thing happens -- one participant imagines things, and tries to communicate them to the other participants, through the media of speech, gesture, drawing, etc. Either way, there's no telepathy... nothing can jump from one person's imagined space to another without being communicated.
The key difference, then, is that there is no back-and-forth. The player can't contribute to the scenario designer's imagined space, and the designer can't attempt to correct mistakes in the transmission. That, as you say, makes it a contribution rather than participation.
There is a Shared Imagined Space, I'd say... but the sharing is one-way.
I wouldn't call it a SIS. You could argue the rules and all other contributions from the author belong to the SIS, however, whether they enter or not, is never communicated to him, nor are any alterations. As his work is most probably adapted and bent before play even commences, I don't think it's appropriate to speak of it as part of SIS. I think the rules are a proposal for a contribution to the SIS, no more.
Quote from: Eva DeinumI wouldn't call it a SIS. You could argue the rules and all other contributions from the author belong to the SIS, however, whether they enter or not, is never communicated to him, nor are any alterations. As his work is most probably adapted and bent before play even commences, I don't think it's appropriate to speak of it as part of SIS. I think the rules are a proposal for a contribution to the SIS, no more.
Everything's a proposal until the other person accepts it and thus gives credibility to it. Some dude at table top telling you he healed you five HP, is just proposing that.
Perhaps this:
QuoteThis is also (it seems to me) how a game designer influences the play of their game in standard group play: they shape the SIS by contribution, not participation.
Is better rephrased as this:
QuoteA game designer is highly likely to influence the play of their game in standard group play via the following: they attempt to shape the SIS by proposals (many of them), not participation.
On a nihilistic side note, it looks like I'm stating it being 'highly likely' as a concrete fact. Really I only have faith in this and have faith that end users would accept my proposals. Too often though, faith slips from 'could happen' hope to 'will happen' fact in some designers minds. Problematic to say the least.
Unless I'm misreading here, all the comments so far are basically consistent with what I was going for - a contribution can always be rejected by the participants. "Proposal for a contribution to the SIS" makes that possibility for rejection clear, but I certainly mean for that possibilty to be implicit in "contribution."
The question of whether one-way contribution to the SIS really is in the SIS . . . I actually have no real opinion on. I'd say that sometimes (when refering to the designer/author/programmer) it's useful to talk as if it were - as long as you remember that it's not the same as participating as play occurs. But if there's a clearer way to talk about the impact on the SIS of a contributer that is not there when play occurs (i.e., that is not a participant), I'm fine with that too.
My hope is just that by referring to these two different but related types of contribution as two seperate things, we can get a little more clarity in the discussions. Because they are both different AND related, IMO, and arguments that try and force one or the other to be the real answer create an antagonism that seems unneccessary tto me.
Gordon
One important point we need to clarify: SIS, shared between whom?
If just between the players, a totally unrelated thing such as Planescape Torment might be contributing to their SIS, simply because some player's character is (perhaps vaguely) inspired upon someone of that game.
I wonder, is there a difference between this kind of contribution and the contribution made by the guy who wrote the rules? If yes, could you point it out exactly?
Quote from: Gordon C. LandisBorrowing from Josh's post towards the end of this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15124&start=45), I'd like to offer a distinction between "participating in" the SIS and "contributing to" the SIS.
"Participating in" the SIS involves engaging in an ongoing, constantly-in-flux assesment of and contribution to play. Over time, IMO, a computer will currently (always? I've no idea, and sugest we shouldn't try to answer that question - or the "is a human just an organic computer"? question - here at the Forge) fail to satisfactorily engage in that process. That there are moments when it does not fail is not an invalidation of the distinction, merely an acknowledgement that it takes time to fully draw the distinction.
You already point out that a computer contributes to play, so using the definition you gave it only needs to additionally engage in an ongoing, constantly-in-flux assesment of play to be participating.
If there is one thing a computer is good at, it is relentlessly doing repetitive tasks with multiple varaibles without stopping.
In any relatively modern CRPG, the computer constantly keeps track of dozens - possibly even hundreds - of NPCs in the nearby area, the state of the game world and displays the latest visual representation of that world and/or various stats between 30 and 100 times every second.
The last task is so involved that many games
require a video card with its own separate processing unit and a large chunk of additional memory.
It also constantly checks for input from the player, and reacts to it in some way in a fraction of a second. Even if the player does nothing, the state of the game world is calculated and updated quickly and efficiently.
It will continue to do all this (and more) until the player instructs it to pause or stop the game, or the game ends.
Even if a human GM were able to imagine a couple of dozen NPCs moving around, (s)he would not realistically be able to relay their positions and actions to the player(s) as quickly nor for as long without taking a break or being distracted.
Eva:
The contribution from the guy who wrote the rules is (potentially) stronger and more prevalent than that of Planescape Torment, but as far as what KIND of contribution it is under this distinction (one-way, totally at the discretion of the participants as to how significant the contribution is), to me they are exactly the same. In particular, the system that is actually adopted by the participant(s) has a significant impact on play, and the degree to which that system is influenced by a particular factor will (IMO) have a big impact on how important we should consider that factor to be.
Wysandry:
Yupr, the computer can sure do all that. But if I "ask" the computer about what things mean in the game, what it thinks about my participation, whether it feels I'm doing a good job, if I want to renegotiate something about our Social Contract/Creative Agenda . . . eventually (at least under current technology), I will be disatisfied by its' involvement in the conversation.
Gordon
Quote from: Gordon C. LandisYupr, the computer can sure do all that. But if I "ask" the computer about what things mean in the game, what it thinks about my participation, whether it feels I'm doing a good job, if I want to renegotiate something about our Social Contract/Creative Agenda . . . eventually (at least under current technology), I will be disatisfied by its' involvement in the conversation.
The main problem in that situation is communication: you and the computer do not fully comprehend the other's language or thought processes, so a simpler intermediary method is implemented.
It's a little like running a game with a player who only speaks English, a GM who only speaks Chinese, and a bored, amateur interpreter who only knows a little of either language and virtually nothing about the rules.
The second is that rules systems do not always allow for negotiation (they're more rigidly defined), which is not an inherent fault in the computer itself. It is implemented to greater or lesser degrees in
some games.
I can't tell you that all CRPGs rate your participation (that would be system-specific), but they do all keep track of it to some degree.
Quote from: WysardryI can't tell you that all CRPGs rate your participation (that would be system-specific), but they do all keep track of it to some degree.
Sure - and my point is mostly just that the
way they keep track of it is sufficiently different from what happens when real people are directly interacting that we shouldn't call it the "same" thing. In fact, I see it as most like the way a game text/author is involved in the process. Yet, it is also similiar in
some ways, so . . . contribute, not participate.
I should also add that, IMO, this doesn't really have anything to do with the specific programming code of the CRPG. It's because of the human end of the process - when I, a human, am dealing with another human, a whole set of possibilities and issues are present that just aren't there for the machine (or book, or etc.) As a trivial example, I never have to worry about hurting its' feelings. The designer might have worried about hurting my feelings, and I might imagine something significant about hurting the feelings of the computer-run NPC, but I'm never going to change its' life in any way. That possibility can only exist for participants.
Gordon
Quote from: Gordon C. LandisSure - and my point is mostly just that the way they keep track of it is sufficiently different from what happens when real people are directly interacting that we shouldn't call it the "same" thing. In fact, I see it as most like the way a game text/author is involved in the process. Yet, it is also similiar in some ways, so . . . contribute, not participate.
No, it is not
exactly the same thing, but then again neither would it be if a traditional game included a different group of players. It's all a matter of degree, and IMO attempting to draw a definite rigid line would be a futile exercise as technology, programming methods and our understanding of the way the human minds work will continue to improve.
QuoteI should also add that, IMO, this doesn't really have anything to do with the specific programming code of the CRPG.
I'm sorry, but to me that seems like the equivalent of saying "It doesn't matter what is written in the rules book or what the state of the GM's mind is".
Some of the early games labelled as CRPGs played almost exactly like the Fighting Fantasy solo books. In other words, they consisted solely of screens of text and an image or two with multiple choice questions. Now they
were rigid and static.
The only aspect that changed from game to game which wasn't directly controlled by the player was the dice rolling, and all the program needed to keep track of was a few stats and which page/screen the player had reached.
QuoteIt's because of the human end of the process - when I, a human, am dealing with another human, a whole set of possibilities and issues are present that just aren't there for the machine (or book, or etc.)
When you're dealing with a computer,
another whole set of possibilities are present that aren't there for a human GM. It would take an extremely lengthy discussion to sort out which directly related to participation, and even longer to work out if any combinations of them did.
QuoteAs a trivial example, I never have to worry about hurting its' feelings. The designer might have worried about hurting my feelings, and I might imagine something significant about hurting the feelings of the computer-run NPC, but I'm never going to change its' life in any way. That possibility can only exist for participants.
It's a matter of personal preference whether that is an advantage or disadvantage.
I don't know about anyone else, but I know
I would find it frustrating if I wanted to play my favourite CRPG and the computer started whining about me ignoring it all day and not appreciating what it does for me etc. or merely saying "I don't feel like playing today".
Wysardry (don't know where that "n" came from before - sorry),
We may be at the "agree to disagree point" here - I don't see any time in the near future that technology, programming methods or our understanding of the human mind will change the aspect that I'm getting at. A computer would have to become an entity that I am capable of caring about as an individual for that to happen, and while I certainly believe that is theoretically possible, it doesn't seem likely anytime soon (and as a topic of discussion, probably doesn't belong here at the Forge at all). And to me, the difference between what's available with other humans present vs. when they are not isn't difficult all - when they are there, our play can have a direct, interpersonal social impact. If they aren't, it can't.
But as a clarification - when I said that "this" doesn't really have anything to do with the specific programming code of the CRPG, I didn't mean that the programming didn't matter at all - of course it matters, just like the rules text matters. I simply meant that for purposes of the distinction, the specific programming (or text) didn't matter.
The state of the GMs mind also matters, though I put that in the domain of participation. So it matters in a different way. But the overall importance of contribution vs. participation is highly situational - this distinction isn't designed to trivialize either of 'em. But IMO, if you try and treat them as in all ways the same, you're going to miss some important aspects of each.
Which your last point is an example of, to my mind. Depending on situation, personal preference, Creative Agenda, and probably a bunch of other things, it sure can be either an advantage or a disadvantage! And it seems to me that that point is in danger of getting lost unless we have something like this distinction.
Gordon
Quote from: Gordon C. LandisThe designer might have worried about hurting my feelings, and I might imagine something significant about hurting the feelings of the computer-run NPC, but I'm never going to change its' life in any way. That possibility can only exist for participants.
Why does that matter?
My problem with this particular approach is that it proposes a sort of romantic purpose to the activity, instead of examining the activity in its own right.
[quote="contracycle]Why does that matter?
My problem with this particular approach is that it proposes a sort of romantic purpose to the activity, instead of examining the activity in its own right.[/quote]
Well, I sure didn't mean to be overly romantic here, but I concede that the ultimate use I'm putting it to might be seen that way . . .
How about this: why does this matter? Certainly it doesn't matter because it is romantic (if it is). It seems to me that it matters because it fundamentally colors my participation in the activity. I don't treat the game designer in the same way as I treat my fellow players - and I'd say the prevalence of Drift in the hobby indicates this is true of most people. Yet the designer (via his or her rules and text) is not entirely absent from my play, either.
This is mostly (IMO) a functional aspect of play - a person who is there has a different impact than the person who is not. Enough so that I see it as appropriate to highlight that fact.
For solo/computer play, I think this matters because it is only by distinguishing out what does NOT apply to it that we are able to apply ANY of the other Forge-stuff to such play. I'm assuming a goal there of being able to apply Forge-stuff in those circumstances, but - the fit seems to me "close enough" tha such a goal is reasonable, though obviously not required.
Does that help?
Gordon
Quote from: Gordon C. LandisWe may be at the "agree to disagree point" here - I don't see any time in the near future that technology, programming methods or our understanding of the human mind will change the aspect that I'm getting at. A computer would have to become an entity that I am capable of caring about as an individual for that to happen, and while I certainly believe that is theoretically possible, it doesn't seem likely anytime soon (and as a topic of discussion, probably doesn't belong here at the Forge at all).
It may already have done so, it's unlikely to be immediately available to the masses if it had though, as it isn't something that most people would have a use for, nor feel comfortable with. The cost would therefore be prohibitive.
My main point was that the technology and programs available to home users are rapidly improving, and any definition we came up with based on participation levels would need to be re-evaluated on a regular basis.
QuoteAnd to me, the difference between what's available with other humans present vs. when they are not isn't difficult all - when they are there, our play can have a direct, interpersonal social impact. If they aren't, it can't.
The "shared" part of SIS doesn't only mean social contribution/participation though.
I'm not even sure what the purpose of this particular discussion is. CRPGs are already identified as being different to other forms of RPG by the additional "C". If you're attempting to place them in some sort of hierarchy, then I would place them somewhere between solo RPGs without a GM and solo RPGs with one. How close they are to each of those varies depending upon the actual program.
(My main interest is in discovering/defining ways in which a CRPG can be more like a one player + one GM game.)
QuoteBut as a clarification - when I said that "this" doesn't really have anything to do with the specific programming code of the CRPG, I didn't mean that the programming didn't matter at all - of course it matters, just like the rules text matters. I simply meant that for purposes of the distinction, the specific programming (or text) didn't matter.
Well, it does to a certain extent, because the programming defines
how the computer contributes to and participates in play. That can vary even in two games from the same series.
QuoteThe state of the GMs mind also matters, though I put that in the domain of participation. So it matters in a different way. But the overall importance of contribution vs. participation is highly situational - this distinction isn't designed to trivialize either of 'em. But IMO, if you try and treat them as in all ways the same, you're going to miss some important aspects of each.
The state of the GM's mind also affects participation, as they may well be less involved/imaginative if tired, drunk, sick, bored, uncertain... or simplistically programmed.
QuoteWhich your last point is an example of, to my mind. Depending on situation, personal preference, Creative Agenda, and probably a bunch of other things, it sure can be either an advantage or a disadvantage! And it seems to me that that point is in danger of getting lost unless we have something like this distinction.
Why can't we just use the GM as the distinction? In other words, define the categories as "Solo: No (or Self) GM", "Solo: Computer (or Artificial) GM" and "Solo: Human GM"?
That way, even if CRPGs become capable of precisely simulating a human GM, there would still be a distinction, and the definition would not need to be changed.
I think your better off making a distinction in what the users goal of play is, rather than basing it around the computer or table top game.
It's like my parrot example from the other thread. Imagine a guy writes an original song and teaches it to a parrot. Then that parrot comes to you and sings the song.
You could have two goals.
* Listen to the parrot and learn the song from its own parrot like rendition.
* Listen to the parrot, because you want to learn something about the songwriter who taught it the song and the sort of songs he writes.
Either of these goals means the users is seeking entirely different things, but it's certainly not because the medium decided that for them.
For a CRPG it would be either of the following goals:
* Play the game and learn from its AI, by what that AI throws at you.
* Play the game and learn the designers message that he's throwing at you through this AI he designed to carry that message.
Most traditional table top players are confused by these two options. Because they are used to playing by a third.
* Play the game and learn the other players message that he's throwing at you through his play. Then, taking his message, you add your own and express it to him. Then he takes that and likewise returns it with his own contribution, to you. And so on, back and forth for hours on end.
They all contain the same basic component in terms of sharing a message. But perhaps a little like GNS missunderstandings, someone who practises one, can't imagine the other one as roleplay, or can't imagine that their own prefered goal doesn't provide the professed needs of the other user.
Callan,
Your "goal options" seem more like descriptions of the process to me - which is exactly the point I was trying to make, so I guess it's not surprising I'd see it that way. The process involved in your option #3 seems unlike the process involved in #1 or #2 (which seem pretty similar to me). I'm willing to call of 'em "roleplaying" in some way, as long as we don't lose the fact that something different is going on in #3.
Wysardry,
Purpose of the discussion - yeah, I should restate that to see if this thread is really going anywhere. I'll try and get back to that latter today - non-RPG commitments are pulling me away from here for a bit . . .
Gordon
So -
What I was hoping for here was to find a way to avoid the issues around "can computers be human?"/"are humans just sophisticated computers?" because they're Big Questions inappropriate to Forge discussion and, I think, irrelevant to the vast, VAST majority of the substance of the discussion about solo/computer play.
In my distinction, I also make the assertion that the computer program/programmer influences play in much the same way that a game text/author does - regardless of whether the play itself is solo or not. Frankly, that's an important part of the thread to me. I'm much more interested in group play than solo play. On the other hand, I don't think solo play has to get excluded from the theories entirely - all that was needed was a small (it seemed to me) concession that there was something (participation, I called it) that (as of now) only an actual human can add to play.
ASIDE: In the case of multiple-player computer-assisted(managed? I'm not sure what word to use here) games, I'd claim this continues to hold true (with perhaps some complications around how much/little ability there is for the actual humans to negotiate and transfer the results of their negotiation meaningfully into play).
So far, it looks like the "Avoid the Big Questions" thing hasn't quite worked. If we can't establish as a practical matter that there is something available when playing with real human beings that isn't there when playing with a text/computer, I'm guess I can't accomplish that goal. For what it's worth, that really is (best as I can self-analyze) a practical conclusion on my part - I've no philosophical belief/opinion that compels any particular conclusion here.
ASIDE: Reading back through the thread, it occured to me that my use of "participation" is rather analogous to "interactive," which Walt Freitag warned us has been a contentious and not very useful word in computer game design for quite a while now. I can clarify a bit by saying "human participation in play, while the play is occurring", but I'm not sure if that fixes anything. If not, and all I've done is identify yet another not very useful and contentious word . . . well, that's not quite ENTIRELY useless, I guess.
I also thought I could sidestep the question of whether anything can be considered "shared" in solo play (only one participant, with whatever various attendent contributions from author/text and computers/programmers). My understanding is that Vincent, at least, is on record as thinking the SIS in the LP does NOT exist in solo play. I think an IIS(Individual Imagined Space) that is touched by contributions works the same (as far as contribution, NOT participation) as non-participant contributions to the SIS. So rather than split hairs, I just said "call it shared or not, your choice - for purposes outside of participation, seems to me it doesn't really matter." Maybe that was also a mistake, as some folks DO seem to think that matters.
So, I'm not sure what else to say. If there's anything flat-out unclear in what I've said, I'll do the best I can to clarify it for folks. But I'm about ready to just call this a, um, less-than-fully-succesful effort,
Gordon
EDIT to add whoops, meant to adress you directly a bit, Wysardry:
As far revaluating technology regarding participation goes, I don't see where that would be a problem in my distinction. When a computer is able, over an extended time frame, to convince some significant number of people to care about it as an individual, it will be participating. Until then, it isn't. No difficulties.
When you say "the "shared" part of SIS doesn't only mean social contribution/participation though," I'm not sure that's the current understanding. See my discussion above for more on that.
And finally, as far as your GM categories - they look like good categories to me. But what I was trying to do here wasn't come up with good buckets for types of play, but rather to take the observed conclusions about how play works and see if we couldn't simultaneously 1)preserve the (important, IMO) observation that interpersonal communication is a defining aspect of the SIS, and 2)include solo play as similar in almost all ways.
Gordon
Quote from: Gordon C. Landis
As far revaluating technology regarding participation goes, I don't see where that would be a problem in my distinction. When a computer is able, over an extended time frame, to convince some significant number of people to care about it as an individual, it will be participating. Until then, it isn't. No difficulties.
Which IMO is like saying, until the parrot can induce me to care about it as a parrot, the author of the song the parrot sings is not participating.
I think that we should be looking only at process. I do not really accept that most play exhibits much in the way of exchange of meanings or messages. Noon's example of "Play the game and learn the other players message that he's throwing at you through his play. Then, taking his message, you add your own and express it to him. Then he takes that and likewise returns it with his own contribution, to you. And so on, back and forth for hours on end. " does not at all ring true for me. That might be a fair enough decription of Narr play, but I am not convinced it extends further. I do not see why such issues are pertinent to Exploration, anyway.
They may arguably be more relevant to challenge, but again, so many players have been so happy for so long playing against AI opponents that while there are significant differences, the differences are not so profound that they are really different games, siply on the basis of whether the opponent is human or AI.
contra,
Quote from: contracycleWhich IMO is like saying, until the parrot can induce me to care about it as a parrot, the author of the song the parrot sings is not participating.
That is
sort of my claim - but that the author is not participating does not mean he or she is not involved at all. They are (in my terminology) contributing. To me, this seems an important difference. Not one that prevents me from talking about the author of the song OR the parrot as being involved in the process, just one that is significant to how they are involved in the process.
Your next paragraph, about not accepting "that most play exhibits much in the way of exchange of meanings or messages," I'm not sure how to address. Unless I'm misreading you and/or the Big Theory/GNS, that's a fundamental break from the theory. G, N and S
are the exchange of meanings and messages between the participants. My thought is that if that "exchange" is just "between" one individual him or herself, as influenced by the computer program or text (alternatively, between the individual and the author(s)/programmer(s) via the awkward proxy of the program or text), we can still apply much of the theory(s).
So I may agree with your last paragraph, that we're not talking about "really different games," just an important difference. I'm not sure how we'd conclusively draw a line between "similar but varied" and "some overlap but fundamentally different," so I'm actually trying to avoid that by labeling participation "this is different" and contribution "this isn't."
Gordon
PS - It occurs to me that this may be covering much of the same ground as Shared Imagined Space, Shared Text (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14893). Through no fault but my own, I had trouble following the details of that thread, but it seems to be talking about some of the same things as I am here.
Quote from: Gordon C. LandisSo -
What I was hoping for here was to find a way to avoid the issues around "can computers be human?"
*snip*
EDIT to add whoops, meant to adress you directly a bit, Wysardry:
As far revaluating technology regarding participation goes, I don't see where that would be a problem in my distinction. When a computer is able, over an extended time frame, to convince some significant number of people to care about it as an individual, it will be participating. Until then, it isn't. No difficulties.
If you rephrase the last paragraph, it gets rid of the first question neatly via the same change.
It isn't up to the computer to convince anyone. It's up to the
user to decide whether the computer is forfilling the role of participation.
Wysardry has decided this. He's given the computer credibility.
If your main focus is group play, then this is the point where group play occurs. It's when weve decided were in a group. It's when weve decided other people at the table are suitable for the role of participant.
To make it easier to see, imagine a table top game, but there's one person there who's just come over to the table and is watching play out of interest.
Now, say that person starts getting excited about the in game action, bouncing in his seat and is really effected by the whole deal. And he even makes suggestions as to what should happen sometimes.
Now...
A: You can ignore him. And in line with your decision now, the suggestions are annoying!
B: You see him reacting and like how he responds, so you change some of your own input into the game to get a responce from him and take on some of his suggestions. He reacts to your input and his further suggestions that he makes take your previous input into account.
You have just decided whether he's a participant or not.
The same goes for the computer. Whether your playing solo or roleplaying is up to the user, not anything else in contract with the user. I'm sure weve all made our choices about what a computer can and can't do, but what's really super important here is that weve made a choice on the matter. It's recognising that this choice decides whether there is participation and not texts on the subject, that'll clear things up a bucket load.
Rather than avoid the big questions, we need to look at the fact that individuals are answering them (for themselves). And the interesting effects these answers can have. Fortunately we don't have to answer the big questions ourselves and agree on it, we just have to hypothesize what answers users will decide on, and think of how system will matter in regards to that.
Quote from: contracycleNoon's example of "Play the game and learn the other players message that he's throwing at you through his play. Then, taking his message, you add your own and express it to him. Then he takes that and likewise returns it with his own contribution, to you. And so on, back and forth for hours on end. " does not at all ring true for me. That might be a fair enough decription of Narr play, but I am not convinced it extends further. I do not see why such issues are pertinent to Exploration, anyway.
Interesting! Would you say one of the following rings true?
* Play the game and learn from the game world, by what that game world throws at you.
* Play the game and learn the GM's story, which he's throwing at you through this game world (that he's shaped to carry that story)
Quote from: Gordon C. LandisWhat I was hoping for here was to find a way to avoid the issues around "can computers be human?"/"are humans just sophisticated computers?" because they're Big Questions inappropriate to Forge discussion and, I think, irrelevant to the vast, VAST majority of the substance of the discussion about solo/computer play.
I don't think anyone has suggested that computers can be human, merely that it's possible for them to show signs of intelligence, sentience or imagination within certain confines (such as a virtual world).
Although this is not directly part of the subject, you can't expect to be able to define the differences between playing with a human, a computer and plain text without at least touching upon it.
QuoteI'm much more interested in group play than solo play. On the other hand, I don't think solo play has to get excluded from the theories entirely - all that was needed was a small (it seemed to me) concession that there was something (participation, I called it) that (as of now) only an actual human can add to play.
It is easier to determine the differences between the various types of solo play, as there are no additional humans to cloud the issue. If some sort of agreement is reached concerning them, it should be reasonably simple to expand upon that to cover group play.
QuoteIf we can't establish as a practical matter that there is something available when playing with real human beings that isn't there when playing with a text/computer, I'm guess I can't accomplish that goal.
It's possible that the problem might be that you're looking to find something that is
only available when playing with real human beings that is not there
at all when playing with a text/computer. Things generally aren't that black and white.
QuoteI can clarify a bit by saying "human participation in play, while the play is occurring", but I'm not sure if that fixes anything. If not, and all I've done is identify yet another not very useful and contentious word . . . well, that's not quite ENTIRELY useless, I guess.
I can't really see that deliberately refining the definition in that way would help identify what the difference is between the game types (other than the obvious).
QuoteMy understanding is that Vincent, at least, is on record as thinking the SIS in the LP does NOT exist in solo play.
Maybe that's true for one player, no GM solo play, but I wouldn't have thought one player with a GM solo games would be excluded.
QuoteAs far revaluating technology regarding participation goes, I don't see where that would be a problem in my distinction. When a computer is able, over an extended time frame, to convince some significant number of people to care about it as an individual, it will be participating. Until then, it isn't. No difficulties.
It isn't as cut and dried as that. As with most things, it's a matter of degree.
I think most computer owners care about their computer more than they do about those belonging to others. It's also human nature to anthropomorphize inanimate objects, even if only by swearing at their car when it won't start.
Also, playing games requires you to willingly suspend your disbelief, so what players accept whilst playing can differ from what they will accept at other times.
QuoteWhen you say "the "shared" part of SIS doesn't only mean social contribution/participation though," I'm not sure that's the current understanding. See my discussion above for more on that.
I was using the word "social" in the context as you seemed to be meaning: direct social interaction with humans. If you were also including indirect social interaction, including via non-human assistants/surrogates, then that would be acceptable to me.
QuoteBut what I was trying to do here wasn't come up with good buckets for types of play, but rather to take the observed conclusions about how play works and see if we couldn't simultaneously 1)preserve the (important, IMO) observation that interpersonal communication is a defining aspect of the SIS, and 2)include solo play as similar in almost all ways.
The first aspect would need to take into consideration that the communication may be indirect and/or delayed, or the conclusions would only apply to PnP, TT, LARP and one player + one GM solo games.
First off, clarifications: by "solo", I always mean 1 and only 1 human participant. "Player" is commonly used here at the Forge to include the GM, if any - sorry if that caused confusion. And SIS: currently, I think the standard interpretation is that "shared" IS only direct social interaction with humans. I'm not sure I must challenge that to make point about participation and contribution, but if it is loosened, I don't have a big problem with it - as long as the tighter understanding still has significance somewhere.
I think I understand what Callan is getting at with the "user decision" , and I agree to a certain point. But . . . if after extended exposure a user decides that a computer/text is a participant in fully the same way that a human at least potentially can be, they are (IMO, and at this point in technological development) delusional. That there are some humans who participate no better than a computer doesn't mean that the fact that some humans can and do fully participate is unimportant.
That's the best summary I can come up with for the "why" behind this thread: human beings, in full back-and-forth-during-play communication with each other, is an important factor. Yet I don't think it has to be a totally exclusionary factor, IF we can agree on that part. I'm even fine with Wysardry's "matter of degree" if that includes the possibility that the degree crosses over a significant, meaningful threshold at some point. Making that point the "indirect/delayed/not fully human participant" vs. "actual humans present while play occurs" is exactly what I was trying to do with contribution vs. participation.
But the main point isn't the words - it's that the line exists. And that that line, while important, doesn't have to totally isolate the activities on either side - it's a meaningful transition, not a boundry between two entirely different things. In particular, I think it helps illuminate how a game designer/text influences play, because that influence is via the same means whether 1 or 20 people are involved in play.
We might even be able to establish other transition points (one-time communication with no ongoing reinforcement vs. that with ongoing reinforcement?) But I'm not happy with saying either "real humans, computer/text - doesn't matter" OR "real humans, computer/text - not even REMOTELY the same thing."
Which maybe just means I'm gonna be unhappy, but hey, I think I can resolve it to my satisfaction. It's starting to look like that may not be so helpful to other folks, but I'm willing to keep trying - if not in this thread, elsewhere.
Gordon
QuoteI think I understand what Callan is getting at with the "user decision" , and I agree to a certain point. But . . . if after extended exposure a user decides that a computer/text is a participant in fully the same way that a human at least potentially can be, they are (IMO, and at this point in technological development) delusional.
Emphasis mine.
But they don't need their fellow participant to have the same capacity as a human, to call them a participant. They are happy to call someone/thing a participant, even when it only gives a contribution far below what a human is capable of. They have decided that's enough...that's why this is more about the users choice, than the medium involved.
This occurs even in table top play. Think of illusionist or participationist play...I hope your of the same mind as I in thinking that all these players can give so much more than add color and speak in their characters voice every so often? But even as they give far less than their capable of, each player is considered to be participating.
QuoteBut I'm not happy with saying either "real humans, computer/text - doesn't matter" OR "real humans, computer/text - not even REMOTELY the same thing."
After these threads, I'm not happy with saying either of them myself. What I'm comfortable saying is that each user decides where the line is drawn in terms of what is and isn't a participant. Quite useful in terms of realising some people just don't want levels of participation that others condsider manditory for any play to occur at all.
Callan,
That makes sense, especially the point about levels of participation. That's very useful to me - thanks. I think the very potential of full human participation has an impact, but some of my earlier posts might have overstated that impact. I'd also add that if someone chooses not to fully participate (even when they'd be better described as contributing in my terms), it's THEIR choice. They are still unquestionably fully involved in the LP credibility game, they are just granting someone else the power.
Everyone,
Anywhere else to go with this thread? I've got nothing obvious to add . . .
Gorodn
Quote from: Noon
After these threads, I'm not happy with saying either of them myself. What I'm comfortable saying is that each user decides where the line is drawn in terms of what is and isn't a participant.
That does not work in this context, I don't think. Because unless the Participant is defined as necessarily human, the status of "user" is indeterminate. In this context, the User is a member of the class Participant.
QuoteBecause unless the Participant is defined as necessarily human, the status of "user" is indeterminate. In this context, the User is a member of the class Participant.
Does the guy at the computer have to be opperating under this principle, to choose to accept the computers AI as a participant?
This may be uncharitable reading of me, but it looks like your refuting this as a circular issue: For the human to define the AI as a participant, the human has to be a participant himself, and thus 'participant' is defined as being human (which means the AI doesn't qualify).
Well, no. For example, we have built computerised interfaces for gorillas while exploring their language abilities. To the computer, the source of the inputs is not terribly important; and it does not matter if the user is human or otherwise.
So, a user does not have to be human. Admittedly, in almost all cases where the term is used, it is a reference to a human, but that is not a strict requirement. Conceivably a computer could be the user of another computer.
QuoteSo, a user does not have to be human. Admittedly, in almost all cases where the term is used, it is a reference to a human, but that is not a strict requirement. Conceivably a computer could be the user of another computer.
But could a computer play, say Planescape Torment? (in a way that makes sense)
Quote from: Eva Deinum
But could a computer play, say Planescape Torment? (in a way that makes sense)
Yes in principle. For example, many games have Bots, which are in effect autonomous NPC's. I can easily set up some games that consiste entirely of bots, and watch them play.
At a further remove, with unnecessarily complex wiring you could give a bot on one machine an interface to a game on another machine, such that the bot is playing the game.
I agree this is a sort of logical extreme, but I am only challenging the view that it is "up to the user" to decide if the computer is a participant. I don't think thats a meaningful statement if the user can be another computer.
Either the AI must be granted participant status on the basis of its activity, decisions, actions, modifications, changes to the game space - or participant must be strictly defined as necessarily human.
QuoteEither the AI must be granted participant status on the basis of its activity, decisions, actions, modifications, changes to the game space - or participant must be strictly defined as necessarily human.
This suggestion requires you to be able to identify who is participating with who, as a third party observer. But as third party observers, nobody can do this.
The two unit's in question (human/comp or comp/comp), decide this. If your not in the game, you don't get to decide who's a participant and who isn't. Deciding who is a participant (for this thread), involves your deciding whether they meet your own personal requirements as a participant.
As said, the reason each unit has to decide this is because I or anyone else can't say "Hey, X amount of participation means they're a participant!". Because anyone can can turn around and say "No, that's not enough for me." or "That more than I need, I can accept far less".
So, does the comp consider the comp a participant? Dunno. They can't speak as well as we can on such matters. And if you leave the third party observation level and get into the game, then it's you deciding who's participating with you...you still don't get to decide if other units are participating with any other unit there.
Personally I consider myself to have certain capacities and consider someone participating with me if they engage those capacities. NPC bots have far lower capacities than me IMO, but certainly each bot is engaging what capacities the other has. But of course, like I said, I can't speak for them.
Quote from: Noon
The two unit's in question (human/comp or comp/comp), decide this. If your not in the game, you don't get to decide who's a participant and who isn't. Deciding who is a participant (for this thread), involves your deciding whether they meet your own personal requirements as a participant.
You have not established that this subjective decision is a legitimate or useful approach. It still allows the decision to be left to the gorilla.
Quote
So, does the comp consider the comp a participant? Dunno. They can't speak as well as we can on such matters. And if you leave the third party observation level and get into the game, then it's you deciding who's participating with you...you still don't get to decide if other units are participating with any other unit there.
I don't think this addresses the point. The computer (or programme, really) will treat you as a participant, which is to say, it will respond to you. It certainly grants you the credibility to state, within bounds, "I will have my character do THIS".
If the computer acts into the shared space, surely it must be a participant in every meanginful sense. I don;t see how the opinions of any given participant can themselves define participation.
Quote from: contracycleYou have not established that this subjective decision is a legitimate or useful approach. It still allows the decision to be left to the gorilla.
I agree and yes. What I have established is that a third party observer can not decide who is participating with who. It'd be the same as
my deciding what is beutiful in
your opinion...obviously a pointless exercise for me to decide that for you. Participation is also in the eye of the beholder.
Now I can observe what you like in terms of beuty and form a hypothesis, which is a legitimate, useful and fairly practical approach. As long as we keep in mind it's no more than hypothesis. Were not going to define beuty or participation here, were just going to make up some rough tools based on observation, to help us in design.
Quote
I don't think this addresses the point. The computer (or programme, really) will treat you as a participant, which is to say, it will respond to you. It certainly grants you the credibility to state, within bounds, "I will have my character do THIS".
If the computer acts into the shared space, surely it must be a participant in every meanginful sense. I don;t see how the opinions of any given participant can themselves define participation.
In observing what some (not all, some) people want in a participant, some of them want to judge cultural contributions by the other, then start using these themselves...thus a participant is someone (to them) who is worthy of modifying their own behaviour for.
Observing the computers needs, as you say, their participant needs are much simpler.
This is where as a designer you stop considering yourself to be a third party observer. Because all of this is participation by both sides. Your reference to 'must be a participant in every
meaningful sense' is still relying on some master check list of meaningful requirements to be met.
Now at this point you either:
A: Realise your using a subjective check list of your own and that your not a third party observer anymore, your a designer who's formed a subjective opinion of what you consider a participant to be (in order to aid you to design). Then go out and design the game you want.
or
B: Work from the idea that a participant can be determined from one set of concrete facts, despite how many people will tell you they don't need to have all those facts in place to consider someone/thing a participant; or despite how many people will tell you they actually need more concrete facts in place than that to consider someone a participant.
Personally, because of these threads I've adopted A, as I'm screwed if I adopt B. B will just require me trying to convince people along similar lines to this "Look, beauty comes from A, B and C. I don't care if you think just A and B are beutiful or you think it takes A, B, C and D to form beauty...your all wrong, because there can only be one concrete definition for beauty, for all people"
That's all I got on the matter.
I don't think there is ant reasonable basis for the claim that participation is as subjective as beauty, not by a long shot. I mean, if it is the case that for a given activity, a certain KIND of participation is required, thats an entirely reasonable and materialistic crirterion. There may certainly be situations in which a human participant is required, but I don't see how that implies participation is subjective.
And any way, while individual perceptions of beauty do of course exist, there are also rules-based perceptions, such as the general approval of (especially facial) symmetry. I don't think the appeal to a subjectivist argument is valid, and quite clearly, IMO computers do indeed participate in the shared space.
Just because the discussion seems to have resulted in using "participation" in a broad, obvious-meaning sense - I never intended to challenge that a computer (or etc.) is involved[i/] (contributes, in my original words) in the shared space. It seemed useful to me to carve out something (which I called, apparently unwisely, participation) that only applies to humans-in-actual-communication, mostly so that we could then let that be and talk about this involved/contributes thing without crossing over to that which only-actually-communicating-humans do.
I still think that's valuable, but - how to get there?
Gordon
Heya Gordon,
QuoteIt seemed useful to me to carve out something that only applies to humans-in-actual-communication, mostly so that we could then let that be and talk about this involved/contributes thing without crossing over to that which only-actually-communicating-humans do.
Are you comfortable with carving that out in terms of where you see the line between them yourself, rather than stipulating where that line is for everybody? The latter seems a discussion topic by itself. The former just means we'll be working explicitely from your perspective on this, which is a fine anchoring point to work from and will also ensure the line wont be a point of discussion itself.
Even if you restrict the definition of participation to humans only, it would still be a matter of personal preference/opinion/viewpoint.
For example, one player in a tabletop game may also be reading a book, watching television or chatting with someone else during the game and only joining in during his/her turn.
That player may believe (s)he is participating, but others may not.
Exactly! But what might be interesting is not what anyone thinks is just a contribution and what is participation, but once people have decided that, how do people treat a contribution vs how they'd treat what a participant gives?
For that, it doesn't matter where you draw the line between contribution and participation. Were instead looking at how you treat that source (once you've decided which is just a contributor and which is a participationist).
For those purposes, Gordon or any other poster here could stipulate what is or isn't a participant for them, then talk about how they treat the input of contributors and participants.
Edit: In terms of that, I've always found that house rules often have more resistance than publisher rule changes. I wonder if this is because it's easier to just accept the input of a contributor, than it is to accept a participants input in such a matter. The latter sets up quite a precident of acceptance.
Another example of treating a contributor and a participant might be this one: Say I'm playing a space invaders game and thought it was just the computer and me. And after awhile more and more space invaders come on, until it's just overwhelming.
I might just grit my teeth and try to play through.
But what if the set up involved another person deciding how many space invaders are to come on. And he keeps pilling them on.
I'm pretty sure I'd start directing some comments at him, rather than accept what happens like I'd have accepted the contribution of the comp in the previous example.
It'd be interesting if the example was skewed futher. Either;
A: I think I'm playing against the comp, but really another person is deciding how many aliens come.
B: I think another person is deciding how many come (and I have some microphone to yell at them through, rather than face to face interact), but really its just a comp deciding.