Walt Frietag: the LP in Solo CRPGs?

[pete_darby]

Gareth: if, in order to maintain my position, I have to accept that I do not share your valdly materialistic and deterministic view of the mechanisms of conciousness, well, I guess I'm comfortable maintaining my position.

The silicon / elctronic space in which the game is played in a CRPG is not analagous to the SIS of an RPG, because the memory space of the computer is composed of a very precise language and grammar, where the signified object is what it is meant to be, what it is eplicitly defined to be, and nothing else. In a human, social game, the exact meaning and definition of each object in the SIS is a linguistic, social and biological construct, with many and varied levels of significance.

Certainly, if a game were conducted with a sufficiently advanced computer, which could interact flexibly in a linguistic fashion to linguistic input, all of which is heuristically constructed rather than pre-programmed, then we could operate an LP, assuming we can persuade the computer to alter it's "gamespace" according to our persuation of it's whims, but that is essentially saying, "If the GM is a sentient being, the LP applies," which is facile at best.

Take it in the other direction: a solo game of Talisman. There is, quite literally, no way of influencing the board,rules and dice by the player beyond choosing which of two ways to travel after the dice are rolled. The game has all the credibility, the player has none. The only ways for the player to regain credibility is either to cheat or refuse to play. In my mind, this is exactly analagous to playing a CRPG: limited input, and no credibility for interpretation of the results of the input for the player. The LP is in effect, but in an incredibly limited fashion, due to the rigid nature of the available social contract with the game.

[joshua neff]

I was going to post, but Pete said what I was going to say, and he said it better than I would have.

So...what Pete said.

[contracycle]

Take it in the other direction: a solo game of Talisman. There is, quite literally, no way of influencing the board,rules and dice by the player beyond choosing which of two ways to travel after the dice are rolled. The game has all the credibility, the player has none. The only ways for the player to regain credibility is either to cheat or refuse to play. In my mind, this is exactly analagous to playing a CRPG: limited input, and no credibility for interpretation of the results of the input for the player. The LP is in effect, but in an incredibly limited fashion, due to the rigid nature of the available social contract with the game.

Ah but you see, that is exactly my claim: credibility CAN be ceded to the mechanical rules.  And you are right - the only way then for the player to regain credibility is to cheat or otherwise obviate the structured game.

The game, then, DOES have the credibility to state "and behind the door you see THIS".  

And I think the player does have input to the SIS becuase they can select which door they want to see behind.

While seeing people as complex computers is indeed, roughly speaking, thew way I see the world, its not strictly necessary for this argument about the SIS.  Becuase I still think the computers vitual space is a shared space, it just happens not to be imaginary.  I don' think Imaginary was the key term in SIs - instead, I think that is the term "shared".  IMO all the complexities of the LP and SIS hinge on that issue, the negotiation of shared rights.



Edit:
I have expressed the opinion already that the massively multiplayer environment is going to have to start developing an appreciation of social contract, much more than it has at present.  A single-player game that has credibility or data problems is a binary case; the purchaser is happy enough to keep playing, or so disenchanted they quit.  The problem for MMO's is that they must have many players to work at all.

Recently the World of Warcraft MMO suffered what was probably the first mass civil disobediance action in cyberspace.   The problem was that the Warrior class was deemed to be underpowered, and to suffer from niche erosion to other classes.  A few hundred players got together, registered temporary accounts with near-naked gnomes for characters, and invaded the Argent Dawn server en mass, eventually bringing it down.  Some visuals can be found here: http://www.cesspit.net/drupal/node/491

My view of this event is as follows.  What we see is a classic sabotage tactic designed to draw attention to a grievance.  That grievance revolves around the rules of the shared space.  It would not have been a grievance if the programmes statements into the shared space had not been absolute, but they were - there was no way to appeal againsta  spceific decision - and the only way the problem could be addressed was in general principle.

It seems to me that this breakdown shows that the system can have de facto powers to make definitive statements into the shared space.  IMO, the ultimate origin of these statements is not important.  What is important is that all the social contract issues still exist, even when you cannot negotiate with the machine.

[pete_darby]

But their not negotiating with the machine: they're negotiating with the owners of the servers, maybe indirectly the designers.

I guess my objection is that the play space in a computer game, whether solo or MM, is objective, completely external to the players, whether physical or virtual, so players can't play without abrogating all authority to the mechanical adjudicator of the space. In a conventional RPG, or LARP, the SIS is produced by the agreed convergence of subjective mental spaces, even if aided by maps, miniatures etc.

Also, remember that in standard RPG play, the written rules are actually usually used an appeal to authority ("I say this happened because the dice say it happened"), but, because the SIS is this intersection of subjective spaces, this only works if the group has agreed to abide by the dice, and that the particular interpretation of the dice roll is acceptable to the group. In a computer game, there is no possibility of negotiating any of this with the program; the shared virtual space is, in fact, wholly "owned" by the program.

I think most folks here are agreeeing more than they're disagreeing, and most problems have arisen from the conflation of LP "system" (the means by which events in the SIS are agreed upon), and "system" as in a particular set of game rules.

Woudl I be right in saying that the LP is of limited application in non-RP games (including board games and CRPG's), because
a) the action of the games occurs in an objective, if possibly virtual, space, in which
b) the player has no credibility support alternative interpretations of the shared virtual space to those presented by the game, and thus
c) Human players cannot play these games without either ceding all credibility to the game rules entirely or "modifying the game by unusual means" (ie cheating)

Fair?

[Lance D. Allen]

My final entry to this discussion, because it's degenerating into something that doesn't interest me.

First, you cannot call imagination and the definition thereof irrelevant; We are discussing Shared Imaginative Space. If imagination is irrelevant, then the whole discussion is irrelevant.

Secondly, Computers do not have imaginations. No matter how well they simulate imaginative contribution, simulation is not reality, by definition. When computers have imaginations, as I expect they one day will, and the flexibility to act upon those imaginations, then SiS can apply to CRPGs.

Finally, and this is entirely tangential:

Recently the World of Warcraft MMO suffered what was probably the first mass civil disobediance action in cyberspace.

Do your research. UO did it first when hundreds of naked, drunken newb character's marched on Castle British. SWG has done it more recently, with the naked-wookiee crash on Bria server. I think even CoH has had minor demonstrations. As long as EQ has been going, I'd lay money that it's happened at least once there, too. It's still entirely irrelevant to the topic, which is about the Lumpley Principle, and by extension SiS, as applied to Solo CRPGs.

[Wysardry]

Wysardry, what role do you ideally imagine the GM is there for?

* Is he there, so I can play?

* Or is he there, so I can possibly learn something from his experience, as I play?

I would have to say that the first option is the most important, and the second more like "icing on the cake".

If I wanted to play, and the GM was inexperienced or ran the game strictly by the book, I would still play.

If so, would you be willing to accept a responce from the game saying 'Dude, your roleplaying sucks, I'm out of here' and the game stops running and it wont ever run again, no matter what you do. No reloads, no hacking it's files, it's walked out on you. It's stopped giving you cred. (And no, this doesn't already happen when you die in a computer game...being returned to the main menu is not an example of the computer walking away from you)

Could you come to game, fully ready to accept that?

That would depend. I would be peeved if I had paid for a game and that happened without prior warning, as I think most would.

However, if it was stated beforehand that a certain standard of play was required and/or the game was free, then I would accept it. It wouldn't be that different from being banned from an online game for inappropriate behaviour.

And that's just the first step. The next topic is asking whether that AI is going to show you anything you didn't already learn in your first few years of life. Particularly, if it's just going to parrot it's creators experiences. If a parrot can sing the words of a human song and you learn this song from hearing it, did you learn that song from the parrot?

Yes, if I learnt the song from hearing the parrot's rendition of it, then I learnt it from the parrot rather than the human. If the rendition was reasonably good, I could imagine I was hearing and/or learning it directly from the human.

I don't feel that is a very good example/test of AI capabilities though, as the same could apply to an electronic recording or two tin cans and a long length of string.

[contracycle]

My final entry to this discussion, because it's degenerating into something that doesn't interest me.

Finally, and this is entirely tangential:

Do your research.

It's still entirely irrelevant to the topic, which is about the Lumpley Principle, and by extension SiS, as applied to Solo CRPGs.

And fuck you very much, sunshine.

[Domhnall]

Here is a link to an argument re: AI sentience germane to this discussion.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/chineser.htm

[contracycle]

But their not negotiating with the machine: they're negotiating with the owners of the servers, maybe indirectly the designers.

Exactly so, thus reprising out own debate around whether or not the designers can speak into the shared space.  The problem they faced was that the mechanical system was established without any system of appeal, and so when a serious dispute arose there was no means to address the topic other than unilaterla action.  And whats more, their response demonstrated much the same "game spoiling" behaviour we associate with failed social contract.  IMO, the two systems are identical.

I guess my objection is that the play space in a computer game, whether solo or MM, is objective, completely external to the players, whether physical or virtual, so players can't play without abrogating all authority to the mechanical adjudicator of the space. In a conventional RPG, or LARP, the SIS is produced by the agreed convergence of subjective mental spaces, even if aided by maps, miniatures etc.

Yes, except that the very use of maps and miniatures demonstrates that the convergence is more important than the subjective imagination of the scene.  All the computerised environment does is obviate the confusion - it is as if the declarative staments of whoever controls the content can be conveyed perfectly and without any confusion to all players.

Also, remember that in standard RPG play, the written rules are actually usually used an appeal to authority ("I say this happened because the dice say it happened"), but, because the SIS is this intersection of subjective spaces, this only works if the group has agreed to abide by the dice, and that the particular interpretation of the dice roll is acceptable to the group. In a computer game, there is no possibility of negotiating any of this with the program; the shared virtual space is, in fact, wholly "owned" by the program.

Yes thats quite right.  Thus, what amounts to system has taken on the roloe of defining the shared space.  The role of imagination is secondary to the issue of shared access control.

Hence, my position that the LP is overstated.  Its concentration on the human social contract is particular to the non-mechanised presentation of RPG at the tabletop.  IMO that statement is undermined by the introduction of any mechanisation, including maps and miniatures.  There is a clear and visible attempt to systematically and objectively establish the content of the shared space, which is repeatedly reinvented.

[Ron Edwards]

This thread is closed.

Best,
Ron

[Callan S.]

I would have to say that the first option is the most important, and the second more like "icing on the cake".

If I wanted to play, and the GM was inexperienced or ran the game strictly by the book, I would still play.

Thanks, that was an important question to answer. I hope it doesn't change much of your answer, but by experience I mean learning from the GM's life experience, not just how experienced he is as a GM.

So learning from the GM is a secondary goal for yourself?

What if I said learning from the GM while playing, was the primary goal? And 'just playing' wasn't even the secondary or tertiary goal.

Now you might say you are learning from the computer GM. So the next responce is also important.

Yes, if I learnt the song from hearing the parrot's rendition of it, then I learnt it from the parrot rather than the human. If the rendition was reasonably good, I could imagine I was hearing and/or learning it directly from the human.

Say the guy who taught the parrot wrote the song himself.

Would you say you still learnt the song from the parrot? It's okay if you do, that's cool. This is how I'm defining a gaming goal.

* You want to learn from the parrot.

* Another person wants to learn the song from the person who wrote the song, and is merely using the parrot merely as a medium to facilitate that end.

Both are valid goals. I think perhaps that yourself and others who have debatated with you, are arguing that only one of these goals is valid. Perhaps because everyones only seen the one goal to exist. However, there are two goals available to choose from.

Frankly I hadn't considered there to be two possible goals myself, before now. However, even the modest AI available today facilitates the first goal.

Edit: I was composing this as Ron closed the thread.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey.

It's CLOSED.

Stop posting to this thread now.

Best,
Ron

[contracycle]

Why should the thread be closed?