How DO Game Designers (or computers) influence play?

[Callan S.]

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.

[Gordon C. Landis]

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

[Gordon C. Landis]

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

[contracycle]

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.

[Gordon C. Landis]

contra,

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.

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.  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.

[Callan S.]

So -

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.

[Callan S.]

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.

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)

[Wysardry]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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).

My 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Gordon C. Landis]

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

[Callan S.]

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.

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.

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."

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.

[Gordon C. Landis]

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

[contracycle]

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.

[Callan S.]

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.

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).

[contracycle]

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.

[Eve]

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.

But could a computer play, say Planescape Torment? (in a way that makes sense)