I really should not be starting this thread, because I'm still wading through the stuff I missed when my computer crashed; but in reading Vincent's A short rant about "SIS" I began to take a different tack in my mind.

One of the big arguments regarding the lack of SIS in CRPG is that you can't really negotiate with the AI that runs the game. That may arguably be a limit of current technology; and yet it may arguably be false.

I have argued elsewhere that a CRPG might be regarded an RPG on the basis of the computer as a player with limited ability sharing an imaginary space. Because of the nature of the device, the computer is superb at sharing its current imagined space, but extremely limited in what it is able to add to it. If we accept that the computer and I are "imagining" the same space, because I can see what it imagines and thus imagine the same thing, the problem that remains is the interaction between us.

Let me step back and establish this as a reasonable assertion. If I am playing with you, not a computer, it is part of the process of sharing our imagined space that you describe to me what you perceive to be the reality within it. Our ability to share the space is totally dependent on the abilities we have to communicate with each other, both to express and to understand. If you were to describe a room to me, I would imagine what you described. Were you to draw the room, that would be a more effective means of communicating your vision of the room. In a text-based CRPG, the computer describes the room; in a visual-based one, it draws it. In both cases, it effectively communicates to me the contents of the space as it imagines it along with actions it is imagining within that space, and I effectively communicate to it my actions through its interface to the degree that it is able to understand my actions.

The objection is that I can't tell it that it has the space wrong--that it didn't understand what I intended, has me in the wrong position, or otherwise missed it. I can't fix what it imagines, only what I imagine.

Yet I wondered, what if I could do that? What if when I told it I wanted to do X and it thought I meant Y, I could say, no, that should have been X? If I could undo moves and consequences because in my opinion the other player--the computer--didn't get it?

Then I would be negotiating with the computer regarding the content of the shared imagined space, getting it to change what it imagines to be closer to what I imagine, instead of the other way around.

It then occurs to me that this capability has already been incorporated into many CRPGs; if memory serves, it's been within at least some of them all the way back to the text-based games I played on the C64 back in the early/mid eighties. I've seen my kids do it time and again, and never realized that this is what they were doing.

Most of these games have the capabilities 1) to save your current position and 2) to return to any previously saved position. Thus it has become bog-standard (what does that mean, anyway?) for players of gamist CRPGs to save their positions frequently, particularly just before embarking on sections of the game known to be dangerous, and then to play forward through the section ahead--only to return and attempt it again if they are not satisfied with the outcome. In other terms, if they disagree with the computer-player's statement of the shared imagined space, they negotiate by saying, "back up and let's try that again, so we can get the characters where I think they should be".

That's a more involved process than, "Dude, my guy was on the south side, not the north side, so he's behind the bad guys at this point, and they should be able to see him and attack him from where they are." Yet it is functionally the same: it adjusts the shared imagined space in the computer until it matches that of the player.

Thus "negotiation" is occurring.

I recognize that a computer cannot negotiate with a person in the same way that people negotiate with each other. I don't have a problem with that. I negotiate with my dog at times (promising to let her out in a minute or so if she'll be quiet so I can finish what I'm trying to type), my cats (suggesting that I'm willing the share the bed if they're willing to make room for me), and occasionally with horses (accommodating their fears of unknown people so that they will be comfortable with me). I cannot do this in the same way I do it with people, but it is often still a negotiation process. I see no reason why the ability to tell the computer, "let's back up and try that again from here, to see if I can get it to be the way I intended" is not a valid negotiation process for the formation of a shared imagined space between a computer and a person.

O.K., where are the flaws?

--M. J. Young

None by my interpretation, except I think your really negotiating with the creator of the game through a long range method of communication. It's like play by post game, the GM posts then you react to that (or even don't, depending on how you negotiate with it). The video game is just like a really complicated post from a GM. In fact, it's so complicated things like the save and reload if things just go stupid can happen...unlike a 'post', the game is complex enough to allow more negotiation options (even cheat codes come to mind).

I think it is possible to negotiate with the medium itself...here's a wacked analogy, I train a dog to give you a note (with the roleplaying stuff) if you say the right word. But the dogs nervous so you let it smell your hand and talk to it softly and then it gets comfortable and give you the note on command. But really I think that the writer of the note is so much 'louder' in terms of creative input to the roleplay, that you may as well ignore the dog. Likewise, I'd ignore the computer and say I'm negotiating with the game writer.

Callan wrote: ...I think your really negotiating with the creator of the game through a long range method of communication.....I'd ignore the computer and say I'm negotiating with the game writer.

M.J.,
The question you raise is only partly answerable; the remainder is more of a philosophical choice on your part.

Any computer[1] that can ever be built is inherently limited in its capabilities, this is the Church-Turing thesis. That is to say, there are problems with well-defined solutions that no computer can solve.

Because of this, some people refuse to see a computer as (potentially) human-equivalent. Thus, a computer cannot be a player because being a player is a human condition and therefore, in this philosophy, by definition not open to a computer.

Others believe that the CT thesis applies to the human mind as well[2] and therefore that it is untenable to distinguish between a human and a sufficiently sophisticated computer. In this philosophy, a computer could be a player because any condition open to a human would by definition also be open to at least some computers.

Still others take the position that is unimportant whether the computer `really' thinks or `merely' presents a convincing simulation of thought. In this philosophy, a computer would be considered a player if you were unable to determine whether whether a program or a human was controlling your computer's output--i.e. a Turing Test for CRPGs.

Where there might be hope that some day we'll have facts that allow us to decide between the first two positions, the third position is one of attitude, not of fact, and thus not open to confirmation or refutation.

All of which leads me to argue that, at the present state of knowledge, if the computer isn't a player, then that is because you have decided that it isn't a player. No more, no less.

In particular, the human-analogon of the position that the dialog between you and the computer is `really' a dialog between you and the game-designer would be that any dialog between you and me is really a dialog between you and all those who formed my mind (parents, teachers, friends, and so on).

SR
--
[1] That's computer in it current meaning. There is no proof that devices of some kind couldn't be built that would be essentially more powerful than a Universal Turing Machine. (Nor is there proof that such devices could be built.)
[2] At this point in the development of neuroscience, there is no hard evidence either way, thus both this position and its opposite can only be taken on faith of some kind.

When people negotiate, they use a variety of strategies in order to achieve their goals. Most people learn these strategies, but some deduce them or refine them from personal experience.

Similarly computers can be tought strategies, and as your face recognition example shows they can geenrate their own strategies in some circumstances using a variety of mechanisms.

We could argue about the philosophical nature of computer 'intelligence', but the fact is that computers can hold an internal representation of an imagined space, and they can negotiate it's contents with humans. Arguments to disqualify computers from being 'active' participants in a game come down to special, abstruse definitions of the term 'active' that would mean little or nothing to the average game player.


Simon Hibbs

I can't find any faults with what you're saying MJ. I think the computer is a player.

Chris

MJ Young,

* He's playing chess with the programmer. The programmer has simply stated his moves in advance and a system of delivering them. His move is basically whatever he codes...after all, if I play chess with someone in real life, I could sit there using an algorithym I worked out, going through it with paper and pen then moving the required pieces with my own hand. Or perhaps I'll use an algorithym that's entirely in my head...in fact, we all do that without any choice.

You might want to argue that playing with someone has to involve playing with the algorythm that they don't have any choice in using...their own mind. While an algorythm they wrote isn't the same as that (it isn't, I agree), and thus doesn't represent playing with them. That'd be interesting to argue...is this what you mean, perhaps?

* No, comps can contribute (and in about 15 to 20 years will probably attain animal or even low human intellect).

Remember my crappy dog example...the dog sort of influenced the creative exchange. But really the guy who wrote the note was much 'louder' creatively. As computers get louder and louder creatively, you'll go from a remote roleplay with just the designer to more something here and now with the computer. It's just like if your were at table top with someone who was a really poor game contributor, and someone else who couldn't be present but sent really good e-mails to cover his PC's actions. Now imagining the poor contributor improving his skills over time...soon he might eclipse the really good e-mails.

* I think I covered this above.

* I think your confusing tool and creative contribution. Rule books are basically tools that are supposed to help with roleplay. It's like a book that explains proper grammer...it's not a message/creative contribution, it's something to aid a message/creative contribution.

CRPG's contain these tools and a creative contribution from the author.

And no jokes about me needing that book of grammer! ;)


To wrap up: I think the computer can be a contributor...currently though their contribution is massively eclipsed by the designers contribution. It wont always be this way, but it's practical to only see the designer as a contributor.

I'm willing to accept a computer as an extraordinarily dumb player. But I think this is a meaningless attribution.

I have no problem seeing the computers role as identical to that of a player, but I'm suprised to see MJ advance this point, becuase I see it through my materialism, and hence see human brains and computers as essentially the same device.

But I don't think the Essential nature of computers or brains is important. Even allowing the identity, playing with a computer is at present still rather like playing with a 4-year old at best; there may be some tasks they can perform but their abuility to grasp what is happening, and what the point of the exercise might be, is limited. Their ability to make meaningful decisions is also limited.

So yes, you could prop a 4-year old up at the table and put dice in its hand and claim it was playing, but I wouldn't buy it.

Stepping back to the essential argument, however, it is my feeling that games are quite involved functions and living beings, and while a computer may well duplicate brain functions it still does not reproduce and cannot be said to be alive. Computers are not evolved "beings", and do not have a fight/flight reflex, and have no history of predation. Whether even a fully aware computer would find such games entertaining is open to doubt, I suspect.

contracycle wrote: But I don't think the Essential nature of computers or brains is important. Even allowing the identity, playing with a computer is at present still rather like playing with a 4-year old at best; there may be some tasks they can perform but their abuility to grasp what is happening, and what the point of the exercise might be, is limited. Their ability to make meaningful decisions is also limited.

I want to thank everyone for their input so far. Gareth, I understand what you mean about the materialism that seems to infiltrate the view. Let me suggest (as long as you've raised it) that I have no trouble with the notion that a creative God created a being in His own image as a creative being, and that that creative being in turn created something in his own image which might also prove to be creative.

I also agree that there's something to the whole thing that smacks of playing a role playing game with a four-year-old as a referee, and I wouldn't do it. But then, I gave up on CRPGs twenty years ago and never went back, so apparently I don't care to play with four-year-old referees. As an aside, though, my youngest grew up around some very intense gaming--he was often sitting in his high chair next to me while E. R. Jones or I ran D&D or Multiverser. Most kids babble; he babbled constantly, and even after he could speak he would be heard going on and on with some story he was weaving about people, sometimes telling us about the story, sometimes just talking to himself. We had no idea what he was doing until one day, when he was about three, some kid sitting near him in a public waiting area asked what he was saying. His answer, word for word: "It's a game. Wanna play? Got any dice?" From very young, my kids all ran games for each other, and played in each other's games, and never seemed to have trouble with that. So maybe a four-year-old's understanding of the world limits what he can contribute to the shared imagined space; but in the case of a CRPG we can say that this particular four-year-old is extremely good at communicating what he envisions, and is a wizard at working out event resolution if he understands what you're trying to do.

In any case, you do accept that the computer/console makes sense as a player, which means we do have a shared imagined space between player and computer, and CRPGs fit the definitions of RPGs in common use around here despite the differences.

Which brings me to Callan. Thank you for defending your position, Callan; the ointment needs a fly, or we can't figure out what's wrong with it. I like your thoughts.

Callan wrote: * He's playing chess with the programmer. The programmer has simply stated his moves in advance and a system of delivering them. His move is basically whatever he codes...after all, if I play chess with someone in real life, I could sit there using an algorithym I worked out, going through it with paper and pen then moving the required pieces with my own hand. Or perhaps I'll use an algorithym that's entirely in my head...in fact, we all do that without any choice.

Callan then wrote: Remember my crappy dog example...the dog sort of influenced the creative exchange. But really the guy who wrote the note was much 'louder' creatively. As computers get louder and louder creatively, you'll go from a remote roleplay with just the designer to more something here and now with the computer. It's just like if your were at table top with someone who was a really poor game contributor, and someone else who couldn't be present but sent really good e-mails to cover his PC's actions. Now imagining the poor contributor improving his skills over time...soon he might eclipse the really good e-mails.

Finally, Callan wrote: * I think your confusing tool and creative contribution. Rule books are basically tools that are supposed to help with roleplay. It's like a book that explains proper grammer...it's not a message/creative contribution, it's something to aid a message/creative contribution.

CRPG's contain these tools and a creative contribution from the author.

Your counter to your own argument is very good; but I chose chess very specifically in this case, because there are a couple different ways in which computers are programmed to play, and these aren't really methods that their programmers use, in the main.

I think, though, that if before we started to play my mother spent a week teaching my niece to play bridge, that wouldn't be the same argument.

I'm going to say in the case of the dog, the dog doesn't matter because he's only the telephone line. In the case of the remote player, we may have cooperation going on or we may actually be playing the remote player, not the guy working the e-mail. However, in both of those cases, it is tacitly assumed that the dog and the e-mail guy are relaying current game position to the remote player and bringing back their response.

I think that in a CRPG you do have a shared imagined space, as long as you accept that the computer is sharing it.

Noon wrote:

I think that in a CRPG you do have a shared imagined space, as long as you accept that the computer is sharing it.

I think your sharing it with the author of the game. It's just that you've only ever had one exchange of creative input (though the exchange can take hours and hours of play). But that doesn't mean you haven't exchanged with him at all...

Your mixing up the idea of teaching and programming and getting yourself into a spot.

If you teach me to GM, what I eventually express will have elements of the teaching you expressed to me, mixed with my output.

However, if you kidnap me and brainwash me to GM in a particular way, that will help to thoroughly supress any creative input I might have added. If you don't see creative input from me but do see me acting out what you brainwashed me into doing, who's are you exchanging creative material with? Me?

Currently we don't teach computers. We program them, because their already like someone who is brainwashed...they'll do exactly as their told. If their doing exactly as their told, your not exactly recieving a creative exchange with them, are you?

As for 'using some jargonistic version' if you want to dismiss it that way, cool. I'm not trying to bend the words till I can trick you, though. I'm trying to cut down to the essential elements, which much like a single stem cell doesn't look like a man, might not look like roleplay at a casual glance. And what it does look like might just seem to be jargonistic so the technique is dismissed and I can't go any further.

Noon wrote: As for 'using some jargonistic version' if you want to dismiss it that way, cool.

Noon wrote: Your mixing up the idea of teaching and programming and getting yourself into a spot.

If you teach me to GM, what I eventually express will have elements of the teaching you expressed to me, mixed with my output.

However, if you kidnap me and brainwash me to GM in a particular way...

Noon wrote: Currently we don't teach computers. We program them, because their already like someone who is brainwashed...they'll do exactly as their told. If their doing exactly as their told, your not exactly recieving a creative exchange with them, are you?

Forgive me if these points have already been brought up elsewhere, I’ve not had time to read all of the threads in this subject all the way through yet. It would seem to me that the computer isn’t so much a stupid player; so much as it’s an incredibly uninspired and lazy GM. To quote one of my first GM’s, Role-playing is organized chaos, hold the organization and double the chaos. There are mechanics in any game; this could potentially be seen as the programming of a CRPG. . . It’s the basic rule set that all players agree to abide by, and it’s the reason that a great sword deals more damage than a dagger. In both systems, it acts sort of like the laws of physics, they are unbreakable and are constant . . . but what happens when you bend them?

In an RPG that allows a live GM, I can do things that the system doesn’t have rulings for. What happens if I use Unseen Servant to pick up girls at the tavern? What happens when I throw a torch onto kegs of alcohol? How much damage does a chandelier do, and what do I have to roll in order to hit the rope holding it to the ceiling? All of these are things that have either been done in RPG’s that I’ve been part of or have been GMing, and all required a snap ruling to a novel situation, though if I attempted any of those in a CRPG, the computer coding simply wouldn’t allow me to do it . . . in essence, its like having an extremely strict, extremely unwavering GM, and I think that you hit it right on the dot when you mentioned that its all about being able to bargain and make compromise.

Most, if not all of you here have likely role-played for several years, and I’ve a feeling that veterans of the tabletop RPG’s have similar stories to tell. That seems to me to be the largest single factor keeping CRPG’s from becoming expected, though what’s at fault really? Unwavering programming is part of the problem, the fact that we can’t get computers that are able to evolve as the game progresses, or at least are unable to evolve beyond what the pre-programmed allowances for change are. While this can be modified to an extent through game mods, patches, expansion packs, cheat codes and the like, they are still limited to what is known ahead of time, and what can be anticipated for.

In the Larp that I ran for 2 years, we called it Joel’s Law, that no matter how well planed your adventure was, no matter how many contingencies you had plans for, the characters would always find something that they wanted to do or would try to do, that you have not planed for. The two ways to deal with Joel’s law has been to either

a) Make it impossible to do (“you find a stone wall that you can’t get past.” “I try to climb it” “you can’t”)

b) Make it possible, but extremely difficult to discourage it. (“Monsters, keep resurrecting”)

c) Allow it, adapting your campaign to the deviation, but with consequences (“alright, since you traveled back in time and killed Draconis as he was a child. . . very well, however since you did it, Vadie was never killed and in your timeline, he’s conquered the province”)

d) Allow it, adapting your campaign to the deviation, rewarding the characters for creative thinking (“alright, you’ve jumped on the back of the Bone Machine, Corey, get on Wayne’s back. . .”)

The first two are the easiest to do, simply not allowing the actions to be a viable option. As this requires the least amount of options and thus is the easiest to code, it’s the one most CRPG’s utilize. The third and fourth options require creativity on the behalf of the GM, something which is doable if your GM is there in front of you, however in a CRPG, since every possible option is simply impossible to code in, and the program is unable to be creative by itself, it is simply not possible with current technology, and that in and of itself, limits the SIS to what the computer program is capable of.

Simply my observations on the matter, while I see where you are coming from and can see some similarities between the consol being an inept player and you the advisor, the program would limit far more that mouse and keyboard alone would, after all, I’ve been typing this into my word processor, yet I doubt heartily that it understands what I’m writing, much less being able to form any matter of retort. It makes more sense to me to see you as the player, limited by an uncreative and simplistic GM, the program.

Simply an observation

Paul of Inner Circle

Paul--I'm not certain I understand your point.

You appear to be distinguishing "computer as referee" being distinct from "computer as player"; if that's your distinction, that's not what I meant. It's generally recognized at the forge that character-players and referee-players are all players.

My point is that the computer is the player, in this case the referee player, and that it is capable even in its current level of technology of interacting with living players through sharing an imagined space.

Callan's point is that the computer cannot share an imagined space, and thus the living players at the console are sharing the imagined space with the game designer, who has made his contribution.

I disagree, in part because that would lead me to conclude that if I were playing the D&D module Keep on the Borderlands, Gary Gygax is participating in our game because he wrote the rules and the module. The standard objection to that is that Gary Gygax contributes nothing to the shared imagined space directly; rather, the players at the table refer to his rules and module and use that to inform their contributions to the shared imagined space. Similarly, George Lucas does not contribute to the shared imagined space of our Star Wars game, but rather created the world which we use to inform our own play. Lucas had no notion of creating a role playing game, and it's doubtful whether he's even familiar with how the various incarnations of his game play. He certainly is not familiar with the many freeform live action roleplay games based on his movies that children have played for decades now; he is not a participant in the game, but merely a resource upon which the participants draw.

In the same way, I would say that the program is the reference used by the computer or console, and the computer/console is the participant in the game, doing what it was taught to do. I cite examples in which such programs are self-modifying (the various chess programs), but suggest that even the most rigid referee-player is still the participant, and not merely the conduit through which the books speak, and thus the same applies to the computer.

So, where are you in this? Is the computer a participant, or merely a conduit for a participant in absentia (as I think we'll agree telephones and messaging programs and forums are), or something else? Is a CRPG a role playing game with a shared imagined space, or is it a role playing game without a shared imagined space, or is it not a role playing game at all? If it is the first of these, with whom is the imagined space shared? If it is the second, what makes it a role playing game? If the third, what is it?

Thanks for your input.

--M. J. Young

Hi Christopher,

Ah, before we bust out dictionary definitions can I say something about that. I hate them. Now, if you want to ask me what I mean by exchange and then tell 'Callan, you got it wrong, the right word for that is X', that's cool. The actual word doesn't matter to me, I chose one which is pretty close, even now that I look at dictionary.com.

Let me assure you, there is an exchange. There aren't multiple exchanges, I grant, but the one exchange that does happen takes some time usually. Now ask me what I mean by exchange if you want.

No, I'm not actually mixing them up. In at least one of MJ's Chess examples, the programmer was programming the computer to learn to play. Once the computer has done some of that learning, I think it clearly is playing the game.

Can you explain (hypothesize?) what a human does that you are willing to attribute as creativity that a computer does not?

If you're gaming with your brainwashed GM (for example) but you don't know she was brainwashed and "programmed" for a certain style of running, do you, as a player, think that you're playing with her or her handlers? And then, what's the difference between that "brainwashed" GM and any of the random GMs that have trained themselves to GM D&D a certain way to the point that they won't consider another style as being meaningful or valid? Are they also brainwashed? If so, who are you playing with and if not, how can you ever know? And further, how can you justify the dichotomy that you're drawing between the brainwashed and the creative?

Finally, you're clearly ignoring the example of systems that are programmed to evolve new algorithms. MJ's Chess system is a clear and extant example. There are lots of alife examples that aren't games. But I think they're possible now, and just around the corner.

Heya M J,

Err, weve forgotten my example pretty quickly...the one where one player communcates by IRC or even by e-mail. There is one player actually present and one GM.

Now, couldn't they just ignore the IRC or computer?

If so, couldn't the GM ignore the player who's present?

I'd say they can...it's just that it leads to loosing out on a certain reward from including them. Just because someone sitting there, doesn't mean your forced to include them, like it or not. But there is a reward for doing so.

Now:

I disagree, in part because that would lead me to conclude that if I were playing the D&D module Keep on the Borderlands, Gary Gygax is participating in our game because he wrote the rules and the module.

Noon wrote: I don't really want to cover AI, because it deserves a focus all of its own, but someone programming a machine to learn has basically done the same as teach it...except it teaches itself. Teaching and programming are very different.

Anyway, let me be clear, I did say that if the machine can eclipse the input of the game author, then your interacting with it and not the author. This can happen, but isn't now thought it's mildly possible now.

"There's a cave with a cave painting on it's wall."
This, briefly, is.

And if they are the authors exact words printed by the program, it's clearly him that's contributing.

You've missread by what I mean by brainwashed. Now, if I GM by shouting down a tube which connects to the room the players are in and they hear me, I'm GM'ing them right (even if it looks silly)?

So what happens if I replace the tube with some other medium. A medium that will only say what I want.

They are, and I think it's a distinction that we disagree about. Back in around 1980 or so my father wrote a program in Basic that could learn how to play noughts and crosses, it was based on a magazine article. The same has been done with chess, you set up a learning algorithm and then program in the rules of the game. Note that you don't need to know any chess strategy whatever to do this, or even to have ever played a game.

Random algorithms can generate imagined spaces (a cave, with a wall painting) and then render that as text, or graphicaly or even verbaly. The medium of representation isn't relevent.

As an aside I do think that scenario writers have input into the imagined space, but they don't participate in the imagined space of a particular game. They don't play the game, any more than the author of Monopoly plays the game with me and my family. They contribute in the same way that an author contributes a novel. Reading a novel isn't playing a game, nor is writing one and nor is writing a scenario.

Callan wrote: For example, lets say I'm roleplaying with you face to face, but during combat I use my laptop to determine NPC moves. And it uses a learning algorythm to tell me.

Who are you roleplaying with?

It's no different.

If I were playing with two other real life people and one spoke only a few words here and there and the other gave far more input and I likewise. Basically the bar has been raised to the extent that the few words aren't zero input, but in practical terms they may as well be. If it were a book, he wouldn't be listed as co-author.

If you want interesting, think of two AI's roleplaying with each other and you, while your only able to contribute a bit (someone keeps ringing you up with important calls, say).

I'll wrap up on this. If I were RPing with someone who only whispered a few words every five minutes or so about nothing much, while another person as GM had submitted a rich multimedia presentation, I'd say I'm exchanging with the GM far more. Significantly so as opposed to a few words every five minutes. The only difference is that once the multimedia presentation 'runs out' I can continue to ongoingly exchange with the other player. I know which I'll remember most though.

M. J. Young wrote: One of the big arguments regarding the lack of SIS in CRPG is that you can't really negotiate with the AI that runs the game. That may arguably be a limit of current technology; and yet it may arguably be false.

I have argued elsewhere that a CRPG might be regarded an RPG on the basis of the computer as a player with limited ability sharing an imaginary space.

Andrew Martin wrote: Similarly for computer RPGs, which maintain a internal model of the setting, characters, situation and so on, and the program can display or communicate it's internal model and it has ways of negotiating with it's users or players.

(sorry for not weighing in sooner; I was a tad swamped before and at Gencon)

MJ et al. - I think we're going to have to just disagree and leave it at that. I think that computers as they are today are fundamentally incapable of being players in an RPG and nothing I've seen through these threads makes me inclined to change my mind. I will attempt to articulate why I hold that position, though.

A fair amount of weight has been given to the computer's memory as analogous to human memory - in effect claiming that the current game state that a computer holds is an imagined space. I don't particularly buy that, primarily because the computer cannot change it without human input of some kind. The game state in the computer's memory is static, and will never change until there is a human to introduce change to it, at an absolute minimum, clicking the "play" button. A human can (and does) modify their imagined space just about every time they "visit" it.

A computer cannot "imagine". It can read stored data, it can write new data. A properly equiped computer could read The Lord of the Rings, but fundamentally all it would really be doing is making a copy of it. Lacking inputs, a computer is inert. Lacking inputs, a human still thinks and imagines (and if sensory deprivation studies are any indication, eventally goes mad).

If you took 1000 computers and loaded any popular CRPG and removed the randomizer - such that the die rolls in NWN were always exactly the same, for example - those 1000 computers would play the game exactly the same way given the same inputs. I firmly believe (but cannot prove) it would be impossible to find 2 people that would do the same. With the computer, there is no individual; there is only an algorithm that provides information based on input.

Finally, and this is one of the most telling points for me, the computer is incapable of assigning value in and of itself. Fed algorithms and data it is capable of providing an excellent illusion of doing so, but ultimately the computer relies completely on external values.

Over these threads, at least a few times, the suggestion that "humans are just really complicated computers" has been made, and that argument could be used to refute the above by saying that people react exactly the same way as computers do, just with much more complex algorithms that we don't understand (yet) governing their choices. This is probably where the fundamental difference in viewpoint lies, because I don't buy that view at all. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that if that theory is correct, then there is a line (a fuzzy line, probably) that is crossed between a purely reactive set of algorithms and a true intelligence. Computers have not crossed that line.

Boiling down my argument to it's fundamentals, I would say: One of several charactaristics required for an activity to be called role-playing is social interaction with another intelligence. Computers are not an intelligence.

Hope that gives a straightforward view of my position on the whole CRPG thing.

James

James Blankshield wrote: Over these threads, at least a few times, the suggestion that "humans are just really complicated computers" has been made, and that argument could be used to refute the above by saying that people react exactly the same way as computers do, just with much more complex algorithms that we don't understand (yet) governing their choices. This is probably where the fundamental difference in viewpoint lies, because I don't buy that view at all. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that if that theory is correct, then there is a line (a fuzzy line, probably) that is crossed between a purely reactive set of algorithms and a true intelligence. Computers have not crossed that line.

Blankshield wrote: A fair amount of weight has been given to the computer's memory as analogous to human memory - in effect claiming that the current game state that a computer holds is an imagined space. I don't particularly buy that, primarily because the computer cannot change it without human input of some kind. The game state in the computer's memory is static, and will never change until there is a human to introduce change to it, at an absolute minimum, clicking the "play" button.

Blankshield wrote: A computer cannot "imagine".

Blankshield wrote: I firmly believe (but cannot prove) it would be impossible to find 2 people that would do the same.

Blankshield wrote: Finally, and this is one of the most telling points for me, the computer is incapable of assigning value in and of itself. Fed algorithms and data it is capable of providing an excellent illusion of doing so, but ultimately the computer relies completely on external values.

Blankshield wrote: Boiling down my argument to it's fundamentals, I would say: One of several characteristics required for an activity to be called role-playing is social interaction with another intelligence. Computers are not an intelligence.

Blankshield wrote: Boiling down my argument to it's fundamentals, I would say: One of several charactaristics required for an activity to be called role-playing is social interaction with another intelligence. Computers are not an intelligence.

M. J. Young wrote:
Otherwise, I can see your point. What concerns me more is that if such a line exists, it is admittedly fuzzy, and we won't really know when we've crossed it. My argument in part has been that once we're on the other side of it, we'll be looking back at advances being made now as "where it all began". That causes me to wonder whether we might really have intelligence in computers in the present, just not very sophisticated intelligence.

contracycle wrote: If you had a flunky who rolled your dice for you, would that flunky really be playing the game? If you had a gofer to bring over images from the graphic library, would the gofer be a participant? I don;t think.

Andrew Martin wrote:

Blankshield wrote: Finally, and this is one of the most telling points for me, the computer is incapable of assigning value in and of itself. Fed algorithms and data it is capable of providing an excellent illusion of doing so, but ultimately the computer relies completely on external values.

Can't the same thing be said about a human baby? Does a baby have altruism, can it write poetry? :)

Agreed on agreeing to disagree....

Though a quick note that "intelligence" is a slippery definition whose goalposts move in accordance with our egos.

The Victorians condiered logic to be the epitome of intelligence: playing chess well, for example, would be a distinct test.

By this metric, there are millions of chess-playing intelligences out in the world today. We don't feel comfortable with the competition, and move the goalpost to fuzzier goals, such as "learning" and "creativity".

However, Deep Blue famously showed off a gambit no human had ever thought of before while beating Kasparov. So we redefine this as "not creative" because it came from silicon, not from meat.


Computers generally aren't very bright, game programs are often written in a manner that's intentionally stupid*, and their field of competence is limited. But I agree with M. J. Young - some time from now, we'll look back on these programs and see them as the early start of ones that we can no longer deny are intelligences.




* AI in games is usually deliberately stupid because 1) human opponents want to win and 2) good AI takes time (and therefore money) to write; given #1, it is usually not cost-effective to write good AI.

simon_hibbs wrote:
1. Hold an internale representation of the game stat (in RPGs, the imaginary space).

2. Accept input from other participants.

3. Make decisions based on this input and the stored representation of the game, to further in-game goals.

4. Produce output to other perticipants and update the internal representation.

The dice roling assistant and the gopher from your examples don't even do one of these things, but computers can do all of them.

contracycle wrote:

3. Make decisions based on this input and the stored representation of the game, to further in-game goals.

I don' think a computer can do that - all it can do is execute the programme which be more or less flexible in terms of the data it calls for. The computer does not make decisions any more meaningful than rolling on a wandering monster table and applying the results.

Christopher Weeks wrote: What makes a decision meaningful?

Since this is still going, I'd like to add what I see as a distinction:

1. I write a piece of code. I write the code that in X situation (specified by me), it uses a kick attack.

2. I write some code, that uses possitive and negative feedback tied to certain inputs, to decide attack. It get's run against quite a few players and in Y situation, it uses a kick attack.

Number one is all me. Number two is perhaps half me and half life experience (life like an insect might experience). The more that code can and does learn from life experiences, the less its using a kick attack in certain circumstances is anything to do with me (its not half me, half it's life experiences. It's not much of me at all).

A human analogy might be: To a certain degree your reading my parents manner of thought right now. But at a practical level, it's me your reading, not them.

contracycle wrote:

simon_hibbs wrote:
1. Hold an internale representation of the game stat (in RPGs, the imaginary space).

To the comoputer, its an output to the user. The computer is like a roadie moving set elements around (I'm getting a vision of the Spinal Tap stonehenge for some reason). All the computer really knows is that it has to draw cterain pixels under certain rule conditions, it doesn;t know or understand why.

If you tell your flunky "roll them bones" they would have accpeted input in the technical sense. Rather like a computer accepting the insruction to draw a door as open and whatever is visible beyond it.

3. Make decisions based on this input and the stored representation of the game, to further in-game goals.

I don' think a computer can do that - all it can do is execute the programme which be more or less flexible in terms of the data it calls for.

What a computer can do is a bunch of these flunky tasks, but I don't think the computer is a player - if the the computer is to be considered a participant, then the computer is a menial or slave.

simon_hibbs wrote: [The computer] follows an algorithm. Sometimes I follow algorithms

Christopher Weeks wrote: Simon, you and I are largely in the same camp. But I think what you wrote here is the crux of the opposition argument.

Christopher Weeks wrote: If our manufactured computers are of like kind but different power level (orders of magnitude in my estimation) as our brain, then the stance that computers can't play is much weaker, perhaps even an accident of history or a misunderstanding of what "play" means.

Does it need to? All you seem to be saying is that computers aren't self-aware, which we know. But why does a computer, or any other system, need to be self aware, or aware of an external meta-context for a game, in order to be able to play that game?

If I write a program to play Monopoly, it doesn't know anything about real-world property or what a jail is, by does it need to know those things in order to play the game? I realy don't see why.

That's true, but only in the sense that individual neorons in your brain fire in response to stimulation. They don't know whether they are triggering to process an auditory stimulation, or activating a leg muscle movement. If a computer doesn't play RPGs because a random number generator doesn't know the context of it's activity then I can say the same thing of you - individual parts of your body don't 'understand' the context in which they function. But is that understanding necessery in order for the funtion to exist?

It follows an algorithm. Sometimes I follow algorithms, using definable strategies in my decision making. Sometimes this is because I've decided to do so, sometimes it's because I've been told to do so.

Out of curiosity, how would you test an entity (computer, alien, uplifted animal, another person, whatever) for the ability to play?

Chris

contracycle wrote: Becuase PLAY is a purposeful activity. It must be chosen and self-initiated. Furthermore, I think games are heavily related to our history of predation of which computers have none.

Becuase without knownig those things it is just completing a task like any other.

It matters not to the computer whether the operation it is carrying out is sorting and index or moving a chit. For game playing to be meaningful, it must be a purposeful activity engaged in for fun. Computers do not, at present, have any such behavioral capacity.

simon_hibbs wrote:
It's an activity, but any purpose we ascribe to it is a subjective contextual element. The act of play exists independently of that context.

And I thought this subject was dead; Gareth has added an entirely new wrinkle to it.

If I understand correctly, Gareth wants to distinguish

Goes through all the necessary activities of playing a game

from

Chooses to play and derives enjoyment from doing so.


I find it a fascinating distinction; but it seems to sidestep the question I raised. That is, if a computer can go through all the necessary activities of playing a game, can it not be said to be a player? I suggested that a computer can retain the information of an imagined space, can communicate what it imagines to the other players, can accept input regarding how the other players would alter the shared imagined space, can itself suggest changes to the shared imagined space which are confined within the limits of what is acceptable within the game, and can negotiate to adjust that shared imagined space if there is disagreement. I further suggested that these are the necessary elements of "play" in a role playing game.

Gareth is suggesting, I think, that even if it can do all these things and it does them on command, the fact that it cannot initiate play and cannot enjoy play prevents it from being a player. Thus, Whopper in WarGames is playing, because it suggests games and likes to play. Then again, that's got to be taken as a programmed personality, not a computer's own decision-making capability. Further, we can never reach a point where we could distinguish what a computer does because of its programming and what it chooses to do for its own enjoyment--in one sense, there might not be a difference, if we assume that a computer waiting for an input is in an unresolved state, and that a resolved state is satisfaction, which is to be preferred.

So I'm not at all sure how we resolve the question of whether the computer "enjoys" playing or "chooses" to play.

I'm also not sure of this. If I insert a CD in my PS2 and it loads and waits for me to sit down and play, how is that different from the guy at the pool who sits at a table by a chess board waiting for someone to sit across from him and play chess? The difference, of course, is that I loaded the game in the PS2; but is that sufficient to say that the PS2 is not playing the game?

What is it that a computer has to do to be a player, and how do we know whether it can do that?

--M. J. Young

OK, well, I think you have encapsulated my argument very well.

So lets take the chess/PS2 example. I'd agree that from the perspective of your subjective experience, the computer is succesfully fulfilling the role of opponent, and thus you are able to play. In a blind test, you may not be able to determine whether your opponent was a computer or a person. But unlike a human opponent, the computer does not invest their self-worth in the game, there is no esteem at risk, and no kudos for victory or jeers for defeat. So it seems to me that the computer is incapable of getting the same out of the game as the human player, and does not share the subjective experience of the human player.

A point that I wanted to raise in recent discussions about esteem, personal and social, as it applies to gamism, is that in order to examine that I think we need to step back a bit and examine the broader context again. If I have no local applause to validate success, how do I know what success is in the first place? I know that because I have knowledge of others peoples capabailities and I can and do measure myself against them. Even if my competitive behaviour is in total isolation, I still have an assesment of the abilities of others against which to compare my own peformance.

Thus it seems to me that you can sit down at a PS2 and have an idea of whether you solved the puzzle quickly or slowly. I greatly enjoyed the game The Incredible Machine, which had kinda abstract engineering puzzles for you to solve. There was a huge amount of satisfaction to be had from simply achieving the goal of solving the puzzle, but any assesment of relative perfomance could only be carried out by discussing when and where we got stuck for how long. The computer was presenting me with a problem, yes, but it was not really my opponent, because my failure would mean nothing to it in any sense. It would have no basis for or knowledge of comparison to other computers; comparison to humans would be meaningless, a sense or 'mental' state that would find these comparisons relevant does not seem to me to exist. I'm not asserting that a sense of competition or comparison is actually necessary for play, but some of why I think the subjective experience of a game is IMO very very different for us and for (modern) computers.

IMO, a computer will only enjoy, and choose, in the senses we mean, when it is self aware, that is, is an AI. At that point, concepts like "competition" or "success" or "victory" will become meaningful. But a modern chess computer, even though it is built to provide a challenge, does not and can not care what the outcome of the game is, either success or defeat.

The problem with requiring emotional investment and the staking self-eteem in order to be considered a player, is that it excludes inteligences that do not exhibit these behaviours no matter how inteligent they are. There's no obvious (to me) requirement that inteligent, thinking beings must exhibit ths or that emotional response.

In fact many humans, such as those suffering from autism, or various forms of sociopathic or psychotic dissorders, are emotionaly and motivationaly incapable of these kinds of behaviours. Are they incapable of being considered players because of this, regardless of the level of their involvement in a game?


Simon Hibbs

I don't normally post from work, but I can't avoid getiing sucked into this discussion.

I'm going to add my $0.02, I believe that this is relevant to the discussion as a whole but feel free to challenge (or moderate) me if it ain't so!

1) We're not going to resolve the 'are computers self-aware' question and it's counterparts (I take 'do computers have a soul/true intelligence etc.' to be just variations of the same theme.) Even if it was a very big, very fast, very capable machine, we would never know.

2) For what it's worth, the same applies to other human beings as well.

3) That's why the notion of a 'Turing Test' is so useful - it's a functional definition of computer (and human!) 'intelligence'.

4) One of the problems with applying SIS to CRPGs is that the SIS is by definition imaginary - Imagination is one of those 'soul'-type qualities and is likely to derail any discussion of whether a computer can truly participate in a SIS.

5) So let's throw it out. What we need is a Turing Test for computer participation in a RPG (how to this would be a totally new thread, so I won't elaborate here.)

6) M.J. In your original post you gave a scenario where the (human) player could tell the computer that they wanted their player to do X instead of Y. This isn't a two-way negotiation if the computer just follows your instructions. But what if the computer responds that it thinks that Z is a much better option, so why not do that? Or offers option Z without player prompting? That would give me far more pause for thought.

7) Computers are already creative, insofar as they can produce outputs which are more than the sum of their inputs. This is a fundamental feature of 'neural network' programming, which I believe has its origins in 'Parallel Distributed Processing' theories way back (I think 1970's or 80's, sorry for the vagueness.) It is likely that a well-designed 'computer' of the future would be able to simulate RPG behaviour in the future. But we aren't there yet, even with more 'standard' conversation-based Turing Tests (I believe that there is an annual competition, the main prize is yet unclaimed.)

This isn't intended to be 'Doug's Rant' on the subject, I'm just typing this within a limited timescale (lunch break) and there is a lot of ground to cover.

Gotta go now, I'll read your comments with interest.

Regards,

Doug

simon_hibbs wrote: The problem with requiring emotional investment and the staking self-eteem in order to be considered a player, is that it excludes inteligences that do not exhibit these behaviours no matter how inteligent they are. There's no obvious (to me) requirement that inteligent, thinking beings must exhibit ths or that emotional response.

In fact many humans, such as those suffering from autism, or various forms of sociopathic or psychotic dissorders, are emotionaly and motivationaly incapable of these kinds of behaviours. Are they incapable of being considered players because of this, regardless of the level of their involvement in a game?

contracycle wrote: ...it seems to me that the computer is incapable of getting the same out of the game as the human player...

contracycle wrote: I'm not asserting that a sense of competition or comparison is actually necessary for play, but some of why I think the subjective experience of a game is IMO very very different for us and for (modern) computers.

contracycle wrote: IMO, a computer will only enjoy, and choose, in the senses we mean, when it is self aware, that is, is an AI.

M. J. Young wrote: Then again, that's got to be taken as a programmed personality, not a computer's own decision-making capability. Further, we can never reach a point where we could distinguish what a computer does because of its programming and what it chooses to do for its own enjoyment--in one sense, there might not be a difference...

contracycle wrote: I think games are heavily related to our history of predation of which computers have none.

Doesn't the "self-aware/can't enjoy" argument, however, boil back down to the "doesn't have a soul" argument?

The point about comparison was intended to be something along these lines: an awful lot of the things we do are about declaring, exhibiting, or aquiring traits and abilities that make us a good mate for the procreation of the species. IMO, that level of function is the underlying cause of gaming behaviour. This activity is fun only because its not actually immediately survival based.

Being in a battle is frightening, playing paintball is fun, even if most of the things you do are very nearly identical. It's fun because the inputs and outputs are very similar, but the significance is very very different. And just as humour can be argued to be the relase of tension, I argue that otherwise dangerous activities practicied in a non-dangerous environment are fun. The reason they are fun is because the practice is useful and the organism benefits from the practice. Games, IMO, are autodidactic behaviours.

IMO, game-playing is operational on much the same level as lust, fear and so forth. These are all devices the organism uses to procreate itself, to trigger certain types of self-behaviour. Partly because this practice contributes to sexual selection, partly because it contributes to predatory efficacy.

So now lets go back to our notional DNA-assemblage. If we build a living organism that can procreate, run from predators, hunt its own food, I'd think it can play too, and we will probably see it play in its adolescent and earlier phases. If it does not have those autonomous functions, it would more or less be a machine. Or a plant, perhaps, at best.

I think a computer built such that:

It can express choice, desire, preference, and enjoyment because of the way the system was established.

I'm with Contracycle on this one, (not that my position was in doubt...) and as usual he's managed to express it better than I did. It does suggest another way of getting across why I don't think computers are players, hopefully without getting too far into the soul/AI/'just a set of algorithms' debate again:

The people who are positing that computers are players are running from a functional definition of "playing an RPG" - which is to say "if something is engaged in the actions that we recognize as RPG behaviour, it is playing an RPG." If that is how you define an RPG, then I guess you're right. But I don't define it that way.

Those of us (I think - maybe it's just me) maintaining that computers can't be players are running from a more ontological definition of "playing an RPG". Which is to say that I think why is a critical and necessary part of 'playing an RPG'. To rephrase it slightly (and with apologies to Ron if I've mangled one of the core concepts of his model): Why have these computers sat down to play this game together? What is their CA? What is the computer getting out of it? If you ask a hundred computers why they play RPG's will the most common answer be "because it's fun"? I think the "why of it" is core to playing - until there is motivation and reason, then it is not play, it is just a mechanical process.

If, on the other hand, you think that computers are capable of motivation and reason, then we're edging back to the soul/AI morass.

James

Hello,

I think everyone understands one another now.

Can we call this thread closed? I'd very much like to. It's time to ruminate, not to dig in one's heels and continue to repeat one's position.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: I think everyone understands one another now.

Can we call this thread closed? I'd very much like to. It's time to ruminate, not to dig in one's heels and continue to repeat one's position.

Gareth's objection may have more force than I first thought. It would appear that a computer could be capable of performing all the individual tasks of play, but that it would be impossible for a computer to have a creative agendum, because it doesn't act from a motivation expressed through its choices.

Of course, creative agendum does not require that we know what the player feels or thinks or wants; it requires that we observe behavior that appears to flow from what the player feels or thinks or wants. So it is not essential for the computer to have a specified motivation; it is only required that it exhibit conduct consistent with that motivation. On the other hand, it would seem that such conduct would always be programmed conduct, and thus not the consequence of what the computer "wants", so no matter how much it "acts" like it has an agendum, it doesn't.

Could it? I know that psychologists use role playing games to learn about their patients. I know that there are players who do the same thing--my wife calls it "psyching" the other participants, and there are some people with whom she will not play for that very reason (because she feels as if their actions are calculated toward manipulating her to reveal personal information about her feelings and attitudes that she does not wish to reveal, or that will be used later to manipulate her in real life). I would say that playing as a means of exploring the personalities of the other players is a creative agendum (let's not in this thread debate which, despite how interesting a question that is--we don't need two imponderables running around the same thread). Could a computer be programmed in such a manner that it makes its decisions based on an agendum of stimulating and analyzing player response, and so better understanding humans in general or individuals specifically? If so, would that be the line in the sand, the moment when computers cross from emulating gameplay to playing a game?

I am again reminded of Whopper (which again is a fictional representation). At times it appears to have a gamist agendum, the desire to prove that it can win. It's difficult to imagine how such an agendum could have been programmed into a computer. It seems rather that they would have programmed it with simulationist tendencies, to determine every possible win/loss strategy or outcome so as to determine the optimal strategy for any situation. But then, if the computer is using a self-learning routine (as was discussed for tic tac toe (a.k.a. naughts and crosses) and other games), doesn't it already have a built-in agendum to learn optimal play? Has such a computer crossed the line, because it has an agendum?

As for Gareth's arguments that gameplay is survival related, does it have to be? Could it be related to other needs or desires, such as understanding the player's place in the world? Although it hasn't been done, in terms of AI development wouldn't there be some value in teaching a computer to play a role playing game as a player, so that it would be able to explore how to be a human through feedback from someone who understands humans?

I suppose these may be unanswerable. In deference to Ron's desire to put the discussion to bed, I'll leave them unanswered for the moment. It does appear that we're pretty solidly divided between those who believe computers are already playing in a limited fashion, those who believe that computers are not playing, but will develop that capability as they advance, and those who believe that computers will never have the basic need to "play" and so can never be "players" in the only sense that matters.

And whether CRPGs really are role playing games or merely emulations of role playing games is now even less clear than it was before this thread began.

--M. J. Young

I'll happily concede that my argument is not evidence based and is outside my expertise, so it is indeed quite possible that play is based on something other than survival behaviour. But I do agree that we understand each others positions now and there is little more to be discussed.

I'm tagging a closing footnote to this, because I just posted yesterday that I'm not sending any private messages until I find some spare time to clear out my sent box, and I just received a message regarding this thread, from Paul of Inner Circle. His position is that the computer is not a player, but merely a conduit for the game designer; however, he thinks the same of a referee who runs a module, and never considers the referee a "player" but merely an arbiter.

That appears as a distinct position in the discussion, which I otherwise consider closed.

Thanks to all for their time.

--M. J. Young