This is a very narrow, very focused post. I want to hear from Walt before anybody else, if that's possible?

Here, Walt Frietag wrote: Yes, the Lumpley Principle does get in the way here, because it appears to vest all credibility in a solo computer RPG with the player, leaving nothing for the program to do. This could either be an indication that despite superficial similarities, tabletop role playing is not usefully related to any solo computer games; or it could be a shortcoming in the LP as currently stated. I believe the latter, but that's another topic.

Pretty much. No credibility, ergo no system for apportioning credibility, ergo no system.

Or to put it another way:

The Provisional Glossary wrote: "System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play."

Well, in a single player CRPG, there is no need to apportion credibility because we have what is "happening" in the program, and their is no way to "appeal" that.

Oh, I suppose you can try. But it won't listen. Believe me, I speak from experience. The "player" has no power over the play of the game beyond the actions permitted by the program. In LP terms, the player has no credibility, the program has all.

In a TTRPG, the game "happens" in the SIS, or whatever we're calling it these days. In CRPG, it "happens" in the memory of the computer, over which we have only diagetic control.

The LP isn't over stated as regards TTRPG: applying it to any endeavour where the "action" isn't held in a communal shared imaginary space is futile.

Huh.

CRPGs' systems are based on something other than apportioning credibility over what happens to the fictional stuff of the game, that's all. That provides different constraints on the design of a CRPG than an RPG, so tabletop RPG theory may or may not be informative at any given time, for any given problem. That doesn't seem totally alienating to me, but then I'm not trying to learn from tabletop RPG theory to make better CRPGs so what do I care.

Overstated, though. What does that mean? Things happen in tabletop RPGs without the group agreeing that they happen? I don't understand how that would be possible.

I really - I mean, this probably looks like I'm pugnaciously defending the stupid LP from any and all. But no, I don't actually care about the stupid LP. You're like, "Vincent! You have a blind spot!" and I'm like, "I do? Where?" That's all.

-Vincent

Well, I think its somewhat overstated, because I think the players can cede credibility to a system. I agree that the origin of all credibility is the social contract, between real people, but I also think it can be transposed onto a sufficiently complex system.

(crossposted with Vincent)

Hi Walt,

Linking with what Pete said, isn't SIS in a videogame effectively the same as a Token in real world play? I mean, everything in a videogame is recorded (as bits, but still recorded) and therefore something against which we can fairly objectively check against. If I want to know where my character is, I look on the screen, hit the map button, etc. In which case, we can look at videogames being equivalent to playing chess, a boardgame, or sports- in which the primary focus of play is on tokens, not imaginary stuff.

If there is no need to divvy up credibility(since everything is objective Tokens), then there's no need to have a Lumpley Principle in action for that type of activity. If we look at wargames, which are primarily about manipulating Tokens and have simpler rules to accompany that("If this unit aims at this unit, and succeeds at these rolls, remove target unit from table"), and while it might have room to throw imaginative stuff on top of it("My guy throws a grenade in the tank hatch! Boom!"), it still doesn't make play rely on the hazy, imaginative element as a determiner of what is, and isn't possible in play.

I'm not necessarily following what you mean by Lumpley Principle being overstated- it applies to games where the gameplay is based in imagined elements instead of Tokens, and therefore, control over declaration rights to imagined elements constitutes a vital part of play. The fact computer games don't fit it seem to fall right into place as expected.

Thoughts?

Chris

Gareth: ceding credibility isn't ... I mean, yes! Exactly. Aha! When I say "the rules apportion credibility" I'm just restating your "the players can cede credibility to a system." I agree with you on every count.

So sure, people may well be overstating the stupid LP. It seems to provoke a certain kind of overstatement - that the rules are powerless. But that's absurd, given what it really says.

-Vincent

contracycle wrote: Well, I think its somewhat overstated, because I think the players can cede credibility to a system. I agree that the origin of all credibility is the social contract, between real people, but I also think it can be transposed onto a sufficiently complex system.

Yeah, I completely agree with Chris on this.

Table Top RPGs and CRPGs are like apples and kumquats. Other than sharing initials the only things they have in common are all superficial surface level appearances. Underneath they aren't even on the same planet.

There is no shared imagination going on in a CRPG. You can imagine all of the cool dialog you want. You can imagine that buying an ale for 3 cps repeatedly actually represents flirting with the bar maid. You can imagine that when the graphic of the bar maid (or Icon in older ultima type games) randomly decides to walk to the right and you walk to the right with her that you're actually walking together having a conversation.

But that's all locked in your own head. None of those imaginings have any impact what so ever on the Space of the game world...they aren't shared among other players at the table who adjust their world view to fit this new information. The only adjusting going on in a CRPG is the adjusting of a player to whatever new information the program reveals.

There is no shared imaginary space in a CRPG. Therefor its no surprise at all that there is no Lumpley Principle at work in a CRPG. Far from being a short coming I think this is a pretty good limus test for difference between actual roleplaying around a table with real human beings and what would better be described as Electonic Avatar play.


I don't see any disconnect here at all. I do see some interesting possibilities for exploring games like Neverwinter Nights (which used to be a cool top down old school icon driven D&D MMORPG before becoming its current incarnation). Since there are other real human beings playing the game, to what extent is there a shared imaginary space. I suspect that answer will very greatly by group. Some groups will make allowances and adjucations to permit things that can't be represented graphically and mechanically within the program, like the DM using his manipulation powers to reduce a monsters effectiveness to account for a players chat based narration and such. Others will be restricted solely by what the game permits. The big difference will be to what extent there is a shared imaginary space at work and to what extent a system for apportioning credibility exists.

That you can't use the Lumpley Principle to describe what happens in a CRPG means nothing to me other than a reminder that CRPGs aren't really RPGs any more than an RTS is a wargame.

I'm with Ralph on this one. CRPG's don't have an SIS ergo no Lumpley Principle.

Pete wrote: Are we going to have a new round of Define The LP?

contracycle wrote: Well, I think its somewhat overstated, because I think the players can cede credibility to a system. I agree that the origin of all credibility is the social contract, between real people, but I also think it can be transposed onto a sufficiently complex system.

So, the other day I was playing Myst. Hours and hours of puzzle solving in fantastic and serene environments. And clearly, I'm close to the end of the game. I can tell. I've avoided the deceptions of Sirrus and Achenar. They remain imprisoned, because I don't trust them. And then, without warning, the roof is torn from the hut I'm in. I witness the descent of scores of undead paratroopers. I hear the roar of Godzilla in the distance. A smoking teargas cannister lands on the floor at my feet. It obscures much of the room. And then I'm fighting a female wuxia badass who throws metal stars with her 10 foot long ponytail. I've had no tutorial on using the keyboard for fighting. I die quickly. A message appears on screen saying that my punishment for having died so dishonorably is that my saved games have been deleted.

It's a good thing the game didn't do anything to establish credibility with me, cause I'm thinking that would have blown it.

Paul

Here's how I think about it; how I've always thought about it, from the days of discussing solo modules in T&T (though I'll cast it now in the seems-to-me clearer Principoodley terms): what are the influences on the apportioning of credibility? Other real human beings. How do those influences operate? In the case of solo/computer play, indirectly. That creates a problem, sometimes - it's harder to communicate when you're not actually there. But it can, and does, happen.

Otherwise, that Lumpadoodley thing means "System (or at least what a designer puts into System) doesn't matter" - and as Vincent's link demonstrates (hell, as Vincent-the-dude demonstrates), it sure doesn't mean that.

Gordon

(Seems to me this is Walt's case #1, with the clarification that both the absent designer and the module author do have credibility - just weaker credibility than the people actually there. That's why Drift can happen, isn't it? I mean, I feel like I'm stating something obvious here, but since some folks seem to be arguing to the contrary . . . )

EDIT to add, in particular to John: The credibility of the designer will always (unless he or she is playing the game) be indirect, via the subset of the System actually used that is attributable to what was in the text. At least, that's how I think about it - I can imagine seperating the influence applied by those actually playing from the other influences, but I'm not sure what that gains us over simply recognizing that direct vs. indirect are meaningful factors.

For the most part I agree with Ralph. There's no maleability, no room for interpretation. When playing a CRPG you're operating within a structure that offers a very finite number of options. No act of imagination or creativity on the player's end is going to affect those finite options. They are static.

If I grok Paul's example, I'd say that any credibility established or lost is between the player and the designers of the game. But not just credibility purely in the LP sense. In the example, you play the game and get completely hosed. Are you truly pissed at the game, or the people responsible for designing it? How will this loss of credibility affect your future game purchase decisions?

Basically, I don't see a lack of credibility apportionment so much as a lack of means of negotiating that apportionment. At least not beyond your future game purchase choices.

-Chris

Chris,

OK, that last comment got me thinking. No means of negotiating the apportionment . . . if there's no one else there, you must be negotiating with yourself, right? Between yourself and the impression you have gotten of what the absent person(s) are attempting to communicate?

Often an absolutely lousy negotiation to have, especially when compared to the "real thing" - but still a valid negotiation. Isn't it? If not, where does Vincent get to have any influence on how we play DitV?

Gordon

"What influence does the game designer have over our play?" belongs in a different thread.

In this thread, pretty much the only way forward is for someone to post either a) an example of a tabletop RPG rule that makes something happen in the fiction of the game without the players' assent, or else b) the name of a CRPG where my opinion can change what appears on the screen. Until someone does - and you and I both know that nobody's gonna, they don't exist* - arguing about it is pointless.

* In the case of b, make it "don't exist yet." And yes, I'll accept the name of a solo game book where my opinion can change the words printed on the page. A high-tech game book that would be, with changeable print!

Failing that, only Walt's closing words (if he wants 'em) are on topic for this thread. Thank you!

-Vincent

lumpley wrote: In this thread, pretty much the only way forward is for someone to post either a) an example of a tabletop RPG rule that makes something happen in the fiction of the game without the players' assent, or else b) the name of a CRPG where my opinion can change what appears on the screen. Until someone does - and you and I both know that nobody's gonna, they don't exist* - arguing about it is pointless.

Hey John. Try reading it again and notice my use of the word "opinion." If it seems like I'm pointing out something so obvious that you'd think I wouldn't have to point it out at all, you've got it.

-Vincent

lumpley wrote: Hey John. Try reading it again and notice my use of the word "opinion." If it seems like I'm pointing out something so obvious that you'd think I wouldn't have to point it out at all, you've got it.

I'll add a pointer to Questioning Jack Spencer Jr.'s View of Solo Play. Are we running into the "no one was disagreeing that a social interaction is needed, they just disagree about whether it is or isn't possible to get that interaction from the already-written work of another human" question again?

Gordon

EDIT to add: Because if we are, and Vincent's in the "not possible" camp, than he's 100% right that his LP in no way applies to computer games. Your LP may vary . . .

That's the point I think, John. In a table-top RPG, your opinion has a direct effect on what's in the SiS. In the definition of System given in the Lumpley Principle (as I understand it) simply desiring some effect has the potential to make it happen, given that you have been apportioned the credibility to make it so, regardless of the written rules.

In a CRPG, NOTHING happens regardless of the "written rules". Unless what you desire can be acchieved through the game mechanisms, it is impossible for that thing to come true, whereas in TTRPGs, anything is possible, because the System allows for the possibility of any contribution.

To me, this whole idea is nothing more than a mental exercise. The Lumpley Principle seems to lay out a specific definition of System which does not apply to CRPGs as of yet. That CRPGs have System is undeniable, but you have to take into account the specific definition, and realize it simply doesn't apply.

Walt Freitag wrote: 1. The "group" is the game developer and the player; the developer is communicating in a delayed way with the player and the program's rules determine whose statements are accepted. But the game developer is not present during play, and in evaluating tabeltop play we do not consider e.g. a module author to have credibility.

Walt answered my original question, and thus I consider this thread to have fulfilled its purpose. Thanks!

-Vincent

Wow.

I'm having difficulty understanding how there is any real disagreement on this.

Computers have no imagination. Until someone invents true AI a computer will NEVER be able to output something that the programmer didn't allow for in the software. It may make random choices or get an elaborate matrix / decision tree with complex weighting algorithms...but it still is incapable of inventing something that the programmer didn't provide. The programmer may not have envisioned the use that the player would put various features to...but the capabilities of the features are all defined in advance).

If there's a bar with a bottle that has been graphically rendered to appear full, the computer will never allow you to manipulate it in any way that its not programmed to allow. It won't let you make a molotav cocktail out of it if thats not programmed in. If the game is programmed to have a destructable environment it may allow you to break the bottle...but you can't smash the bottle on the floor and expect people to take damage from walking through the broken glass unless that was programmed in.

Computers have NO imagination...Period. At ALL...zero, zilch, nada, nothing. No imagination means no shared imaginary space. Period, at all ever, nothing. Can't happen without twisting the very definition of SIS to the point where it becomes totally meaningless.


But what about those programmers...THEY have imagination right? Sure. But they aren't interacting with the player in any way. The player may choose options from those the programmer provided, but he can never convince the programmer to add something new (ok...yeah, a vocal fan base can get new features added to the next version...but that's not happening during play). There is no SYSTEM between the programmer and the player. The programmer is doing his thing in isolation, the player is doing his thing in isolation. Computer RPGs have plenty of mechanics...but NO system. There is no granting of credibility going on with a computer. Whatever the computer is programmed to do, it does whether you like it or not, and whatever it wasn't programmed to do, it can't...whether you'd like it to or not. You can niether give it any additional capability nor take it away (ok...you can with mods...but that's a different (albiet interesting) topic). You can't negotiate with a machine.

Considering a computer to be a player is like calling a hammer a carpenter. Its a tool. Its a glorified character sheet / dice bot / graphic presenter / mapping utility. Period. Character sheets aren't players. Dice aren't players. Pictures of landscapes aren't players. Maps aren't players.

Computers aren't players.


I hate to sound ranty. I'm not cutting on CRPGs. I enjoy them enormously (although I like the old school ones like Ultima and Bards Tale better than new school ones like Dungeon Siege or Diablo). But there is no shared imaginary anything going on. There is no system going on. There is no Lumpley Principle going on...any more than there is those things in a game of Monopoly.

Lets talk about what these experiences have in common. Lets talk about where they differ. Lets talk about what each can learn or adapt from the other to make them better (and we've done all of that in the past). But lets not make the mistake of thinking that they are the same thing and should be describable by the same model just because they use the same initials. They aren't and they can't be. The differences between a CRPG and a TTRPG* are far more central than merely a different presentation medium.

The really fascinating topic comes in describing MMORPGs and Games like NeverWinter Nights...half TTRPG and half CRPG and how those two forms combine and clash.


* I include on-line games between real humans such as those played by Indie-net gaming along with table top RPGs. Is there a set of initials that include both.

Whoa there. I hope the fact that the thread title has my name in it gives me a say in whether it's closed or not. Vincent, you expressed willingness to hear my reply in your posts earlier today, so I'm going to assume that's still the case. Things are going on in my life that require me to drive 300 miles between opportunities to post. Please forgive the lag.

My specific issue is with the completeness of the LP, the implied "all" preceding the statement that "system is" what the LP says it is. That's what I mean, essentially, by "overstated." Change the phrasing to "system includes the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play" and I have no problem with it. Or change "includes" to "provides" and I'm fine. Note that neither case denies that in a tabletop RPG, agreement to imagined events during play is necessary. So even if I did know of some rule that makes something happen in the fiction of some game without the players' assent, it would be beside the point.

Perhaps it would be instructive if I were to suggest a Counter-LP, equally true (but equally overstated): System is any and all means by which a player's contribution to an imagined space is constrained. (To convince me that this isn't what system is, you must of course show me an example of a role playing game in which a player may affect the imagined space with no constraints whatsoever! ;) ) The CLP, unlike the LP, applies comfortably to tabletop RPGs, solo CRPGs, and even gamebooks (there's no specification that the imagined space must be shared). It demonstrates that adopting mechanics and ceding credibility to one's fellow players are fundamentally equivalent, as both permit (and consent to) the introduction of constraints on a player's action upon the imagined space.

Or in other words, having a computer tell you your character's been killed is not really any different than having four other players around the table tell you your character's been killed. There may be recourse available in the latter case that aren't available in the former (pleading, or expending a fate point to force a change, come to mind), and vice versa (restoring from a saved game, or using a bonus life, come to mind), but if such measures fail and you're dissatisfied with the proposition at hand to the point you cannot accept it, your only guaranteed recourse is the same in both cases: withdraw your consent to admit those constraints upon your imagining. That is to say, walk away from the table or keyboard.

Do I actually believe the CLP is true? No more and no less so than the LP. Each reflects a particular perspective, each is skewed (or perhaps utterly meaningless) from the other's perspective, and each has a convenient fiction at its core (CLP: the unverifiable notion of an unshared imagined space; LP: the abstraction of a group as an active agent (distributing credibility, agreeing on things, etc.) where actually only individuals exist.

- Walt

I think the only real issue here, Walt, is that CRPGs and RPGs are using different meanings of the word system. While there are similarities between the two, they're mostly irreconcilable, unless you change the definition.

It'd almost be the same as trying to apply the Lumpley Principle to politics. There's a system there, too, but it certainly doesn't involve SiS or players (Preemptive Har-har for all the wits who decide to poke at this example)

Also.. While I could easily be wrong about the policy here, it seems to me that a topic is closed when it ceases to be productive, rather than simply when the original poster has his answer. If people still want to discuss the ideas brought up in this thread and don't wander off the topic of the LP as applied (or misapplied) to CRPGs, then I don't think it's appropriate to keep trying to declare the thread closed. If you're done with it, stop reading.

Again, I could be wrong about policy, but if I am, please make sure my objection to said policy is noted.

A computer program is a way to store, present, and manipulate data, and nothing more. Anything we perceive beyond that is something that we have created ourselves.

I would suggest two levels of perceptions outside of the program itself that we invent:

1. Translation of the data representations of the game into cultural/perceptual constructs that have meaning. i.e. That group of pixels on the screen is an orc (along with everything that implies to us). That blackness over there implies voracious grues (along with everything that implies to us). That line of moving pixels there represents my avatar swinging a sword (along with everything that implies to us). This process is especially apparent in older games, like Atari's Adventure game where everything consists of amorphous blobs that you imagine to represent various fantasy tropes.

2. Interpretation of the interactions of various data of the game into some kind of meaning. That orc attacked my knight, which means that orcs are evil (along with everything that implies to us). My knight just robbed the merchant because he is a scoundrel just looking out for himself (along with everything that implies to us).

How is a computer RPG program different from any other computer game program? All computer games involve some level of imagined space. In RPGs, however, you traditionally have a character and some amount of latitude in defining the values, traits, and possibly motivations of that character. That is what seperates an CRPG from an computer adventure game - a higher level of control over and investment in who your character is and why he does what he does. The interpretation of both category 1 and 2 stuff is more fluid and subjective for the player than it is for non-RPG computer games - i.e. the player takes on a more active role as a participant in the process.

So I decide to play a computer game called The Elder Scrolls: Morrowind. It is a very open-ended game (by industry standards) that allows me a wide range of behavior and motive for my character. I can act out of self-interest, out of nobility, out of wickedness, and the game world appears pretty responsive to all of these choices that I make, responding appropriately to my various deeds and misdeeds such that I feel that my behavior is reflected in the game data. However, all of the meaning only exists in my head as I play, not in the game itself. The game only stores, presents, and manipulates abstract data (primarily dots of colored light arranged in a large grid, projected wave disturbances in the distribution of air particles (i.e. sound), and abstract numerical representations of character and motion input from various devices) to help me to do this.

I take this data processing program and a feedback loop emerges between it and myself. This feedback loop is a possible working definition of functional "play" in a CRPG.

Step 1: I want to be a selfish bastard.
Step 2: I input selfish bastard data into the game to the best of my ability.
Step 3: The program, in charge of storing, presenting, and manipulating data, determines to what extent I can do this by offering to me a certain range of possible data manipulation and presentation.
Step 4: Based on what the program allows, I refine my image of what my character is. If the data of the game keeps coming back such that I interpret it as noble hero regardless, then I will either be discouraged from attempting to insert selfish bastard data again or I will just ignore what I don't like and continue to insert selfish bastard data despite the results. This latter is a form of dysfunctional play and was especially easy in older games where consequences for actions rarely enforced character motivation. Ultima IV and V, as I recall, where a huge change in how this worked and are widely regarded as very important CRPGs.

The distribution of credibility lies in the way that the game allows you to apply your interpretations outside of the computer toward the reality of the data representation inside the computer, a process which is defined by the author. The places where data meets interpretation comprise the imagined space.

Whether the space is shared is really tautological when you get down to it. If you defined shared as only referring to active human participants than it is not. If you include inactive human participants than it is due to the authors of the game, however this has big implications for tabletop rpgs too. I would agree with Ralph that you can not define the computer as an actual participant in the SIS since all it is doing is crunching data. Any external creative input you receive while playing a CRPG comes from either the game's authors or the player, and both operate on the level of mapping abstract data on to cultural constructs with meaning. The program is nothing more than a means of communication between an author and a player, just like words written on pages in a book.

lumpley wrote: a) an example of a tabletop RPG rule that makes something happen in the fiction of the game without the players' assent,

or else b) the name of a CRPG where my opinion can change what appears on the screen.

Computers have no imagination. Until someone invents true AI a computer will NEVER be able to output something that the programmer didn't allow for in the software.

f there's a bar with a bottle that has been graphically rendered to appear full, the computer will never allow you to manipulate it in any way that its not programmed to allow.

Gareth: Your save vs. poison example fails, because it requires the assent of the group to become true. I could demonstrate this to you conclusively in 45 seconds of face-to-face play; here's how the conversation goes:

I say: Save vs. poison or die! [rattle rattle] You succeed! You live!
You say: That sucks. How about I die instead?
I say: ...Sure, okay. You die instead. It's painful and horrible! Your blue tongue sticks out!

The rules can't make anything happen in the fiction of the game except by the players' assent.

I agree with you in principle about AI, but I look at the games on my PC and they just aren't anywhere near. That's not hubris; I'm seeing and describing a quantitative difference, as you say.

So now:

Walt: awesome. In fact I prefer the CLP to the LP, now that you've said it, and now that I'm a couple years further along in my own thinking.

Very cool.

It seems pretty much compatible with my question in the thread I linked to:

I wrote: Instead of asking "is playing a CRPG roleplaying?" ask "how does roleplaying change when the events of the game happen according to really-truly non-human, non-social arbitration, not consensus?"

lumpley wrote: Gareth: Your save vs. poison example fails, because it requires the assent of the group to become true. I could demonstrate this to you conclusively in 45 seconds of face-to-face play; here's how the conversation goes:

The rules can't make anything happen in the fiction of the game except by the players' assent.

contracycle wrote:

lumpley wrote:
The rules can't make anything happen in the fiction of the game except by the players' assent.

No, that depends on the rules in question, it is not impossible in principle.

No, it doesn't depend on the rules in question. It never depends on the rules in question. It depends on what the people sitting around the table want. If the rules, be it by a die roll, or a card draw, or any other method imaginable create a result that the players find unpalatable, the players simply do not accept it and it does not happen.

The game rules are a subset of System, which also includes Social Contract. System is what determines, on a per group basis, how credibility is assigned.

In Dogs in the Vineyard, the rules say that the GM cannot say "no". It's "say yes or roll the dice". In my group, typically Lx can say "no" and we as players will either accept the situation or try to negotiate. (Not because we're against the rules... Even as progressive, modern gamers, we still have traditional tendencies..) The System, specifically the Social Contract portion, overrides the rules in such a case, and literally every case.

The rules are granted credibility by the System, not vice versa. By default, you assign a good amount of credibility to anything that happens in the SiS that is supported by dice, numbers or rules in the game; If you didn't, there wouldn't be any point in playing the game. But if the group as a whole doesn't like a rules-backed contribution to the SiS then they change it by whatever means has been decided in their Social Contract. That may be appealing to the GM. It may be fudging a die roll. It may be using a rules-mandated "karma point". It may be a vote. Whatever.

The main point of the posts in this thread has been to discuss whether or not the old-form LP applies to CRPGs. However, given that CRPGs do not possess a System as defined by the LP (having only the "rules" portion of that definition, without the SiS or the Social Contract, and/or any other portions of System I may be missing), it cannot be applied. Perhaps the CLP applies; I don't know. I'd have to re-read it and think it over, but at first read, I didn't see any particular difference in meaning.

Those interested in the CLP versus the LP might want to take a look at this old thread, where we talk about a CLP-like "power limitation" as opposed to a LP-like "credibility granting":

Check the dates. It's been a while. Opinions change.

Power Distribution in Games

yrs--
--Ben

Contracycle wrote:

Valamir wrote:
Computers have no imagination. Until someone invents true AI a computer will NEVER be able to output something that the programmer didn't allow for in the software.

This is not true, and has not been for some time. We have quite a batch of Artificial Life programmes that produce complex, emergent behaviour out of simple rule-sets. Further...

Contracycle wrote:

Valamir wrote:
f there's a bar with a bottle that has been graphically rendered to appear full, the computer will never allow you to manipulate it in any way that its not programmed to allow.

Not for long. The HAVOK physics engine used in HL2 looks set to usher in a new era; the next generation of mainboards are likely to carry Physics Processing Units. At the moment, machines can only handle about a hundred physics-enabled objected, but with a PPU they will build houses out of individual bricks. And thus, you most certainly be able to use a bottle as a molotov.

The notional dichotomy between comuters and players is an illusion IMO. Almost hubris, depending on your philosophical stance. After all, what are YOU, the player? You too are, IMO, an emergent phenomenon from a complex rule set executing in real time in a grey-jelly matrix. The distinction between computers and people is purely quantitative, not qualitative, IMO.

Valamir wrote: Nope. Only if: a) The programmer defined the contents of the bottle as being seperate from the bottle. b) The programmer defined the bottle as breakable. c) The programmer provided the contents with liquid properties such that it could splash and seperate. d) The programmer set a flag that the contents were "flammable" and e) The programmer defined the properties for what "flammable" means including how to turn on the "on fire" flag and call the appropriate graphics and all of the related fire effects such as damage and spreading and eventually burning out.

Walt Freitag wrote: Or in other words, having a computer tell you your character's been killed is not really any different than having four other players around the table tell you your character's been killed. There may be recourse available in the latter case that aren't available in the former (pleading, or expending a fate point to force a change, come to mind), and vice versa (restoring from a saved game, or using a bonus life, come to mind), but if such measures fail and you're dissatisfied with the proposition at hand to the point you cannot accept it, your only guaranteed recourse is the same in both cases: withdraw your consent to admit those constraints upon your imagining. That is to say, walk away from the table or keyboard.

Valamir wrote: Computers have no imagination. Until someone invents true AI a computer will NEVER be able to output something that the programmer didn't allow for in the software.

Noon wrote: Can I beg a further moment of observation. What we have here is communication between the design team and the player. But the player can't communicate back. So you don't get a creative back and forth where each party adds to the others parties contribution. The design team sends out its contribution and you eithe accept it or walk away from the keyboard. You suggest counter-LP, but I'd suggest describing it as something like "One way lumpley". The player can never contribute back to the design team, and even his walking away doesn't effect that design team in any creative way. But his granting/not granting cred is still very much involved. So it's all one way. Thoughts?

Wysardry wrote:
Unless the designers of a PnP game are sitting at the table with the players you can't usually communicate with them.

James Holloway wrote:

Wysardry wrote: Unless the designers of a PnP game are sitting at the table with the players you can't usually communicate with them.

Yes, but the "designer" of an RPG and the "designer" of a computer game do very different things, because computer games and RPGs are very different things. The experience of contribution to the SIS by the players is absent in computer games that I know of.

John Kim wrote:
If I take the D&D rulebooks and a D&D adventure module, is that really so different than creating a computer game which lets me go through an adaptation of that module to the computer medium? Indeed, I believe there are several computer games which have nearly exact adaptations of PnP RPG rules. In both games, I am contributing to the story/imaginary space by inputing the actions of my character.

James Holloway wrote: Yes, but the "designer" of an RPG and the "designer" of a computer game do very different things, because computer games and RPGs are very different things. The experience of contribution to the SIS by the players is absent in computer games that I know of.

Wysardry wrote:
Whether the contribution to the SIS is absent in computer games depends upon your point of view, and whether it is a multi-player game.

James Holloway wrote: You mentioned Morrowind, a game in which the player's contribution to SIS is pretty minimal. I can't imagine how playing it can be compared to an RPG.

Wysardry wrote:

Valamir wrote: Nope. Only if: a) The programmer defined the contents of the bottle as being seperate from the bottle. b) The programmer defined the bottle as breakable. c) The programmer provided the contents with liquid properties such that it could splash and seperate. d) The programmer set a flag that the contents were "flammable" and e) The programmer defined the properties for what "flammable" means including how to turn on the "on fire" flag and call the appropriate graphics and all of the related fire effects such as damage and spreading and eventually burning out.

How does that differ from a human GM who has not personally made a molotov cocktail? He/she would need to refer to his/her own internal database (memory) to check for information gained indirectly from watching tv, reading books, conversations with other people, the system rules etc.

Even if you believe that humans were originally created by a higher intelligence, you should still be able to accept that all subsequent humans were born with inbuilt instincts and basic cognitive skills but no knowledge or experience.

John Kim" wrote: If I take the D&D rulebooks and a D&D adventure module, is that really so different than creating a computer game which lets me go through an adaptation of that module to the computer medium? Indeed, I believe there are several computer games which have nearly exact adaptations of PnP RPG rules. In both games, I am contributing to the story/imaginary space by inputing the actions of my character.

Wysardry wrote:

James Holloway wrote: You mentioned Morrowind, a game in which the player's contribution to SIS is pretty minimal. I can't imagine how playing it can be compared to an RPG.

If the developers believe a change is necessary/worthwhile, a patch is released which

Valamir wrote: When a Computer checks its internal database for information on a molotav cocktail and doesn't find anything...nothing happens. In a modern graphic based game you can click and drag on the image of the bottle all you want and it will never turn into a molotav cocktail. In an old Text game you'd get a "I see no Molotav Cocktail here" message. It simply won't (can't) ever happen.

When a human GM checks his/her internal database for information on a molotav cocktail and doesn't find anything (lets say the GM has never heard that term) any one of 4 things could happen. 1) the GM may decide that since they don't know enough about it to not allow it, or...2) The GM could choose to do some quick research to uncover the necessary information, 3) the player requesting it could explain to the GM what it is and how they think it should work so the GM can rule on it, or 4) the GM can just make something up...using that imagination that computers don't have.

Now substitute for molotav cocktail any activity, interaction, response, emotion, event, etc that any player may imagine doing...BIG difference between dealing with humans you can negotiate system with and a computer you can't.

So big, that I'd argue that the two things aren't even the same sort of game at all. In all but the most superficial appearances...they have nothing in common.

Except the ability to go out and learn as needed. To be taught as needed. Or to simply extrapolate, estimate, and invent as needed.

James Holloway wrote: In Morrowind, every minute of gameplay reinforces the fact that you're playing a computer game. Go talk to General Darius and see what he has to say. What does he say? He says "why are you away from your post?" Well, firstly I don't even have a post and secondly I'm actually here on orders from him. So why does he say "why are you away from your post?" Because that's what he says. He only has like two or three things to say and that's one of them.

Now, I suppose that you could run a tabletop RPG like this, with a bizarre insistence on not doing any interpretation or thought and a tendency to play the NPCs like robo-morons, but I don't think you'd get many takers.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm enjoying Morrowind. The sunsets are lovely. Do I contribute to the SIS? I guess so, within a narrow range of options -- if I kill that guar, it stays dead. But if you can't see why it's not the same thing as an RPG, I don't know what else I can tell you.

Wysardry wrote:
I'm not saying existing CRPGs are exactly the same as tabletop RPGs, but they are similar enough to fall under the umbrella term "RPG" (which includes PnP, tabletop, LARP, PBM etc.).

Let's try to stay on topic, people. We're not arguing whether or not CRPGs are properly RPGs. We're discussing specifically how and if the Lumpley Principle can be applied to CRPGs. At the basis of that argument is, I believe, whether or not an SIS exists in CRPGs.

(parenthetical notes mine)

Wysardry wrote: A computer could be programmed to do all of those tasks.

The first (doing nothing) is very simple, and almost all CRPGs do this as a last resort.

The second (research on the topic in question) could be achieved via an Internet connection, by checking for updated versions of the database or accessing a larger database containing more obscure facts and figures.

The third (explaining the topic in question) could be done via an editor, a feature which is becoming more common in CRPGs.

The fourth could be done using "fuzzy logic", if there was enough relevant data available to make a "guess". I don't recall this ever being included in an obvious way in a commercial game, the most likely reason for which is that people tend not to like computers getting things wrong (making a bad guess). It is done to a very limited extent in multi-player games: when there's a poor connection the computer "guesses" where all the characters are and what they are doing.

James Holloway wrote: I'll buy all those, because crucially they all involve other players.

But Morrowind doesn't -- I can't see how the player influences the SIS in play in a way that isn't also the case in Super Mario Brothers or Asteroids.

Heck, there isn't even an SIS -- there's no one else involved, so how can it be "shared?"

Wolfen wrote: Which does not affect the point. When a GM does this, it's a choice. When a computer does it, there is no choice involved. It is what is programmed, and therefore must be done.

Which does not disprove the point. Ralph's argument is that CRPGs cannot do anything that the programmers have not allowed for ahead of time. If there are updated databases for the computer to check online, that's splendid.. But it's still something that the programmer's allowed to happen before the moment of play.

When a game allows me to edit it's databases on the fly so that a bottle of alcohol which was previously unable to be broken on the ground so that sharp shards of glass provided a hazard, and could be lit on fire is able to do so, then it might be the same thing. Though at that point, it's basic game-ness comes into question, because the ability to edit the computer isn't likely to be moderated by case-by-case judgement.

Fuzzy logic isn't imagination, by any stretch.

Fuzzy logic still has to work within certain finite, pre-defined parameters.

A bit of logic created to update a character's x/y location based on their general speed and direction despite not having that data on a step-by-step basis cannot realize that the player would really like to skip the travel time through bunny-level-enemy infested areas to where the action is, and simply frame the scene there. It is not going to make the inituitive connection that a bottle full of something designated "alcohol" which has the properties of getting anyone who "uses" it drunk can be used to start a fire unless it those properties are also assigned to the "alcohol".

Imagination is required for imaginative space; More than one imagination is required for shared imaginative space. A computer cannot, at this time, provide that.

Wysardry,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but can any computer game make the leaps of logic, whimsy, emotion, social consideration and imagination that humans can? I don't want to know if it's theoretically possible, I want to know if there are any computer games that can actually do it. Even the least imaginative human is capable of having ninjas suddenly attack, for no other reason than it suits his or her fancy. Can any computer games do that? Humans can tell when other players of an RPG are getting tired or pissy or enthusiastic, and they can adjust play to suit that. Can any computer game? Humans can invent things during play. Can any computer games? When a human player creates stuff during play ("My character has the magic ring. He's had it all along, in his pocket, but he didn't know about it until now."), human GMs can react to that and change the game around that ("Cool! And now, I've suddenly decided that the magic ring can make you fly!"). Can a computer game do that? I don't mean with a sudden change in programming, I mean can the computer game, on its own, suddenly do that?

When playing Dogs in the Vineyard, you don't just Raise and See during conflicts. You also add narration to each one--narration that you make up on the spot. Each bit of narration is based on the narration of other players, and is based on the specific situation. Each bit of narration can be about what is happening right there and then--but the GM or any player can have their narration jump in time, to be a flashback, or to change the setting to the next day or a week later. Each bit of narration contributes to the SIS. Can any computer game that I could play do the same thing?

Honestly, right now, all I'm seeing is you splitting hairs. "What is imagination?" We all know what imagination is, for the purposes of playing RPGs, and I have yet to see or read about a computer game that comes anywhere close to the complex and nonlinear way human minds work. I have yet to see or read about any computer game in which the computer can simply make shit up, both in response to what other players make up and simply out of his or her own mind. Computers work through programs, in the literal sense. Human minds work through programs, in the metaphorical sense. Sometimes it's advantageous to see human minds as a set of programs. But the map is not the territory. Human minds aren't really run by programs, certainly not in the same sense as computers are, anymore than human bodies are "programmed" by DNA. Humans are far, far more complex than machines. Unless you can show me a computer game in which the game can actually transcend its programming to make shit up at whim, then all the split hairs in the world can't make a computer participate in the SIS.

As I see it, there are several problems inherent in this discussion.

The first is that ambiguous terms are being used to describe processes that the average person does not understand fully and/or cannot believe an inamimate object is capable of doing.

The second is that assumptions are being made that the processes of each must be exactly alike to be included in a general definition.

Thirdly, too great an emphasis is being placed on decisions being conscious, as if that is essential to the game. Once a human has done a particular task a few times, the process is taken over by the unconscious mind in subsequent attempts, which has much more in common with a computer mind.

Allowance also isn't being made for the fact that when running a CRPG program the computer is doing many more tasks than a human GM, and it does some of them much more quickly and efficiently.

Finally, what is actually happening inside a computer or human mind should make little difference, as the results are the important part if a role-playing game is all about the player's imagination and perception. In other words, whether the reason behind a group of ninjas attacking is the whim of a human or the result of a computer's random number generator should not matter, as the player should be concentrating on the SIS not the mechanics.

Wysardry wrote:

James Holloway wrote: I'll buy all those, because crucially they all involve other players.

What about traditional solo RPGs? If you don't believe they include a SIS, you're unlikely to consider a computer version has one.

What about the one player + one GM solo RPGs? If they do have a SIS, then the question basically boils down to whether the player is willing to believe the computer GM has an artificial imagination.

Wysardry wrote: What about the one player + one GM solo RPGs? If they do have a SIS, then the question basically boils down to whether the player is willing to believe the computer GM has an artificial imagination.

No, the question of imagination, ontologically speaking anyway, is completely irrelevant.

I pretty much support Wysardry's debunking of Valamir argument; too much of this is starting to depend on special appeals to magical assumptions about people and our alleged creativity. There is no distindtion between a programmer create an object that is "flammable fluid" and a GM, or designer, establishing this in the game.

Joshua, no computer at present can produce "whimsy". On the other hand, many many computers can interrogate a "wandering monster list" so huge that it appears whimsical. And you only "make up narration" in order to communicate the idea - the computers equivalent is drawing or moving a sprite. Nobody has said that a computer IS human and to try to twist the issue to that topic would make it a straw man.
--

This is the real issue - why do we not recognises the computers internal space? Biological prejudice it seems - if it was made with silicon instead of grey goo it must be different. How do you communicate with a computer? - through mouse and keyboard. I move the mouse... a representation is drawn both for my and the machines other parts... and if a condition is met, like (if.mousover) then a response is returned.

How is this different from "you see a door" and "we open it"? It is not. The difference is that instead of the words "you see a door" coming out of a human mouth, a door is drawn by the machine. Drawing that image IS the machines contribution to the SIS. Like a GM, the machine may have a much larger internal space which it checks than just that section of it visible to a character.

Yes, a computer has an internal space. We could argue about the term "imaginary" but I point to the deliberate blurring the term "virtual" is used to denote between "real" and "fake". A computer has an internal space just like you do; if imagination is anything, it is moving information around, and only information. And this is necessarily a SHARED space because the player has an avatar in it; and it is represented so that the machine and the player do have a commone representation and theirt imaginations are thus synchronised.

They seem like the same beast to me.

contracycle wrote: No, the question of imagination, ontologically speaking anyway, is completely irrelevant.

Wysardry wrote: What about the one player + one GM solo RPGs? If they do have a SIS, then the question basically boils down to whether the player is willing to believe the computer GM has an artificial imagination.

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.

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.

pete_darby wrote:
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.

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?

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:

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

Noon wrote: 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?

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?

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?

Wolfen wrote: 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.

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

pete_darby wrote: 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.

This thread is closed.

Best,
Ron

Wysardry wrote: 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.

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.

Hey.

It's CLOSED.

Stop posting to this thread now.

Best,
Ron

Why should the thread be closed?