Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9642331" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Ok.&nbsp; This actually engages with the question I was putting forth.&nbsp; And it looks like you're saying something like &quot;any randomization component of a game precludes functional gameplay or precludes skill?&quot;Is that the claim you're making?If that isn't the claim you (and [USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER] and likely others) are making...then can you make plain what claim you're making around randomization?To be clear, if that is the claim that you're making then you're basically saying &quot;there is no such thing as Texas Hold 'Em skill (and skill thresholds from amateur to expert to world class) because cards dealt to players and the shared 5 x community cards on a given hand are all randomized.&quot;&nbsp; That is an absolute dead-end of a claim.&nbsp; So you can't be making this claim.&nbsp; So if you're not making this absolute dead-end of a claim, then what claim are you making?Again, I'm totally on board with you if the GM framing of a situation or a series of obstacles is impotent and opaque and/or leads to a complete nothingburger of a decision-tree &gt; player says the rote thing which leads to the rote roll of dice?&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp; That right there?&nbsp; Totally &quot;non-play&quot; which is effectively &quot;GM's impotent framing leads to rote randomizer decides.&quot;&nbsp; But there is a vast amount of daylight between that and play that features layered, complex, tactical decision-trees + complex strategic management of currencies over a throughline of play + also possibly theme/premise-based stands or advancement decisions or trade-off management (&quot;I'm willing to take this ethical stand now that will harm my odds of overall success&quot;...&quot;I need to mark a test failure to advance this skill&quot;...&quot;I'm going to save currency now because I'm willing to risk this particular bad consequence right now in order to muster that currency later in a higher stakes situation&quot;).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 9642331, member: 6696971"] Ok. This actually engages with the question I was putting forth. And it looks like you're saying something like "any randomization component of a game precludes functional gameplay or precludes skill?" Is that the claim you're making? If that isn't the claim you (and [USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER] and likely others) are making...then can you make plain what claim you're making around randomization? To be clear, if that is the claim that you're making then you're basically saying "there is no such thing as Texas Hold 'Em skill (and skill thresholds from amateur to expert to world class) because cards dealt to players and the shared 5 x community cards on a given hand are all randomized." That is an absolute dead-end of a claim. So you can't be making this claim. So if you're not making this absolute dead-end of a claim, then what claim are you making? Again, I'm totally on board with you if the GM framing of a situation or a series of obstacles is impotent and opaque and/or leads to a complete nothingburger of a decision-tree > player says the rote thing which leads to the rote roll of dice? Yeah. That right there? Totally "non-play" which is effectively "GM's impotent framing leads to [I]rote randomizer decides[/I]." But there is a vast amount of daylight between that and play that features layered, complex, tactical decision-trees + complex strategic management of currencies over a throughline of play + also possibly theme/premise-based stands or advancement decisions or trade-off management ("I'm willing to take this ethical stand now that will harm my odds of overall success"..."I need to mark a test failure to advance this skill"..."I'm going to save currency now because I'm willing to risk this particular bad consequence right now in order to muster that currency later in a higher stakes situation"). [/QUOTE]

Verification