Manbearcat
Legend
@Balesir That is just a truly excellent, excellent post. I can't xp it so can someone please fill in for me.
That hits on most of moving parts of the lack of logical throughput that underwrite the theory.
One other teeny, tiny problem (and you touch on this briefly) is the decision-making of the figment/character is never a 1:1 relationship with the players whenever mechanical resolution is involved.
Fortunes model nothing discernible in the real world. If one wants to say that they presumably model entropy or unverifiable +/- in an outcome, they are grossly, I mean disgustingly unqualified for that so that would be a reach. Fortunes seem to just be "for fun". Roll a dice, grab a card and "see what happens!". No figment/character interacts with something like this nor do they have any concept of, nor mathematical privy to, outcomes based on these things. So every time a player decides to, or decides not to, commit to an action based on the odds-weighted throw of the dice or the turn of a card, they are committing to something that their character never interfaces with nor has any possible knowledge of, or understanding of, its implications/existence.
Action Economy is a gamist construct to facilitate play by way of shared framework between actors. Players have to make decisions based on cost/benefit analysis of action economy handling all the time. No figment/character has any concept of, nor mathematical privy to, cost/benefit analysis adjudication based around it and the subsequent action, or inaction, based on this medium.
Hit Points follow the same logic as the above; The PCs are in a chase that means their very lives and a moment's hesitation may cost then...and Will the Wizard won't jump off a 3-story building after Bob the Fighter makes the decision reflexively. There are dozens and dozens of meta-decisions embedded in the HP system.
Task Resolution adjudication follows the same logic as the above (with whatever skill system or dice pool vs target number that might be in place).
The number of mechanical artifacts in any RPG that are meant solely to facilitate coherent play between player and other players and their coherent interaction with the gameworld is legion. In none of these cases is there a 1:1 relationship. The artifacts are mechanical resolution proxies twice removed (and then some) from any player to figment/character interface. Free-form replay, bereft of any influence of Fortunes/Action Economy/etc, is about the closest that you get to legitimate proxies; eg association. And there, you still have lack of resolution between the two perspectives; the player can't possibly "know" all of the stimuli available to the figment/character upon which judgement is formed and action is undertaken. He in-fills his own subjective bias which is not associated from where I'm sitting. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern "living in the actual world" would very likely be disturbed by the mismatch...thus destroying their own immersion that they are actors of free will in a living, breathing world!
That hits on most of moving parts of the lack of logical throughput that underwrite the theory.
One other teeny, tiny problem (and you touch on this briefly) is the decision-making of the figment/character is never a 1:1 relationship with the players whenever mechanical resolution is involved.
Fortunes model nothing discernible in the real world. If one wants to say that they presumably model entropy or unverifiable +/- in an outcome, they are grossly, I mean disgustingly unqualified for that so that would be a reach. Fortunes seem to just be "for fun". Roll a dice, grab a card and "see what happens!". No figment/character interacts with something like this nor do they have any concept of, nor mathematical privy to, outcomes based on these things. So every time a player decides to, or decides not to, commit to an action based on the odds-weighted throw of the dice or the turn of a card, they are committing to something that their character never interfaces with nor has any possible knowledge of, or understanding of, its implications/existence.
Action Economy is a gamist construct to facilitate play by way of shared framework between actors. Players have to make decisions based on cost/benefit analysis of action economy handling all the time. No figment/character has any concept of, nor mathematical privy to, cost/benefit analysis adjudication based around it and the subsequent action, or inaction, based on this medium.
Hit Points follow the same logic as the above; The PCs are in a chase that means their very lives and a moment's hesitation may cost then...and Will the Wizard won't jump off a 3-story building after Bob the Fighter makes the decision reflexively. There are dozens and dozens of meta-decisions embedded in the HP system.
Task Resolution adjudication follows the same logic as the above (with whatever skill system or dice pool vs target number that might be in place).
The number of mechanical artifacts in any RPG that are meant solely to facilitate coherent play between player and other players and their coherent interaction with the gameworld is legion. In none of these cases is there a 1:1 relationship. The artifacts are mechanical resolution proxies twice removed (and then some) from any player to figment/character interface. Free-form replay, bereft of any influence of Fortunes/Action Economy/etc, is about the closest that you get to legitimate proxies; eg association. And there, you still have lack of resolution between the two perspectives; the player can't possibly "know" all of the stimuli available to the figment/character upon which judgement is formed and action is undertaken. He in-fills his own subjective bias which is not associated from where I'm sitting. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern "living in the actual world" would very likely be disturbed by the mismatch...thus destroying their own immersion that they are actors of free will in a living, breathing world!
