Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6288128" data-attributes="member: 6696971">That is a good question.In the above scenario which Saelorn graciously carved out, you have a player pressing the simulate this basketball game button in the same way that you would do if you were playing John Madden's Football at home ("Do you want to simulate this game/play?"). It is interesting that this is used to display an alleged coupling of the following: 1) player:character perception/orientation2) player:character decisions3) shared player:character reasoning for the decision that was made in 2Forget the action portion of an OODA Loop.  Just consider the above.  What basketball player is aware of some mesh of lumped basketball goo that they will then deploy to simulate the results of a contest?  What basketball player decides that they're going to press this pile of abstract goo button that they aren't aware of?  Consequently, how in the world could any basketball character and player share the reasoning for pressing the button when one of them is utterly unaware of the existence of said button.Basketball players are aware of lots of information like spatial orientation and their velocity relative to another object moving in space.  They are aware of their own psychological state, the state of the crowd,  the disposition of their teammates, and their opposition.  They are aware of potential macro outcomes within a certain margin of error.  They commit to very small decisions, and attendant actions, based on those perceptions and orientations.  Those, and tons and tons of other parameters, add up (like in a high resolution model) to determine the outcome of a contest.  Under no circumstances is any basketball player aware of a "basketball skill sludge".  What they are not aware of they, of course, cannot deploy.  Consequently, they don't deploy it for any reason that a player might deploy it. Finally, they certainly aren't aware of the mathematical properties of fortune resolution.  If there is no association for fate points or "shrodinger's <whatever>", then there is no real association for "press basketball skill sludge" button/mesh with fortune resolution versus target number to determine the outcome of a game/play or anything of the like. I would hate to embarrass myself.  My point, which I would have hoped was clear, was to use the statement in context with what we are discussing.  It wasn't a throw-away statement with no point.A simple box model is a pile of sludge which is assumed to be mixed homogenously.  A two box model is an extremely simplified model of a complex system which is linked by a flux.  They're often used to ("unphysically") model complex systems in order to derive the parameters that you would then use as singular inputs for a very high resolution model with a considerable swath of discretised equations.  The high resolution model doesn't make mixing assumptions.  It is actually attempting to "inhabit the process (make the same decisions for the same reasons)" of the organism/system, actually attempting to model that complex system "physically."  It will use the derived inputs from the simple model to parameterize the phenomenon actually taking place at the cell/grid level so discrete equations can simulate micro-processes.Understanding those micro-processes is step 1 in being able to share the portfolio of observations, orientations and decisions (and accordingly, the "reasoning for why" those decisions are made).Pemerton and Neonchameleon touched on this a bit.  Actual martial actors don't make decisions "to win this basketball game."   Funny enough, and you hear it constantly when players and coaches speak, any deviation in perception from the extremely zoomed-in micro to the zoomed-out macro (when asked about anything beyond the moment the mantra is always "one play at a time" or "one game at a time") is taboo.  Focus on what is happening right in front of you, right at this exact moment (staying present) is Sports Psychology 101.  Players in a TTRPG must deviate from this naturally as a result of simply playing the game.  Martial actors do not (willfully so) and forbid themselves the inclination.  It is fundamental to the culture.Now you, of course, know I"m a huge proponent of abstraction and a necessary uncoupling (overall) of player and character.  I rather appreciate systems that do this and do it well as it allows for better access of genre tropes, exciting rising action, and proper climaxes to conflicts.  However, I certainly dispute that players resolving a deeply abstract system element at a table are inhabiting any part of the fundamental decision-making process (and the attendant reasoning for the decision-making process is naturally incoherent) that the actual martial actors would be making.For hockey, when a hockey player decides to abandon an attack of the offensive zone, he is making it for a series of discrete reasons that are, effectively, removed from any macro goal of winning a hockey game.  Successful implementation of each of those micro-decisions and actions will add up (hopefully) to winning a hockey game.  But his perception, orientation and decision-making for that discrete micro-decision might be something like:1)  They're trapping the neutral zone.2)  The defender has the angle on me and is going to separate me from the puck if I proceed at this effort.  We just changed and I want to keep this offensive possession.  (Perhaps if they needed a change, he would dump and chase to facilitate the change behind him).3)  I'm not a good stick handler in traffic and there is a lot of traffic.  I need to give it up or I'm going to turn it over.4)  A forward is changing and lagging behind the play.5)  I'm friggin tired and I need to change because I'm well past the end of my shift but on the wrong side of the ice.  I'm going to retreat and give the puck up to a safe defenseman in our zone so I can get to the other side of the rink.And plenty more.  The actual martial actor is never thinking about deploying "hockey sludge button" to win the game.  He doesn't know it exists.  He has no idea about fortune resolution and the mathematical percentages therein.  The player of that guy and the hockey player himself never have shared deployment of resources and never have shared reasoning for the deployment of resources.  The player is oriented toward resolving a macro-conflict with some kind of fortune resolution and in the aim of winning the game, he deploys the skill pile of goo and a dice pool/d20.  The character is always oriented towards a discrete, micro-process and trying to facilitate his micro-goals the best he can.  Hopefully, in the end, that will result in successfully winning the hockey game.</blockquote>

Verification