Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5653636" data-attributes="member: 8835">You do raise a good point.&nbsp; But where Nethack illustrates the point I was making, is that it makes consistent decisions.&nbsp; Despite the human bias, the human bias is applied consistently once it is coded.If you and I both play and start with the same random seed, and make the exact same moves in our session, we will both end up in the exact same place.Not so with a human GM.&nbsp; Where nethack stands as unbiased is that every encounter and every reaction is codified.&nbsp; It may be by a biased human, but once coded, the game plays identically, regardless of the player.Whereas, the human GM may be having a bad day.&nbsp; he may not like one of the players ideas, or that player even.&nbsp; His human bias is constantly manipulating the situation.Thus, his mood affects what he thinks is the rational consequence when the guards apprehend the party for not having a Pass.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Janx, post: 5653636, member: 8835"] You do raise a good point. But where Nethack illustrates the point I was making, is that it makes consistent decisions. Despite the human bias, the human bias is applied consistently once it is coded. If you and I both play and start with the same random seed, and make the exact same moves in our session, we will both end up in the exact same place. Not so with a human GM. Where nethack stands as unbiased is that every encounter and every reaction is codified. It may be by a biased human, but once coded, the game plays identically, regardless of the player. Whereas, the human GM may be having a bad day. he may not like one of the players ideas, or that player even. His human bias is constantly manipulating the situation. Thus, his mood affects what he thinks is the rational consequence when the guards apprehend the party for not having a Pass. [/QUOTE]

Verification