Person vs. `Puter

[Wik]

Can of worms, meet Mark. Mark, Can of Worms.

Discuss.

 

[Cadfan]

You can still hit the edge of the map, or want to do something not permitted by the interface.

Right, and in my game my players could, hypothetically, hit the edge of my preparation for the evening, or the edge of my patience, or try to do something not permitted by the game rules, or try to do something not permitted by, you know, me. Its happened.

Computer RPGs and tabletop RPGs aren't the same animal, but they're at least the same species of animal. Distinctions like "you have complete freedom of action in a tabletop RPG but not a computerized RPG" are nonsensical because 1. they're not actually true in anything but a most rarified and conceptual sense, and 2. its not clear why complete freedom of action is necessary for a game to be an RPG.

 

[jdrakeh]

See, this is semantics regarding the meaning of enjoyment.

No, it isn't. This is an accurate representaton of the claimed relationship between existence and enjoyment, based on dictionary definitions of both words. It isn't an issue of semantics. You claimed that since people do X, they enjoy it. You stated that this is undisputable fact. I'm disputing it right now. Have you ever done anything that you didn't enjoy? Have you ever known somebody to be subjected to something that they didn't enjoy?

The relationship that you state is in place is, in fact, not. because something exists does not mean that humanity (a blanket term as you applied it) enjoys it. Enjoyment may be a criteria for the creation of some very specific things, but it is not a critera for existence. Even if we were to accept your assertion at face value, this would mean that because computer games exist, humanity enjoys them and therefore, they are a fundamental part of the human experience.

So, one of your statements posits that enjoying computer games makes you sub-human, while the other makes computer games a fundamental aspect of humanity. I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

Seriously... would any among us say no if this chick/machine offered to run a game?

 

[TwinBahamut]

Tabletop RPGs and videogame RPGs are not directly equivalent in large part because of the difference in player role. Players interact with tabletop games and videogame RPGs in very different ways, and the games have completely different tropes and assumptions, and they are designed to provide very different kinds of experiences. A player running a PC in D&D has very different things expected of him than someone playing a videogame, and this goes far beyond the difference in limitations between computers and DMs.

The entire discussion of whether or not you can get a CRPG just by replacing a DM with a computer, or get a tabletop RPG just by replacing the computer with a DM, is missing more than half of the entire issue.

 

[Mark]

Can of worms, meet Mark. Mark, Can of Worms.

Discuss.

And the winner of the naming contest for the next Micro-Adventure Path series . . .



It's really small, see.

 

[xechnao]

No, it isn't. This is an accurate representaton of the claimed relationship between existence and enjoyment, based on dictionary definitions of both words. It isn't an issue of semantics. You claimed that since people do X, they enjoy it. You stated that this is undisputable fact. I'm disputing it right now. Have you ever done anything that you didn't enjoy? Have you ever known somebody to be subjected to something that they didn't enjoy?

The relationship that you state is in place is, in fact, not. because something exists does not mean that humanity (a blanket term as you applied it) enjoys it. Enjoyment may be a criteria for the creation of some very specific things, but it is not a critera for existence. Even if we were to accept your assertion at face value, this would mean that because computer games exist, humanity enjoys them and therefore, they are a fundamental part of the human experience.

So, one of your statements posits that enjoying computer games makes you sub-human, while the other makes computer games a fundamental aspect of humanity. I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways.

Whatever say the dictionary definitions then. I instead tried to express myself in context of the semi philosophical arguments over here. Semantics or not, since you can't but insist on this I will try a different approach.
What I wanted to say, is this: you just can not as a human have more benefit from a set of algorithms (-see video games) that do not respect or lack any constraints that can be met in or come through direct relations with other real humans. The most ideal environment a human can have (the one most beneficial as a human) is one that considers all the real world constraints including all those that have to do with our relations with other humans.
Because at this point we are as if "constructed" to react to the real world and real human relations.

 

[Scribble]

There is nothing to distinguish WoW being operated by an AI versus WoW being operated by a human, because the game is mechanized.

So are certain elements of D&D. Some elements of WoW and such are more mechanized because the AI isn't true AI.

If you put an AI in charge of D&D versus a a human in charge of D&D, there is also little to distinguish them, because the AI can make decisions like a human.

Same as above. The two would become virtually the same the greater the capacity of technology.

If you put a bunch of AIs in control of invidual orcs, but not in charge of the game world, then CRPGs still offer less freedom than TRPGs. You just have smarter orcs. You can still hit the edge of the map, or want to do something not permitted by the interface.

But again you're arguing that if you simply put an AI in charge of a game made right now... The tech as a whole will increase... Certain elements now have to be mechanized because there is no AI smart enough to handle them.

To top it off, when dealing with AI who's to say there has to be one AI?

Each monster and creature has its own AI, all linked together through a world AI... Like having a million DMs.

 

[xechnao]

So are certain elements of D&D. Some elements of WoW and such are more mechanized because the AI isn't true AI.



Same as above. The two would become virtually the same the greater the capacity of technology.



But again you're arguing that if you simply put an AI in charge of a game made right now... The tech as a whole will increase... Certain elements now have to be mechanized because there is no AI smart enough to handle them.

To top it off, when dealing with AI who's to say there has to be one AI?

Each monster and creature has its own AI, all linked together through a world AI... Like having a million DMs.

You will never, whatever the technology be able to be as a player as creative in a software application as in communication with real humans.
It is not about processor speeds. It is about our biology.

 

[jdrakeh]

Tabletop RPGs and videogame RPGs are not directly equivalent in large part because of the difference in player role.

Now that is a discussion with merit.

Video games are, by their nature, typically prescriptive (not always, but typically) when it comes to resolving action -- they provide players with X choices (X being a finite number) and the player chooses what to do, after which the CPU and program determines whether or not the player is successful.

By default, table top RPGs typically (yes, I'm making that distinction again) don't provide a finite number of choices that a player must choose from, rather, the player can attempt to do anything that they like and then the Dungeon Master must determine whether or not they are successful.

Or at least that's the ideal. A crappy DM can really bungle that last bit and, IME, they often do.