Playing "Adventurers" As Actual Adventurers

[pemerton]

the goal being find a way home or to a new home.

Just thinking about this: I like how Agon 2e handles this from an Odyssey/Homeric myth point of view. Not quite real-world adventuring, but a nice element of that system.

 

[Simon The Hunter]

A couple of peeps have mentioned polar exploration, and just recently we watched a brilliant documentary on Shackleton and how he and his crew of around 30 people all survived a series of misfortunes during his 1914-1917 expedition. IIRC the only deaths were the sled dogs and a cat that had become a bit of a mascot. The fact that Shackleton was able to keep his crew alive and himself spending weeks in a small boat sailing to the nearest help whilst the rest lived on seals for 5 months is astounding.

Tying in something like this with a Call of Cthulhu, Mountains of Madness, discovery themed game or other harsh biome themed game would be pretty interesting to play.

A quote about Shackleton at the time sums up the man: "For scientific discovery give me Scott; for speed and efficiency of travel give me Amundsen; but when disaster strikes and all hope is gone, get down on your knees and pray for Shackleton".

 

[The Firebird]

So there is a lot to unpack here. First, I don't think people usually do a lot of roleplay when making a sand castle. The thing I think drives kids to make sandcastles is mostly the aesthetic of Expression - the pleasure of making or shaping something to your own design. "Look what I made." A kid who makes a sand castle doesn't run to his mom or dad to tell the story of his sand castle. He runs to get them to see the thing he has made. But it is I would argue empathically "play", and every kid loves it with or without attaching a narrative to it.

Hmm. I think it is more complicated, because for kids the boundary between play and other activities is less well defined. If an adult built a sandcastle, it could be play, but it could also be done for art or to enjoy the act of creation. In that case I'd say it was not play. A kid could do that in theory; but in practice they usually aren't doing it solely as art.

Secondly, while Caillois observation about Ilinx is really interesting, I think it is also so narrow that it is falsifiable and it misses out on a lot of activities. The mountain climber that does so for no reason is playing both for Challenge (which he understands) but also for the beauty of the summit and the discovery of what is at the top. At a smaller level, kids climb up boulders and trees for the exact same reasons, not just the Challenge of doing so but the joys of having done so. And climbing trees is emphatically play. They aren't doing it to get dizzy or "drunk", albeit I agree with him that it's a type of play to do so.

Is the discovery part of the game or incidental to it? If you take a helicopter to the top of a mountain, you get the same discovery and beauty. But it isn't a game.

I don't think Garfield was saying that. Rather he would say that humans operate something like an AI that analyzes moves in chess and assigns a confidence to them and then often as not picks one according to the weighted value they perceive to the move. What move they end up picking isn't itself deterministic. In this situation the same player might play this move 72% of the time, some other move 24% of the time and some third move 4% of the time. In the critical portions of the game most moves aren't "forced" and while skilled players will generally analyze the forced moves correctly (and less skilled ones miss them) the really interesting thing is the randomness with which players will choose the unforced moves - say an opening.

I see the point but I think this strains what is happening.

A handicap isn't unlucky, but it greatly increases this "random" aspect of how a skilled player will play, since it moves them out of their comfort zone and they must speculate more on the unforced parts of play.

This seems falsifiable. It might be that a skilled player would try a diversity of strategies if they had equal material, because they are confident of a win and want to see if an odd strategy works. Whereas with a handicap, they'll follow the optimal line more closely.

It is of course extraordinarily unlikely. But the point is that it's not impossible. Skill dominates over luck in Chess, which is obvious to everyone including Garfield, but Garfield is the first person I know of who said, "Yes, but skill isn't everything in Chess. There is still luck." It's a counter-intuitive yet I think profoundly true observation. And in some sense, the Chess world had already recognized this. It's why they don't decide a championship with just one game..

I don't know, I still don't buy it. I mean I understand his point but I don't think it is correct to use the term luck. I guess there are two types of variance; variance within the game (e.g., power ups) and the variance that players bring to the game (e.g., I had a bad day). Folding these both into the term 'luck' seems inappropriate to me. I think it is because the variance the players are bringing is a combination of luck and skill. For example, I could have highly variable performance because I don't have the discipline to sleep well before matches. In that case I can improve the variance.