Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9264023" data-attributes="member: 6696971">[USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] , just a quick read of the recent exchanges. I think you can need to revise the conceptual model you’re working from if Blackjack dealer (“referee”) = (or even approximates) player is folded into the calculus.* Outside of rote technical responsibilities and social courtesies as a professional, a blackjack dealer has nothing at stake hand-to-hand or in the throughline of their shift.* A Blackjack dealer runs a simple script with no decision-points. There is no “play” for the dealer; their turn is automated.It’s hard for me to understand how you could conceive of Blackjack dealer = player (the point of the design of the game is precisely to remove dealer = player from the equation) given the above bullet points. Participant? Sure. Player. No.If this informs some of your thinking on these matters, then that might explain some of the daylight between us? Perhaps this was just a bad paradigm to illustrate your overall point? If not, it would be interesting to see how you’ve arrived at Blackjack dealer = player despite the above dynamics. And how the above bullet points not being a total confounder to paradigmatic playership (let’s call it!)&nbsp; contributes to your thinking on TTRPGs game engines and principles.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 9264023, member: 6696971"] [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] , just a quick read of the recent exchanges. I think you can need to revise the conceptual model you’re working from if [I]Blackjack dealer (“referee”) = (or even approximates) player[/I] is folded into the calculus. * Outside of rote technical responsibilities and social courtesies as a professional, a blackjack dealer has nothing at stake hand-to-hand or in the throughline of their shift. * A Blackjack dealer runs a simple script with no decision-points. There is no “play” for the dealer; their turn is automated. It’s hard for me to understand how you could conceive of [I]Blackjack dealer = player[/I] (the point of the design of the game is precisely to remove [I]dealer = player[/I] from the equation) given the above bullet points. Participant? Sure. Player. No. If this informs some of your thinking on these matters, then that might explain some of the daylight between us? Perhaps this was just a bad paradigm to illustrate your overall point? If not, it would be interesting to see how you’ve arrived at [I]Blackjack dealer = player [/I]despite the above dynamics. And how the above bullet points not being a total confounder to [I]paradigmatic playership[/I] (let’s call it!) contributes to your thinking on TTRPGs game engines and principles. [/QUOTE]

Verification