Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jay Verkuilen" data-source="post: 7769771" data-attributes="member: 6873517">I'd certainly agree with this---a board game is a finite (though sometimes extremely large) decision space. One way of thinking about this is to consider a game like chess and go as taking only a bit to learn the basics but for which there is an extraordinary amount of depth. While chess is likely to fall to AI soon, humans can still play it and a definitive determination of who wins by backwards induction is still a long way off, assuming it's not something that falls to quantum computers (I don't know enough to know).&nbsp; I'm not too sure I'd say that nobody here or elsewhere didn't have those thoughts. TTRPGs are vastly more open-ended than really any other game one might contemplate, and this is something many posters here have noted before, although possibly not on this particular thread. Much of what people were discussing was the tendency for some games, such as 3.X and 4E D&amp;D (but not limited to them) to provide very comprehensive sets of rules, in many ways trying to make things much more like a complicated board game (although still open ended). This was quite evident in the way 4E tended to approach combat, at least in terms of the way modules were written, which clearly were modeled on skirmish game scenarios. (Of course, not everybody played with that strict a locked-down set of rules. For those taking offense at this, I'm really not looking to give it.) Games like White Wolf's Exalted are even more detailed. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by that. Elaborate?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jay Verkuilen, post: 7769771, member: 6873517"] I'd certainly agree with this---a board game is a finite (though sometimes extremely large) decision space. One way of thinking about this is to consider a game like chess and go as taking only a bit to learn the basics but for which there is an extraordinary amount of depth. While chess is likely to fall to AI soon, humans can still play it and a definitive determination of who wins by backwards induction is still a long way off, assuming it's not something that falls to quantum computers (I don't know enough to know). I'm not too sure I'd say that nobody here or elsewhere didn't have those thoughts. TTRPGs are vastly more open-ended than really any other game one might contemplate, and this is something many posters here have noted before, although possibly not on this particular thread. Much of what people were discussing was the tendency for some games, such as 3.X and 4E D&D (but not limited to them) to provide [I]very[/I] comprehensive sets of rules, in many ways trying to make things much more like a complicated board game (although still open ended). This was quite evident in the way 4E tended to approach combat, at least in terms of the way modules were written, which clearly were modeled on skirmish game scenarios. (Of course, not everybody played with that strict a locked-down set of rules. For those taking offense at this, I'm really not looking to give it.) Games like White Wolf's [I]Exalted[/I] are even more detailed. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by that. Elaborate? [/QUOTE]

Verification