Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6109002" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I'm not sure how you see my game.&nbsp; I'm not posting any of this as a biographical expose into my game.&nbsp; I'm no one special.&nbsp; Just an interested party in game theory on a board of fellow gamers.&nbsp; I'm just using it as a conduit for game theory investigation and whether &quot;system matters&quot; or &quot;technique matters.&quot;&nbsp; That is what I'm interested in.&nbsp; Anyone can comment on that post, you or anyone else, and they can disagree as they see fit.&nbsp; Its just difficult when every time we try to establish any premise we can't even accept anything that appears to be fundamental to either party.&nbsp; So even a &quot;jumping-off&quot; point is obscured.&nbsp; I'll address the rest of your critique of those definitions in the coming days as I'm able.&nbsp; The only &quot;issue&quot; that I had was you attributing a &quot;straw-man&quot; logical fallacy to my commentary.&nbsp; There was no attribution of any argument that I made or worked against given to you.&nbsp; I just gave my own litmus test and threshold as a framework for folks to know where I come from on this...in the interest of clarity.&nbsp; Maybe some folks do believe that anything less than 100 % agency is tantamount to 0 % agency, and thus a &quot;deal-breaker&quot;.&nbsp; I'm not sure.&nbsp; You?&nbsp; I have no idea where you come out on it and I see no where in there that I manufactured/attributed (or even appeared to) a position to you of which you did (or even did not) take and then disagreed with it.&nbsp; That is what I meant by &quot;witch hunt&quot;, nothing more.&nbsp; I'll take the &quot;my mistake&quot; as a good faith apology though and we're square.I agree with this 100 % (and my &quot;Shrodinger post&quot; below is related).&nbsp; And the depiction of the skill being tested and the context is also correct; Nature.&nbsp; And the skill being tested when the &quot;sinkhole complication was generated&quot; was History.&nbsp; In a last ditch effort to find a means of egress, the player was trying to recall the geographical, historical record of the badlands they were in; including any secret trails down into the bottom of the gorge, any caves, sinkholes, springs or other natural formations.&nbsp; If he was successful, then I would have let him author their ultimate escape (and generate/establish physical content...a trail, a cave, what-have-you) as this would have been the final success in the Skill Challenge (as a BW Wise).&nbsp; As it turned out, it was their final failure!When I get a chance to write out the entirety of the chase scene (hopefully in the next few days), I'll flesh this out fully.Perhaps my &quot;pre-planning&quot; and coordination to that end is more than normal and likely a bit extraneous.&nbsp; Some folks are obsessive &quot;world-builders&quot;.&nbsp; I guess I might be bit of an obsessive &quot;PC content calibrator&quot;.&nbsp; Its probably because I've been burned on dissonance with respect to that too many times for my liking in my 25 years of GMing.&nbsp; I seem to be pretty obsessive about being &quot;armed with information&quot; whenever I engage on something so I guess that would fit the bill.That's right on permerton's game.&nbsp; Thanks for the correction.&nbsp; Some quick thoughts on the &quot;morphic universe&quot; or various &quot;Shrodinger's &lt;&nbsp; &gt;&quot; commentaries before I go to bed.&nbsp; I had a long post about this some time ago but I can't seem to locate it.&nbsp; There is a premise that underwrites the &quot;Shrodinger's Gorge&quot; commentary that I believe has some problems.&nbsp; 1 - In our everyday lives we have serial perception of time and spatial awareness.&nbsp; We catalog what we see and do, remember things as we are able, and account for it all (insofar as we are able) in future endeavors.&nbsp; There is no &quot;imaginary space&quot;.&nbsp; It is reality.2 - In works of fiction (in this case TTRPGing), characters (presumably) have a &quot;true&quot; (but not real) serial perception of time and spatial awareness.&nbsp; They (presumably) catalog what they see and do, remember things as they are able, and account for it all (insofar as they are able) in future endeavors.&nbsp; However.&nbsp; We, the players (including GM), are not possessed of their &quot;reality.&quot;&nbsp; That is because they don't have a &quot;reality.&quot;&nbsp; To whatever degree we instill it, they may have&nbsp; things such as &quot;setting chronology, extremely low-resolution geography, cosmology, etc&quot; and their own personal &quot;backgrounds&quot;.&nbsp; But they are dispossessed of reality as we know it and experience it.&nbsp; They have our &quot;(shared) imaginary space&quot; as proxy for all of the extraordinarily vast swath of their &quot;reality&quot; that requires &quot;in-filling.&quot;&nbsp; As such, this &quot;in-filled&quot; content is generated, established and given credibility through a different means than serial perception, spatial awareness and sensory accounting.&nbsp; We breathe life into this content the moment we generate it, establish it, interact with it and thus give it credibility within the &quot;shared imaginary space&quot;, no sooner.&nbsp; 3 - This gets us to the &quot;Shrodinger's &lt; &gt;&quot; question.&nbsp; Does this content exist in a state of quantum superposition (both &quot;there&quot; and &quot;not there&quot;) and then collapse into one reality (in this case &quot;there&quot;) the moment we (player or GM) establish it in the &quot;shared imaginary space&quot;?&nbsp; Is it latent and unrealized in the same way that Shrodinger's famous thought experiment ponders?&nbsp; I would say no, at least not in the &quot;Shrodinger way&quot;; an inquiry into the seeming paradoxical quantum world of &quot;reality&quot;, of which we are only &quot;perceiving&quot;, not &quot;generating&quot; content.&nbsp; In our games, we (the players) are generating emergent content during play.&nbsp; Again, that content generation (hopefully coherent) is the &quot;higher resolution&quot;, &quot;in-filled&quot; proxy for our characters' superficial existence due to their lack of a granular world, and the serial perception of time and spatial awareness they would have if their world or they truly existed.&nbsp; Just thoughts there.&nbsp; I'll try to post a full writeup of the WTF SHRODINGER'S GORGE? scene sometime in the coming days.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6109002, member: 6696971"] I'm not sure how you see my game. I'm not posting any of this as a biographical expose into my game. I'm no one special. Just an interested party in game theory on a board of fellow gamers. I'm just using it as a conduit for game theory investigation and whether "system matters" or "technique matters." That is what I'm interested in. Anyone can comment on that post, you or anyone else, and they can disagree as they see fit. Its just difficult when every time we try to establish any premise we can't even accept anything that appears to be fundamental to either party. So even a "jumping-off" point is obscured. I'll address the rest of your critique of those definitions in the coming days as I'm able. The only "issue" that I had was you attributing a "straw-man" logical fallacy to my commentary. There was no attribution of any argument that I made or worked against given to you. I just gave my own litmus test and threshold as a framework for folks to know where I come from on this...in the interest of clarity. Maybe some folks do believe that anything less than 100 % agency is tantamount to 0 % agency, and thus a "deal-breaker". I'm not sure. You? I have no idea where you come out on it and I see no where in there that I manufactured/attributed (or even appeared to) a position to you of which you did (or even did not) take and then disagreed with it. That is what I meant by "witch hunt", nothing more. I'll take the "my mistake" as a good faith apology though and we're square. I agree with this 100 % (and my "Shrodinger post" below is related). And the depiction of the skill being tested and the context is also correct; Nature. And the skill being tested when the "sinkhole complication was generated" was History. In a last ditch effort to find a means of egress, the player was trying to recall the geographical, historical record of the badlands they were in; including any secret trails down into the bottom of the gorge, any caves, sinkholes, springs or other natural formations. If he was successful, then I would have let him author their ultimate escape (and generate/establish physical content...a trail, a cave, what-have-you) as this would have been the final success in the Skill Challenge (as a BW Wise). As it turned out, it was their final failure! When I get a chance to write out the entirety of the chase scene (hopefully in the next few days), I'll flesh this out fully. Perhaps my "pre-planning" and coordination to that end is more than normal and likely a bit extraneous. Some folks are obsessive "world-builders". I guess I might be bit of an obsessive "PC content calibrator". Its probably because I've been burned on dissonance with respect to that too many times for my liking in my 25 years of GMing. I seem to be pretty obsessive about being "armed with information" whenever I engage on something so I guess that would fit the bill. That's right on permerton's game. Thanks for the correction. Some quick thoughts on the "morphic universe" or various "Shrodinger's < >" commentaries before I go to bed. I had a long post about this some time ago but I can't seem to locate it. There is a premise that underwrites the "Shrodinger's Gorge" commentary that I believe has some problems. 1 - In our everyday lives we have serial perception of time and spatial awareness. We catalog what we see and do, remember things as we are able, and account for it all (insofar as we are able) in future endeavors. There is no "imaginary space". It is reality. 2 - In works of fiction (in this case TTRPGing), characters (presumably) have a "true" (but not real) serial perception of time and spatial awareness. They (presumably) catalog what they see and do, remember things as they are able, and account for it all (insofar as they are able) in future endeavors. However. We, the players (including GM), are not possessed of their "reality." That is because they don't have a "reality." To whatever degree we instill it, they may have things such as "setting chronology, extremely low-resolution geography, cosmology, etc" and their own personal "backgrounds". But they are dispossessed of reality as we know it and experience it. They have our "(shared) imaginary space" as proxy for all of the extraordinarily vast swath of their "reality" that requires "in-filling." As such, this "in-filled" content is generated, established and given credibility through a different means than serial perception, spatial awareness and sensory accounting. We breathe life into this content the moment we generate it, establish it, interact with it and thus give it credibility within the "shared imaginary space", no sooner. 3 - This gets us to the "Shrodinger's < >" question. Does this content exist in a state of quantum superposition (both "there" and "not there") and then collapse into one reality (in this case "there") the moment we (player or GM) establish it in the "shared imaginary space"? Is it latent and unrealized in the same way that Shrodinger's famous thought experiment ponders? I would say no, at least not in the "Shrodinger way"; an inquiry into the seeming paradoxical quantum world of "reality", of which we are only "perceiving", not "generating" content. In our games, we (the players) are generating emergent content during play. Again, that content generation (hopefully coherent) is the "higher resolution", "in-filled" proxy for our characters' superficial existence due to their lack of a granular world, and the serial perception of time and spatial awareness they would have if their world or they truly existed. Just thoughts there. I'll try to post a full writeup of the WTF SHRODINGER'S GORGE? scene sometime in the coming days. [/QUOTE]

Verification