SIS, MIS, PIS

24

Comments

  • edited July 10
    "Imagine a house where you don't know the layout or what's in the rooms" is a strange idea. "Imagine what it's like to be in a house where you don't know the layout or what's in the rooms" is super easy and poses no special problems at all.
    Agreed. I'm pretty sure I've seen a lot of RPG confusion stem from players doing the former when everything would have been fine if they'd done the latter. But there are reasons why they got there:
    then we got screwed over by the GM making the house all quantum.
    In my experience, once we kick "screwed by GM" off the list of possibilities, then everyone can get back to virtual experience in-character. It seems like achieving that can rely on anything from a friendly social contract to a rigorously thorough and transparent GMing rule set, depending on the participants and their habits and experiences. My preference has always been somewhere in between: a few concrete tools for fairness and realism, and a pro-player GM agenda. But I do think other approaches have other strengths, and it'd be cool to have some more tools for cranking my blorb up when I want to.
  • Also Bruce Lee quoted that sūtra in a movie!
    And then some hip hop records sampled that scene in some hip hop records
    and so I was enlightened while also listening to sick beats
  • In my experience, once we kick "screwed by GM" off the list of possibilities, then everyone can get back to virtual experience in-character. It seems like achieving that can rely on anything from a friendly social contract to a rigorously thorough and transparent GMing rule set, depending on the participants and their habits and experiences. My preference has always been somewhere in between: a few concrete tools for fairness and realism, and a pro-player GM agenda.
    That hasn't been my experience. Once I knew that the objects and enemies and locations I was interactions with were real and blorby everything changed. It's not just about the GM being pro or against the player (or their characters). It's about everything being really there.
  • edited July 10
    Yeah, we totally have different experiences. I enjoy comparing notes! As for things being real, though, I'm 100% with you on how valuable that is. I think we just differ on what's necessary for us to feel like something is real.

    I'm glad you're developing and documenting what works for you, because I don't just want the games I run to feel real only to people who think like me. :)
  • It's not meant to be just me working on this stuff but if the suggestion is something that I tried and it super didn't feel real then I have to speak up♥
  • Uh but maybe I need a break idk
  • "Fingers and moons"? That's a new one for me. What does it refer to?
    It's a reference to the Śūraṅgama sūtra. Some peeps when you're tryna show them the moon and you take them out into the starry night meadow and you stand there among all the fireflies and barley and poppies and you point straight up to that big old beautiful moon…

    …and they're like: "gee, your nail polish is really starting to flake!"

    struct Moon { };
    struct Moon moon;
    struct Moon *finger = &moon;
  • In which case you have four levels of indirection:
    1. using the human language and cognition to conceptualize a moon
    2. defining the datatype to represent that concept
    3. initializing an instance of that datatype
    4. creating a pointer to that instance
    which is fine
    it’s just hard to get excited about this topic anymore
    about anything


  • Jay and I are having some really cool personal conversations about all this.

    My entire post here wasn't to mire us in jargon. It was to try to sell the point that:

    1. Old Forge language around SIS, Exploration, etc. was incomplete at the time, and is failing us now.

    2. There's this gaming thing out there that isn't in anyone's heads, full of everything true about the game. I want to call that the Game State.

    3. There's a tiny version / subset of that with errors in each person's head. I want to call that the PIS.

    4. I have no idea what it means to share PIS, and I have no idea why it's useful for theory or game design discussion at all.
  • 4. I have no idea what it means to share PIS, and I have no idea why it's useful for theory or game design discussion at all.
    I can see reasons to communicate PIS, e.g. so as to harmonize it with the Game State.

    But "having a shared PIS" does strike me as nonsensical.
  • It's just taking the PIS.

    (dnr!)
  • Well, not too surprisingly, I have lots of questions.

    First:

    Are we/you still looking to distinguish between the SIS and the MIS, or have we dropped that now?

    If we haven't, what's an example of something that's part of the SIS, but not part of the MIS, and vice-versa?
  • Jay and I are having some really cool personal conversations about all this.
    I would love to be a part of this, or to at least be exposed to some kind of summary. I have a feeling I'd understand the way you and Jay discuss these things much better (or at least in a different way) than the discussion that has been going on so far.

  • edited July 11
    Hi Paul,

    I can't speak for Adam, but I'm just as lost as ever. I have no idea what constitutes Game State that is different from the SIS, how it functions, who decides it has credibility, exactly what information that it contains beyond the exposed SIS, who can alter the Game State directly, what methods/techniques are used to do so, is it really an objective super state that is self organizing and holds truth when everyone else including the DM is in error, etc. Though we've had lengthy exchanges in the end we're still hashing out basic vocabulary issues.

    Adam has been very articulate and has been presenting many interesting ideas, though.

    Best,

    Jay
  • Don't sell yourself short, Jay. I think you've shared some really great insights in that discussion.
  • Paul,

    Once Jay and I crystalize, I'll write a new post for discussion.
  • 2. There's this gaming thing out there that isn't in anyone's heads, full of everything true about the game. I want to call that the Game State.

    3. There's a tiny version / subset of that with errors in each person's head. I want to call that the PIS.

    4. I have no idea what it means to share PIS, and I have no idea why it's useful for theory or game design discussion at all.
    Since we all have our own glimpses of the game state, the game state is this "imagined space" that we "share". Is all I'm saying. I am & was always talking about the 2.
  • It's "out there" the same way English is "out there" but we can still share English as a language.

    It's "out there" the same as this apartment I am sitting in right now is external to my own brain but I can still conceptualize it in my "minds eye". Idk I don't know how you guys think and I don't really…
    this "blorb" is the thing I care about. The game state. Adam's 2, my blorb. Whether or not we are "imagining" it depends on what "imagining" means. It is the data structure that our rules operate on.
  • This is semantics
  • I wish I was never born
  • Fuck I hate myself so much
    I hate myself
    I hate living
    I hate it all
  • edited July 13
    Sandra, are you okay? Do you need any help? I'm worried about you.
  • A lot of people reaching out in email and PMs because they are worried to me
    I appreciate the love thank you all
    It's cruel to you that I publicly show my distress this way
    I feel bad, guilty for it
    I'm such a drama queen
    my drama makes people scared, worried, concerned (or react angrily with a "idgaf about this drama queen" I've gotten some of those messages too, which, fair)
    my sadness & distress is contagious

    At the same time though:
    I am on the precipice
    I'm crying all the time
    27/4
    I can't handle it
  • I'm not gonna KMS but maybe I'll just check out. quit my job, bury myself in painting, writing, play video games, or just stare at the wall and ride it out
  • And at first I’m like… I don’t have the answer to the problem.
    • Validation from others isn’t gonna come if it’s unearned.
    • Or if it does come it’s not gonna matter because it was forced
    • Or if it wasn’t if I truly am great and people shower me with legit compliments it’s not gonna matter because it’s not gonna be enough.
    • It’s never gonna be enough
    • Validation from self, “self-validation” and other therapy mumbo jumbo is obviously not working either.
    • Validation from God or from the cosmos isn’t great either. Sorry, God, I know you’re doing your best.
    And then I’m like: “OH!”
    I get it!
    The vinegar IS bitter!
    The Buddha was right, life sucks and I just have to suck it up?
    OK then! Can do!
    And Laozi don’t have to be wrong either.
    The vinegar just is.

    I mean even evolutionary or thinking non-teleologically or whatever… why should there be a God-given solution to this? Why does everyone need to be some sorta genius star of the world beloved by all people, understood by everyone, people are impressed and bow down & mow lawns?

    Life can just be unbearably soul-crushingly heavily impossibly unjust and that’s fine. I don’t have to keep looking. I can just give up. Check out. Grab a big old stack of comics, make a melon&tomato salad, just dgaf.
  • I worked myself to the bone and died and people still didn't get it and well ok that sucks but that's all I can do. Vem har sagt att just du ska ha bästa menyn etc etc
  • thank you Adam for engaging with this topic and starting this thread!
  • OK now that I have come down from that bad acid trip (which was cruel to everyone who was reading and got worried and I feel bad about that and I wish I hadn't behaved that way but I oh shit I can see myself going down the same path again let me stop myself right here: ok. It's OK. They love you Sandra. Or some hate you and that's cool too.) let me give my take on the topic at hand.

    I groove on the idea that PIS, Gamestate, MIS, SIS etc are sets. Nice, Adam! ♥

    Game state: super interesting, we want it, love it, want to design to it. This is what I was calling the MIS or the SIS-2. Not literally a union of the various PIS around the table—has things that is only in the book for example. (Blackrazor in the "S2 over the mountain" example.) It's just closest to a union of PIS than it is to an intersection. Not that that's saying much.
    The SIS-4: the subset of the game state that has been communicated about. May include wrong things! "Floor is safe" when it's actually trapped! This is closer to an intersection of the various PIS than it is to a union. Still not literally an intersection because things can be contradicted between the various PIS, and or things can be uncommunicated about but still coincidentally coexisting in various PIS. (Such as two players coincidentally imagining that a flag is red when the flag's color hasn't been stated.)
    A PIS: the subset of the game state that one person know about. In the treasure chest drawing example it includes the lock, the iron bands, the wooden surface, but not the contents.
  • I should say that I only borrowed the term Game State from you, who talked about the offscreen canonical gamestate. I thought that formulation was magical, and kept using it. Game State is just easier to type.
  • I think the PIS isn't exactly a subset, since it contains false predicates.
  • Well, if the game state is the collection of predicates including false information ("Alice believes that the floor is safe" when the floor is not safe)…
  • Er, hrm.

    It might be useful to say the game state contains predicates like:

    1. Elminster's eyes are gray. (true)
    2. Adam believes Elminster's eyes are blue. (true)

    But it doesn't contain:

    3. Elminster's eyes are blue. (false)

    Adam's PIS does, though. Statement 3 has to belong somewhere, but I don't think it belongs in the game state. Otherwise, it contains a near-infinite number of false facts for each true fact.
  • One reason I have avoided using "blorg" terminology is because I don't want to step on it with my ideas.

    If your "offscreen canonical gamestate" / "the blorg" idea was only used for Blorg play, my Game State is used for all modes of play. It exists for Sorcerer games, D&D 4e games, for Cary's Middle Earth games, and for your Blorg games. It's an addition to the Big Model, or at least a clarification of Exploration/SIS.
  • edited July 14
    But that's why we speak specifically about the canonical game state. As in unfrobnicatable; injection of entities into the game state is governed by rules
  • Elminster has died in our game T_T
    and so has Jayani T_T
    I'm more sad about Jayani than Elminster T_T
  • I haven't been engaging with this topic a whole deal lately, and it's mostly because throughout all these conversations I'm not seeing any consensus or even any clear definition of what "game state" means.

    If the "game state" includes things like false statements...

    3. Elminster's eyes are blue. (false)
    ...that's a pretty questionable thing, and possible even impossible to define. It would have to include all kinds of ridiculous things. So I'm with Adam on this one.

    I see a similar problem with this:

    2. Adam believes Elminster's eyes are blue. (true)
    Assuming that "Adam" here is a player (I'm assuming that's why Adam used his own name), this suggests a really bizarre idea, which is that a *player's* ideas about the game are part of this "game state". I could accept the idea that a *character's* available information, beliefs, and delusions are part of the "game state", since those are important predicates (e.g. if you think something is safe to eat, but it's actually poisoned), but including player beliefs sounds like a really slippery slope. Can my expectations about the game, before we even start playing, be considered part of the game state? That sounds really messy.

    So, what is the game state? What does it include?

    (Oddly enough, perhaps, "offscreen canon gamestate" makes some sense to me, but not so much the term 'game state' by itself - or, at least, I couldn't explain it to someone else, and for me "being able to explain it to someone else" is a big part of what I consider necessary for real understanding.)

    I'm going to throw out some categories of things I've heard discussed so far, and you (plural) tell me what you think belongs and what doesn't. These are based on the discussions I've heard and followed so far - things that have been mentioned in these threads. You (plural) should also say what I'm omitting, if anything!

    1. Facts about the fictional reality we're playing in.

    I have trouble with this one, because there is no reference to the real world. What does this even mean? What are we talking about? Compare with the more specific formulations that follow:

    2. Facts that have been spoken aloud or otherwise communicated to the other players, and accepted as part of the fictional reality.

    Last week, we played and Morgrim entered the General's room. The GM described a red vase in the corner. So there is a red vase in the General's room.

    This is traditional SIS stuff; makes sense.

    3. Facts that are held by a player with authority over that fictional material, but have not yet been communicated.

    These are basically "secrets" or "plans", held by players which have been granted social authority by the group over that area of the fictional reality.

    * The GM has decided that the vase in the General's room holds a demon's soul, but hasn't told anyone just yet.

    * The player has decided that Morgrim's father was killed by a demon, many years ago, but hasn't told anyone just yet.


    And what about this one? Let's call it 3(b), since it's definitely part of this category, but an unusual case:

    * Julie played with us last year, and she said something about the demon living in Mortown, the village where Morgrim grew up. She mentioned that she knows the demon's name, but never told anyone.

    Morgrim's player says: "Hey, that's surely the demon that killed my dad! Maybe we should call Julie - I know she lives in Australia now, but I got her Skype contact - and ask her what the demon's name is, yeah?"

    Is the demon's name, in this case, part of the "game state"?

    Does it matter whether Julie actually picked a name for the demon, or just makes one up when the call is made? How does that affect the "game state"?

    4. Facts that are written down, as a way to remember them, by a player granted social authority by the group over that area of the fictional reality.

    As above:

    * The GM's notes say that the vase in the General's room holds a demon's soul.

    * The player's written backstory says that Morgrim's father was killed by a demon, many years ago.


    * Julie has a notebook in her storage locker, where she wrote down the demon's name.

    5. A written record or notes (or drawing, or audio recording, or whatever) which the group has agreed to honour.

    * We are playing Module 24C, by Stephen King; its contents are therefore 'canon'.

    * "Oh! It turns out Julie left her notes here when she moved to Australia. I see them under the desk!"

    * We are playing in Middle Earth, and all of Tolkien's works are therefore 'canon'.

    (On a sidenote, what happens if we disagree with some of the content? What if we've agreed that we don't want any spiders in our game, because one of the players suffers from severe arachnophobia, and it turns out that the module has spiders on page 56?)

    6. Rules and procedures which we can use to generate fictional material for us in play.

    * A list of random encounter tables describing the types of people you might meet in the city of Mortown, and a random table of professions.

    If we roll up an NPC who is "a jolly, fat man" and "a constable", at what point does this particular person become part of the game state? Are all those professions and all those types of people part of the game state?

    * A random table listing names of demons.

    If Julie turns out to be unreachable, and we agree to use this table, are the names on the list part of the "game state"? Or just the one we roll up? If there are 100 names on the list, does that mean that "there are 100 demons in this world" is a fact of the "game state"?

    * An Apocalypse World-style "pick from this list" menagerie of weird historical events for the GM to use.

    Are all these historical events now part of the "game state" in any way? Or does the type of event listed there somehow affect the "game state" (e.g. they are all tragic events)?

    7. The mechanical bits and pieces of the game, like dice, the numbers they have rolled, the "stats" of characters, and so forth.

    (I think this is where the "game state" analogy comes from, right? I think it's like a machine record that's "saved" at the end of a session in preparation for the next one, in the analogy.)

    * Morgrim has 18 hit points.

    * There are 12 Orcs in the cavern.

    How about these, though?

    * There are 3d6 Orcs in the cavern.

    * Adam rolled a 15 "to hit" on behalf of Morgrim last week.

    8. Certain facts which it is possible to deduce from the mechanics, procedures, or numbers in the design of the game.

    * Morgrim is a first-level Fighter with a Constitution of 14, and hasn't been hurt. Therefore he *must* have 12 hit points.

    * If someone knocks over the red vase in the General's room, the demon will be freed, and freed demons immediately and automatically inflict 3d10 damage on anyone within 30 feet.

    * Next week's session should be Morgrim's Spotlight episode, according to our "character spotlight" chart, so we will be learning about the demon that killed his father.

    And what about these?

    * At the end of our previous session, Morgrim was mid-swing, about to attack the demon. The GM knows that Morgrim's "to hit" bonus is not sufficient to hit a demon with this armor class.

    Therefore, is "the Morgrim fails to hit the demon" part of the "game state", even though we haven't rolled the dice or played out that interaction yet?

    * When you swing at a demon and miss, a demon activates its "Retributive Flames" power, which deals 20 points of damage.

    Therefore, is "Mogrim is dead" part of the "game state"?

    Let me know your thoughts!

  • So, what is the game state? What does it include?

    ...

    1. Facts about the fictional reality we're playing in.

    I have trouble with this one, because there is no reference to the real world. What does this even mean? What are we talking about?
    Yeah, mainly that is what I've been talking about. "Elminster was born around 212 DR," even if no one at the table knows it.

    Why do you need a reference to the real world (by which I take you to mean, "players have accepted it as a fact") for something to be true?

    An example I gave Jay:

    A player asks what color Elminster's eyes are. They absolutely have a color, right, even before you determine them? The GM can pick a color or look it up in a book or roll it on a table and share that with the group. Let's say the GM says, "frosty blue." What color were Elminster's eyes before the players knew the answer? They were always frosty blue.

    The "this was always true" bit of this is what gives Sandra her blorby-happiness.

    2. Facts that have been spoken aloud or otherwise communicated to the other players, and accepted as part of the fictional reality.

    Last week, we played and Morgrim entered the General's room. The GM described a red vase in the corner. So there is a red vase in the General's room.

    This is traditional SIS stuff; makes sense.
    Remember:
    Share-4: reveal information to, thus known by both
    Share-2: have something in common, not necessarily fully known by both
    Shared-2 or Shared-4? This is where I have a problem with either formulation.

    Shared-4 doesn't work for me, because individuals often have different knowledge (PIS).

    Shared-2 works. It doesn't actually require anyone to know it. They share it in the sense that they have and use it in common.

    3. Facts that are held by a player with authority over that fictional material, but have not yet been communicated.

    These are basically "secrets" or "plans", held by players which have been granted social authority by the group over that area of the fictional reality.


    Uncommunicated facts are a subset of the game state. Authority is just a Technique for resolving differences in opinion about the Game State.

    And what about this one? Let's call it 3(b), since it's definitely part of this category, but an unusual case:

    * Julie played with us last year, and she said something about the demon living in Mortown, the village where Morgrim grew up. She mentioned that she knows the demon's name, but never told anyone.

    Morgrim's player says: "Hey, that's surely the demon that killed my dad! Maybe we should call Julie - I know she lives in Australia now, but I got her Skype contact - and ask her what the demon's name is, yeah?"
    The truth is that the demon has a name, only Julie knows it, and she's not there to tell it to you. Or use a Technique to grant Authority to someone else. Then Julie is wrong.


    Is the demon's name, in this case, part of the "game state"?

    Does it matter whether Julie actually picked a name for the demon, or just makes one up when the call is made? How does that affect the "game state"?
    The demon's name is a fact in the Game State, regardless of how or when it is determined. The Game State contains facts that no one knows yet.

    When you call Julie and she recalls or makes it up, or the GM says "we're not calling Julie; the demon's name is Alabaster," regardless: the quantum wave collapses, and the truth was always there.


  • 4. Facts that are written down, as a way to remember them, by a player granted social authority by the group over that area of the fictional reality.


    Doesn't matter where it's recorded. Doesn't matter if it's recorded at all.

    It matters a great deal to Sandra, who has a particular Technical Agenda and Creative Agenda called Blorb, and recording facts of the Game State is the highest ideal in her model. In other models, not so much, but that doesn't change my Game State model. It's only a matter of prioritization of techniques that interact with the Game State.



    5. A written record or notes (or drawing, or audio recording, or whatever) which the group has agreed to honour.
    There are many Techniques that determine what the Game State is:

    * Consult "canon," recorded in people's minds and books and movies
    * Make it up on the spot according to whatever seems cool
    * Make it up on the spot using well-defined, well-documented principles
    * Combine randomization with one of the above
    * Reference preparation, where you used another method to determine it in advance

    Note that "ask someone" is always applying rules/techniques about Authority to determine who to defer to, but that person still uses one of the above techniques.


    (On a sidenote, what happens if we disagree with some of the content? What if we've agreed that we don't want any spiders in our game, because one of the players suffers from severe arachnophobia, and it turns out that the module has spiders on page 56?)
    Disagreeing with the content comes up all the time, and people figure it out. "When I told you the orc inflicted 9 damage to you, I read the die wrong; it was 6." "Oh, I wrote I have green eyes, not blue." "Wait, I'm on the ledge? I thought I was hanging back? I shouldn't have to make a Reflex save..."

    Games have rules to solve stuff like this, like "The GM gets to decide" or "Hey, you're adults, work it out."

    6. Rules and procedures which we can use to generate fictional material for us in play.
    Two ways to look at this:

    1. No, just data goes in the Game State, not code. Rules and procedures may generate or change Game State, but it isn't Game State per se.

    2. Hey, code is data, too. The RAW are just data and can be modified using techniques to alter the Game State, including altering the RAW (house-ruling), etc.

    I tend to lean toward #2. I think Sandra does, too. It's harder to think about rules as data in this way, though, so I tend to use examples that use Setting and Color instead of System.

    But consider: "Random Encounter Table (2d6): When you use a result, cross it off. If you roll that number again later, use the next higher uncrossed entry." That random table and its rules are data as well as code.

    * A list of random encounter tables describing the types of people you might meet in the city of Mortown, and a random table of professions.
    Yeah, I include that in the Game State. Its predicate doesn't look like a fact about the game setting, though, but more like a fact about the game system. My model includes the data of all five components of Exploration as part of the Game State.

    * A random table listing names of demons.

    If Julie turns out to be unreachable, and we agree to use this table, are the names on the list part of the "game state"? Or just the one we roll up? If there are 100 names on the list, does that mean that "there are 100 demons in this world" is a fact of the "game state"?
    The list of names is a tool for one or more Techniques. If you have a Technique that says "lists of names of things mean those things exist somewhere in the setting," then applying that Technique necessarily inserts a bunch of new demon name predicates into the Game State.

    Does that make sense? It's important to separate the data used a Techniques from the code (rules) used by a Technique.

    7. The mechanical bits and pieces of the game, like dice, the numbers they have rolled, the "stats" of characters, and so forth.

    (I think this is where the "game state" analogy comes from, right? I think it's like a machine record that's "saved" at the end of a session in preparation for the next one, in the analogy.)
    The Game State contains all of the truth of System, Setting, Character, Situation, and Color as data that can be altered by Techniques.

    That there are 12 Orcs in the cavern is a fact in the Game State. It's also a fact that there is a rule that says "there are 3d6 Orcs in the cavern." It is not a fact that there are 3d6 Orcs in the cavern, because that is a kind of logical nonsense when not used as a rule ("3d6 in number" doesn't belong in a typical D&D Setting the same way "Orcs" or "Cavern" or "12" do).

    But "Adam rolled a 15 'to hit' on behalf of Morgrim last week" could be a fact in the Game State. The Game State knows things about System as well as Setting, so there's rule text in there, but don't conflate it with facts about the Setting. You can apply a Technique against the fact, "Rule: There are 3d6 Orcs in the cavern," to randomly determine that there are 12 orcs in that cavern instance. Then "There are 12 orcs in the cavern" is a fact in the Game State.

    8. Certain facts which it is possible to deduce from the mechanics, procedures, or numbers in the design of the game.
    "Deduce [facts] from the mechanics, procedures, or numbers in the design of the game" is a Technique that looks at the System data (as well as other data in the Game State) and generates new facts.

    Morgrim has 12 hit points.

    * If someone knocks over the red vase in the General's room, the demon will be freed, and freed demons immediately and automatically inflict 3d10 damage on anyone within 30 feet.
    That doesn't seem like a fact in the Game State. The facts are things like:
    * There's a red vase in the General's room.
    * The vase contains a demon.
    * Knocking over the vase will break it.
    * Breaking a vase with a demon in it will free the demon.
    * Rule: Freeing a demon inflicts 3d10 damage on everyone within 30 feet.

    * Next week's session should be Morgrim's Spotlight episode, according to our "character spotlight" chart, so we will be learning about the demon that killed his father.
    Probably. All Ephemera end up in the Game State, right? The Game State is a result of the Ephemera of play.

    I think I want to get buy-in on the rest of the post before digging into your corner cases.
  • Untrue things, together with their truth value, can definitely be in the game state.

    "No violence against babies in this game." is certainly a rule, and if any includes rules in the game state, then that is a negative statement that is within the game state. (If the rules are static, there is little reason to include them in the game state, but little harm if one does it. If the rules change during play, then including them in the game state is probably a good idea. A matter of choosing the right model for what one is doing.)

    Even if one does not include the rules in the game state, maybe you are playing Universalis and have agreed that this horror game is about how horrible people are; there exist no vampires or cthulhus or other such nonsense in this game. Now it is a fact in the game state that there are no vampires etc. in the game world. This is a negative statement.
  • @Thanuir , negative predicate ≠ untrue predicate

    @Adam_Dray , don't worry about what Paul is saying. You and I are pretty much on the same page, including re code & data. A few years ago I started a project of encoding some of the Tome of Adventure Design, and the d30 companions and the 5e DMG itself into lisp and I literally put in an eval call in my string parser because tables would contain calls to subtables or rerolls.

    Here's an excerpt of the mage furnishing table in the 5e DMG:
    Alembic
    Balance and weights
    Beaker of (x container-contents)
    Bellows
    (x booklike-things)
    Bottle of (x container-contents)
    Bowl of (x container-contents)
    Box of (x container-contents)
    Brazier
    Cage
    Candle
    Candlestick


    I got up to 1865 entries across 71 tables before getting bored & getting distracted by some other project.

    I want to add something important about our perception of the game state as a collection of symbolic predicates. Please check out this post. (I.o.w. it's not just a symbolic representation but parts of it is also represented with diegesis i.e. plain text, spoken & vaguely remembered statements, and images. Both "dice" and "cloud" i.e. both symbolix & diegetix, in a braid.)
  • edited July 15
    In (the iterations so far) the blorb model diagram I had tables of demon names, rules, maps, the Forgotten Realms wiki, the blorb principle, images, module books, natural language statements made at the table etc etc etc sorted as part of the gloracle. The gloracle is the interface to all that is true & good i.e. ⚞the blorb!⚟
  • Untrue things, together with their truth value, can definitely be in the game state.
    Let's be clear here. When we talk about Game State, and not "offscreen canonical gamestate" or gamestate or SIS or MIS or Blorb or any of the other formulations, that is not true, because I defined it. ;)

    I can be convinced to change my definition, but right now, my Game State model doesn't have false facts in it.

    "No babies in this game (true)" is a predicate that can be in my Game State.
    "Elminster's eyes are not blue (true)" is a predicate that can be in my Game State.
    "Elminster's eyes are black (false)" is NOT a predicate that can be in my Game State.

    Why not? I'm not convinced there's any value there.
  • edited July 15
    In (the iterations so far) the blorb model diagram I had tables of demon names, rules, maps, the Forgotten Realms wiki, the blorb principle, images, module books, natural language statements made at the table etc etc etc sorted as part of the gloracle. The gloracle is the interface to all that is true & good i.e. ⚞the blorb!⚟
    I think our diagrams are basically the same thing, but mine is in Big Model language and yours uses more natural language. I feel that people interpret natural language with too much baggage (how people interpreted "Simulationism," for example, or probably why you used made-up terms like "Blorby").
  • "E has blue eyes."
    "It is true that E has blue eyes."
    "E has blue eyes (true)."
    "E has blue eyes." (true)

    "E does not have black eyes."
    "It is false that E has black eyes."
    "It is not true that E has black eyes."
    "E has black eyes (false)".
    "E has black eyes." (false)

    I do not see a meaningful difference between these as things in the game state. Maybe, in a particular situation, one or more of these might be clumsier or more useful than the others, but the information content is the same.

    But maybe I am missing a difference between a negative statement, as in "E does not have black eyes", and a false statement, such as "E has black eyes (false)". If so, I'll be happy to learn.
  • @Adam_Dray , don't worry about what Paul is saying. You and I are pretty much on the same page, including re code & data. A few years ago I started a project of encoding some of the Tome of Adventure Design, and the d30 companions and the 5e DMG itself into lisp and I literally put in an eval call in my string parser because tables would contain calls to subtables or rerolls.
    That's amazing. I would never do that, but I stare at you in wonder because you embarked on that journey--even if you never finished it.

    I wonder if prolog or some kind of ontological rules engine would be a better platform.

    I want to add something important about our perception of the game state as a collection of symbolic predicates. Please check out this post. (I.o.w. it's not just a symbolic representation but parts of it is also represented with diegesis i.e. plain text, spoken & vaguely remembered statements, and images. Both "dice" and "cloud" i.e. both symbolix & diegetix, in a braid.)
    I'll go read it. Nothing you just said there made any sense to me.
  • I wonder if prolog or some kind of ontological rules engine would be a better platform.
    Lisp does have prolog-style rules declarations available which is what I used except I added in a stochastic element.
  • Talking about sets, if you want to link MIS and Game State, you need layers. As I see it, you construct MIS from the foundational "Game State" layer (with some local feedback interactions : character action). The two sets never match (characters have no access to the essence of things) except by "true sight" magic.
  • I wonder if prolog or some kind of ontological rules engine would be a better platform.
    Lisp does have prolog-style rules declarations available which is what I used except I added in a stochastic element.
    But an inference engine does rules-ordering automatically.
  • "Layers" implies that things touch directly, no, or that they're directly comparable in some way. I'd avoid that interpretation.

    The Game State is this imaginary, conceptual thing. It's useful to imagine it really exists, but it's more of a potential or field of possibility. If you see me using quantum physics analogies, that's why.

    PIS is an actual thing in someone's head. There are Techniques people get out of the Game State and into their heads and then they use them to explore the Game State, ultimately changing it.

    So there's a relationship between PIS and Game State, but they're not layered. Also, I don't consider PIS a subset of Game State. There's some overlap, but PIS contains false predicates that are not in the Game State.

    You're right when you say "you construct MIS from the foundational "Game State" layer (with some local feedback interactions : character action)." But not by looking at Game State directly. You always interact with it through Techniques, which are interpreters and marshals of the Game State.

    Because it's conceptual, the Game State isn't this thing you can just go look at. It's not the RAW or the Setting Book or the knowledge in the GM's head (though all of those things contribute to the Game State as tools). That's why Techniques are required to interpret it.
  • I know but Lisp does have an inference engine. SICP chapter four.
    PIS is an actual thing in someone's head.
    Well, if we're talking actual things in people's heads, all brains and neurons and signals and things like that. Here is mine.

    The idea of "imagination" and "imagined space" and "personal set of predicates" is a model. The blorb / the game state is also just a model.

Sign In or Register to comment.