Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
Again, I am talking about RPG adventures, not every game ever made.
Talakeal, the games I listed *are* RPGs!

They're cRPGs, because the sort of literal perfect information you're talking about is objectively possible for those, whereas for anything at a table it'd be 'well maybe the GM didn't tell you everything' or whatever and we could argue in circles forever. But those games are based off of tabletop RPG rulesets, the combats run more or less like tabletop combats can run (certainly not like theatre of the mind groups, or groups with heavy improvised actions, but RAW and minis groups its basically the same stuff).

But I actually think a game of Chess with full information would be a lot like an RPG in the fact that it would, essentially, be your opponent playing both sides and "railroading" you to victory by pointing out every mistake you are about to make before you make it.
Your opponent is only going to be able to tell you about the moves they see, and generally speaking in chess you aren't going to make a move if you see an obvious response to it. So the natural consequence of both players sharing total information about their thought process with each-other is that the game is decided by the consequences that neither player initially notices, but which become relevant later after the player who is helped or harmed by it has already committed. You can play by e.g. always just doing what your opponent tells you they would do in your situation, but at best you're going to tie and probably you're going to lose more than half the time if you do that because the opponent is taking moves where they wouldn't be thrilled to play any of the available responses.

Like, take Stockfish or AlphaGo or whatever, and say you have full access to that software and hardware to independently run it. You can see its 'thought process', all the branches of moves it considers, its relative probability of choosing each move, even ask it to play out theoretical continuations, and use all of that information in deciding what move you want to make. You're in timed games - say 3 hours per game, not too strict but enough you can't just take forever. I will bet that you still wouldn't be able to win more than 70% of the time in a 20 game series. If the computer always gets to go first, then unless you're a professional player I don't think you'll win even 1 game, even with access to the entire thought process and the ability so simulate the opponent and all of that.

If you just play the computer's moves against itself, you'll get something like a coin flip each time, but its like rock paper scissors - if you actually want to win on average, you have to abandon random play and actually try to deviate from the computer move.