New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 227
  1. - Top - End - #181
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    fendrin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by PyritePyro View Post
    Actually, Wanda is a caster, and all casters are commanders, aka warlords. This means that Wanda suffers from Duty. Duty overrides loyalty. So when she goes by her own inititive, and does what's best for the Tool, whether he likes it or not, she's actually following her duty, which is required by the rules. Duty is tied into loyalty, but it goes further.
    1) Duty is lowest on commanders and thus on Wanda (interesting that there is a distinction made between commanders and casters... non-caster commanders must then exist)

    2) Where are you reading that Duty overrides Loyalty? Not in that klog, that's for sure.

    3) How would we know if she was acting out of Loyalty/Duty or for her own ends? It is ambiguous, we cannot know. Ever. Even if Wanda tells us (or rather tells someone else 'on camera') later , she could be lying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oslecamo View Post
    Just like all likelyhoods that proven to be true, like dirtmancers greatly buffing golems and telling Jack his true name would awaken him. Yep, just likelyhoods, allright.
    I am not calling all klog content into question with that 'likelihood'. I am in fact referencing the specific wording of the klog:
    Loyalty - An unknowable unit stat, affecting how likely a unit is to defect or double-deal when possible. Thinkamancy spells can modify Loyalty
    (bold added for emphasis)

    Quote Originally Posted by Oslecamo View Post
    Nope. Betrayal would demand that Stanely gets hurt on the middle. What Wanda is doing is duty. She must help Stanley, even if against his will.
    That is a very narrow definition of betrayal. In fact, Marriam-Webster's primary definition for 'betray' indicates that we KNOW Wanda has betrayed Stanley on at least one occasion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oslecamo View Post
    And when did she act on her own purpose anyway? The time she booped the units that were hunting Stanley? Summoning the perfect warlord to save the day of his master? Wow, she's surely self interested.
    When hasn't she? We cannot answer these questions, as we can never truly know Wanda's motivations (unless the comic suddenly shifted to first-person, which would be weird).

    Quote Originally Posted by Oslecamo View Post
    Really valid theory, specially because it would just contradict everything that has apeared in the comic so far. So far every single fact that hamster has been told has been proven correct.
    1) Of all the information he has been provided/written in a Klog, Parson rejects only the free-will issue. Thus it is set apart from other Klog content.

    2) So far, other than Loyalty, everything parson has been told/wrote about in his Klogs has been testable hypotheses based on observable phenomenon.

    Unlike other stats, Loyalty is labeled 'unknowable'. That, to me, indicates that it is at best an educated guess by the philosopher-scholars of Erf as to what determines whether or not (under certain conditions) a unit will betray their overlord, and how Loyalty spells function. It fits well with the stat system that pretty much defines how units function, but it is still just a guess.

    If Loyalty is 'unknowable' then any attempt to explain betrayal or Loyalty spells with it is inherently untestable.

  2. - Top - End - #182
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    teratorn's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Algarve (The West)
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by Oslecamo View Post
    Just like all likelyhoods that proven to be true, like dirtmancers greatly buffing golems and telling Jack his true name would awaken him. Yep, just likelyhoods, allright.
    Jack wasn't "awake." Look at his eyes, they reversed color only now, after seeing Jillian.

    They were white on orange, now they're orange on white.
    Avatar: ruthless Parson (Erfworld).

  3. - Top - End - #183
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Krelon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Europe, GMT+1

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by teratorn View Post
    Jack wasn't "awake." Look at his eyes, they reversed color only now, after seeing Jillian.

    They were white on orange, now they're orange on white.
    That's true! Thanks, I've missed that completely. It means some very unexpected turn of events is possible. What can a foolamancer do?
    Orc Girl Avatar by Yeril !

    Irideen Yoannaell,woodelf ranger Into the Depths of the Earth (Dawnhorn) character sheet

  4. - Top - End - #184
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    MrWeaver's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by Oslecamo View Post
    Just like all likelyhoods that proven to be true, like dirtmancers greatly buffing golems and telling Jack his true name would awaken him. Yep, just likelyhoods, allright.
    If you flip a coin 5 times and it lands on heads 5 times, do you assume coins will always land heads up?

    If the question as to if Loyalty even exists is still around, I think it's safe to assume that it does. What's interestng to me is this (I'd really love some intelligent thoughts about this!):

    I gather Erfworld works on probability, rather than dead certainties. Say two units battle 1v1, and we'll simplify things by saying unit A has twice the "overall attack" as unit B, and both have equal defences. Clearly unit A has a high chance to win the battle compared to unit B who has a chance to win nonetheless, albeit only with a lucky hit or blunder from the opponent - Say this has a chance of occurence of 1 in 10.

    So repeat the exact engagement 10 times in identical conditions, such that the battle would progess in exactly the same manner - The definition of the conditions being identical. How is it now possible that on roughly one of these repeats, unit B will be victorious? The random chance would have to represent more than just a comparison of the units' individual skills, but it would have to be a random physical effect on the battle, compelling action or guiding attacks - Otherwise the battle is not based on chance, and at the very beginning of the engagement, arguably before any action has even been taken, a winner has already been determined.

    With me?

    Now apply the same logic to a situation where, say, Wanda is offered a way out of Gobwin Knob to join the coallition. Say she is so loyal there exists only a 0.5% chance of her defecting since it would be against her character. But still, repeat the scenario 200 times and you can expect one of those times she will make a decision wildly out of character and save her own skin.

    How much free will is there really in this world? Any thoughts on this? Any interesting decisions or such made by the characters in Erfworld could be put down to probability. Say how Jill managed to snap Jack out of it. No-one can say that everything up to that point didn't have the same chance to get him together and that it was just the roll of the dice that it worked this time.

    Thinking of it this way sorta detracts from the characters personalities and such in a way, no?
    Last edited by MrWeaver; 2008-10-08 at 04:37 PM.

  5. - Top - End - #185
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    CaptC's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Central Massachusetts
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by MrWeaver View Post
    How much free will is there really in this world? Any thoughts on this?
    I read the Klog the same way you did. Units faced with the possibility of betrayal take a loyalty test. If they pass, they stay on their current side. If they fail, they go neutral or join the other side.

    Now, how do we reconcile that with free will? I see no disconnect. It's all a matter of perspective.

    When *I* am playing a board game, my pieces have no free will. They have probability scores, and I roll on a table to see what happens.

    When *Wanda* is faced with the chance to betray Stanley, she has complete free will. She chooses to do what she will, and I see her decision as the result of a die roll.

    Note, I'm not actually saying that a cardboard piece or a painted figurine made a decision and thus the die roll comes up a certain way. In my world, the dice came up the way they did, and I (or Erfworld's authors) made up a backstory to explain that dice roll. Wanda doesn't see the dice roll, she just makes up her mind.

    It all works out the same in the end.
    Dibs on his dice.

  6. - Top - End - #186
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    MrWeaver's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Good points, but you missed my argument by a margin :)

    What I'm saying is that because of this probabilty thing, you could put Wanda in a given situation where she has to take a choice and rather than staying true to her character, there must exist a small chance of her taking the other choice, possibly acting out of character to do so.

    So repeat the situation identically many times, a there will be instance where the dice rolls such that she makes a radical move instead of what her character would naturally do.

    This is on the premise of the probability base on such games. I'm trying to demonstrate the conflict between this, and a characters own personality present in any such game, D&D for example and the deaded natural 1 :D

    EDIT: I really see whatcha say... a failed loyalty check does not have to mean acting OoC, could even just plant doubt - So that's worth considering, but I wanna put emphesis on this probability guiding units and characters, rather than just representing their skills or personality.
    Last edited by MrWeaver; 2008-10-08 at 04:57 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #187
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    CaptC's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Central Massachusetts
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by MrWeaver View Post
    Thinking of it this way sorta detracts from the characters personalities and such in a way, no?
    Actually, no. Unless a fictional universe states unambiguously that free will doesn't exist, the illusion of free will is sufficient.
    Dibs on his dice.

  8. - Top - End - #188
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    CaptC's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Central Massachusetts
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by MrWeaver View Post
    Good points, but you missed my argument by a margin :)

    What I'm saying is that because of this probabilty thing, you could put Wanda in a given situation where she has to take a choice and rather than staying true to her character, there must exist a small chance of her taking the other choice, possibly acting out of character to do so.

    So repeat the situation identically many times, a there will be instance where the dice rolls such that she makes a radical move instead of what her character would naturally do.

    This is on the premise of the probability base on such games. I'm trying to demonstrate the conflict between this, and a characters own personality present in any such game, D&D for example and the deaded natural 1 :D

    EDIT: I really see whatcha say... a failed loyalty check does not have to mean acting OoC, could even just plant doubt - So that's worth considering, but I wanna put emphesis on this probability guiding units and characters, rather than just representing their skills or personality.

    It's only out of character if the story you make up to explain the dice roll is out of character. Then it's on you, not the character.

    There is always a reason to betray. "She's really cute."
    There is always a reason to stay loyal. "My wife cooks a really mean steak."

    Decide to stay or go, and either story is in character.

    (I like steak. I stayed.)
    Dibs on his dice.

  9. - Top - End - #189
    Magnificent Boop in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptC View Post
    Actually, no. Unless a fictional universe states unambiguously that free will doesn't exist, the illusion of free will is sufficient.
    True. The question seems to me to parallel real-world debates about free will versus determinism, which have been puzzled over for centuries by greater minds than mine.

  10. - Top - End - #190
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    MrWeaver's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMB View Post
    True. The question seems to me to parallel real-world debates about free will versus determinism, which have been puzzled over for centuries by greater minds than mine.
    Exactly :) Except here we know with certainty (?) the forces at work. What I was hoping for was to think about how the probability factor affects characters. How Wanda could be put in the identical siuation several times, be it a battle or decision, and get different outcomes.

    Maybe I should drop it and forget though :)
    Last edited by MrWeaver; 2008-10-08 at 05:29 PM.

  11. - Top - End - #191
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    PirateCaptain

    Join Date
    Jan 2007

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Now apply the same logic to a situation where, say, Wanda is offered a way out of Gobwin Knob to join the coallition. Say she is so loyal there exists only a 0.5% chance of her defecting since it would be against her character. But still, repeat the scenario 200 times and you can expect one of those times she will make a decision wildly out of character and save her own skin.
    I don't think thats going to happen. A huge part of Erfworld is showing how these "units" who abstractly are solely based on stats are infact "real people" with their own characters. Any character doing something ludicrously out of character and then having it justified by the story saying "Well so and so had a 2% chance of doing it by the rules, and it just so happened they rolled a 1." It would seem very very silly.

    Still, interesting point, however I think you have to concede that Erf units have more free will than we'd like to think. Take Wanda, I believe her actions show she is very loyal to Stanley, almost certainly for a reason we do not know about yet. She has therefore DECIDED to be loyal to Stanley, her loyalty has not been simply defined by a roll of the dice.

    Regarding the battle I think a very important factor will be this. Is the Dragon's fire breathing an area of effect attack? Or one that can only target a single unit? 30 dragons each with a powerful area attack will quickly fry the bats. If it isn't well its gonna be tough to take them down unless Stanley can spam Van De Graff every attack.

  12. - Top - End - #192
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    kreszantas's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by MrWeaver View Post
    Exactly :) Except here we know with certainty (?) the forces at work. What I was hoping for was to think about how the probability factor affects characters. How Wanda could be put in the identical siuation several times, be it a battle or decision, and get different outcomes.

    Maybe I should drop it and forget though :)
    Well I will attempt to take a stab at this. The way I see it is a combination of a few things.

    1) Free will vs Programmed Instincts (Do I even get a choice?)
    2) Way of Life (How am I being treated/treating others?)
    3) Moral Compass. (Duty/Loyality)

    Since these are parallel real-world events and borderline to forum policies I will leave them out.

    Probabilities can only be supported when those conditions are met. The ones with Free will (named characters) for a better reference get this (or should) every other unit is on programmed instincts.

    If the units way of life is good it sets in conditions that lower the chances of betryal, if it getting treated like crap it has a higher chance of say boop this and bolting to the other side.

    Moral compass is the hardest to define since we do not know what the scale is that guides the principle. Let us say that for the most part Sizemore's peaceful nature would lead one to believe he is not fine with combat at all, he will put up with it as long as he is not directly involved. Now that he is we still do not know what his reaction will be. Foreshadowing to this was the campfire night when Parson walked away to talk with Wanda. There could be say 5 ranks of this (Peaceful, Non-combat, garrison, aggressive, fanatical) just for a way of placing a value on it.
    Avatar: Red Dwagon decapitating a Cloth Golem, wonderfully drawn by Erfworld Artist Jamie Naguchi, oh yea and Rob Balder

  13. - Top - End - #193
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    MrWeaver's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by EBass View Post
    Still, interesting point, however I think you have to concede that Erf units have more free will than we'd like to think. Take Wanda, I believe her actions show she is very loyal to Stanley, almost certainly for a reason we do not know about yet. She has therefore DECIDED to be loyal to Stanley, her loyalty has not been simply defined by a roll of the dice.
    If this is indeed the case then, and it makes the most sense I feel, it suggests that in a world based on probabilities and rules, there are units able to bend, perhaps break these rules. Maybe it'd be best then to take the rules with a pinch of salt, which would make mathamancy extremely difficlt and potentially unreliable!

    Quote Originally Posted by EBass View Post
    Regarding the battle I think a very important factor will be this. Is the Dragon's fire breathing an area of effect attack? Or one that can only target a single unit? 30 dragons each with a powerful area attack will quickly fry the bats. If it isn't well its gonna be tough to take them down unless Stanley can spam Van De Graff every attack.
    Wish we still had 2 updates per week!!!

  14. - Top - End - #194
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    HamsterOfTheGod's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMB View Post
    True. The question seems to me to parallel real-world debates about free will versus determinism, which have been puzzled over for centuries by greater minds than mine.
    Why the greater minds over at Wikipedia have been arguing over free will for nearly 3 years!

    Actually it's not a bad survey article on the various philosophical viewpoints which are apropos to this discussion. It even comes with a diagram.

  15. - Top - End - #195
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    fendrin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by MrWeaver View Post
    How much free will is there really in this world? Any thoughts on this? Any interesting decisions or such made by the characters in Erfworld could be put down to probability. Say how Jill managed to snap Jack out of it. No-one can say that everything up to that point didn't have the same chance to get him together and that it was just the roll of the dice that it worked this time.

    Thinking of it this way sorta detracts from the characters personalities and such in a way, no?
    Well, this brings up a good point.

    Do stats define or reflect a unit's capabilites?

    I have stats. I can bench press x pounds, I have a y IQ, and my credit score is z. But I am more than the sum of the various ways I can be measured.*

    Are Erf stats auto-generated measurements of a unit's capabilities, or is a unit capable because they have a certain stat? Yet another question we cannot answer.

    *I have many scientist friends who would argue with me on this, but that is not relevant to the point I am trying to make.

  16. - Top - End - #196
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Krelon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Europe, GMT+1

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by fendrin View Post
    Well, this brings up a good point.

    Do stats define or reflect a unit's capabilites?

    I have stats. I can bench press x pounds, I have a y IQ, and my credit score is z. But I am more than the sum of the various ways I can be measured.*

    Are Erf stats auto-generated measurements of a unit's capabilities, or is a unit capable because they have a certain stat? Yet another question we cannot answer.

    *I have many scientist friends who would argue with me on this, but that is not relevant to the point I am trying to make.
    Since it's a game world the stats are used to determine a units strength in combat and therefore define it's capabilities. This may not be true for the "players" of the game but I'm quite sure it is for the pawns.
    Orc Girl Avatar by Yeril !

    Irideen Yoannaell,woodelf ranger Into the Depths of the Earth (Dawnhorn) character sheet

  17. - Top - End - #197
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    fendrin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by Krelon View Post
    Since it's a game world the stats are used to determine a units strength in combat and therefore define it's capabilities. This may not be true for the "players" of the game but I'm quite sure it is for the pawns.
    Ah, but is it a game world or a world with game-like properties?
    If the latter then stats as a reflection of capabilities makes more sense.

  18. - Top - End - #198
    Banned
     
    Laurentio II's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Roma
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by fendrin View Post
    Ah, but is it a game world or a world with game-like properties?
    If the latter then stats as a reflection of capabilities makes more sense.
    You know, when a debate reach this level of deep analysis, usually a new page come up and everything is gone for good.
    My opinion is that there can't be a world with game-like properties, because it requires a great "granularity". A world is analogical, with potentially unlimited degrees of variability in everything. A world like Erfworld, to say, has a fixed number of physical endurance standards.
    But I'm not a good scientist, so it's just my speculation.

  19. - Top - End - #199
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    MrWeaver's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by fendrin View Post
    Well, this brings up a good point.

    Do stats define or reflect a unit's capabilites?
    Ah, this I like a lot. It's all pretty cool stuff to consider.

    So is mathamancy an estimate I wonder? The figure it returns suggests unerring accuracy, and it must have been mentioned before but can it take everything into account? And perhaps could it even take loyalty into account and be used to determine units' loyalty?

    Lots of speculation on Parson's plan has led us to believe the coalition must disband in order for it to succeed. Is this loyalty based? Perhaps the 60% or so he quoted Charlie is already taking that into account.

    If we had more updates it'd be harder to think to much about any one comic :)

  20. - Top - End - #200
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    fendrin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by Laurentio II View Post
    You know, when a debate reach this level of deep analysis, usually a new page come up and everything is gone for good.
    Yeah, I like it when the conversations get this deep. They are more fun.
    I'm starting to come to the conclusion that I am an intellectual masochist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Laurentio II View Post
    My opinion is that there can't be a world with game-like properties, because it requires a great "granularity". A world is analogical, with potentially unlimited degrees of variability in everything. A world like Erfworld, to say, has a fixed number of physical endurance standards.
    But I'm not a good scientist, so it's just my speculation.
    Our world is analogical, not all possible (fictional) worlds. In fact, arguably, no fictional world is truly analogic, as it is defined by finite description; thus there must be a limit to the knowable detail.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrWeaver View Post
    Ah, this I like a lot. It's all pretty cool stuff to consider.

    So is mathamancy an estimate I wonder? The figure it returns suggests unerring accuracy, and it must have been mentioned before but can it take everything into account? And perhaps could it even take loyalty into account and be used to determine units' loyalty?

    Lots of speculation on Parson's plan has led us to believe the coalition must disband in order for it to succeed. Is this loyalty based? Perhaps the 60% or so he quoted Charlie is already taking that into account.

    If we had more updates it'd be harder to think to much about any one comic :)
    Yes, mathamancy is all about probabilities. Like a gambler, a mathamancy-informed general plays the odds. Hence the idea that pairing a mathamancer and a luckamancer would be powerful: You use mathamancy to determine how much luckamancy to use on which battles to shift the odds in your favor. Kind of like how casinos use mathematics to decide how to manipulate the odds on their 'games' in order to make a consistent (and high) profit.
    Last edited by fendrin; 2008-10-09 at 10:28 AM.

  21. - Top - End - #201
    Banned
     
    Laurentio II's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Roma
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by fendrin View Post
    Our world is analogical, not all possible (fictional) worlds. In fact, arguably, no fictional world is truly analogic, as it is defined by finite description; thus there must be a limit to the knowable detail.
    I see your point. But what I meant (blame my bad wording) was that a theoretical world has to be analogical in nature, as a finite number or permutation would be, probably, not workable. Meanwhile, I remembered that, in a particular fashion, quantistic physics allows "jumps" as opposite to linear continual progression, but it's hard to believe that it could apply to (any) real world on a human scale.

    Ok, I didn't understand what I said.

  22. - Top - End - #202
    Magnificent Boop in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by fendrin View Post
    Yes, mathamancy is all about probabilities. Like a gambler, a mathamancy-informed general plays the odds. Hence the idea that pairing a mathamancer and a luckamancer would be powerful: You use mathamancy to determine how much luckamancy to use on which battles to shift the odds in your favor.
    Somebody (I forget who) suggested that perhaps Luckamancy can give you better odds in some battles at the cost of accepting worse odds somewhere else. If so, you can benefit by shifting your luck from battles where the outcome is all but foreordained and putting it into battles that could go either way -- Mathamancy makes it easier to determine which battles fall into which category.

  23. - Top - End - #203
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Krelon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Europe, GMT+1

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    If it is a game-world then there are some dice rolls in the background (or some other randomizer is being used). In that case you get probabilities of success and those can be estimated using Mathamancy. Luckamancy could be playing with the dice itself, like for example allow an instant re-roll in case the outcome is not desired, or simply giving another (luck-)bonus to a stack.

    If you look at the battles taking place in Erf like they would be computed for a computer game many things make more sense and become less philosophical.
    Orc Girl Avatar by Yeril !

    Irideen Yoannaell,woodelf ranger Into the Depths of the Earth (Dawnhorn) character sheet

  24. - Top - End - #204
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    fendrin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by Laurentio II View Post
    I see your point. But what I meant (blame my bad wording) was that a theoretical world has to be analogical in nature, as a finite number or permutation would be, probably, not workable.
    I think I understand what you are saying, but I'm probably wrong.

    What you seem to be saying is that a theoretical world must be analogical because there would otherwise be potential permutations of a given theoretical world that would be internally inconsistent (i.e. self-contradictory).

    I would argue that (actually, I got these ideas from a paper by my current philosophy professor...)
    1) when we talk about 'a fictional world', we are really talking about a set of possible worlds, all of which meet all of the known criteria of the world as described by it's creator(s). For instance, one possible world in the set known as 'Erf' has conditions such that Banhammer was popped under the reign of Saline III, as Saline III decided to split his Kingdom (giving Faq to Banhammer and GK to Saline IV). Most possible worlds in the set called 'Erf' would not meet the criterion that distinguishes the possible world I just described.

    2) Fictional worlds are often internally inconsistent, authors make mistakes, or retcon the world later.

    Thus (a) inconsistencies between possible worlds in the set of a fictitious world are of no consequence and (b) internal inconsistencies in a given possible world in the set of a fictitious world, while perhaps poor storytelling, do not cause the fictitious world to simply not exist in the realm of human imagination.

    Uh yeah, so that's an awful lot for what is probably a misunderstanding of what you meant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Laurentio II View Post
    Meanwhile, I remembered that, in a particular fashion, quantistic physics allows "jumps" as opposite to linear continual progression, but it's hard to believe that it could apply to (any) real world on a human scale.

    Ok, I didn't understand what I said.
    I more or less understand what you are saying, but I fail to comprehend how it is relevant. There are in fact numerous examples of non-analogic sequences in nature, for instance the harmonic sequences of a taught wire (where the next harmonic in sequence from x frequency is 2x, then 4x, etc.) or the growth pattern of plants (i.e. the Fibonacci sequence: 1,1,2,3,5,8...)

    Quote Originally Posted by Krelon View Post
    If it is a game-world then there are some dice rolls in the background (or some other randomizer is being used). In that case you get probabilities of success and those can be estimated using Mathamancy. Luckamancy could be playing with the dice itself, like for example allow an instant re-roll in case the outcome is not desired, or simply giving another (luck-)bonus to a stack.

    If you look at the battles taking place in Erf like they would be computed for a computer game many things make more sense and become less philosophical.
    Yes, but where's the fun in that?

    To put it another way, what you are describing is one possibility; it is simpler, but not necessarily correct. The Rule of Parsimony (a.k.a. Okham's Razor) is a human preference, not a method for establishing fact.

    For that matter, we have reason to call that into question: to do so seriously challenges the idea of free will, which is one of the issues that Parson is wrangling with. If we arbitrarily decide that one possible answer is true, then we reduce his philosophical angst to a Boolean value. I don;t know about you, but that kind of ruins the comic for me.
    Last edited by fendrin; 2008-10-09 at 12:58 PM.

  25. - Top - End - #205
    Banned
     
    Laurentio II's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Roma
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by fendrin View Post
    I more or less understand what you are saying, but I fail to comprehend how it is relevant. There are in fact numerous examples of non-analogic sequences in nature, for instance the harmonic sequences of a taught wire (where the next harmonic in sequence from x frequency is 2x, then 4x, etc.) or the growth pattern of plants (i.e. the Fibonacci sequence: 1,1,2,3,5,8...)
    Yes, but we are speaking of a world where people are able to lift (to say) six kilos, or twelve, or eighteen, but you can't find a person that is able to lift thirteen. This is because they have a limited array of Strength levels, everyone separated from the next by a "leap" than has no inner occurrence in the world.
    In erfworld, ignoring for the purpose of the debate the random factor (probably, dices), a Twoll can take X hits from a human infantry. Than value is always the same, for infinite tries.

    I can't remember the name of a novel ("The Princess" and something), where a normal man fell in a world where things are, or are not. So there are only three colors, plus white and black, because there are no mixture of colors, and people can be lazy OR active, messy OR metodical, tall OR short, with no middle points.

  26. - Top - End - #206
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lamech's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by Laurentio II
    Yes, but we are speaking of a world where people are able to lift (to say) six kilos, or twelve, or eighteen, but you can't find a person that is able to lift thirteen. This is because they have a limited array of Strength levels, everyone separated from the next by a "leap" than has no inner occurrence in the world.
    In erfworld, ignoring for the purpose of the debate the random factor (probably, dices), a Twoll can take X hits from a human infantry. Than value is always the same, for infinite tries.

    I can't remember the name of a novel ("The Princess" and something), where a normal man fell in a world where things are, or are not. So there are only three colors, plus white and black, because there are no mixture of colors, and people can be lazy OR active, messy OR metodical, tall OR short, with no middle points.
    The question still applies "Do stats determine the world, or do they represent it?" Its possible lifting between 6 kilo's and 12 kilo's is str 1, 12 to 18 is str 2, 18-24 is 3, and so on and so forth. Perhaps the stats are not perfect when it comes to ablities.
    My deaths to wolves (or other evil night killers)
    Spoiler
    Show

    Spytrap III, Ultimate Kaos II, Monty Python, Twin Village, Invasion of the Zombies: Outbreak, Vampires III

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow
    I think Lamech will make a great Sephiroth.
    A new New York IC OOC

  27. - Top - End - #207
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by fendrin View Post
    Ah, but is it a game world or a world with game-like properties?
    From Parson's point of view, it's the latter. It's a real world in which people really die (a booping hardcore thing) but it behaves just like a game world so it's very crazy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Midnight Roamer View Post
    I think he did the only morally acceptable thing by killing everyone.
    Hark! An avatar drawn by Kate Beaton!

  28. - Top - End - #208
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Arkenputtyknife's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2007

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by Laurentio II View Post
    I see your point. But what I meant (blame my bad wording) was that a theoretical world has to be analogical in nature, as a finite number or permutation would be, probably, not workable. Meanwhile, I remembered that, in a particular fashion, quantistic physics allows "jumps" as opposite to linear continual progression, but it's hard to believe that it could apply to (any) real world on a human scale.
    I strongly disagree. The world of Conway's Life Game (to take a famous example) is 100% discrete in time and space, and permits only extremely short-range effects (cells affect only their immediate neighbors), yet has been proven to be computationally complete. A sufficiently large space (i.e. one with an astronomical number of cells) over sufficiently large time could produce ecosystems and civilizations, given suitable starting configuration; if the space is large enough and enough time is allowed, a completely random starting configuration would do it. Assuming that there is no supernatural component to intelligence, there is no known reason why intelligent beings should not be able to form. Scientists in such a world might have difficulty even conceiving of analog systems; such things would not exist in their world except as approximations on a macroscopic scale.

    CLG currently only exists, as far as we know, in computer simulations. Yet the rules on which it operates are much simpler than the subatomic rules on which our own universe appears to run. It's perfectly feasible to envisage a world that operates according to a totally digital, discrete system like this.

  29. - Top - End - #209
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    fendrin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by lamech View Post
    The question still applies "Do stats determine the world, or do they represent it?" Its possible lifting between 6 kilo's and 12 kilo's is str 1, 12 to 18 is str 2, 18-24 is 3, and so on and so forth. Perhaps the stats are not perfect when it comes to ablities.
    Indeed, we do not know just accurate the stats are. The same thing happens in our world.

    A person in our world, for instance, might be said to have an 'Age' stat. A person's age stat might be 22, when in reality they are 22.35321456843 years old.

    Or, looking at it from the other side, There are only 5 stats we have been told about. Four here and Loyalty. Do those 5 (4 if Loyalty doesn't really exist as a stat) really determine all capabilities of a unit? Which determines Bogroll's skill at smithing and cooking? Obviously there are things not represented by those stats.

    For that matter, we are told that the Duty natural thinkamancy requires Commanders to 'use our own initiative in the service of the Ruler.' What stat controls initiative & creativity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arkenputtyknife View Post
    The world of Conway's Life Game (to take a famous example) is 100% discrete in time and space, and permits only extremely short-range effects (cells affect only their immediate neighbors), yet has been proven to be computationally complete.
    I forgot about Conway's Life Game. Excellent example.
    Last edited by fendrin; 2008-10-09 at 03:25 PM.

  30. - Top - End - #210
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Krelon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Europe, GMT+1

    Default Re: 125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

    Quote Originally Posted by fendrin View Post
    ...
    Yes, but where's the fun in that?

    To put it another way, what you are describing is one possibility; it is simpler, but not necessarily correct. The Rule of Parsimony (a.k.a. Okham's Razor) is a human preference, not a method for establishing fact.

    For that matter, we have reason to call that into question: to do so seriously challenges the idea of free will, which is one of the issues that Parson is wrangling with. If we arbitrarily decide that one possible answer is true, then we reduce his philosophical angst to a Boolean value. I don;t know about you, but that kind of ruins the comic for me.
    Are you coming from the strategy gamer corner? Things like free will for units (defecting units?) are not really desired (it is usually only annoying) while the game itself is a lot of fun. Free will is something for players not for pawns and I can live with that and still have fun with the comic. I could do without Parsons angst though I'm aware that some readers are not really interested in the strategic/tactic panels and prefer the emotional part.

    To me, it seems that in Erf there are no players behind the power blocks so the free will is limited to "persons" who are the rulers of a side (they have no one that they must be loyal to above them) and Parson who is from our world.
    Orc Girl Avatar by Yeril !

    Irideen Yoannaell,woodelf ranger Into the Depths of the Earth (Dawnhorn) character sheet

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •