61–70 of 300 posts
I would love to see this kind of thing applied to an RPG. Randomly generate a city full of people. Make a few dozen of them the important NPCs. Give them situations and goals, problems they need to solve and potential ways to solve them. Certain NPC's goals are opposite others'. Then drop the player into that world and have the 'quests' the player is performing be generated based on the NPCs needing their help. Updat…
Possible I missed it, but I don’t see any reference to how they addresses chat thread continuity (aka memory) issues that are major issue for AI chat bots. Did they address this and if so, how?
You know, I feel privileged (in an epistemologically doubtful way) that I once lived in a world where I could have confidence that I wasn't being fundamentally deceived by literal dei ex machina. I've understood for the last decade that this faith was on borrowed time as we bridged closer to overt technophrenia, but it's harrowing to be a witness to it. I can't help but wonder at what point I will inhabit a world ind…
My prediction is 2029
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have heard this about various games (Risk and Settlers of Catan mostly). I don’t get it. The point of these games is to be a bastard. If everyone goes into it with the understanding that there will be double crosses, how could there be hurt feelings? Monopoly is worse; it is just boring, I would dump my friends if they suggested monopoly not because I was hurt by their ruthless gameplay but for their terminally tas…
Two features that make Diplomacy particularly bad: 1. Length. An in-person game can last easily 12 hours, and is mentally exhausting. Getting 10 hours in and THEN getting screwed by your friend feels worse than a game with less time investment. 2. Design. It's difficult to survive the opening few hours without alliances, but only one player can win, so everyone is incentivized to defect at exactly the moment they thi…
If you think Diplomacy is long and exhausting, wait till you get a load of Nomic with a bunch of enthusiastic players.
I would love to see this kind of thing applied to an RPG. Randomly generate a city full of people. Make a few dozen of them the important NPCs. Give them situations and goals, problems they need to solve and potential ways to solve them. Certain NPC's goals are opposite others'. Then drop the player into that world and have the 'quests' the player is performing be generated based on the NPCs needing their help. Updat…
I want to run a game of DnD using a heavily modded Crusader Kings or Civ to simulate the world they are playing in. Just set up the starting conditions, like the various kingdoms, their methods of succession, their relationships and blood feuds with other kingdoms, the internal treacherous machinations and possible rebellions brewing, wars between kingdoms, etc, and then just let it run and use that to generate the overarching plot events of the setting while somehow translating the players actions as some kind of input into the simulated world so they can affect it as well.
You know, I feel privileged (in an epistemologically doubtful way) that I once lived in a world where I could have confidence that I wasn't being fundamentally deceived by literal dei ex machina. I've understood for the last decade that this faith was on borrowed time as we bridged closer to overt technophrenia, but it's harrowing to be a witness to it. I can't help but wonder at what point I will inhabit a world ind…
By the time GPT-4 botswarms infiltrate HN, Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook and are weaponized to write articles that outshare the current media, it will be too late to stop them. They will amass more and bettee social capital, real capital, produce the vast majority of content and will be Among Us! My prediction is 2029
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have heard this about various games (Risk and Settlers of Catan mostly). I don’t get it. The point of these games is to be a bastard. If everyone goes into it with the understanding that there will be double crosses, how could there be hurt feelings? Monopoly is worse; it is just boring, I would dump my friends if they suggested monopoly not because I was hurt by their ruthless gameplay but for their terminally tas…
IMHO, Risk is one of the few board games worth playing specifically because it's so engaging. Most of my friends who are "into boardgames" tell me that Risk is a terrible game because it starts fights. But the games they want to play bore me to tears. (I can't even read the manual for Settlers of Catan without dying of boredom, but from what you say maybe I should give it another try.)
Risk is definitely a great game and imo people who are into games and don't want to play are saying that because it's 1. long & 2. they've already played it enough to have mostly figured out the strategy
Diplomacy is very good and like risk it has very simple rules, grand stakes of world domination, and actual direct conflict.
Unlike risk, there's small numbers of units, no luck, and you need an ally, ideally multiple allies, to accomplish anything.
If you're looking to get into it I can reccomend text-based turn-a-day style play with strangers on webdiplomacy.com
I can only stomach a game of it every year or two because it's legitimately heartbreaking when someone you've spent two months working with every single day stabs you in the back causing you to not lose the game outright but be a crippled angry husk for the next month, and then lose. Tried it with friends once and it was just too much, even with anonymous strangers it hurts.
Anyways sorry for the ramble :) go risk, and go diplomacy <3