Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons
loskutoff.com
Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons
1–10 of 78 posts
Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons
#2Dungeons & Dragons rules are a spec spanning thousands of pages, not formalized, but thoroughly tested by the community. Moving them to a formal specification language (Quint) was an obvious next step. It worked and proved to also be a great LLM self-checker.
Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons
#3Great
Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons
#4The "Grapple Leapfrog" is like the peasant railgun, and I think the "real" solution would be a recognition that order of conflict resolution in real time is not the same as ordering linear activities in game time.
Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons
#5This is so cool, I'll definitely be playing with in over the weekend. I meant to put Quint and D&D together in some similar ideas before but never found the time, so I love to see this coming alive from someone else <3
Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons
#6Shit like this results from a severe misunderstanding of what's enjoyable in a table-top RPG. It's not a fucking video game.
Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons
#7Shit like this results from a severe misunderstanding of what's enjoyable in a table-top RPG. It's not a fucking video game.
Agreed, people should only enjoy the features of it that I enjoy the way I like to enjoy them. Enjoying it the wrong way is at best stupid, possibly even evil.
Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons
#8I think this is fantastic. I recently started playing DnD with a local group and can’t wait to dive into this to better understand the mechanics.
Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons
#9Maybe the content is great, but the AI writing style is really grating with its staccato sentences and faux-"profoundness". Can't bear it any more, stopped reading.
"You’re not checking logic. You’re checking shape.". Ugh.
Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons
#10Dungeons & Dragons rules are a spec spanning thousands of pages, not formalized, but thoroughly tested by the community. Moving them to a formal specification language (Quint) was an obvious next step. It worked and proved to also be a great LLM self-checker.
Fantastic, I'd been daydreaming about doing similar for a while!
Do I understand correctly that the Quint code is not needed 'at runtime', that it's there for model-based testing of the XState implementation?