Comments on That's a Terrible Idea: Perceived Randomness: A Guide to Chance in Games

QM uses wave functions and probabilities because t...

2010-01-05T18:56:16.962-05:00

QM uses wave functions and probabilities because that's how we've come to describe it. That's not the same thing as understanding what is going on from an omnipotent view.

The state of a QM system is described by a wavefun...

2010-01-05T11:42:59.486-05:00

The state of a QM system is described by a wavefunction, which outputs probabilities.

It is our inability to accept indeterminism that is the problem. The classic/Newtonian physics model is very definitive when talking about large objects. The theory of the very small is bizarre to us (e.g. particles cannot have both position and velocity).

motstandet wrote: If real physics includes rand...

2010-01-05T03:34:23.343-05:00
motstandet wrote:
If real physics includes random values[...].

Is quantum physics random because it truly is random, or because we don't understand it enough and therefore ascribe the behavior to randomness, as evizaer wrote?

I picked that specific quote for a reason. :) If you believe in an omnipotent creator of the universe, then you could believe that quantum physics isn't random, but controlled in a way that mere mortals don't understand.

This is nitpicking, but Einstein was referring to ...

2010-01-04T15:21:47.312-05:00
This is nitpicking, but Einstein was referring to the theory of Quantum Mechanics, in which the state is not deterministic. Particles are "probably" in many states; Einstein didn't buy it--"[God] does not throw dice."

Quantum physics is very much a proven science; transistors would not exist without quantum mechanics.

If real physics includes random values, then any model of the real world would include Random randy = new Random(); :P

I, too, started thinking about the first section o...

2010-01-03T05:32:40.084-05:00
I, too, started thinking about the first section of your post in terms of a game. I think it's interesting to point out where people accept a feeling of randomness in the "real world" and how that translates to what players accept in the game.

One concern when translating this to games is that most of the elements we might think of as random aren't. As Einstein is paraphrased, "God does not throw dice." In a perfect simulation, there would be no random. But, obviously, we do not have perfect simulations. :) But, the design issue then becomes where you try to create a simulation and where a random result is "good enough".

I also think it's interesting to see how these situations apply in a game. When I don't know the game mechanics, I might attribute something to randomness when there's actually a lot more going on. When people reverse-engineer a game mechanic, it can take a lot of the apparently random element out of it. Of course, this can also cause problems as players make choices to exploit the system more fully.

Random elements also have other important design features. Since you only briefly touched upon the game design aspects in the last part of your post, I'll wait for you to take the lead in that. :)

"The trouble with "Perceived Randomness ...

2010-01-02T23:55:44.492-05:00
"The trouble with "Perceived Randomness as the Result of Theory-absence" is that the player is attempting to gain understanding of the underlying system through analysis of events presented to them."

In the first two sections I was actually talking about how we perceive randomness in real life, not in games.

"I agree with your analysis of how we perceive randomness, but do not believe it should be used as an excuse for random events without cause."

You may have taken my analysis to be more forceful in its recommendations than it actually was. I was laying down a framework for finding out where randomness fits into game design, not an algorithm into which go game designs and out come where randomness should be used.

The trouble with "Perceived Randomness as the...

2010-01-02T22:05:38.384-05:00
The trouble with "Perceived Randomness as the Result of Theory-absence" is that the player is attempting to gain understanding of the underlying system through analysis of events presented to them. Players start out with little or no theory about how the world is working, but through repeated exposure should be able to gain insights into how the system works. Players may perceive the events as random initally, but if they actually ARE truly random then the player has nowhere to go; they may as well not try, just wait for the dice to fall in their favour.

I agree with your analysis of how we perceive randomness, but do not believe it should be used as an excuse for random events without cause. All random events should strive to give meaning to the game, for in these events lie the path to understanding and progressing through the game. You WANT the player to get to the point where they feel confident that the randomness is limited to a specific set of events that they can discern, and that they are comfortable with leaving it at that uncertainty level.

Some other interesting reading on randomness in games:
Permadeath
Randomness: Blight or Bane
Our cheatin' hearts