Ubar Nerd

If you also had voice chat, it would be workable. Still, why not just do it in person?

Because none of my friends IRL are as nerdy as the people I've met online. None of them even grasp the basic concept of D&D. The few who did no longer even live in town.

voice chat would have to be a must

this is what is needed for me at a D&D session... 1MDew amp for each person. Pop Tarts and MDew/Pepsi... chips, and all that dice and books shit too i guesss haha

maybe someone will create a program for that type of stuff where the program could create it's own variables and edit it's own programming, making it a real AI module. it would be pretty easy in a respect because if you put the program in a never ending loop(except when the user quits the game) and somehow cause the program to accept input from a random number machine and from some other program that is similiar to but more advanced than the grammer checker on microsoft word, then it would be a real AI module. that way the D&D experience will be different and adaptable each time, but with a comp instead of a real person(in case no one wants to play when you want to)

Won't work. Know why?

"I do not comprehend."

one thing... a machine will always be limited to what its programmed... always a limit

You've obiously not heard that it's got a lot of key differences from pen and paper D&D.

I'm aware of that. But it has the D&D name =/ Which was my point. While NWN didnt have the D&D name however it used the same ruleset (Which is acutally being used by alot of RPGS at the moment). But D&D Online actually uses the name =o

as long as the person doesn't ask dumb questions it would do fine......... or maybe a two part(or more) module that switches between the programs within so that the programs can be edited and restarted so that the edited stuff will come into effect. of course add that to the other stuff i said.

The point isn't to ask dumb questions. It's to allow complete freedom. If you can think of a clever, creative way to defeat a particularly strong enemy, then you're allowed to do so. Usually, you're even rewarded specially for doing it. Now, for a player to be able to do that on a pre-programmed game, the programmers would have to have thought of every possible creative solution in existence (not even remotely possible).

The point isn't to ask dumb questions. It's to allow complete freedom. If you can think of a clever, creative way to defeat a particularly strong enemy, then you're allowed to do so. Usually, you're even rewarded specially for doing it. Now, for a player to be able to do that on a pre-programmed game, the programmers would have to have thought of every possible creative solution in existence (not even remotely possible).

- first off i was being sarcastic when i said the part about the dumb questions.
- second the whole point of AI is that the comp can think for itself. it will be like talking to/with another person.
- third if a computer can think for itself then there is no need for the programmer to program in every creative solution in the possible world.
- fourth you can't prove that something can't be ever done(unless you're extremely specific). they thought that a person couldn't jump several feet off the ground, but on the moon, it can be done. but they didn't know that back then, did they?
- fifth and lastly, if you live in a world where not everything is possible, then it never will be and you will be living in the past no matter what you say.

The computer AI would have to be extremely advanced. As long as it can deal with modern language, misspelling, voice interpretation, slang, l337 speak, nerd talk, completely stupid things, completely rational things, things that fall in between the two, and can discern the difference in actions that you can do, actions that you can try to do in certain circumstances, and actions that nobody would ever be allowed to do on the fly, then yes, it might work.

-And-

If I live in a world where some things are impossible, then I'll be living in the past?
What the fuck are you takling about?

almost all things come in the form of steps. most of the time things don't just happen out of nothing (although some do), things have to be gradually worked into existence. that's what im trying to do; work things up gradually.

-And-

think about it for a second. the main reason why new things are invented, are because ppl did things that others thought was impossible. the past is characterized by the technology of that era. therefore, in a sense, those ppl who thought that certain things are impossible, and now are possible, are left behind in the past.

almost all things come in the form of steps. most of the time things don't just happen out of nothing (although some do), things have to be gradually worked into existence. that's what im trying to do; work things up gradually. -And- think about it for a second. the main reason why new things are invented, are because ppl did things that others thought was impossible. the past is characterized by the technology of that era. therefore, in a sense, those ppl who thought that certain things are impossible, and now are possible, are left behind in the past.

Uhhh if the past is characterized by the technology of that era... Then we are living in the past. I mean... Cars are a thing of the past. Hey so are pens and pencils! Computers are also. w00t its the 80s.

Okay just to reply to your previous statement, now that I know wtf you're talking about, you're wrong. If you're saying that I'm living in the past because I say that a programmer can't come up with every possible event, then you're completely delusional.

pr0xy: there are new types of cars aren't there? and i'm not saying that the era is defined by every single invention existing in that era, otherwise you'd be right. what i meant by that was the newest types of technology. for example the invention of the cotten gin, or the light bulb. even the atomic bomb. things that change how things are done here in the world, for one. significant things.

Medieval Bob: close but still no cigar. you're making a connection between two things that are similar but not quite getting what I meant. now i might not be explaining my views very well, or maybe i was using the wrong words, but here goes: if you look in the past the ppl who don't think that certain things are possible and then it's suddenly possible, get proven wrong, and are left in the history books as the ppl with no faith or whatever. basicly they are left behind in the past..... understand now?

I understand fine, but my point was and is that my statement of impossibility stands. If your objection was to something other than what you implied, then you need to be more specific when you tell someone they're wrong. Otherwise, it doesn't matter how well explained your point is. You're not disputing what we're actually talking about.

all right you want it specific, eh? ok ill give it to you plain and to the point:

you shouldn't be so quick to doubt things like that, you should be quick to perfect an idea instead of shooting it down with your negative "realism". there is a fine line between shooting down an idea with destructive criticism and using the same criticism to shape and fix an idea with constructive criticism so that it is true and real ok? that is my point. not my only point mind you, but it is one of my main points.

I think your point is impossible to understand.

Basicly... Possibility rests in time. Things that are impossible now, given time and new technologies, become possible. Possibility rests in time and the technology and knowledge one gains over time to make things possible.

I still don't see how you're not getting this. I can't perfect or refine the point of programmers compensating for variety. They can get better at it. We might be able to create AI that will do it someday, but programmers will never be able to be that comprehensive. Never. Never ever. There's no positive constructive criticism to give it. It will never happen.

I still don't see how you're not getting this. I can't perfect or refine the point of programmers compensating for variety. They can get better at it. We might be able to create AI that will do it someday, but programmers will never be able to be that comprehensive. Never. Never ever. There's no positive constructive criticism to give it. It will never happen.

A good example of this would be the GMs on OSI =p