Just so you know the Turin test has been passed multiple times. Read up on it here: More human than human: AI game bots pass Turing test.
With the ability to calculate real world physics and then convert that to a textual description. Voice input and output. Turing test passing, etc...etc...
And just so you know, the Turing test is not an infallible way to measure AI. It is in fact a poor way of measuring machine intelligence.
It has too tight a definition of intelligence, many intelligent beings would fail the test.
The original tested human conversational characteristics and could be cheated with a chat bot style program.
Also, Searle's chinese room showed that from a black box perspective, intelligence seemed to be shown, there was no understanding of the process.
So related to being a DM, If a machine cannot show understanding, reasoning, (different from understanding instructions) and imagination, it cannot DM.
Regardless of whether or not it's possible, why would we want it? The "physics stuff" in your example isn't exactly inspiring. I can't see why I'd want to have a computer sitting in the DM chair when I could have an actual DM.Some people care a lot about precise "simulation". A computer does that better than a human GM, within the scope of it's programming. Once you move outside the scope of that programming the human GM of course can continue acting where the computer can't, but within that area the computer is more accurate, faster, and a much better simulation.
It seems to me that the best of both worlds is the perfect setup. A computer assisting by handling all the physics/simulation stuff for a human GM overseer that makes the final call and handles the "feeling" decisions.
They're both good at a specific role. Neither of them is particularly well-equipped to handle the whole thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds more like some sort of VR. Beam me up Scottie.
Its missing my friends and their stupid jokes. I go out on Thursday night to hang out with my friends - sure we slay dragons but that is not the primary motivation. Being with my friends is the primary motivation.
I'll pass thank you very much.
snopes there are lots of things more complex...
A link to a rant on an internet messageboard is not proof.
Uh... Elbot is just an Eliza with new lines, right? Can't say that should win much of a Turing test.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone know what structure is more complex than the human brain?
Society (which is made up of multiple human brains working against each other to mutual benefit)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
snopes there are lots of things more complex...A link to a rant on an internet messageboard is not proof.
True though the human organism is not the most complex organism on the planet so its improbable that the human brain alone is the most complex thing around.
Interesting finding, maybe the most interesting finding of the Human Genome project. We are not as complex as we thought we where. When they began to conduct the Human Genome project scientists had already done the DNA for a number of living things. Some of them really small like virus but also lab mice and fruit flies. At this point many groups of scientists made bets on how many genes they would find in humans when the Human Genome project was completed and it was of course essentially a guess by each scientist on how much more complex you think humans are then Lab mice.
Well it turns out that whoever chose the lowest number of genes always won the pool because scientists generally estimated that we would have between five and ten times as many genes as lab mice...we don't, we have roughly the same number of genes as lab mice. It was a shocking finding - I mean most species of cactus have more genes then we do. Completely at odds with what everyone and their brothers dog (in the scientific community of course) expected to find and it turned the whole science of genetics on its head for the next decade.
Of course in the years since we have essentially come to understand what the heck it is we are seeing and these days you read in Wired Magazine that they plan to make Dinosaurs out of Chickens. In reality what was found was that evolution does not, as previously thought, necessarily make more genes - its actually all in the timing. Hence if you fiddle with the timing in expressing the genes of Hens you get Hens with teeth. Chickens are dinosaurs and if you want them to be more like their ancestors well we are getting to the point where we can do that...in theory we can do the same with humans, by fiddling with the timing of gene expression we could make a human that had strong characteristics of our ancient ancestors.
As to the Cacti...the reason they are more complicated then we are is because they have to be. Cactus can't move...mammals essentially get off easy - we can have a handful of genes that essentially say 'IF this place sucks THEN go to some other place'. Can't do that if your a cactus so you need to evolve genes to defend you from being eaten by different parasites and more genes to deal with what to do if it does not rain for a decade etc. etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we get back to comparing PF and DDN?
Hahaha! Should be some interesting discussions/fighting. I plan on playing both games regardless.
Well the latest Legends and Lore article discusses the new Battlemaster Fighter sub-class. It's essentially a 4E Fighter/Warlord all rolled into one with maneuvers to choose from.
From the article:
Maneuvers allow you to expend a superiority die(which is now d8) to take a special action, granting benefits like the following:
• Grant a bonus attack to an ally in place of one of your own attacks
• Disarm an enemy
• Grant an ally advantage on an attack roll against a target
• Make a counterattack as a reaction
• Sweep your weapon through an area, damaging several foes with one
attack
• Parry an attack
• Force an enemy to move
• Allow an ally to move
With these maneuvers, I'm going to make the assumption that you roll a d8 and add that number to which ever maneuver your attempting. For example, to disarm an opponent you will probably have to roll higher than their modifier or add the number from the d8 to your ally's next attack roll. Stuff like that.
Hopefully there's something in there that allows a Battlemaster to mitigate damage from allies OR allows them to grant HP to allies so a fully-realized 4E Warlord is possible. One can dream right? If not, I guess homebrew maneuvers can be created.
Im guessing also if you decided to not take the maneuver you just add the d8 roll as extra damage? Or maybe add it as extra hp? Unless they changed this form the interim rules that came with Scourge of the Sword Coast adventure. The fighter I saw this on it was a d6 though.
Does this seem like an option that can be removed if you didn't want the complexity and it wouldn't break the game?
|
Im guessing also if you decided to not take the maneuver you just add the d8 roll as extra damage? Or maybe add it as extra hp? Unless they changed this form the interim rules that came with Scourge of the Sword Coast adventure. The fighter I saw this on it was a d6 though.
Does this seem like an option that can be removed if you didn't want the complexity and it wouldn't break the game?
In the playtest docs, if you miss you add the number you rolled to damage.
Battle master is one subclass. In the playtest docs you have is another subclass, the path of the warrior, with simpler mechanics (crits on 19-20 instead of 20, regain hit points when at half hit points but over 0 etc.). I except to see something similar in the final product.
Im guessing also if you decided to not take the maneuver you just add the d8 roll as extra damage? Or maybe add it as extra hp? Unless they changed this form the interim rules that came with Scourge of the Sword Coast adventure. The fighter I saw this on it was a d6 though.
Does this seem like an option that can be removed if you didn't want the complexity and it wouldn't break the game?
Well one thing I hope for is that you can't use the d8 for extra damage. That was one of the earlier Fighter's big problems because no one wasted to use it for doing cool stuff and instead just dealing extra damage because, tactically, that's the "best" option.
Perhaps they'll keep the idea that if you try to use it for things like Disarm, if you roll too low you deal extra damage but I hope not as most people still want to roll low vs. disarming a foe. Extra damage should probably only come from things like Extra Attacks and magic and action-granting allies in D&D:Next.
Also, I think the Battlemaster is going to replace the Packet's Weaponmaster class. In the article, Mike Mearls discussed changing the Combat Superiority die to d8s instead of d6. So the adventures with the classes inside will eventually be wrong once the actual game is released.
As for additional options, there's the Path of the Warrior, who's benefits are mostly passive. You get greater critical threat ranges, survive longer, and are more durable than a Battle Master. It's sort of bland for my tastes but it should serve the purpose of being "simple" for the majority of players who like that sort of thing.
I don't like the extra damage on a failed roll either. Just seems like it will take away the challenge.
So you just auto regain hp when dropped to half or above 0? I just don't like that just seems cheesy to me. That's just my opinion though. Just seems like it takes some of the element of danger away.
In my packet level two was when you reach 200 xp, are the monsters worth less xp?
I have heard of a few that could post in public forums and no one notice that it was not real by comparing and copying common responses.
|
|
Well one thing I hope for is that you can't use the d8 for extra damage. That was one of the earlier Fighter's big problems because no one wasted to use it for doing cool stuff and instead just dealing extra damage because, tactically, that's the "best" option.Im guessing also if you decided to not take the maneuver you just add the d8 roll as extra damage? Or maybe add it as extra hp? Unless they changed this form the interim rules that came with Scourge of the Sword Coast adventure. The fighter I saw this on it was a d6 though.
Does this seem like an option that can be removed if you didn't want the complexity and it wouldn't break the game?
If a fighter was getting sneak attacked every round, using bellringer to impose disadvantage on his or her foe would be much more valuable than plus 1d8 damage. I'm sure the final rule set will have many options usable in a variety of situations. And when those situations don't come up, the fighter can just hit things harder.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like the extra damage on a failed roll either. Just seems like it will take away the challenge.
So you just auto regain hp when dropped to half or above 0? I just don't like that just seems cheesy to me. That's just my opinion though. Just seems like it takes some of the element of danger away.
In my packet level two was when you reach 200 xp, are the monsters worth less xp?
Lots of angst about damage on a miss for fighters from many playtesters. Mage with fireball? Not a problem to deal damage even though the save succeeded. But fighter? No way. I, however, really like the fact that the fighter can now do "half effect" on a miss (or successful save) just like casters can. This divide will have to be carefully addressed in the final version I think.
The D&D Next last playtest packet fighter is a killing machine that refuses to die. Many posts complained how much better the fighter was than other class at combat.
Which, really, makes sense. The fighter. Kills and survives battles better. Than any other class. I like it.
Many of the problems the fighter had in 3.5 have been addressed in the playtest. Like advantage on all saves at 13th level. And lots of self-healing, temp hit points, extra actions, and ability score increases. Not to mention hitting harder, chance for better crits etc. Pretty good design for a playtest in my opinion.
I don't like damage being del by failed rolls or against no saves for any class just smells like cheese to me.
You're right fighters should be tough and I may be looking at this wrong, but self healing just seems cheap and if every class can do it then why bring a cleric along? I know I know, for the buffs. I would just like the option for encounters to be potentially deadly after all you are fighting strange and magical beasts.
I did have a bit of a WTF moment when I realized that Paladins and Rangers both had access to Fighting Styles, which I'd thought of as a Fighter class feature. Sometimes it feels as if Fighters are consigned to a "Paladin/Ranger minus options" role whichever edition we're in. Personally I'm with damage on a miss and all the rest, I just want them to be unique to fighters.
|
|
D&D Next has a unique feel similar but different to all previous versions starting with AD&D 1E. We've played from 1st level to 8th so far with the latest playtest doc mostly.
First, the buffs are usually one at a time since many buff spells require concentration. Start another concentration spell and the first one ends. The mage is struggling a bit with this concept, but it really does make spells more manageable.
Second, every class can heal at short rests with hit dice. Hit dice are what they have always been, but they also provide dice of healing all on their own as well. Of all the things ported over from 4E I like this one the best.
Third, martial classes do more damage than any other classes. Barbarians and rangers are killers in the game and I assume fighters and paladins are too (we don't have those classes as PCs). Again, the mage struggles with this a bit. The ranger even has some battlefield control with spells and the barbarian is fast and mean (increased movement, advantage on initiative, advantage on attacks, and improved crits).
What I said to the player of the mage is that he can blast multiple enemies, hurting the tough leaders and killing the henchmonsters who fail the save. And he has battlefield control with spells like Evard's black tentacles and web.
So the ranger and barbarian can slug it out toe to toe with a BBEG and do lots of damage. Meanwhile, the mage is controlling the battlefield, boosting allies, and he wants unleashing big damaging/save or die spells against on big opponent.
Combat is much more fluid as well, with lots of movement. A fighter can move 10 feet, attack with all attacks, and move another 10 feet. I had baboon demons jumping in and out of combat to get multi-claw attacks and if both hit they knocked the opponent prone and bit them.
D&D Next playtest has a unique feel. No one class seems underpowered in rpg, combat, or exploration. All have different abilities and do wildly different things.
Good stuff so far.
Yep fluid combat takes away frustration of not getting full attacks. Move hit move is good