photog.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A place for your photos and banter. Photog first is our motto Please refer to the site rules before posting.

Administered by:

Server stats:

236
active users

#gametheory

0 posts0 participants0 posts today

After running his original 2 tournaments Robert Axelrod concluded with a list of 5 properties for good performance in iterated Prisoner's Dilemma tournaments.

Over the Christmas period my co-authors and I published a paper where we analysed more than 45,000 tournaments to come up with more precise (and I'd argue correct) properties: journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol

journals.plos.orgProperties of winning Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma strategiesAuthor summary In 1980, political scientist Robert Axelrod ran one of the most famous computer tournaments of the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma (IPD). The winner? The now-famous strategy, Tit for Tat. Axelrod attributed its success to simple properties such as: do not be envious, avoid being the first to defect, and do not be overly clever. Yet the tournament design, using only a small, selected set of strategies, not including random noise, and having fixed game lengths, raises questions about the generalizability of these results. Many researchers have continued to make similar assumptions in their own IPD experiments, limiting the insights that can be applied to more complex, realistic settings. In our study, we address these limitations by analyzing the performance of a large and diverse collection of IPD strategies across thousands of computer tournaments. We find that, while no single strategy consistently excels, successful strategies share key characteristics: they are nice, provocable and generous, a little envious, clever, and adapt to the environment. More precisely, strategies perform best when their probability of cooperation matches the total tournament population’s aggregate cooperation probabilities.

Recent discussions about hypothetical D&D economies led me to look into Roman currency. Here is a great wikipedia image of the common currency in the 27 BC - 100 AD Roman era.

So instead of copper, silver, electrum gold (the D&D standard), the early Roman Empire used various iterations of Bronze, Orichalcum, Silver, Billon, and Gold.

And today I learned Billon is the name for an alloy of silver and gold, or silver and copper, or silver and gold and copper, or basically any alloy of silver and some base metal.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_cu

#dnd#rpg#osr

Credit to @capita_picat

for pointing out this article about how Gold was not the usual currency used in medieval times.

acoup.blog/2025/01/03/collecti

I like looking at real world analogues to help inform making the "physics, economic engine" for rpgs.

A lot of issues in rpgs come down to how well do we want to emulate something from the real world like; falling damage, combat injuries, or should the economy use silver pieces.

Versus the thought of, are we playing a "game" and the rules should be more gamey in nature. Usually because going too far down the emulation path becomes a slog.

A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry · Collections: Coinage and the Tyranny of Fantasy ‘Gold’This week on the blog I want to take a brief detour into discussing historical coinage, particularly in the context of modern fantasy and roleplaying settings. In particular, the notions I want to …
#dnd#rpg#gametheory

Thanks to dmdavid's excellent articles I have been able to articulate something more clearly that has lingered in my mind for years. You should go poke around
dmdavid.com

It is a wealth of information and insights.

I never warmed up to 3E. I played it a little bit when it came out in the early 00s. The latest article goes over how monsters needed to work exactly like players. It is not a terrible idea. But, what I do not like about 3E is it is not "DM centric". What I mean by that is, 3E has system after system to make a coherent game where it can work a bit like a computer. But as a DM, what I really want, is a system that makes the task of running a game "as easy as possible" but still coherent. It does not feel like 3E strives to make the DM's job easier.

DMDavidDMDavidDungeons & Dragons design, advice, tools and inspiration
#dnd#osr#rpg

I was thinking over dmdavid's wish list for 3rd edition D&D that they wrote in 1999. And I was wondering, what would I write for a wish list for 6th edition of D&D. I quickly realized that what I want is not what I think most of the world wants for D&D. I like a game that the default is not near-superheroes with at will damaging spells at level 1. But the rest of the world, especially new players, want to emulate what they see in movies and video games. They want to be cool at level 1. No need for D&D to cater to me anymore. I guess at best, maybe some supplement could be made that has a dungeon scrapper mode.

From a game-theory point of view, there’s a problem with the special doubleheader now under way between the Mets and the Braves. Whoever wins the first game will have no incentive to win the second game. For both teams, a split is as good as a sweep.

But it matters for the Diamondbacks, helpless bystanders. If the Mets win both games, or the Braves win both games, the Diamondbacks will qualify for the postseason. But if they split one-one, the Diamondbacks are finished.

@laprice @reay The motivation is to game the system by adding uncertainty while lawyers try to throw out or invalidate votes through technicalities. In some states, the vote count will be close thanks misinformation and obstacles to registration, staying registered, and confusing ID requirements. As @laprice pointed out, there are also obstacles to recalling officials put in place legislatively, on purpose, for this purpose. If things turn out close, the risk is worth the reward. The younger Bush got elected thanks to hanging chads because partisan officials fought beyond what was reasonable or ethical, and some judges might have been an itsy bit biased, which they definitely are now.

Reminds me how Turkey went from being democratic to largely a theocracy over night. I'm sure that's one of the lessons the mastermind who've conned these useful idiots have in the back of their mind. They could develop a Christian Theocracy if they cheat hard enough.

#uspol #election #vote #gametheory

The debate between who invented Dungeons & Dragons, Dave Arneson or Gary Gygax, goes back and forth without a definitive answer. One position I hear often is that it would not have been made if not for both of them, so they both deserve credit. Usually, they attribute that Arneson was not disciplined enough to get the rules together.

But, I think it is quite possible that one of Arneson's friends might have been able to put together the rules. It has to be remembered that Dave Megarry played with Arneson and had already put together the Dungeon Board Game before they even came down to explain what Arneson's new roleplaying game was to Gary Gygax.

I do not think it too far fetched to imagine Megarry cobbling together a ruleset. Imagine an alternate universe where D&D used 2d6 and has its roots in the pre-TSR Dungeon! game.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_R.

#dnd#osr#rpg
Continued thread

#Science #nature #Neuroscience #philosophy #GameTheory
I recently found an interesting Podcast by Dr. Robert Sapolsky and Daughter.
Which is really cool. I always enjoy listening to him explain topics. youtu.be/KqhHK7RGVGw

a relatively new podcast series from one of my favorite authors and professors Dr. Sapolsky. “Father Offspring Interviews”

Pretty Neat. I hope you Enjoy.
Cheers