tegwick
b590e7fd59
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
Eight profiles on a common schema, each marking what was checked against a source this session and what is background recollection. Three are marked unverified in full — Machinations, the play substrates, most of RBG — and say so rather than reading as evaluations. Written straight after three review rounds whose entire yield was claims outrunning what had been checked, so the confidence rule is the first thing in the README. The survey changed the plan, which is what a survey is for. Track C was described in Positioning as open ground. It is not: Browne published 57 criteria for game quality, and Ai Ai already computes designer-facing measures — drama, lead changes, branching factor, completion, duration — from played games. The track becomes adopt, credit and find the gap. The gap looks real: those measures presume a leader, and SHARED GROUND has none — Modes.csv gives its tiebreak as "Not applicable". Track B probably adopts rather than builds. OpenSpiel implements CFR, best-response and exploitability over games that are simultaneous-move, imperfect-information and co-operative, which is all four of GROUND's awkward properties. "Does ATTACK ever pay" is a best-response question, and we spent three review rounds refining a two-policy sweep for it. The first Track B task is now one question — is exploitability meaningful for a co-operative game with a shared threshold — not a build. The cost of not surveying earlier is therefore measurable, and is recorded rather than glossed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
37 lines
1.2 KiB
Markdown
37 lines
1.2 KiB
Markdown
# Play substrates — Tabletop Simulator, boardgame.io
|
|
|
|
`unverified` throughout — background knowledge, not checked this session
|
|
|
|
## What they optimise for
|
|
|
|
**Playing**, by humans, over a network. Tabletop Simulator gives a
|
|
physics sandbox with no rules enforcement; boardgame.io gives a
|
|
JavaScript framework for turn-based games with state management and a
|
|
networked client.
|
|
|
|
## How a game is defined
|
|
|
|
TTS: assets plus optional scripting; the rules live in the players' heads.
|
|
boardgame.io: JavaScript moves and turn order.
|
|
|
|
## What they can analyse
|
|
|
|
Nothing. The rules are a script, not a claim.
|
|
|
|
## Relevance to clay-borg
|
|
|
|
**None for analysis, and one thing for the interface.** Our own
|
|
`cb-play` page and [`../specs/Ornamentation.md`](../specs/Ornamentation.md)
|
|
occupy this space, and the future `clay-animate` is squarely in it.
|
|
|
|
The useful contrast: **TTS proves that a table with no rules enforcement
|
|
is still fun**, which is an argument for taking ornamentation seriously
|
|
and against assuming the mechanism is the whole game.
|
|
|
|
## Open questions
|
|
|
|
- Whether boardgame.io's state model is worth borrowing for `clay-animate`.
|
|
|
|
## Sources
|
|
|
|
None fetched. **Marked `unverified` in full.**
|