Charlie = GM?

[GaryThunder]

I still don't buy Charlie as a human. He's too limited by the constraints of his world in a way that everyone but Parson isn't. His knowledge of leetspeak isn't any more anachronistic than any other part of Erfworld - look at the fw00ting elves here.

[Shusagi]

I still don't buy Charlie as a human. He's too limited by the constraints of his world in a way that everyone but Parson isn't. His knowledge of leetspeak isn't any more anachronistic than any other part of Erfworld - look at the fw00ting elves here.

I'd like to propose that Charlie isn't the GM, Charlie is the GM-controlled side.

[GaryThunder]

Well, most of the "oh, what the hell" twists against Parson do seem to be a result of Charlie's machinations.

The dwagon donut trap failing? The Archons convinced Jillian to send the Thinkagram and attack the wounded units, thus being responsible for breaking Wanda's spell.
Wanda failing to claim the Arkenpliers from Ansom on the wall? Again, the Archons blowing her out of the air.
The dance-fight in the garrison? Archons DDRing it up.
Kingworld? Well...

Could be.

Edit: And the one time he had the opportunity to definitively crush GK, Transylvito's ambush at the pass? He pulled out. Charlie pulled out of an attack that would have ended Parson without Parson being able to do anything about it, in exchange for a deal that gave Charlie several fresh opportunities to ruin Parson's life. Charlie makes things hard on Parson, but won't destroy him unfairly or without giving Parson a shot. Interesting.

[ryanroyce]

I still don't buy Charlie as a human. He's too limited by the constraints of his world in a way that everyone but Parson isn't. His knowledge of leetspeak isn't any more anachronistic than any other part of Erfworld - look at the fw00ting elves here.

In contrast to this page, though, Charlie's clear understanding of Parson's "omg h4x" comment is more telling than even his use of "lol".

As for Charlie being the GM, remember that Erfworld isn't actually a game (Rob has explicitly said this in a podcast, IIRC), but rather a "real" world with game-like physics.

[ShirKhan]

its not futile if he believes that they are real people.

Not true. Imagine if all of the characters were dolls, and Parson just believed they were real.
The story's tone switches from 'protagonist growing emotionally' to 'creepy guy fantasizing about dolls'.
If they're not real people, then Parson is insane, or in a vast computer simulation, or some other explanation.
(...)
His actions remain exactly the same, but the meaning behind them vanishes.

At the risk of sounding utterly mad now: Please prove to me that the world you are living in is real. I mean, yes, you are surrounded by people who seem to think and act similar to you, which could make them(us) real people or just pretty good simulations. There are some pretty weird laws of physics around you that you have grown accustomed to, even though they might have seemed strange to you when you were a child -- just like the characters in Erfworld are used to their physics. ("Why yes, of course the sun is in a different position when you cross hex boundaries. How could it be otherwise?")

So: What makes you believe that the world around you is any more real than Parson's? Maybe you are in a coma and are dreaming all this. Maybe everything around you is a computer simulation and you're the only real person.

Maybe I'm not a real person who is writing this to you, but only another simulated part of the simulated world you are living in.

Give one proof that this world is real. Just one.

[Shusagi]

I still don't buy Charlie as a human. He's too limited by the constraints of his world in a way that everyone but Parson isn't. His knowledge of leetspeak isn't any more anachronistic than any other part of Erfworld - look at the fw00ting elves here.

In contrast to this page, though, Charlie's clear understanding of Parson's "omg h4x" comment is more telling than even his use of "lol".

As for Charlie being the GM, remember that Erfworld isn't actually a game (Rob has explicitly said this in a podcast, IIRC), but rather a "real" world with game-like physics.

Agreed. Charlie isn't the GM, he's the GM-controlled side, or the representation of such a concept in terms of a world with game-like physics.

...

Give one proof that this world is real. Just one.

It's real because I think it's real.
Erfworld is real to Parson because he thinks it's real. If he thought everyone was mindless philosophical zombies/dolls and that it was a game, then Erfworld wouldn't be real, to him. Is it actually real? Who cares! It doesn't make a difference whether it's real or not, all that matters is how Parson views it. The main thing is that there's no way to scientifically verify if the world is real or not, so the ONLY decider for it it "counts" as real is one's own opinion. In Parson's case, he seems to view the world as real, thus acting as if it is real, and for all intents and purposes it is real to him

Basically, whether or not something is real is up to the observer. And I don't mean "they perceive it as real", I mean if they think it's real, it REALLY IS real, because there is no way to verify it, and pragmatically all that matters is how we view it and treat it.

That being said, as someone else has already noticed, we see Parson's world after he's left, and we see Erfworld before he enters it, indicating that both are real, valid worlds in terms of this story's universe.

[Foolamancer]

At the risk of sounding utterly mad now: Please prove to me that the world you are living in is real.

Think of it like the p-zombie question. A p-zombie is defined as something that acts in all situations exactly as though it were conscious, but is not conscious. P-zombies cannot exist, because if something acts in all situations exactly as though it has a property, it does have that property. The universe acts in all situations exactly as though it is real. Thus, it is real.

[ryanroyce]

I still don't buy Charlie as a human. He's too limited by the constraints of his world in a way that everyone but Parson isn't. His knowledge of leetspeak isn't any more anachronistic than any other part of Erfworld - look at the fw00ting elves here.

In contrast to this page, though, Charlie's clear understanding of Parson's "omg h4x" comment is more telling than even his use of "lol".

As for Charlie being the GM, remember that Erfworld isn't actually a game (Rob has explicitly said this in a podcast, IIRC), but rather a "real" world with game-like physics.

Agreed. Charlie isn't the GM, he's the GM-controlled side, or the representation of such a concept in terms of a world with game-like physics.

And yet... why do you believe that this game-like world even has a GM? I mean, the few war games I'm familiar with have no such thing, so why would Erfworld?

[GaryThunder]

Perhaps not a GM in the strict sense of the term, but more like...if anyone's ever played World of Warcraft, I'm thinking Charlie is similar to Algalon the Observer. Not actually a GM, but a souped-up unit/side with special powers left directly by the creators to keep an eye on things, maybe keep the balance, perhaps even report in every so often. An avatar of the Titans, left behind to ensure that their world operated as planned. Until Parson showed up.

Parson is the perfect definition of an "Unknown Unknown" or an outside context problem. There is literally no way for any Erfworld native to plan for someone like Parson suddenly appearing in the world (without advance knowledge), because that unit would have no reason to suspect that such a thing is even possible. Parson also generates these like crazy due to being one himself.

[ShirKhan]

At the risk of sounding utterly mad now: Please prove to me that the world you are living in is real.

Think of it like the p-zombie question. A p-zombie is defined as something that acts in all situations exactly as though it were conscious, but is not conscious. P-zombies cannot exist, because if something acts in all situations exactly as though it has a property, it does have that property. The universe acts in all situations exactly as though it is real. Thus, it is real.

That's a very simplified version of the whole p-zombie discussion. Besides, your argument might work in physics and mathematics, but I seriously doubt it can be applied to p-zombies just like that. Assume you have a girlfriend/boyfriend who acts in all situations exactly as though he/she loves you, yet secretly think you are a complete moron (but never ever tells anyone about this or lets it show in any way) -- does he/she love you or not?

[Foolamancer]

At the risk of sounding utterly mad now: Please prove to me that the world you are living in is real.

Think of it like the p-zombie question. A p-zombie is defined as something that acts in all situations exactly as though it were conscious, but is not conscious. P-zombies cannot exist, because if something acts in all situations exactly as though it has a property, it does have that property. The universe acts in all situations exactly as though it is real. Thus, it is real.

That's a very simplified version of the whole p-zombie discussion.

How so?

Besides, your argument might work in physics and mathematics, but I seriously doubt it can be applied to p-zombies just like that.

As I have never employed it in any context but this, I can't comment, except to say that your doubt, however serious it may be, does not constitute a rebuttal.

Assume you have a girlfriend/boyfriend who acts in all situations exactly as though he/she loves you, yet secretly think you are a complete moron (but never ever tells anyone about this or lets it show in any way) -- does he/she love you or not?

If she secretly thinks that I am a complete moron, then she does not act in all situations exactly as though she loves me (assuming that thinking someone is a moron counts as not loving them).

[GaryThunder]

If she secretly thinks that I am a complete moron, then she does not act in all situations exactly as though she loves me (assuming that thinking someone is a moron counts as not loving them).

Ah. You include purely mental and unobservable acts in the "acts in all situations exactly as though she loves me" category, so that even her inner thought process would have to hew to the "I <3 U" paradigm. In that case...I'm not really seeing much of a distinction, here.

[Foolamancer]

If she secretly thinks that I am a complete moron, then she does not act in all situations exactly as though she loves me (assuming that thinking someone is a moron counts as not loving them).

Ah. You include purely mental and unobservable acts in the "acts in all situations exactly as though she loves me" category

I would disagree that they are unobservable. We simply don't have a perfectly detailed picture of the human brain, so we can't always determine reliably what someone is feeling. However, the brain is a series of chemical reactions. Emotions are changes in this chemical state. Thus they are observable, even though we can't distinguish between them yet.

In addition, she herself recognizes that she doesn't really love me. That is observation. She may be a very, very good liar - so good, in fact, that absolutely no one else even begins to suspect it - but it doesn't change the fact that there is a situation in which she doesn't act as though she loves me. Believing that someone is a moron is not the same as loving them.

The argument holds.

EDIT: Since this has long since left the point where it has anything even remotely to do with the rest of the thread, I propose that we continue it in another, more appropriate discussion area. That is, if you want to continue it.

so that even her inner thought process would have to hew to the "I <3 U" paradigm.

Yes. Otherwise she wouldn't actually love me, because there would be a situation in which she didn't.

In that case...I'm not really seeing much of a distinction, here.

A distinction between what? Between acting in all situations exactly as though she loves me and actually loving me? There isn't one. That's the point. If something acts in all situations exactly as though it possesses a property, then it does. That's what I've been saying.

The universe behaves in all situations exactly as though it were real. Therefore, it is real.

[Shusagi]

And yet... why do you believe that this game-like world even has a GM? I mean, the few war games I'm familiar with have no such thing, so why would Erfworld?

Well, the game Parson was working on DID have a GM, so it stands to reason that Erfworld, if it's supposed to resemble the game he was working on to some strange degree, would have a GM-controlled side. Not a GM, mind you. I just need to nail home the point that I don't think Charlie's the GM, much like Slately or Don King or Stanley aren't Players. But were it a game, Charlie would be played by the GM, while those rulers would be controlled by players.

[GaryThunder]

The universe behaves in all situations exactly as though it were real. Therefore, it is real.

I could bring up solipsism and other such frivolities, but it would just spiral into the same argument where both sides end up saying "Well, you can't prove it!" to each other as they're out of other responses. But in general I would agree, yes. Something that has every single possible characteristic of Thing A could be said to be another example of Thing A, perhaps even a perfect copy.

[Foolamancer]

The universe behaves in all situations exactly as though it were real. Therefore, it is real.

I could bring up solipsism and other such frivolities, but it would just spiral into the same argument where both sides end up saying "Well, you can't prove it!" to each other as they're out of other responses."

Well, no. Solipsism is incorrect; it has the same flaw as the p-zombie argument. It supposes that the universe itself does not exist, but something that acts in all situations exactly as though it were the universe does. It is self-contradictory.

But in general I would agree, yes. Something that has every single possible characteristic of Thing A could be said to be another example of Thing A, perhaps even a perfect copy.

It is a perfect copy. If something behaves in all situations exactly as though it were object A (except that it sits in a different position in space-time), it is a perfect copy of object A. It has every characteristic of object A and no others. That is the definition of a perfect copy.

Thus, the universe is real. It behaves in all situations exactly as though it were real. It might conceivably be a copy of another universe (though the existence of other universes, and the ability to copy them, is unproven; I don't know how it would be possible, but it might, so I thought I'd throw it out there just in case), but a perfect copy is no less real than the original.

[ryanroyce]

And yet... why do you believe that this game-like world even has a GM? I mean, the few war games I'm familiar with have no such thing, so why would Erfworld?

Well, the game Parson was working on DID have a GM, so it stands to reason that Erfworld, if it's supposed to resemble the game he was working on to some strange degree, would have a GM-controlled side. Not a GM, mind you. I just need to nail home the point that I don't think Charlie's the GM, much like Slately or Don King or Stanley aren't Players. But were it a game, Charlie would be played by the GM, while those rulers would be controlled by players.

We can quibble about whether Charlie is the GM-controlled Side or is another Human in Erf, but I think we can both agree that Charlie isn't just another Overlord.

If Charlie were actually the GM, he would just fiat Parson's capture. He hasn't, therefore he isn't. Charlie just has a very thorough understanding of the collection of cheat codes represented by his Arkendish.

[drachefly]

No, a GM would not fiat Parson's capture. The GM does not play to win; that would be trivial. The GM plays to make the other players work hard.

[ryanroyce]

No, a GM would not fiat Parson's capture. The GM does not play to win; that would be trivial. The GM plays to make the other players work hard.

Charlie clearly wants to capture Parson. If he had actual GM fiat powers to do so, he would use them to capture Parson. Charlie is not the GM.

[drachefly]

Could conceivably be a GM-played character, who thus does expend all effort within character, but not out of character... but this whole idea completely screws around with the ideas of subjective experience of residents of Erfworld. No character we have met is the GM, just on the basis of that. I doubt there will be one. The story would not be as good with one, I think, so there won't be.