Talk:Zero-player game

message: The video game Gratuitous Space Battles challenges the player to design ships and create a fleet, but does not involve the player in the battles themselves, effectively rendering the game a zero-player game.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.117.127.143 (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Gratuitous space battles

message: There is player intervention in Creatures. For instance, you can slap or caress (tickle) the norns so as to attempt to discourage or encourage whatever behaviour they are currently exhibiting. However it is true that in theory you can leave the computer and the norns will take care of themselves, i.e. eating and reproducing.--Peter Knutsen 02:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Creatures

message: Does the board game Snakes and Ladders count as a zero-player game? It depends only on the roll of the dice- no skill and no decision by the humans is necessary. 88.108.214.251 (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This applies to any game which is entirely based on luck. Should we consider any game determined 100% by random numbers to be a zero-player game? I personally don't feel like this definition fits because the players are still in a sense affecting the game's outcome as it happens, in contrast with games which are determined by their initial conditions. —Entropy (T/C) 21:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Snakes and Ladders

message: I came to this page through game theory articles, where it's really inapplicable. Looking at the article now, it looks like complete WP:OR. I'm planning to propose deleting it, but figured I'd solicit defense of the article here before taking that step. Is a "zero-player game" actually a recognized term/idea in some field? CRETOG8(t/c) 03:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a legitimate concept but whether it will support a standalone article is doubtful. A merge to a :Game or :Game theory might be a good solution. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm against the deletion of the page. I'll agree that the page in its current state isn't particularly useful, but the concept of a zero-player game is legitimate and this article has the potential to be useful once more information and theory is added. —Entropy (T/C) 21:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete this page 

message: I disagree. The players aren't just following the instructions from some purely random number source; they are actually physically interacting with dice, so in prosaic reality they do affect the game. 86.131.98.77 (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ♦ Well, all you're doing by rolling the dice is activating a random number source (dice are about as good as it gets). The game could be played just as easily based on a list of random numbers from 1 to 6. You could also argue that simply looking at the board affects it, by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. --R27182818 (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think physics is more unified in the stance that there is a causal relationship between exerting force on dice and their rolling vs. one not-too-liked version of the Copenhagen interp. Saying "you could just as soon argue this by Heisenberg" is a copout way to hinder complexity of variable consideration. Bleedingcherub (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  ♦ You guys are arguing that children playing a casual game influence the numbers that come up on rolled dice in a way that meaningfully affects play. That's either ridiculous or insanely pedantic. --R27182818 (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are no dice in Candy Land, so if we're arguing about Candy Land, the argument is mute. Candy Land absolutely is a zero-player game, the game is determined at the beginning by the shuffle of the cards.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.28.237 (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above comment; Candy Land is no different from Conway's Game of Life in that sense. The outcome of the game is based entirely on initial conditions and the actions of the players after the initial shuffling is the equivalent of someone pressing the "step" button in the Game of Life. Players can choose to advance or not advance the game but they cannot actually affect the game in any way after it's started. —Entropy (T/C) 21:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Candy Land as zero-player game

message: Very many games can be considered 'Zero-player games'. However, those added here previously were unsourced and clear WP:OR. Examples should only be added when accompanied by a reliable source that states they are a 'Zero-player game'. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced examples 

message: My Brute might be a decent example. There is only minimal player input, and battles all take place automatically. SharkD  Talk  23:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Brute 

message: This article defines its subject using the term "game" (obviously), but does not define "game". It's telling that "game" isn't even wikilinked here. If it's a concept used in reputable sources, we can report that use, and how they define it if they do. But we shouldn't pretend we have a meaningful and well-defined concept, unless we do. (There's an old thread above, #Delete this page, and there's a recent (now reverted)  at Conway's Game of Life, along the same lines.)--Nø (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacks definition of game