posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
benlehman at 11:12am on 07/02/2005
benlehman at 11:12am on 07/02/2005It has come to my attention that most people in RPG theory have little or no knowledge of probability, and thus tend to get into long arguments about dice vs. dicelessness, with Erick Wujcik on one side saying that any randomizer means that the RPG is shit, and dicelessness-with-hidden information is the way to go, and Ron Edwards on the other side saying that role-playing games without chance cannot properly be called role-playing games at all.
Both hidden-information games and random games are the same, probabilistically speaking.
Let's pretend that we're playing a game -- I roll a six sided dice behind my palm, and you try to guess the number it sits on. (this is a boring game, yeah, but it illustrates a point.)
Before you guess, you can associate a probability with any face being up (this probability will be 1-in-6). The point is, even though I've rolled the number and have seen it, it is still random *to you*
Let's play a different game: I set a six-sided die to a particular value, and you guess it without looking.
Before you guess, you can associate a probability with any face being up (this probability may not be the same for every face.) In other words, despite the fact that no die was rolled (I made a decision about the die), the hidden information means that it is still random *to you*
Philosophically, you can argue that there are two different things going on here, but mathematically they are identical.
So, for one, when you play Amber, you are using random numbers all the god-damn time. So stuff it.
So, for two, there is no tangible difference between a diceless-but-hidden-info game and the roll-a-die game. So claiming that they are fundamentally different at a mathematical level is wrong wrong wrong.
In terms of the ephemera and toy quality, of course, they are very different. They *feel* very different. But they really *aren't* very different.
And I hope that shuts you fuckers up.
(P.S. As far as I know, there are no well-played diceless RPG systems that do not include randomness in the form of hidden information, possibly outside GM fiat. Cradle could do it with a few nips and tucks and, I think, still be a fun RPG. So I even disagree with Ron at that level.)
Both hidden-information games and random games are the same, probabilistically speaking.
Let's pretend that we're playing a game -- I roll a six sided dice behind my palm, and you try to guess the number it sits on. (this is a boring game, yeah, but it illustrates a point.)
Before you guess, you can associate a probability with any face being up (this probability will be 1-in-6). The point is, even though I've rolled the number and have seen it, it is still random *to you*
Let's play a different game: I set a six-sided die to a particular value, and you guess it without looking.
Before you guess, you can associate a probability with any face being up (this probability may not be the same for every face.) In other words, despite the fact that no die was rolled (I made a decision about the die), the hidden information means that it is still random *to you*
Philosophically, you can argue that there are two different things going on here, but mathematically they are identical.
So, for one, when you play Amber, you are using random numbers all the god-damn time. So stuff it.
So, for two, there is no tangible difference between a diceless-but-hidden-info game and the roll-a-die game. So claiming that they are fundamentally different at a mathematical level is wrong wrong wrong.
In terms of the ephemera and toy quality, of course, they are very different. They *feel* very different. But they really *aren't* very different.
And I hope that shuts you fuckers up.
(P.S. As far as I know, there are no well-played diceless RPG systems that do not include randomness in the form of hidden information, possibly outside GM fiat. Cradle could do it with a few nips and tucks and, I think, still be a fun RPG. So I even disagree with Ron at that level.)
(no subject)
Yeah, I'm with you on that "if you don't know" then its random. Pretty much what makes stratego a worthwhile game.
(no subject)
See caveat to Magnus, below.
(no subject)
Erick said that? Tsk, tsk. He should know better.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Would a card-based system count as 'diceless' to you?
(no subject)
(no subject)
yrs--
--Ben
(no subject)
boggles
No wonder it never worked for me. I was always like, "What is the point? All the results here are foregone conclusions."
Nevermind that I don't know how you can conceal any relevant information, when everyone knows the relative trait ranks of the PCs.
(no subject)
Amber is *all about* hidden information.
(no subject)
(no subject)
The parameters of "chosen hidden information" are actually pretty complicated, yeah. I still fear your RPS skills.
yrs--
--Ben
(no subject)
(no subject)
yrs--
--Ben
(no subject)
'I need to roll a 6 on a d6' to succeed is the same as 'I need to pick the same number 1 through 6 that the GM is thinking of'. However, neither of these is equivalent to 'I don't know how powerful my opponent is relative to my static Warfare attribute.'
Diceless does not equal nonrandom, but Karma does not equal Fortune. At all.
(no subject)
(no subject)
In canonical Amber, you can buy your stats up at various intervals. Let me give an example.
In the opening bidding:
Adrian has a Warfare of 32 (3rd)
Britt has a Warfare of 31 (4th)
Charles has a Warfare of 30 (5th)
Britt engages Charles in a duel. Britt knows that he has not bought up his Warfare. Is he going to have the advantage on Charles, or is Charles going to have the advantage on him? It is random.
yrs--
--Ben
(no subject)
From the perspective of a single event, you are correct: they are indistinguishable, in that their probability distributions are identical. However, you're making a big assumption, that there is no prior knowledge and no knowledge contained in the event. Let's take D20 as an example, as it is fairly simple probabilistically (flat distribution).
Let's assume that you have no prior knowledge on the difficulty of the task, no indications from the GM such as "this looks hard." It is a complete black box. If the GM rolls hidden, then you gain one bit of information: success or failure. With enough such events (under controlled conditions, no changing modifiers, etc.) you can estimate your success probability to reasonable accuracy. This is a simple Bernoullli trial.
Take, in contrast, when you roll openly: you can gain a *lot* more information. If you roll a 10, for example, depending on success or failure you have defined the probability -- with certainty -- as greater than or less than fifty percent.
This is important when you make series of rolls; if the underlying mechanisms are changing so quickly that each action is functionally independent of the others, then sure. But this is rarely the case.
To be specific, much more important than raw probabilities is conditional probabilities: p(A) | B, etc.
(no subject)
The point is simply that a random quality is present even in apparently randomless situations.
yrs--
--Ben
(no subject)
Excellent points. I think that it is important to distinguish the mathematical probabilities from the rest.
However, the real-world concern here is that the person establishing the random number can change it (see the above Amber stuff). That's where the real concern is (I think). The temptation as the "decider of the random value" to change the value to achieve whatever results you want to achieve.
Hmmm... Anyone know of any games where the person deciding the random value writes it down so that they can't change it? That might work...
Thomas
(no subject)
Likewise, you could wreak havoc in an Amber game by randomizing your XP payments.
yrs--
--Ben
(no subject)
Why is this necessarily a bad thing?
Is it because temptation is bad? Is it because ignoring the written rules of a system is bad? Because I don't think either of those reasons are fully defensible. :)
(no subject)
That said, I LIKE the Amber hidden-information game, just like I like Diplomacy.
(no subject)
Oh, yeah. And shutting fuckers up?
Accomplished!
:)
Aw Yeah
Erick Wujcik
Wrong.
While I think that randomizers are frequently applied badly, or overused, they clearly contribute beautifully to many RPGs (but not, I believe, to the Amber universe as described by Roger Zelazny).
Nor do I necessarily believe that Ron and I are on 'opposite sides.'
Erick Wujcik
www.phagepress.com
Re: Erick Wujcik
Opinions may be exaggerated for dramatic purposes.
Sorry, man...
yrs--
--Ben