All y'all motherfuggers better listen up!

[benlehman]

It 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.)

Comments

[darkwhimsy.livejournal.com]

I'd personally argue that there's a fundamental difference - "mathematical" if you will, rather than "philosophical" - between you picking a number and you rolling a number. I agree that both involve an element of randomness, but the parameters of that randomness are almost certainly different.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

The point is that they are both random.

The parameters of "chosen hidden information" are actually pretty complicated, yeah. I still fear your RPS skills.

yrs--
--Ben

[evilmagnus]

The point, I think, is not that they are both random, but that it's easier for the GM to change the decision after the fact with diceless than without.

In Amber, I could decide before a fight "Benedict's gonna p3wn the PC", but then during the fight the PC role-plays some nifty idea using scenery I'd previously described, and I decide to let it work.

The PC didn't know going in to the fight that he was going to be able to beat Benedict using that set of drapes and the phone book, and I didn't know going in to the fight that the PC was going to get away with that. While the actual mechanics of the fight are 'deterministic', is not the observable outcome random?

Wheee, semantics!

[unrequitedthai.livejournal.com]

What's the point of playing a game with rules if you're just going to contravene the rules whenever it suits your fancy?

I don't mean this to be combative, but I see it as a serious problem when you say, "Oh, when you have hidden information, it's easier (i.e. "I am less likely to get called on") to get away from the undesirable outcome that the rules produce." Doesn't that suggest that the rules are flawed?

[wirednavi.livejournal.com]

I think the idea is that part of the rules is that the GM can adjust effective values based on how awesome your plan is and other circumstances.

[evilmagnus]

Well, first I'd say you're right - ignoring the rules whenever it suits the GM is generally a bad thing.

However, if one of the the rules of the game is 'the GM controls random factors', then there is no problem. Now, if a GM did this to me in D&D I'd be pissed. If they did it to me in Amber, I'd accept it. It depends on the common, shared framework of the game, and that's a social contract between players and GM.

In the Amber example I cited above, I'd say it was merely the game working as intended - as more information became available to both actors (GM and player) the outcome changed from the GM's initial 'first pass' resolution. It gained granularity (and, indeed, the outcome was different that even the GM expected) thanks to the actions of the player.

Further, I'd argue that the best games are not those that are limited by the rules. Otherwise we should all just roll 1d6 'to win' at the start of each campaign, and be done with it - after all, if all decisions of any worth are to be systematically decided, then it stands to reason that the entire outcome of the campaign can be so condensed to a simple dice roll. Best get that out of the way now so we can use those Sunday afternoons for something more productive.

If, however, the purpose of the rules are to guide and aid (but not control) the game - to help the story, not confine it, then yes - sometimes it's in the best interest of both GM and players for the GM to 'fudge' the rolls. In that sense, hidden information makes it easier to get away with undesirable outcomes produced by the rules. After all, it may not be apparent to all the actors *why*, exactly, they will have more fun if that natural 20 didn't hit the Overfiend.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

I disagree.

We can fight over this later, when I can run a game for you where sticking to the rules makes the story *better*

Your choice: Dogs in the Vineyard, Prime Time Adventures, The Mountain Witch, or Capes. Riddle of Steel would work too, but it wouldn't be painfully obvious.

yrs--
--Ben

[evilmagnus]

Can I roll d6 to win at the start?

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

No.

You have to play a different game for that. And I haven't written it yet.

yrs--
--Ben

[psychotropek.livejournal.com]

I have to say that it'll be Morley and self's kung fu versus yours on this one, ben.

[xiombarg.livejournal.com]

This is only a flaw if you don't trust your GM. If you don't trust your GM, you shouldn't be playing with him anyway.

Too many gamers look to the system to solve a problem which is actually social.

[marcus-sez-vote.livejournal.com]

Too many gamers look to the system to solve a problem which is actually social.

That is so true.

Be well.

Here here

[aumshantih.livejournal.com]

There needs to be cooperation in Gaming. I think the old GM versus the PC dichotomy needs to be transcended.

Re: Here here

[evilmagnus]

Maybe a Spider God could come along and handle that?
:-)