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

[evilmagnus]

The temptation as the "decider of the random value" to change the value to achieve whatever results you want to achieve.

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. :)

[lordsmerf.livejournal.com]

Woohoo! Here we go...

It's not about the temptation. Ignoring rules is okay, given a single assumption. The rules don't do what you want them to. If the rules did their job, then there would never be a reason to ignore them. When you are ignoring rules it is a pretty clear indicator that you find them unsatisfactory in some way... Time to find a new game! There are tons of them out there, surely one of them does what you want without making you ignore parts of it... :)

Thomas

[evilmagnus]

Here we go, indeed....

Example: cunning use by PCs of a AD&D spell, "Contingency". Say it's all above-board and by the printed manual, but it'd break the game as you, the GM, see it. Do you ditch the campaign and D&D? Or do you 'tweak' the outcome of the spell?

If the rules did their job, then there would never be a reason to ignore them.

Your suggestion amounts to "If the rules are not 100% perfect and foresee in every detail every possible circumstance that might occur during the course of play, don't play the game". I posit that that position is unrealistic and impossible to attain in this imperfect world. :)

[unrequitedthai.livejournal.com]

It breaks my heart that you find it impossible to percieve perfection with respect to a given goal. (Note that it's different to percieve perfection - to always fail to find a flaw - and to attain it - to make something that is flawless.)

Anyway, just because absolute perfection is (assumedly) impossible doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it.

[unrequitedthai.livejournal.com]

In other words, I think that the position "We should just accept that sometimes the rules don't work," amounts to, "Nothing is ever perfect so you may as well settle for crap," which is a depressing and unsatisfactory proposition.

[evilmagnus]

Anyway, just because absolute perfection is (assumedly) impossible doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it.

At the risk of turning this into a treatise on Perfection - yes, I agree.

However, the key is striving. As in not yet attained.

i.e. Given that the rules are not perfect, do we let them decide outcomes in all circumstances, knowing that by doing so we will have outcomes that are necessarily imperfect, when they might be 'more pefect' (where the image of perfection is that held in the GMs mind and encompasses the game as a whole, which this one resolution, being a granular system, has no knowledge of), or do we recongise the imperfection, and make allowances for it, by adjusting outcomes when by doing so we can attain a 'more perfect' resolution? (Again, where the 'more perfect' resolution is that which conforms more closely to the GM's perfection of the 'ideal' outcome).

Apathy and acceptance that Life is Pointless is not the only possible outcome to the realisation that no system is perfect. :)

[unrequitedthai.livejournal.com]

So, um, it seems to me that what you are saying is, "The system is what gets in the way of the GM telling the story he wants to tell, through his unitary artistic vision."

So why use a system at all? If that is what you want to do, sit around a fire and tell stories. Dispense with the illusion that the system means anything. It's just sitting there to appease the players, make them think they are contributing something meaningful.

What I am trying to say is, "The system is a tool by which all the players produce a story they they enjoy."

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

I have a totally different reaction to this than Shreyas does.

Okay, so your players did that (a concrete example would be lovely, btw). Why not let them? What is it really going to do the game to let the players do something they want?

yrs--
--Ben

[evilmagnus]

OK, example:

Say you have a huge epic story to tell. LOTR, for example (If JRR Tolkein was a gamer, and was running LOTR as a game for his Oxford buds prior to writing the book). You have it all plotted out, you've chosen your system, you have good (but not perfect) rules. You've got content for 20 sessions, you've worked really hard on it all, and it's a work of fricken' genius.

Session 2, Gandalf's PC successfully ID's the One Ring in Hobbiton. Using a printed rule in a way you hadn't anticipated (but is a perfectly valid interpretation of the rule) he succeeds in teleporting the One Ring into the Crack of Doom.

Game Over. Campaign ends prematurely, lots of content wasted, and poor Legolas, Aragorn and Gimli's players didn't even get a look in, and the Story is not told. Sure, some players are gleeful that they've just busted Sauron's ass, but wouldn't they have enjoyed it _more_ if they'd played longer, seen more of the world, sacrificed more in the cause?

Or do you invent some mystical reason that makes sense in the game world, but wasn't previously written down, that prevents Gandalf from doing this?

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Say you have a huge epic story to tell

Write a book. RPG is a terrible, terrible medium for the unitary author to practice his trade in.

Call me back when you're ready to work together on a story.

yrs--
--Ben

[lordsmerf.livejournal.com]

Your suggestion amounts to "If the rules are not 100% perfect and foresee in every detail every possible circumstance that might occur during the course of play, don't play the game".

Not exactly. Let me give you an example: I have never seen, and can not even imagine any situation that would "break" the systems in: Primetime Adventures, Sorcerer, Capes, Dogs in the Vineyard, HeroQuest, or any number of other cool systems.

We're not looking at systems that "consider every possibility", we're looking at systems that are flexible enough to apply them evenly to any situation.

(There's also that stuff that Vincent Baker talks about with "Strong/Brittle" systems, which is partially about systems that change what you consider "game breaking". But I don't know that that's really helpful here.)

Thomas

[lordsmerf.livejournal.com]

What the crap? Four posts while I'm working on this... Why do I even bother? :)

Thomas

[evilmagnus]

Dude, you gotta learn to move in internet time, baby.

While you were gone, I did a startup, had an IPO, ran out of funding, got sued by the SEC and had all my office furniture sold on eVulture.com.

[evilmagnus]

Not exactly. Let me give you an example: I have never seen, and can not even imagine any situation that would "break" the systems in: Primetime Adventures, Sorcerer, Capes, Dogs in the Vineyard, HeroQuest, or any number of other cool systems.

I don't know all the systems you mention, but could this not just be a failure of imagination on your part? :)

We're not looking at systems that "consider every possibility", we're looking at systems that are flexible enough to apply them evenly to any situation.

From an actors perspective, though, are the two not synonymous? If they're flexible enough to be applied evenly to every situation, then surely that's the same as 'considering every possibility'? And I'd say that any system that claims to be truly flexible, yet ultimately breaks down resolutions to a random factor die roll (d6, d20, whatever) is not *as* flexible as a system that doesn't depend on the die roll for the resolution.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Hey, guys. Given that we are totally tangential to the random vs. nonrandom discussion at this point, why don't we just say that I'll play PTA with Jules once I get the chance, and leave it until then.

[nikotesla.livejournal.com]

No, it's because it means that the rules of the system are bad.

I'm basically paraphrasing Ben here, but dig: in most game systems, the more important an action is, the less likely we are to use the rules. That comes down to the Protags wolloping on the Viallain at the end... and wouldn't you know it, they survive? But man, they really had to take their chances with that thief back in town.

It has to do with the GM having a story in mind and people obeying or defying the hidden rules of the plot. That's what bad dice give you.

So if the rules (randomizers included) are about providing relevant dynamics to the story, rather than determining if the characters lose all efficacy (by, for instance, dying or losing their magic geegaw), then you want to use them, because your character is relevant to the story. You're the protagonist, not a puppet of the GM (who, if sHe's doig hir job, is keeping you from realizing it).

I've gone from an 'I've had it up to here with dice!' perspective to really enjoying the chaos they bring to my games.

[apollinax.livejournal.com]

Imperfect is not the same as bad.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Bad is a nice big subset of imperfect, though.

yrs--
--Ben

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

To clarify further, I define as "bad" any set of RPG rules that fails to produce a result more enjoyable than GM fiatted play.

As many of us have noticed, this is a rather large chunk of games presently in print.

yrs--
--Ben

[nikotesla.livejournal.com]

No, but when you can't see the diamond for the flaws, it's probably not a diamond you want to keep.

Relying on GM fiat ever is the same as relying on GM fiat always because the GM is choosing which results to keep and which to ignore, anyway.

[unrequitedthai.livejournal.com]

"Relying on GM fiat ever is the same as relying on GM fiat always because the GM is choosing which results to keep and which to ignore, anyway."

For this, you are my Hero of the Day.

[nikotesla.livejournal.com]

I wish I'd said it earlier in the day, then!

[apollinax.livejournal.com]

Relying on GM fiat ever is the same as relying on GM fiat always because the GM is choosing which results to keep and which to ignore, anyway.

Justify. I don't believe it at all. There's a big difference, for example, between "The GM always says what happens" and "The GM uses fiat when doing so will make everyone find the game more enriching." When I make the latter statement, I assume perfect judgement, etc. Clearly, people can make bad decisions.

Or, let's try another tack. What's the difference between fiat and interpretation?

[lordsmerf.livejournal.com]

Okay, here's the justification for that statement. Take it as you will. I think the statement is a bit shakey, but mainly because it's a truism...

Using GM fiat at all means that you have now allowed for the use of GM fiat. From that point on, any time the GM chooses not to exercise fiat, he is making an arbitrary decision to allow some other agent credibility within the game. Maybe it's the dice, maybe it's a player, whatever.

Maybe he doesn't care about the outcome enough to step in and "make things right", maybe he's afraid that the players will get upset if he obviously tampers with things, whatever. But it has still become a GM decision to use dice, or not.

Make sense? The big problem with this statement is that it's true even if you don't have GM fiat ever. The choice to allow dice, or players, or the GM to have credibility within the game is a purely social one. At any time the group could decide, "Dang, that Thomas guy is a total wanker. We're just going to ignore him for the rest of the night." At that point, even if I were the GM, my authority over the game would be revoked. I could say whatever I wanted, but if the players don't pay any attention, then I'm just talking.

Thomas

[evilmagnus]

Preach it, brother!