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

[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

[evilmagnus]

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

That's a cop-out.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Is it?

I see your complaint as "I used an inappropriate medium to compose my art, and it bit me in the ass. The medium must be changed to support my inappropriate uses for it!"

To which I say "Huh. Why don't you try a different medium?"

RPG is by nature collaborative. If you can't accept/trust your other collaborators, I really think you'd be better off in a different medium.

[evilmagnus]

RPG is by nature collaborative. If you can't accept/trust your other collaborators, I really think you'd be better off in a different medium.

Now no, Ben, you know perfectly well that different games have different levels of collaboration, but they can all be called RPGs. You can have an RPG where the players do *not* have an equal say in the story. You can have an RPG where there is no GM, and all players are equally responsible for all aspects of the game.

non-sytem MUSH games, for example, are fully collaborative story-telling, where there is no GM and actions/reactions are a shared responsibility of all players. Etiquette and precedence dictate what players can do to each other. This is a role-playing game. But we're not talking about something like this.

We're talking about where System Rules Go Bad (tonight on Fox, 8ET/9CT!). I gave you an example of when System Rules Go Bad, and I don't think it's an appropriate answer to say "Well, then it should have been a book." You're not allowed to meta- the conversation! It's in the rules, dammit! :)

It is perfectly possible to have a game, the purpose of which is to tell a story. The negotiable bits are how much influence on the outcome of the story the players have. A good GM will collaborate with the players to produce a mutually satisfactory outcome. That is not the same as allowing the players to use the rules to bring the story to (what the GM, who has more knowledge of the World than the players) a premature conclusion.

If you can't accept/trust your other collaborators, I really think you'd be better off in a different medium.

This particular river flows both ways. The players, then, should trust the GM when he says "You can't use your Summon The Eagles card for that. The Eagles refuse to take the Ring to the Crack of Doom. They say now is not the time for them to Act." even if the damn card Gandalf is holding says "Can summon The Eagles to perform any one task of which they are physically capable".

[funwithrage.livejournal.com]

I'm with Magnus on this one: there's a difference between railroading all the time and not letting someone wipe out your entire plot--vague as it may be--because he can tweak the rules more than you can and/or because he may not know that hey, the One Ring is the key to this entire campaign. It's not even an issue of trust so much as one of PC/GM information discrepancy.


Certainly I've come up with plot alterations or additions on the fly when my PCs do something I hadn't anticipated at all. I don't see too much of a problem with imping in a reason why something doesn't work--"Say, you know those Fell Beasts? Look totally capable of munching Eagles to me. And them. So...no."--and then working out all the details later, generally in class.

[matt-rah.livejournal.com]

I was wondering if/when you were going to show up on this discussion. A lot of the stuff these people are discussing essentially relates to what I've been arguing with you about regarding your TRoS game. Don't get me wrong, I'm essentially fine with what we discussed via email last week, so long as we can stick to it.

And, I agree with what you say here, I've certainly done that sort of thing in my own games. It's more purely systemic issues where I was disagreeing with your judgment calls as GM.

But I just wanted to call your attention to the parallels I see, because some of the people on here are able to articulate the issue(s) better than I was.

Matt

[xiombarg.livejournal.com]

No it isn't. If you're unwilling to compromise with your players, you shouldn't be running an RPG, you should be telling them a story.

[evilmagnus]

RPGs are stories. Sure, there's a fuzzy line between RPGs and Interactive Fiction and MUSHes and Improv Theatre, but to claim that a rich campaign setting with an over-arching plot is not appropriate for an RPG is, I think, missing the point.

And there's a difference between compromising with players (something that a good GM should do as a matter of course) and letting the rules dictate that the players borkify the campaign in a spectacular fashion. Ben asked for an example of how the rules could ruin a campaign - I gave him one, and he told me that was because the campaign 'should have been a book'. That is dodging the question.

I contend that holding to this binary notion of "Rules Must Be Obeyed, or Write a Book!" is taking a blinkered approach to the art of gaming.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Look, I'm just saying that a long, drawn out story with a pre-cast ending leaves no room for player participation. Period.

And if you don't care about players participating, it doesn't seem reasonable to me for you to play an RPG. What are you getting out of presenting the story in RPG format if not player participation?

yrs--
--Ben

[evilmagnus]

It is not a binary equation.

There exists a space between "fully collaborative story-telling (i.e Interactive Fiction and their ilk)" with no GM and "sitting round the fire listening to the Story-teller." This is where RPGs live. Some of these RPGs have written systems. None of these systems are perfect.

The LOTR example is pertinent. The campaign could be described as "The characters discover an artifact of great power, that is sought by the Evil Lord. The characters must face great adversity to destroy this artifact and save the world." That's a long, drawn out story with a (hopefully) pre-cast ending - the saving of the world. It's also been the basis of many, many printed RPGs and campaigns.

The question before us is, is it appropriate for the GM to over-rule The System, and under what circumstances? I gave an example. Dismissing it because 'it should be a book' is dodging the question.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Okay, this whole thing is getting rather pointless, because none of us understand what the social contract of your hypothetical group that you're playing this hypothetical game with.

That action could mean anything from "I'm being silly, let's laugh it off and stop" to "this is a great tactical plan" to "I'm giving you the message that I think your whole 'dark artifact' plot is dull, let's do something else."

I argue that if the social contract is the first, yeah, fiat it away. If it is the second or the third, you are doing your players a great disservice.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S. Yes, it isn't a binary. But a fiat system means that the player participation is essentially meaningless.

[evilmagnus]

So the Social Contract trumps the written System Rules?

[evilmagnus]

But a fiat system means that the player participation is essentially meaningless.

Gah!

I swear, next time I see you, I'm gonna bean you with something! :)

Stop with the sweeping statements! That a player may not wield total executive control in one scene does not mean that their entire participation is essentially meaningless!

[lordsmerf.livejournal.com]

Okay... here's the thing.

What you are describing is definately a way to play RPGs, and it may be tons of fun.

But me, personally, I would hate to play in that game. I guess it's just a matter of taste (which is totally cool). I hope that you and I can be friends, but if you have tried other types of play (talk to Ben, he's got some cool stuff) and still prefer what you've got, then I think we'll just have to agree that our social activities are going to have to be something other than RPGs :)

Best,

Thomas

[wirednavi.livejournal.com]

I think it's a false assumption to say that the Story that you end up with should necessarily be the Story that you, as GM, want to tell.

[evilmagnus]

Did I make that assumption? My apologies.

How about "The Story shouldn't be curtailed because of a system rule", which is how this all got started.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

That was the 100th post. Just FYI.

[lordsmerf.livejournal.com]

And where is this in your example? I'll need you to convince me that the "story is curtailed" by the easy elimination of the One Ring. Maybe that specific story is curtailed, but there's plenty of story to go around!

Thomas

[wirednavi.livejournal.com]

Well, if a player is trying to do something, it's probably because they want the story to be that way. You can just as easily say that the story shouldn't be curtailed because of the GM's wishes.

[xiombarg.livejournal.com]

I think it's more of a case of a game designer being of the opinion that instead of ignoring rules, one should use a set of rules that actually work, and therefore don't need to be ignored -- and that the "Golden Rule" of "ignore whatever you want" has been used for far too long to justify sloppy game design.

[evilmagnus]

But doesn't that predicate perfect knowledge of the system, *and* a System that is perfectly suited to the campaign? I mean, we're talking Theory here after all - how do you *know* that the System you choose will be the most perfectly suited one for the game that you end up playing? (assuming, of course, that there's no Universal System of All that you can use.)

People make mistakes. People don't always know the rules back-to-front. The Rule of Unintended Consequences will occasionally spawn and bite people in the ass. This whole contentious monkey knife fight started when I asked what do you do when you realize the System is borked?

The choices I've been given have been:
- Choose another System (not always practical in the middle of a campaign).
- Systems can be perfect, and you're an Idiot for not using the Perfect System (not the most helpful suggestion).
- It's not the System's fault, it's your fault for choosing/not knowing the system (ditto).
- If the players want to do it, and the system allows it, suck it up (a corollary of 'The System cannot be wrong, even if it's flawed')
- It should have been a book, not a campaign (best evar!).

...but whatever you do, never ever ignore the Rule - if you do, the entirety of the player's contributions for the entire campaign are worthless.

So I think I'm just going to continue being a backwoods hick and keep the Golden Rule.

[xiombarg.livejournal.com]

In the case of mistake, you have a mature discussion with the players about it. Perhaps someone needs to drop out. Perhaps the ruleset DOES need to be adjusted. But this isn't just the GM's decision to make, because everyone's fun is involved.

Again, you are trying to solve a social problem with with a rule, when you should be handling it on the social level. GM fiat to suspend rules only helps if the GM is a mind-reader, or if he talks to his players -- in which case, fiat becomes largely undeeded as everyone discusses their needs and desires like resonsible adults.

A gaming group is like any other relationship. Simplistic rules of thumb are never a substitute for handing social issues on a social level. You don't solve a problem with a baseball player sexually molesting another baseball player by increasing the power of the referee.

[xiombarg.livejournal.com]

You assume that you can't trust your players to act like adults when they attempt to "borkify," in your opinion, the game and you ask them not to. I'm saying you shouldn't play with players who are going to borkify the game in the first place, or who are going to get bent out of shape when you ask them to work with you instead of against you.

Once again, you are trying to solve a social problem thought non-social systemic means, and it's doomed to failure. If you can't trust your players, stop playing with them.