![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
All y'all motherfuggers better listen up!
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.)
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
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
no subject
kissies,
~magnus
no subject
I suggest, once again, that you are using the wrong set of rules for your game. Again, a well-designed set of rules never needs to be over-ridden when played in the way they were designed.
I am basically positing that there is some system out there (possibly not yet written) that does everything you want a game to do. You never have to override the rules, ever.
I further posit that said game makes gaming way more fun for you.
Let me go with an analogy. I'm going to use videogames because I love them soooo much, please forgive me. Let's say that I really love arcade fighting games. I mean really, really love them. My personal preference is 2d fighters, I don't know why, but there's something about them. My buddies and I play Soul Caliber 2, because, you know, that's the thing to do. But I really want 2d, so in order to achieve that we make up a meta-game rule "no side stepping".
Sure, we have tons of fun. We hang out and fight, and we don't side step. The question is: Why am I playing Soul Caliber 2 instead of Guilty Gear? It's pretty clear that there's a better game out there for me, yet I insist on playing the one I've got, even though I have to "break the rules" to make it fun. Sure it's only a small break, but wouldn't I be better off with a game that caters to my tastes?
So, you have these tastes. A well-designed game (in respect to those tastes) should never make you chose between following the rules and having as much fun as possible.
That's my position. Does it make sense to you?
Thomas
no subject
Your position makes perfect sense.
I am basically positing that there is some system out there (possibly not yet written) that does everything you want a game to do. You never have to override the rules, ever.
What you are describing is the Platonic Theory of Game Design - that all current games are but imperfect shadows of their own Perfect Game, that if we could just see it would suit us all perfectly. I'm assuming here that you're familiar with Plato's Theory of the Forms - my apologies if this is not the case.
The problem is two fold : First, that the Perfect Game does not physically exist and that awkward gits like myself argue that it can never exist in this world - we can only strive to attain the Perfect Game, but we can never fully achieve it.
Now, given that the Perfect Game is not achievable in this world, what do we do when the System breaks?
Ben's position, I think, is that when the system and GM come into conflict, the System must win, else it renders all participation of the players worthless.
My position is that, in a System vs. GM conflict, the GM must win, as we are dealing with an imperfect system that cannot be aware of all the factors (both in game and out) that will be affected by the resolution of that conflict.
Now, whether or not the GM can correctly identify a 'game-breaking' conflict between him and the System is another issue entirely. I'd suggest that 'bad' GMs are those who fail to correctly identify game-breaking events, and over-rule the system unnecessarily.
It's a judgement call, basically - you have to trust the GM to make the correct decision, based on his experience and greater world-knowledge than the players. That's the basis of the Social Contract (yay J.S. Mill!) that underpins all games - and a strong Social Contract between players and GM can lead to a succesful game, irregardless of System used.
There, that's my mini-treatise for the day. :)
no subject
There is no perfect system, I agree. However, we have now developed systems (per EFL: "There is a better way.") that do not break! Yes, I know it's hard to believe, but we have the technology.
Caveat: we have games that do not break when played to their strengths. It sounds like you want a game loaded with Illusionistic techniques. While I haven't seen one yet, I bet I could hash one out and write it up if I were ever motivated to do so. All the knowledge to make that game exists.
Now, if the game never (literally) breaks, why do I say it's imperfect? Because it does not make play as fun as it could. Somewhere the system breaks down and while it enhances things, you could imagine something that enhances the fun even more.
I don't think you and Ben are arguing over who wins when the game breaks, I think you're arguing at one step above that. Ben is saying that a good game never breaks and you are saying that, in the real world, all games break.
I'm with Ben on this one. Maybe in the 70's when someone first invented the formalized RPG they all broke. But it's been over 30 years now, and we've come a long way.
So, once again. There is a game which, if it does not exist now could be created and published within the year (i.e. we have the techniques to do it), which never has mechanical (i.e. systemic) conflict with any of the players (which includes the GM).
Now, I won't disagree with your point that a game can be fun regardless of the rule-set you use. What I am saying is that if you, in actual real-life play, find yourself ignoring rules then you are settling for less than you have to. The days of all systems breaking somewhere are long gone.
Thomas
no subject
Dude. Monopoly doesn't break. But it's no good for a Dungeon Crawl. Stratego doesn't break - but it's not an accurate simulation of land warfare. I guess what I'm saying is I don't doubt that it is possible to create internally consistent Grand Systems that don't break providing play remains within the defined system scope.
I don't think you and Ben are arguing over who wins when the game breaks, I think you're arguing at one step above that. Ben is saying that a good game never breaks and you are saying that, in the real world, all games break.
This is exactly correct.
I'm with Ben on this one. Maybe in the 70's when someone first invented the formalized RPG they all broke. But it's been over 30 years now, and we've come a long way.
I, meanwhile, will remain the skeptic in the corner. Maybe when I come Out West Ben can show me one of these unbreakable systems. Until then, I need to pay more attention to the Forge. It seems I have let it pass beneath my gaze for too long ...
no subject
Here... have some HeroQuest (http://www.glorantha.com/). Then head on over to this HeroQuest Forum (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewforum.php?f=13) and read everything written by Mike Holmes, who is my vote for the master of Bang-driven epic play.
Alternatively, feel free to check out his Shadow World wiki (http://random.average-bear.com/ShadowWorld/HomePage). HeroQuest is one of those games that doesn't break.
It should be pointed out that you are right about scope, but if you take a look at some of these sweet new systems utilizing the exciting new technology that we call "Conflict Resolution" (note: Vincent Baker, who is really cool, claims that there is no long any excuse to use anything other than Conflict Resolution) you will likely see how a system can be unbreakable...
Ben's list works, let me reiterate here for posterity: Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vinyard, HeroQuest, Primetime Adventures, Capes, Nine Worlds, InSpectres, I could keep going... These are games that utilize Conflict Resolution. Try it, you'll like it... :)
Thomas
Thomas
no subject
There are games that do not break for a given set of preferences. Sure, Monopoly breaks if you try to use it for a dungeon crawl, but that's like saying a hammer is broken because it's a terrible screwdriver.
no subject
I think I understood his point - I did say :
The trick is arranging it so that all participants in the game share exactly the same preference set. Because if they don't, and you choose the System based only on a superset of preferences, you'll have some portion of your participants with preferences outside the scope. And when they try to do stuff that the System isn't scoped for, it can break.
no subject
no subject
Heh. Unlike convention games? Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, both as GM and player.
Succeeded in borking many an Amber game because the poor GM wasn't on the same page as me...
...good times, good times. :)
no subject
The thing is, the coherent, focused game is less likely to have people on the wrong page. When there's focus, everyone knows from reading the game what they're in for -- and if they're not on the same page, they're going to figure this out pretty damn quick. However, Vampire means entirely different kinds of games to different people, because it's so broad, and it sometimes takes months for people to figure out that there's an expectation clash.
In an attempt to capture market share, most "mainstream" games have cast their net wide -- but this often means not everyone is on the same page without a lot of pregame discussion, and even then it can be problematic because the system ain't really optimized for what people have agreed on.
Yes, a swiss army knife is nice, but do you actually prefer using the screwdriver on it to using a real screwdriver? When it's all you have -- like when in the 1970s all there was was D&D -- it's one thing, but it's another thing when we "have the technology", as others have said.
no subject
Be well.
no subject
So, your choice is: play this patched version of Soul Caliber 2, which gets you "close enough" to what you're looking for. Or play this new game (maybe shopping around until you find it) that does exactly what you want. Sure the second option is more work, but dang if the results aren't way more satisfying.
Thomas
no subject
Be well.
no subject
My basic contension is that most of the "patching" occurs because that's what people have done in the past, and they don't realize that that kind of play is not necessary in todays RPG environment.
Thomas
no subject