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

[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

[nikotesla.livejournal.com]

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.

That, right there, is the thing. Role-playing games are a social activity. 'Duh', I know, but consider that, when the GM has control over the situation - for instance, having devised a plot beforehand - the players are superfluous because it's the GM's job to keep the players in the range of the GM's story, not give them challenging opposition over meaningful stakes. Only if the GM is playing the same game as the rest of the players - dice and all - is everyone making a story together. If any player is allowed to weasel out of rolling dice (or whatever) to determine the course of events, that player pwnz the story. Everyone else becomes a sidekick at best.

I'm not saying that the mechanics for being the GM have to be the same as the rest of the players' (in fact, it's probably not a good idea. SHe's providing opposition, not protagonists); I'm saying that the GM has to be a participant in the story, not the driver. Giving GOD P0WERZ to the GM means that, ultimately, everyone looks to hir for the story, rather than acting as protagonists and making stuff happen. You wind up with ineffective, uncreative cowards as main characters.

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.

That's a larger social contract issue. If they think you're a wanker, you're either in a mismatched group or you're being a wanky GM. I know because I've been a wanky GM. You start getting these looks of disappointment from your players and eventually someone accuses you of 'cheating'. It stems much more from fudging dice and outside influences than actual rolls of the dice.

[evilmagnus]

Preach it, brother!