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

[marcus-sez-vote.livejournal.com]

I tend to agree with you, and I think the GM in question would have the flexibility to say, by fiat even, allow the door to be hacked open with an axe if one was available. If the door had a "magic shield" on it and was unbreakable by mundane means, then also by fiat the axe would not work. In all these cases system can replace fiat, but the player's choice is not taken away. Using noisy means of entry, attempting another entry, forcing someone to open the door for them, etc. all constitute choices that can impact the flow of the story. I think there's a lot of flexibility possible, even if it is run by fiat. The main concern in that case is to have someone who is flexible, creative, and open to your participation...and it can mean adjusting the overall outcome of the game if things get crazy...but leaving the major themes/protagonists/whatever intact. I think it is a poor GM that cannot adjust for player decisions and incorporate them. Though I've probably not GMed as much as those participating in this discussion I can still say that players will be "smarter" and "stupider" in a game context than you can possibly imagine.

Be well.

[evilmagnus]

You win a cookie!

(sorry, bwain fried from having to think on a Monday)

[wirednavi.livejournal.com]

The player's choice - their participation - is still taken away even if the GM can continue to come up with plausible reasons to do so within the game world. Just because it doesn't descend into 'You can't go away from the dungeon! A huge Tyrannosaurus blocks the way!' doesn't mean that the player's attempts to influence the game aren't being blocked.

The key here, I'd say, is that it is often far more satisfying and interesting to say, 'sure, you can do X, but it will have Y effect' instead of 'No, you can't do X because there's this problem (which is something I placed there because I don't want you to do X)'.