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]

But what if I like the aesthetics, fighting styles, and settings of Soul Caliber 2? What if I were to patch it with some sort of strange hack that made it so that one could not sidestep, or ring out, or whatever? Then I would have what I actually wanted instead of settling for a game that does not posess what I desire. Is it not valid to want to do such a thing? Or should I try and create a Guilty Gear game with the aforementioned Soul Caliber 2 prettiness from scratch? One way seems far easier, especially if you have a "social contract" with people who share your views, and want to play the game your way without having to wait for it to be created.

Be well.

[lordsmerf.livejournal.com]

But, what I'm saying is that the Guilty Gear game that has all of the aesthetics of Soul Caliber 2 already exists, you should be playing Samurai Showdown. (Now, to be fair, I'm not positive that anyone has written a really good Illusionist System, but I bet that John Kim has come pretty close to it if it hasn't been done).

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

[marcus-sez-vote.livejournal.com]

That does make sense. However I think that preference, familiarity, and nostalgia are reasons that many people will choose not to make such a switch.

Be well.

[lordsmerf.livejournal.com]

I'm sure that, in some cases, it's familiarity and nostalgia. I believe that in many other cases it's ignorance. People don't know that there are games out there that do exactly what they want... They think they have to patch existing games as best as they can.

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

[xiombarg.livejournal.com]

Ron believes Arrowflight is an excellent Illusionist system... I dunnno myself, but might be worth checking out.