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

[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.

[evilmagnus]

...and thus, there is Symmetry.

[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

[evilmagnus]

Well, I could always bring in the Space Aliens, but the system wasn't designed to handle laser guns.

...or we could all jusr RP being contented little yeoman farmers in Hobbiton. But it's not quite as Epic. ;-p

Now, if you want seriously argue that the LOTR story isn't prematurely curtailed by the Destruction of the One Ring before Chapter III, I'm afraid I'll have to hunt you down and belt you with a plot fish.

I used LOTR as the example because it's a well-known story - you know what the main narrative thrust was supposed to be (pretend it's a Campaign Background), and there's plenty of scope for Story in 'There and Back Again II: Baggins Bites Back' (An actual example from our game: What if Boromir kills Frodo at the High Chair and flees to Minas Tirith with the Ring? We're not departing from 'The Story', but we, the Players, are making major changes to how 'The Story' originally went).

Also, the example was of a system ganking a GM's background and story work by prematurely ending the campaign through the PC thinking of a novel (but apparently legitimate) use of a system tool - the Eagles.

It's clearly less *overall* fun for all involved if a planned 20 session Epic Campaign is resolved in the second session. The GM *shouldn't have* to bring out the Space Aliens just to pad out the next 18 sessions, when a simple bit of Fiat ("The Eagles don't wanna do it. I know they *said* they'd help, but they're preening today. Tch. Eagles! What can you do? They're so flighty!") will salvage the entire game.

[lordsmerf.livejournal.com]

Dang it! Where's Jonathan? Get on the ball and publish Push! I need John Kim's Immersive Roleplaying article right here! Do you hear me? Right here!

Okay, I'm about to pull together a bunch of terribly scattered ideas and try to make them make sense...

Vincent Baker states that protaganism is a character moving from instability to stability. This is story. You start with an non-stable beginning and when you achieve stability the story ends. At this point you are free to create a new instability and tell another story.

I buy that, that makes a lot of sense to me.

So, here's my proposal. The players destroy the One Ring, bringing the instability of the threat of Sauron to stability. Congratulations! Oh, you know all those wild men that used to work for Sauron? Yeah, they're all still camped around Minas Tirith. Bang! Fresh instability. Oh yeah, and the Nazghul didn't die either. Bang! Doubl instability. Yeah suckers, I bet you really wish you had those Eagles to call on now!

The only time you are going to have a problem with this is if the GM has spent weeks (or whatever) mapping out all the cool encounters and stuff that the PCs are going to see. If this has happened then you basically have two choices when the players want to use the Eagles to take out the ring. These choices are not: "End the story prematurely or not" they are instead "Throw away those hours of prep or not" the story is free to go on and be epic either way. There is no reason to say that once the Ring is destroyed there's nothing epic to do anymore...

And in case you were wondering... Yes, I am writing an essay on the subject. Basically, what you're talking about is not about the players having fun though, it's about the GM feeling that all his hard work will be rewarded. But it's sort of like painting the interstate black. No one will care because the work didn't really need doing anyway.

Thomas

[evilmagnus]

So, here's my proposal. The players destroy the One Ring, bringing the instability of the threat of Sauron to stability. Congratulations! Oh, you know all those wild men that used to work for Sauron? Yeah, they're all still camped around Minas Tirith. Bang! Fresh instability. Oh yeah, and the Nazghul didn't die either. Bang! Doubl instability. Yeah suckers, I bet you really wish you had those Eagles to call on now!

Well, on the one hand this is nit-picking.
Sure, play could continue in Middle Earth into the Fourth Age. That's not the point, though.

The point is, which would be more narratively satisfying? Eagle Express to Mount Doom, followed by a few months of dealing with Hillmen? Or Epic Quest across Middle Earth with Great Trials and Tribulations and facing down the full force of Sauron? And what do you do if the thing that stands between these two forces (Hillmen vs. Sauron and the entire Might of the Lidless Eye) is an interpretation of the rules that you, the GM, did not see?

That is my point, and the point of the LOTR example. Not whether or not anyone cares about the amount of work the GM puts into hte background, or whether or not he'd be good enough to create as satisfying content 'on the fly' rather than use the compendiums he'd put together for the 'main story'. Or, indeed, whether or not the protagonist is Unstable.

[wirednavi.livejournal.com]

The problem is that the 'no, you can't use the Eagles for that' is what is called, in improv theatre, 'Blocking'. It's when someone offers an improvisational suggestion, and you turn it down.

"Look! Is that an elephant?"
"No, it's not."

That's a block.

Why not say, 'Sure, you summon the Eagles. Sadly, now you're trying to fly over the mountains and Sauruman's storm forces you down near Rivendell.'? It accomplishes mostly the same kind of thing, the players feel good because they actually got to attempt their neatness, you feel good because the epic continues.

[evilmagnus]

That would work in the LOTR example.

But isn't it still a 'Block'? Albeit an imperfect one? The System Rule governing the 'Summon Eagle' card says they'll perform any one task they're physically capable of. Surely they're capable of flying to Mordor... the contention being that, if according to the rules the Eagle Express to Mordor is legitimate, what does the GM do?

The point being, what if there's a System Rule (either one of which the GM was unaware, or one in which the players interpret in a different way from the GM) allows for a complete 'game-breaking' move from the GM's perspective?

Your resolution is the same as mine - deny it. The Rule does not work as written, to prolong the Quest.

[lordsmerf.livejournal.com]

The point is, which would be more narratively satisfying?

And this is my point. I'm going to need you to prove to me that the Quest of the One Ring is inherently more satisfying than the quest Tolkein could have written about the crusades against the Hillmen.

I mean, you're basically presenting this idea that if Tolkein had written an epic quest, beginning with the heroic destruction of the ring, about some heroic group's struggle to destroy the raging hordes now unleased upon the world with the death of their leader. I think that could be a great, epic story. Are you saying that it couldn't? If you are then I need you to help me figure out what's inherently less good about it. If you're not saying that then it doesn't matter if they blow the One Ring up at the beginning or the end.

Thomas

[evilmagnus]

And this is my point. I'm going to need you to prove to me that the Quest of the One Ring is inherently more satisfying than the quest Tolkein could have written about the crusades against the Hillmen.

I'd say the empirical evidence shows that the most Narratively Satisfying tale Tolkein, the worldbuilder, could come up with was the Lord of the Rings.

You'll note that he didn't write anything interesting about the Fourth Age, despite having plenty of time to do so.

I mean, you're basically presenting this idea that if Tolkein had written an epic quest, beginning with the heroic destruction of the ring, about some heroic group's struggle to destroy the raging hordes now unleased upon the world with the death of their leader.

Well, see, that breaks the World. In Tolkein's internally-consistent worldview, the forces of Evil were empowered and driven by Sauron. With the destruction of the Ring, his hold over them was broken and they were either destroyed or faded. That's why the Ring was so freakin' important!

If you are then I need you to help me figure out what's inherently less good about it.

I think we're getting nowhere with this. It's clear we have wildly different subjective opinions on what makes a good story.

[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.

[evilmagnus]

Ah, but we're not talking about a simple player vs. GM conflict - we're talking about when the System causes the conflict.

The LOTR example speaks of a 'Summon Eagle Card'. The whole argument is not when it is appropriate for the GM to deny a player the desired resolution, it's when is it appropriate for the GM to ignore the rules of the system to avoid an undesireable (to the GM) resolution.

Ben says 'never', I say not.

[lordsmerf.livejournal.com]

Here's where the most important piece of RPG theory ever comes into play: The Lumpley Principle states: "System is whatever the players use to decide what happens within their Shared Imagined Space."

Basically what you're talking about must be a Player vs. GM conflict. The rules are merely enabling to the player to "beat" the GM. If the player never tried to use the Eagles to take out the Ring, then this wouldn't even come up. The fact that any player suggested it makes it Player vs. GM. GM fiat in this case basically means that the GM has more control of the story than the players. It's a lopsided distribution of authority.

Now, there's nothing wrong with lopsided authority distribution, but it's important to acknowledge that that's what it is. In theory we call this type of play without acknowledgment "Illusionism", and with acknowledgement "Participationism".

That's not really the point though. The point is that the only time that you have a "Players vs. System" conflict is when the players all want to do something and the system doesn't allow it. Say all the players (including the GM, who is really just a player with special powers) wanted to use the Eagles to destroy the One Ring and then tell the story of the battle against the Hillmen. And the Eagles card says "They'll do anything but destroy the One Ring". That's a player vs. system conflict.

So, the problem you're discussing isn't system causing conflict, but system enabling conflict. Your position on the subject is that the GM should always win any conflict between himself and the players if he wants to. And, hey, that's cool, but it's pretty important to call it what it is.

Thomas

[evilmagnus]

So, the problem you're discussing isn't system causing conflict, but system enabling conflict.

For an Engineering Major, you're scaring me. :)

If a jet turbine chunks and sends a piece of steel through the wall, do I say that the hardware has an unintended problem that needs fixing, or do I look at that piece of steel and say, "Gee! I'm so glad that hardware gave me the opportunity to experience the joys of hypersonic projectiles! Maybe I shouldn't be building jet turbines at all, but bits of metal that throw fan blades at people!"

See, it's all a matter of perspective. I don't see a System rule getting in the way of a pre-planned escapade as either enabling or desireable. It doesn't matter to me whether the System is preventing the players from doing something in-game or preventing the GM from doing something - it's still getting in the way.

The classic example is 1stEd.D&D. There were no rules for decapitation. No matter what happened, Axes did 1d6 damage. A 20th level fighter being executed on the block would take, on average, 45 blows to the neck before death. The system, in this case, is getting in the way of the story. Does the GM then say, "The axe cleaves his head in one stroke!" laying aside the damage requirements of the system in the interests of the narrative, or does he just try to make something of the fact that it takes 50 blows to kill the guy? You'd probably try to make a story out of the target's Peculiarly Strong nec k muscles. I'd just say you're borking the narrative to accomodate the system.

[wirednavi.livejournal.com]

That's an example of a bad system. By which I _specifically_ mean, a system which purports to model one thing and actually models another.

1st Ed. D&D pretends to model actual wounds and so forth. It doesn't. It models wargaming combat.

[evilmagnus]

Which brings us back to the original point, of "When is it OK to over-rule the System?".

To whit, the answer is "When the System is Bad."

I say, "No System is Perfect. They will all be bad at something, and at some point a conflict will be imperfectly decided because of this."

In this circumstance, is it OK for the GM or players to over-rule the System?

The Theory position seems to be it's *never* OK to over-rule the System, because it's either a) Perfect or b) You should be using a different System or c) you should write a book or d) by over-ruling the System even once, you're completely invalidating all player actions.

I contest this position. :)

[lordsmerf.livejournal.com]

For an Engineering Major, you're scaring me. :)

Ex-Engineering Major, thank you very much! :)

Blah, blah, blah... jet engines... blah, blah, blah.

Sorry if this seems flippant, but your illustration strikes me as totally irrelevant to this discussion. Who wants the jet turbine to fail? No one? Okay then, if the jet engine fails then it has failed.

Who wants to play the Eagles card to destroy the Ring? One of your players! Clearly one of the players wants to do this thing. This isn't a case where everyone says, "I hope the Eagles don't destroy the Ring in the second session." And then you draw a card that says "Ha! The Eagles destroy the Ring in the second session." That's a case of broken system. It is doing something that none of the players want.

D&D Stuff...

Yes, assuming that no player wants to deal with the 50 hit execution then there is something very clear here: You are using the wrong freakin system. It would be like taking your jet engine, and installing it on a satellite booster rocket. The jet engine is very good at what it does, unfortunately it doesn't launch things into orbit.

We are basically discussing two seperate things:

1) Whether the GM (or, ultimately any player) has the authority to toss out the system because some other player wants to do something that you don't like. Remember, the card that allows you to use the Eagles for some task does not say you have to destroy the Ring. One of the players wants to destroy the Ring with the Eagles, otherwise this issue wouldn't have come up.

One of the primary purposes of written systems is to arbitrate disputes when players disagree about what happens. You are basically saying that the GM trumps that written system such that the GM gets to decide what happens whenever there is a dispute over what happens. So the written system is just a convenience used by the GM when he doesn't care enough to make a decision.

To draw from your D&D example: What if one of the players wants to make a story about the target's Peculiarly Strong neck (I'll talk about this a bit more below, but you may just have someone in your group who you shouldn't be playing with)? Are you saying that they are wrong, or that their desires are less important than those of the GM? Again, that's okay, but call it what it is.

2) You are also discussing actually broken systems. Systems that don't allow for decapitation, even when every player wants it to occur. And I'm saying that, yes, such things exist, but there is no reason to use them. We have systems that aren't broken. So, you're choosing to use a jet engine from a company that everyone says makes shoddy, dangerous goods when you could get something from a reputable company.

The system breaking play is when the system makes something happen that no one wants. If a player has suggested that the Eagles be used, then clearly someone wants to use them. That's not the system breaking at all. It may indicate a break-down in Social Contract (one player suggesting something that everyone else at the table hates), but since Social Contract trumps system every time, there's no reason to expect system to be able to fix social contract. You're basically playing with someone who doesn't share your idea and/or desires for "Epic Story". You should probably not be playing together.

Thomas

[evilmagnus]

You're right - we do appear to be talking about two seperate things.

For 1):

You are basically saying that the GM trumps that written system such that the GM gets to decide what happens whenever there is a dispute over what happens..

Yes.

So the written system is just a convenience used by the GM when he doesn't care enough to make a decision.

No - because the System may *say* the GM makes all the decisions (i.e. Amber DRPG), but the GM may choose to let something be decided by a dice roll ("Well, roll 1d6 to see how many cabs are in front of the hotel"). In that case, the GM is ignoring the written system because he doesn't care enough to determine the outcome.

A better example might be wandering monster tables from the RPG of your choice. Rolemaster, perhaps - the GM may not *care* to wade through several different pages of charts to work out that the party has stumbled across a lame platypus, and just says "Nothing happens that day. You reach the town without incident". In that case, the system has a perfectly fine set of rules for determining what happens, but the GM ignores them through expediency (maybe the players have something they really want to get done in the town? Or maybe the sourcebook with the wandering platypus tables in are in the car).

Should the GM be using a different system just because the Wandering Monster tables are sometimes less convenient that saying 'nothing happens'? Should the GM just ignore Wandering Monster tables when he (and perhaps the party, too) doesn't care enough about the outcome?

Is there a Perfect System that handles Wandering Monsters in such a convenient manner that the GM will always use them?

2) Yes, I am. Because I believe all Systems will break. I need to examine some of these 'perfect' Systems you speak of. In the case of the Wandering Monster Table, is it worth it to delay the game/narrative flow for 10 minutes while the rolls are made and the Platypus despatched? Or must the Platypus encounter gain greater significance because the System has placed it in the path of the party? Or should the entire System (which might be otherwise fine) be ditched because its Wandering Monster rules are whack?

As you say The system breaking play is when the system makes something happen that no one wants.. Perhaps neither the GM nor the players want to deal with the platypus, yet the System says there is a platypus before us.

[wirednavi.livejournal.com]

Sounds a little like sophistry: 'the System is the problem, not its result!' If the player doesn't want to use the rule to do something, the issue would never arise.

Let me rephrase: If a player is trying to use a rule to accomplish something, it's because they want the story to be that way.

If the system says 'x can be done' and the GM says 'x can't be done' then the real question is why. If it's because it doesn't make sense for continuity or because the rule is _incorrect_ in its assumptions about (say) the mechanics of the world, then that's one thing. If it's because the world could in fact work that way but the GM doesn't want it to happen, then you're railroading, because you're constraining the players from taking an otherwise perfectly valid action.

The end result: Don't try to play out a story which can easily be circumvented by intelligent and valid decisions on the part of the players.

[evilmagnus]

It's a fine line. :)

So, again. Ben says you can never over-rule the system. I say, "it depends." You say, I think, "it depends":

If the system says 'x can be done' and the GM says 'x can't be done' then the real question is why. If it's because it doesn't make sense for continuity or because the rule is _incorrect_ in its assumptions about (say) the mechanics of the world, then that's one thing

I think that's it - that's my point, anyway - the System can't know everything about that particular world or the GM setup, and so, sometimes, it's OK for the GM to ignore it.

[unrequitedthai.livejournal.com]

The system doesn't need to know everything; it just needs to avoid being incorrect about things, which is a much easier tack to achieve.

That's the whole point of having systems that work in tightly constrained manners over well-defined worlds. For instance, there is never a case where PTA has incorrect knowledge about the imagined world, because it really doesn't care about the world at all.

[wirednavi.livejournal.com]

True. But in that case, shouldn't the GM not be using that system?

[wirednavi.livejournal.com]

Here's a better explanation of my take on things - though I agree, I don't think we're nearly as far apart in our ideas as we think.

The System is an agreement between the players on how things are going to work.

If the System says that the GM can alter the System in response to players doing something, then that's okay, because the players have bought into that idea and are trusting the GM. It just needs to be out in the open.

If the System does _NOT_ say that, then it's not okay, because the players have not agreed to be railroaded around like that. Don't get me wrong, I've played in games like that. They're lots of fun. You just have to come in with that acceptance first.

Most games have a sort of 'Rule #0' caveat which essentially says 'the GM may throw out these rules at any time'. I'm not that fond of this because I feel like it sometimes leads GMs to do what _they_ want at the expense of the other players. Rule #0 is in it's best form a reminder that if the system doesn't fit your world and playstyle to modify the system to do so, but at its worst (and really, in its usual form) it is interpreted to mean that the GM has final say over all player input. What's worse is that often the GM can do that without letting the players know.

Ideally, you should pick a system where none of this will not be necessary. If there is no extant system to do that, then you should modify one and make the modifications explicitly known to the players before they sign on with that System.

It's all about Social Contract, baby.