![[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
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.
no subject
"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.
no subject
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.
no subject
If there's a system rule that allows for game-breaking moves, then it's your responsibility as a GM to understand the system well enough to avoid it. Either that, or change the system _before the situation comes up_. I'm not saying systems can't be changed. What I _am_ saying is that the system is there to divvy up authority between players, including the GM. If the GM can arbitrarily override the system then that divvying doesn't exist.
no subject
But what if there isn't? (Which was the whole point of the example, after all).
If there's a system rule that allows for game-breaking moves, then it's your responsibility as a GM to understand the system well enough to avoid it. Either that, or change the system _before the situation comes up_.
Gah. So I need to be a rules-lawyer to run a game now? That's no fun.
I think every game I run from now on will have a Rule of Unintended Consequences rule. Because I don't want to be a lawyer, and rule systems that I can completely and totally understand will be too simple for the kinds of game I run.
no subject
B: That said, I think that I - and most of the people on this thread - are scuccumbing to the same problem that I always get when I talk about politics: I want things to be as perfect in execution as they are in principle. The fact is, often pragmatism is better than principle because if you follow pragmatism to its ultimate conclusion it gives decreasing returns and takes forever.
C: THAT being said, I think the best idea is to pick the closest system to what you want, modify it as best you can beforehand, and make sure that the other players are cool with the idea that 'if the system happens to be wrong in some unknown way about how the world works, we're going to alter it on the fly'.
D: On the other hand, I still dislike your Gandalf + Eagles example, because it seems pretty clear to me that the player in that instance isn't doing something that doesn't fit the metaphysic or the reality of the world, they're just doing something the GM doesn't want them to. And that smacks of railroading. I think there's better ways of handling such things than saying 'you can't do that'.
no subject
I will dispatch Eagles forthwith to pick out your eyeballs and feast on the juicy treats within!
:)
no subject
no subject
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
no subject
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.
no subject
I mean, I don't want to sound like an ingrate, but my mind boggles at the idea that Tolkein couldn't have written a better story. That somehow he achieved the perfect narrative and didn't feel the need to write anymore. Firther, the Silmarillion makes it pretty clear that in the Third Age, the forces of evil were unified by Sauron, but evil wasn't defeated with his destruction. Well, that was my read, but it's still beside the point.
The real point here is that in an RPG you are the authors. If you were planning on Sauron's fall being the end of all evil (or whatever), but you want to change things up so that it's no longer true, you can do that and still be consistent. This would be exactly the same as if Tolkein had written some other story. That story would be consistent because he, as the author and creator of the imagined world, says so.
We could just "agree to disagree", but I think that's a cop out. I mean, I don't even understand what your position is, and I'd like to continue this discussion until I do. Contact me if you are interested. Otherwise, it's been fun :)
Thomas
Thomas
no subject
no subject
But I've never run a totally-cooperative game: they've always had the GM as final arbiter of what does, or does not, work, and I've never adhered 100% to a system chosen before play begins.