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

[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.

[lordsmerf.livejournal.com]

Sure. I really want to discuss this further with you, but this may not be the place. Feel free to contact me by email: thomas.e.robertson@gmail.com

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

[unrequitedthai.livejournal.com]

Unlike Tolkien and other fiction writers, it is impossible for a GM to be sure he has an internally consistent worldview and simultaneously expect the PCs to make meaningful decisions, because he must include the PCs in his worldview, and they act based on factors that he cannot discern (the players' understanding of them), unless he blocks player contributions.

[evilmagnus]

I don't know if I agree with that - certainly it's not been true in my experiences. I pride myself on running games that are very, very internally consistent - and I find that the players respond well to that and behave in a rational manner within the context of the system.

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.