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

[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.

[evilmagnus]

The same is true for Chess.

Obviously if you have a simple system with a tightly-constrained enironment, the task is easier. PTA is a good example of that - any board game is even better.

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.

...but not necessarily achievable. Then what? Change system? Set aside the rule for all time? Set aside the rule for that one event? Write a book?

[unrequitedthai.livejournal.com]

When you say "not necessarily achievable", you you saying that the burden of proof lies on me to show that, for a given task, some system exists that does not break?

Because I have done that. I believe the burden of proof is on you to show that some logically possible task exists for which no system can be devised that does not break.

[evilmagnus]

meh?

I gave the example of the 1st Ed D&D 'head hack' execution. That's a System that, I think, fails to satisfactorily resolve a logical in-game event.

So it's a bad System. Does that mean I have to prove that a task exists for which no System can cope? I don't think so. But show me a sufficiently complex system and I can probably come up with a scenario where it breaks.

...depending on the definition of 'break'. :)

[wirednavi.livejournal.com]

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

[evilmagnus]

Sure, blame the GM, not the system. :)

Again, this requires the GM to be a rules-lawyer, or to have some rule in place to handle Unintended Consequences within the confines of the system. Or to use a system so simple that it's little more than Fiat.

Or you could use a complex system that's actually pretty good and works most of the time, and just set it aside when it does something that doesn't work.

[wirednavi.livejournal.com]

True. Please see my comment below. I think it clarifies that I am actually agreeing with you. ;-) The idea is to make that fiat / setting aside as unnecessary as possible, and to use it whenever possible in ways that will enhance the players' contributions (all the players, GM included) instead of cut them off. I don't like simply saying 'well, sometimes the GM has to do this kind of thing' because I think that the goal is to decrease that kind of occurrence to zero.

I also don't think that it's an unachieveable goal.

[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.

[evilmagnus]

I find absolutely nothing there which I disagree with.

Our dogmas are synchonised. The Prophecy is Complete.

[wirednavi.livejournal.com]

Once again, I have spent immense amounts of bandwidth and personal time arguing with someone who agrees with me.

My work here is done!