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]

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.

[lordsmerf.livejournal.com]

Okay... I think we've gotten about as far as we can on this one.

My short answer is, "Yes, you should ditch the system and get one that does exactly what you want."

My contention is that there are unbreakable games, and that I have seen them, and that you can see them too. I don't know that we'll get anywhere until you take a look at one and see what I'm talking about. It's sort of like me claiming "the sky is green" and you responding with "I haven't ever seen the sky, but my gut instinct is that it is not green." You may very well be right, but we can't discuss such things until you take a look at the sky yourself. Then you can say, "Man, you're a freakin' idiot. The sky is blue!"

So, take a look at The Pool (http://www.randomordercreations.com/thepool.html") by James V. West and let me know if you think it can be broken. The system only takes up about three pages or so, so you should be able to read it quickly.

Oh, one last thing. A system is only "broken" or not based on the purpose it is designed for. You don't use a jet engine to put things in lunar orbit, but a jet engine is great for atmospheric travel. This point may have been glossed over in this discussion. There is an unbreakable system for each seperate game goal. I hope I was clear on that, but you may have heard me saying something else.

Thomas

[unrequitedthai.livejournal.com]

Hey, Thomas, remember how we discussed weak/strong and robust/brittle systems?

I think it's pretty easy to break The Pool, actually, in the sense of "cause The Pool to generate some outcome that is detrimental to everyone's enjoyment of the game." It's very strong in that it's also extremely good at making enjoyable things happen, but that's orthogonal.

[evilmagnus]

I think it's pretty easy to break The Pool, actually, in the sense of "cause The Pool to generate some outcome that is detrimental to everyone's enjoyment of the game." It's very strong in that it's also extremely good at making enjoyable things happen, but that's orthogonal.

I agree. It's a neat system, and with the right group of players (say, for example, if you can find folks who will all approach the game as a collaborative story-telling exercise and have similar gaming experiences) it'd be a blast. But my first impression on reading those rules is that it's wildly open to interpretation that, at the very least, could sour the game experience for some or all of the players.

[unrequitedthai.livejournal.com]

One should also note that a game may have a dynamic set of goals.

What this means is that, for any instant, there is a system that is unbreakable at that instant for that game's purposes, but as soon as the game's goal (by which I mean "the summation of all the goals of the players") changes, that system may or may not be the unbreakable system any longer.

There are ways to make systems robust to goal-shifting; I find that Zak Arntson's Shadows is very good for this. The downside is that a system that is robust in certain manners (the contortions that d20 goes through for the sake of combat effectiveness equality among characyers with equal xp and wealth, for instance) can remove large swaths of options from the players, and thus it loses strength in its ability to take account of contributions.

[evilmagnus]

It appears as though there is dissent on whether on not The Pool is breakable. :)