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]

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.