![[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
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.
no subject
Our dogmas are synchonised. The Prophecy is Complete.
no subject
My work here is done!