![[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
B: That said, I think that I - and most of the people on this thread - are scuccumbing to the same problem that I always get when I talk about politics: I want things to be as perfect in execution as they are in principle. The fact is, often pragmatism is better than principle because if you follow pragmatism to its ultimate conclusion it gives decreasing returns and takes forever.
C: THAT being said, I think the best idea is to pick the closest system to what you want, modify it as best you can beforehand, and make sure that the other players are cool with the idea that 'if the system happens to be wrong in some unknown way about how the world works, we're going to alter it on the fly'.
D: On the other hand, I still dislike your Gandalf + Eagles example, because it seems pretty clear to me that the player in that instance isn't doing something that doesn't fit the metaphysic or the reality of the world, they're just doing something the GM doesn't want them to. And that smacks of railroading. I think there's better ways of handling such things than saying 'you can't do that'.
no subject
I will dispatch Eagles forthwith to pick out your eyeballs and feast on the juicy treats within!
:)
no subject