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]

But doesn't that predicate perfect knowledge of the system, *and* a System that is perfectly suited to the campaign? I mean, we're talking Theory here after all - how do you *know* that the System you choose will be the most perfectly suited one for the game that you end up playing? (assuming, of course, that there's no Universal System of All that you can use.)

People make mistakes. People don't always know the rules back-to-front. The Rule of Unintended Consequences will occasionally spawn and bite people in the ass. This whole contentious monkey knife fight started when I asked what do you do when you realize the System is borked?

The choices I've been given have been:
- Choose another System (not always practical in the middle of a campaign).
- Systems can be perfect, and you're an Idiot for not using the Perfect System (not the most helpful suggestion).
- It's not the System's fault, it's your fault for choosing/not knowing the system (ditto).
- If the players want to do it, and the system allows it, suck it up (a corollary of 'The System cannot be wrong, even if it's flawed')
- It should have been a book, not a campaign (best evar!).

...but whatever you do, never ever ignore the Rule - if you do, the entirety of the player's contributions for the entire campaign are worthless.

So I think I'm just going to continue being a backwoods hick and keep the Golden Rule.

[xiombarg.livejournal.com]

In the case of mistake, you have a mature discussion with the players about it. Perhaps someone needs to drop out. Perhaps the ruleset DOES need to be adjusted. But this isn't just the GM's decision to make, because everyone's fun is involved.

Again, you are trying to solve a social problem with with a rule, when you should be handling it on the social level. GM fiat to suspend rules only helps if the GM is a mind-reader, or if he talks to his players -- in which case, fiat becomes largely undeeded as everyone discusses their needs and desires like resonsible adults.

A gaming group is like any other relationship. Simplistic rules of thumb are never a substitute for handing social issues on a social level. You don't solve a problem with a baseball player sexually molesting another baseball player by increasing the power of the referee.

[evilmagnus]

A gaming group is like any other relationship. Simplistic rules of thumb are never a substitute for handing social issues on a social level. You don't solve a problem with a baseball player sexually molesting another baseball player by increasing the power of the referee.

Actually, i thought we just got the FCC to levy increasingly stiff fines until The Children are adequately protected from the terrorists... :)