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

[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... :)