Why Choice Sucks: the Beauty of Random Generation

[clehrich]

Now, if I can randomly produce a strength of 5, does that mean such a strength will be supported by the rule book for gamist play. ... Will it? It can be, and in that case yes, it's really pretty wimpy to say you can't handle the challenge with your PC.

Callan, can you explain a little more what you mean by "support" here?  I'm not quite getting that.  Insofar as I do understand you, I think you're saying that if system does matter, and if the system is designed coherently such that this is consistently true, then a crappy strength (or whatever) is a challenge one can genuinely overcome and that's worth playing with.  But I don't quite see, not remembering quite all the intricacies of OAD&D (it's been a while) and not knowing 3E at all, how that system made this an unplayable character.  Or was that your point?  I'm a little lost.  Can you go back to OAD&D or use another example?  Could you talk through an example of how a crappy random roll is not supported?  I think this is the real bone of contention, and if I get the hang of your point we'll at least be on the same page.

[John Kim]

But quite frankly we have a history of 'system doesn't matter' in the industry. And I believe that random stats are something you have to work on very, very carefully so any result (like STR 5) is supported. I'm reminded of the rules 3E has for scrapping rolls if their just not good enough. Instead of accomidating a strength 5 in the design, that proffesional team decided to trash such results (as well as making
them highly unlikely).

Sorry, that doesn't follow.  3E has a rigidly-defined rule for when attributes should be rerolled: if total modifiers are 0 or less, or if the highest score is 13 or lower.  Incidentally, under this, having Strength 5 is allowed.  There is an 8% chance of having a 5 or less in your lowest ability.  

Having a rigidly-defined reroll condition is not "System Doesn't Matter".  In fact, it's very much "System Does Matter".  The reroll is a part of the design, just as much as what dice to roll.  Now, there are many designs out there which will say things like "If you don't like a roll, ignore it" --  like Vampire: The Masquerade and Fudge and the Lord of the Rings RPG.  Sure, I'd agree that these are in the "System Doesn't Matter" camp.  But not D&D3.

[efindel]

Now, there are many designs out there which will say things like "If you don't like a roll, ignore it" --  like Vampire: The Masquerade and Fudge and the Lord of the Rings RPG.  Sure, I'd agree that these are in the "System Doesn't Matter" camp.

I can't speak for V:TM, not having played it since the first edition, nor LotR... but I don't believe that Fudge says that anywhere.  It does say that one should not roll when success or failure should be certain, but that's a different thing.

But not D&D3.

Well, actually, D&D3 does say that.  DMG, page 18:

The DM really can't cheat.  You're the umpire and what you say goes.  As such, it's certainly within your rights to sway things one way or another to keep people happy or keep things running smoothly.  It's no fun losing a long-term character from getting run over by a cart.  A good rule of thumb is that a character shouldn't die in a trivial way because of some fluke of the dice unless he or she was doing something really stupid at the time.

That's not quite "if you don't like a roll, ignore it" -- but it's closer to it than anything I can find in my copy of Fudge Expanded Edition.  And while it doesn't say anything specifically about character generation, that section doesn't say much of anything specific, period.  Essentially all it says is that "it's okay to fudge as GM if you think you need to, and if you don't want to, that's okay too."  I don't have D&D3.5, but I'd bet it has something very similar in its DMG.

(As a side point, Fudge has "Fudge Points" to let players overrule the dice when they need to.  D&D3 has no equivalent -- and thus, when the players run into a bad run of the dice, they have no way out of it but to either "work around" the rules in a way that eliminates the randomness, or hope the GM will fudge the dice on their behalf.)

[John Kim]

Now, there are many designs out there which will say things like "If you don't like a roll, ignore it" --  like Vampire: The Masquerade and Fudge and the Lord of the Rings RPG.  Sure, I'd agree that these are in the "System Doesn't Matter" camp.

I can't speak for V:TM, not having played it since the first edition, nor LotR... but I don't believe that Fudge says that anywhere.  It does say that one should not roll when success or failure should be certain, but that's a different thing.

You have a good point.  Fudge wasn't a good example of this.  My thinking was that between Subjective Character Creation and Story Elements combat, Fudge has codified a "GM decides" as an option.  Fudge doesn't really have a general GM advice section like the D&D section which you quote, so that can't be directly compared.  But there are a lot of games which give explicit advice of "ignore rules or rolls as desired", so I should have gone with those.  

Well, actually, D&D3 does say that.  DMG, page 18:
...
That's not quite "if you don't like a roll, ignore it" -- but it's closer to it than anything I can find in my copy of Fudge Expanded Edition.  And while it doesn't say anything specifically about character generation, that section doesn't say much of anything specific, period.

Well, that's a generalized GM advice section.  From that subsection, the only case for GM "cheating" is for PC death.  This is reinforced a few paragraphs down in the subsection titled "When Bad Things Happen to Good Characters".  And even then, it suggests this as a stylistic choice, not prescriptive advice.  i.e. It can be OK if the GM goes by strict die rolls and kills the party, but also can be OK if the GM fudges for PC survival.  So while this case is a bit of ignoring system, I think that overall D&D3 is follow-the-rules and "System Does Matter".  

There are a lot of systems which give very explicit advice about this.  Let me quote from Champions: The New Millenium (the first incarnation of Fuzion system), page 175.  Note that this is different than the original Champions and the HERO system, and was a new system written to make a more rules-lite game covering the same ground as Champions.

No one should try to GM Champions, or any other game for that matter, without having a thorough understanding of the rules.  
...
However, there is an extremely important caveat to this -- don't let the rules get in the way of having fun.  If a particular rule is spoiling your fun, ignore it, discard it, or change it to suit you.  One of the greatest things about role-playing games is that they allow you and your players to change the game to make it better for you -- take advantage of it!

Similarly, don't let "rules lawyers" among your players ruin everyone else's fun.  There have to be some rules, to make everything fair and consistent for everyone, and that in most situations the rules should be followed.  But if Player A consistently comes up with clever maneuvers or ideas that are fun but don't strictly follow the rules, and Player B is constantly point out that rules are being violated and trying to stop what Player A is doing, then shut Player B up and let Player A charge ahead.

This sort of thing is very common among the certain style of games that flourished in the 90s following Star Wars and Vampire: The Masquerade.  In my opinion, D&D3 and other D20 games are very much a backlash reaction against these -- returning to a more strict-rules style.

[greyorm]

Mike,

Out of everyone on the Forge, you coming down on me for using strongly worded rhetoric to make a point is, well, forgive me, but it's rather ironic, as I believe you would agree.

Now, while I do have problems with certain statements in your post, I'd prefer to concentrate on things relevant to the subject, and touch on the other item later.

Which is to say that any and all arguments about this are invalid, because they're all based on personal preference. Use randomization if you want these things, don't if you're not concerned.

I am aware of how my post might be taken, though not to the extent it actually was (which was interesting and telling in its own right). The utilization of the false dichotomy was not, however, a mistake. The post is so overboard, so completely at the opposite end of the expected spectrum because of the entrenchment in the opposite position so common among gamers. What better way to deal with the entrenched position than present the denigrated approach in the same light as the entrenched position?

I fully expected people to read deeper than the presented surface to get at the ideas because of this obvious conflict with experience. It didn't happen quite as I'd expected, but it has served its purpose decently. A casual overview would have hardly suited the purpose of attacking the oft-held position, nor stirred the sort of involvement necessary for examination and discovery that there even was such a deep-seated entrenchment against randomization for surprisingly little good reason.

Right now, the thread has become sidetracked from that initial point, though not to a particularly terrible degree, which is why I'm going with it where it is heading at the moment, as it seems obvious to me at this point the current subjects need to be hashed out so that further discussion and understanding can continue.

To recap: "There are many valid reasons to utilize randomization in a game design. Randomization has gotten a bad rap, and it is much better an option than it is made out to be by the general gaming public." That right there is the challenge that started the thread off, why I chose the false dichotomy route, and strong words: to viciously attack that bad rap. I'm sorry you are upset "you didn't get it" right off, though you weren't necessarily meant to. If that make sense?

See the subtle difference everyone?

Yes, we do, in fact; but I do not believe that is what has or is happening here, as I don't believe the distinction you paint above is so black and white in this discussion, given the aformentioned entrenchment that is often a factor in the development or presentation of that statement in contexts like these.

I suggest going back through many of the responses on this thread in this light to see why "we" (whomever you believe that to be) think that argument is often used as a screen, or as support for a belief that "randomness doesn't work, period" or "randomess is an inherently dangerous design!"

PVP being the obvious one, in which it's desirable to have a balanced starting point,

Is it, though? I think you would find that I would argue the opposite point quite strenuously: that unbalanced PVP is a completely acceptable form of Gamist play, and can be very rewarding and challenging for a variety of reasons already lain out by others. That any failure in play has less to do with system, and more to do with the participants (as a whole).

In fact, I could cite any number of computer games wherein the starting points of the players are deliberately not balanced. Does that mean it is always a good idea? No, once again, whether or not it is a good idea depends upon the participants and their desired goals in play -- but this has very little to do with system, with randomization as a factor in "good" or "bad".

Now, I can see how this might look like a "My GM Herbie can run anything..." disavowal that system has anything to do with the quality of play -- and perhaps it is, my jury is still out on that -- but for the moment, I see the two situations as completely seperate, with the situation to which I am referring being a misattribution of the problems of a given game being placed upon its system rather than the group for failing to match their expectations of play with system. Sort of a reverse of the GMHerbie situation.

So gamism does not suggest one solution or another, automatically, you have to know what sort of gamism you're shooting for. Which is personal preference, so there can be no indicator of what's generally better or worse for a design.

Let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment: aren't you just saying that system doesn't matter? That the design of the game doesn't matter because it's all about personal preference anyways, so a designer is just shit out of luck when it comes to creating a Gamist design?

Obviously that isn't what you are saying, but I don't know if the subtleties involved in your statement above will be readily apparent to everyone at first glance.

What I will say is this. The reason that I believe we went to point based modes of generation is because it's easier to ensure that the problems of bad random design don't crop up. That is, if you rely on player intelligence, then the system can't be blamed for bad character's produced by the system.

Alright, then, how does that stack up to my TROS example at start, and the problems involved? Would you say this situation was the player's fault, not the system's (ie: not being precognitive enough to understand how the game will play before he has played it)?


Now, to turn to certain parts of your post which I found lacking in their contribution:

So, sorry, but I think you've lead us all on a wild goose chase here. Which, BTW, we've gone over before, with the same result.

I'm not sure what you mean here. That wild goose chases have occurred regarding this subject? Or that I have led you on a wild goose chase before? If the former, then the judgemental attitude you've copped towards the thread isn't scoring you many points. Links and references supporting your claim would have helped alleviate this, so could you provide those?

Tangential note: you realize what I'm complaining about here would be precisely the sort of empty dismissal that folks have come down on the Forge for (if you'll scan the various threads to be found regarding the perceived attitude and behaviors at the Forge that cause the most upset)? Except usually folks get thread links to where it has been hashed out before.

So no argument that's been made so far has any validity.

I personally think much of your post comes off as an unfair blanket judgement about the discussions that have taken place in this thread, certainly the above does. And while I'll agree that judgement might be applied correctly to some small amount of the discussion, I don't believe it is so much as you appear to make out.

Basically, you have said that everything in this thread was "invalid" (ie: worthless) -- and I don't know about anyone else, but I find that very insulting to the participants, whom I believe have raised a number of good points not so easily dismissed as just "invalid" fist-shaking.

Honestly, though, if you think the thread is a waste of time ("yours", "ours", or whomever it is you are speaking of) then: don't participate, don't read it, don't chime in to tell us "this has all been done before." The thread is valid and useful to me, and to (I hope) the others participating in it. That's really all there is to it. If you think the thread is useless, then go away and leave us to our own intellectual explorations. And in that case, thank you for your opinion...but thank you very much.

Now, I sincerely hope that is not the case, as I'd enjoy hearing you weigh in on the questions I've posed above, but in case you feel all this is just more wild-goose chasing, I'm sorry you feel that way, but then there's no more need to waste your or our time.

[Callan S.]

John Kim: No no, my paragraph is just confusing. I meant to say completely what your saying. I was refering to a history of 'system doesn't matter', and refered to 3E since I think it is an example of 'system does matter' design. Mentioned it to show how they wanted to avoid certain scores, most likely because those scores are unplayable. Though I didn't know you could get a five...but the other stats would have to be quite high for it to be a valid roll...and then you choose where you assign it. Pretty much avoiding the STR: 5 prob entirely.

Hope I didn't confuse everyone else on that bit.

[Callan S.]

Now, if I can randomly produce a strength of 5, does that mean such a strength will be supported by the rule book for gamist play. ... Will it? It can be, and in that case yes, it's really pretty wimpy to say you can't handle the challenge with your PC.

Callan, can you explain a little more what you mean by "support" here?  I'm not quite getting that.  Insofar as I do understand you, I think you're saying that if system does matter, and if the system is designed coherently such that this is consistently true, then a crappy strength (or whatever) is a challenge one can genuinely overcome and that's worth playing with.  But I don't quite see, not remembering quite all the intricacies of OAD&D (it's been a while) and not knowing 3E at all, how that system made this an unplayable character.  Or was that your point?  I'm a little lost.  Can you go back to OAD&D or use another example?  Could you talk through an example of how a crappy random roll is not supported?  I think this is the real bone of contention, and if I get the hang of your point we'll at least be on the same page.

On how it makes an unplayable character:

Now, it's a little hard to give examples unless we can establish that a game can and (for the sake of example), has a particluar type of dominant gamism focus.

Imagine a game has 90% gamism A focus (perhaps combat), and 10% gamism B focus (perhaps social conflict).

Now say the play group (the customers) bought it for its A focus (because that's what it does the most). They want focus A and they are keenly presenting game world material in play that revolves around focus A.

But say I roll 5 STR. And focus A revolves around Strength. By revolves I mean you can pretty much look at each option in the A section and see your chance at succeeding at them will not pay off the resource cost of trying.

The dice roll has pretty much determined that I will be rewarded for pushing toward focus B (social conflicts) because I'll get burned by focus A stuff. But the products main focus is focus A and the group is playing it because they know that and that's what attracted them to the product. They want combat and I'm just grinding against them by trying to change that. This is a product in conflict with its own design goals and it's rendering a PC unplayable. I mean, if I write a game which rewards most of the group to avoid what will reward one or two other players, those two players aren't getting a chance at rewards. That's unplayable. Why would I write a game like that...it's almost malicious.

I'm thinking AD&D was less than 10% support to any other gamist focus. Hell, it hardly supported even one gamist focus IMO.

[clehrich]

Okay, so you're saying that the problem with random chracter design in gamism is that most gamist designs are oriented around a single type of challenge and approach, such as combat or whatever.  And if you allow random generation that produces characters ineffective for that approach to that challenge, that sucks.  Right?

I guess I'll buy that, but that's not my recollection of D&D.  As you say, that wasn't entirely coherent gamism anyway.  But I do think that it was very possible to run weakling characters effectively.  Part of how it worked, of course, was that you had huge parties, so the division of labor allowed a greater range of niches.

But I think I see where you're coming from.  My sense is that Raven is talking about the principles of design rather than the actualities; that's why he's talking about an approach that's rarely taken these days.  So the difference is de jure on his side and de facto on yours, which is a basic mismatch in argument.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

This thread's closed now for several reasons.

Please take all substantive sub-topics and specific issues to daughter threads.

Best,
Ron