The role of dice

[Phil Levis]

I'm new to the Forge. I've perused some of the articles and recent threads with a good deal of interest. On one hand, the precise vocabulary and terminology used suggests a refinement of thought on topics which are of some interest to me; on the other, the use of such a system defines a paradigm (in Kuhn's sense), which as a relative outsider I am unsure if I agree with. Of course -- I write this merely in case it is not clear -- I don't consider my personal agreement or disagreement a measure of the discourse.

The question of paradigm and terminology is interesting to me because I've engaged in discussions with my own circle of fellow gamers, and those threads of thought have led to very different conclusions than those here. At a high level, the Forge is much more inclusive in its definition of role playing than I am: I typically define role playing as a Simulationist endeavor. My opinions on the matter are mostly influenced by my appreciation for theater and Stanislavsky's realism. But that's just the definition of a term, and not particularly meaningful for discussion: certainly the text below uses terms of dubious opinion here, such as realism. However, I thought it might be useful to explain where I come from.

I'd like to share a brief treatise a friend of mine wrote in 1997 as an appendix to a proposed consent system for a WoD MUSH. It deals with the role of dice in RPGs. I want to know what members of the Forge think of its premises and conclusions. I realize this may result in a paradigmatic clash, and admit that I would consider such a result almost as interesting as the substantive commentary I hope for. Without further ado...



Chance as an element in roleplaying

I would like to consider four very different ways in which a human being can 'interact' with a story. As an example, I will be treating the extremely well-known story 'Star Wars.' Consider the following:

[A] Being the author of 'Star Wars' (George Lucas)

Being an actor who plays a character in the film (Carrie Fisher)

[C] Participating in a role-playing game in the 'Star Wars' universe in which one plays Princess Leia, and

[D] Actually -being- Princess Leia.

All of the above, with the possible exception of option [D], can be recognized as art forms. The first is the art of the novelist or playwright, the grand manipulator behind the curtain who makes sure that the entire story is coordinated in agreement with the artist's demands. The second is the thespian's trade, the art of learning a script, understanding the motivations and carriage of the character, and portraying this character dramatically for an audience. Unfortunately, the third has been subjected to very little critical analysis, but we can refer to this art as one of spontaneously portraying a character with limited pre-definition in a dynamic environment. The final option would involve, in addition to the usual frolicking with Ewoks on the forest moon, attending various boring state dinners, applying makeup, catching colds, and all of the other mundane duties we would not ordinarily associate with a 'heroic' fictional character.

We can nevertheless say that the object of [A], and [C] is, to varying degrees, to capture the imagined reality of [D]. The author in [A] writes a script appropriate to the character, recording the utterances and gestures of the character. In the novelist's case, these may be presented in tandem with an 'interior monologue' of the thoughts of the character, which lets the reader witness all of the tiny duplicities and inconsistencies between thoughts and actions. The actor in takes the script and realizes the character with their body, choosing the proper inflection, accent, and facial expression to accompany the words on the page. The actor extrapolates from the attitudes and ideas expressed over time by the character, recognizes and struggles to understand inner conflicts, and finally produces a living product on stage or screen who acts as the character.

Now what about case [C]? Certainly, the roleplayer shares some things in common with both the author and the actor. Like the author, the roleplayer generates a background for the character, a history of who they are, what they have accomplished thus far, and a general understanding of their mental state and manner. However, unlike the author, the roleplayer does not go on to commit preconceived speeches and gestures of their character to paper, for the simple reason that the player is ignorant of the circumstances into which their character will be thrown. Like the actor, the roleplayer struggles to find a voice for their character that conforms with the character's history, and, as is the case with the best actors, genuinely tries to understand what it must be like to -be- the character. But rather than having a script to run by, the roleplayer must extrapolate (under severe time constraints) the character's response to situations as they arise, creating a script through carefully meditated speech. The process that roleplayers engage in when they 'act the part' is difficult to distinguish from everyday behavior and experience. That is, one could hold a conversation with someone who is roleplaying which should ideally be indistinguishable from (or perhaps, no less 'real' than) a conversation with a non-roleplaying person.

I would identify the largest single factor that distinguishes the roleplayer from the author or actor as ignorance; ignorance of circumstance, ignorance of futurity, ignorance of history. The ignorance of the player brings her substantially closer to the state of [D] than [A] or could ever hope for. [1]  We can assume, for example, that were Leia to have been a real person, she would be uncertain of and exceedingly preoccupied by the success or failure of the rebellion. This ignorance of the outcome of her struggle would be similarly experienced by a player who roleplayed the character of Princess Leia in the 'Star Wars' chronicle. One certainly wouldn't say that Carrie Fisher would be overly concerned about her in-character struggle; the focus of her artistry is elsewhere (interacting with the camera, memorizing lines, etc). That would go double for George Lucas. Both of these artists labor to give the audience the necessary sense of conflict and tension; the product that they are collaborating to present is oriented towards an audience who will be, substantially, ignorant of the conclusion of the story, and who will vicariously experience the tension depicted by Carrie Fisher in Princess Leia. But the roleplayer, ideally, genuinely shares in the ignorance of the character, not knowing, for example, what lies at the bottom of that fortuitous chute (even though Carrie and George know that it is a trash compactor).

Of course, in roleplay, the outcome of a given struggle cannot be predetermined because it is dependent, most significantly, upon the actions of the protagonists. While characters can be spectators to events in the world in which they act, characters who are exclusively spectators might be better called an audience. Characters influence the world, participate in events, pursue goals, and are eventually successful or unsuccessful in their enterprises. Their success, or lack thereof, is dependent upon the ingenuity of the characters- and chance.

It is conceivable that an author might decide certain events within a novel randomly. Will Esmerelda marry the Marquis or that scoundrel John Darkwood? Why not flip a coin to decide? Despite the fact that this is possible, I believe it to be a very uncommon practice. Similarly, an actor with any integrity cannot allow chance to interfere with their depiction of a character. In both of these cases, the artists must be faithful to a grander plan, one in which each individual element of the story must be rigidly defined in order to create a larger total effect. The roleplayer, however, is in constant commerce with chance. Even the most insignificant details of fictional life (in GURPS, for example) can be allotted a statistical probability of occurring.

I am not historian enough to know when dice and roleplay first intersected. It seems certain to me that diced games preceded roleplaying games as such. Certainly, board games with varying levels of sophistication existed before the modern roleplaying game did- the natural transition seems to follow from gambling (craps, in particular) to games like Monopoly, to Dungeons and Dragons. In the case of Monopoly, each player takes on an extremely limited persona (read: Shoe), and rolls dice to determine their placement around the board. Some locations on the board in a given game are more conducive to acquiring money than others. It might seem tautologous to say that what makes Monopoly interesting is the element of randomness: all characters begin on an equal playing field, and sheer chance (combined with a modicum of financial strategy) decides the remainder of the game. Without chance, the game wouldn't be terribly interesting; if players could, for example, choose how many steps, between one and six, their characters would make during a turn, a great deal more strategy would be involved, but the game would be significantly less exciting (or frustrating).

In the 'Star Wars' films, when Leia raises her gun to shoot a stormtrooper, the result is dictated by George Lucas and rendered by the combination of Carrie Fisher, Industrial Light & Magic, and various faceless actors inside white platemail. In a roleplaying game, when the Leia-character raises her gun to shoot a stormtrooper, her player casts dice. The player would have created a character sheet for Princess Leia which would detail, within the confines of the game system, how skilled Leia is with a gun, and her basic likelihood of hitting a target. This would in turn be modified, depending on the sophistication of the combat system, for factors such as range, firefight cover, aiming, armor, weapon power, and so forth.

Why is all of this randomness necessary? A few reasons could be given, here. If the Storyteller arbitrarily decided whether or not Leia hit the stormtrooper (and in some cases, this is appropriate), it is my contention that the player would feel cheated. If Leia missed, why did she miss? That's a tough question to answer. The Storyteller might respond, "because it's important that Leia be captured by stormtroopers at this point in the story," that might not be entirely satisfactory. If players arbitrarily decided whether or not their characters' actions were successful, that would open a different can of worms, especially in complex role-playing environments without direct Storytellers, like a MUSH or a LARP.

But ultimately, randomness is necessary because sometimes the 'real' Leia of [D] hits, and sometimes she misses. Her proficiency, if she possesses any, should only ensure that she hits more often than not. Once again, [C] aspires towards [D]. The 'real' Princess Leia that the roleplayer is attempting to simulate aims and shoots her gun without knowing whether or not it will strike; the player, in trying to be as close to Princess Leia's perceptions as she can, shares in that experience. To put this another way, the die roll is a surrogate action, undertaken by the player, that mirrors the actions of the character in the fictional world. The same uncertainty (qualified only by an appraisal of the statistics) that accompanies the fictional action of pulling the trigger fills the player who casts the dice. Just as Leia (who proves to be an excellent shot) would feel a certain degree of confidence with her weapon, the player (who knows full well what the dots on the character sheet mean, and how many faces are on a die) would have certain expectations from the die roll. In some cases, these expectations would not be met.

The die roll is independent even of the volition of the Storyteller. The Princess's encounter with any given foe might turn out completely differently than the Storyteller expects; she might fell Vader in the first 10 minutes of 'Star Wars' or accidentally drive her speeder into a tree trunk (although all such events are subject to the interpretation and qualification of the Storyteller). But then again, that was true without the die roll- players often surprise Storytellers with the strategies and ideas they bring into the game. Really, it is the dialectic of player, Storyteller, and chance that drives the action of a roleplaying game.

Hopefully, all that has been said above is relatively uncontroversial, and more or less common knowledge. It is necessary, however, to rattle off such an expansive preamble before proceeding to the meat of the matter.

I submit that chance is such a fundamental premise of roleplaying games that games without chance cannot properly be called roleplaying games as such. I say this in full recognition of the fact that chance (or, more properly, statistics) as a technology in games might one day be supplanted by something more suitable to the medium (although what that might be, I haven't the slightest idea[2]). But for the moment, probabilities and die-rolling are the only available surrogates for the uncertainty that the character must experience when they attempt to pick a lock, throw a punch, or bound over a ravine. To dictate the result of such events is not to roleplay, but rather to first put on the cap of the author ([A], deciding the course of the script), and to subsequently act out that script (, even though the precise words the character cry out in joy after vanquishing an enemy might not be specified).

I must make it clear that being both author and actor is still 'art', and not something to be slighted. Certainly, I wouldn't condemn Shakespeare for playing the Ghost in the first showings of Hamlet. But what I would say is that once the elements of ignorance and chance are removed, this is no longer roleplaying. Only in ignorance is true spontaneity possible, and without spontaneity, players are script-writing; the result of these labors will depend solely on the player's talent as an author, and should be judged as such (which is, again, not by any means a slur). Or perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that the player had become a Storyteller...? [3]

[1] Of course, [A] and bring an -audience- much closer to believing in the reality of [D] than [C] does. This is purely a matter of the intention behind the art. If space permitted a few interesting digressions, I would have introduced: [E] The audience of the film 'Star Wars.' I think that there are many important corollaries between the -Storyteller's- position and that of the audience. Elsewhere in this document, I discuss the distinction between believably portraying a character and actually immersing oneself in the character. This is just the same material, being recycled.

[2] One example that does spring to mind, actually, is the SCA. Rather than relying on chance, one can rely on one's own innate ability to heft the sword. Unfortunately, this limits the sorts of characters one can roleplay to those that are relatively equivalent to the player in ability. Certain video games (for example, the first-person interface shoot-'em-up Quake) rely on the player developing certain skills which are surrogates for the actions of the character. As the player's surrogate-skills become more refined, the character becomes a more formidable opponent. Although neither of these may strike some purists as forms of 'roleplay' as such, they are nevertheless examples of gaming systems that are conceivably mappable onto the WoD system.

[3] This, obviously, cuts both ways. Even Storytellers roll dice, and come into contact with the unpredictable actions and ideas of their players. They merely hold a veto power of sorts, and the ability to interpret the results of dice to their satisfaction. The point here is that the Storyteller is a more ultimate authority than the dice, as they are author, actor, and Interpreter of the Great Die.

[LordSmerf]

Phil,

Welcome to the Forge.  I think that your essay is long and drawn out, and entirely focused on a specific subset of Simulationist play with RPGs.

That said, I think you've hit upon the primary use of dice (or any form of randomizer, really) in RPGs.  That element of uncertainty.  I know there was a discussion on this very thing a couple of months back...  I'll see if I can dig it up.

Anyway, the focus on Simulationsim (and the specific subset that is Exploration of Character through Actor Stance) is limiting.  That same sense of uncertainty is useful in all forms of what we call Role Playing on the Forge.  Narrativism, the surprise shifts in the Story.  Gamism, the uncertainty of action that makes "The Gamble" possible.

So, yes, you are right.  Do you think there are any other ways that randomizers are used in games?

Thomas

[Bankuei]

Hi Phil,

Welcome to the Forge!  I can understand how there's a LOAD of theory here to work through.  Here's a quick page you might want to read through though, especially in regards to what you're writing about now:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/5/

(The bit on System, Drama, Fortune, and Karma)

I submit that chance is such a fundamental premise of roleplaying games that games without chance cannot properly be called roleplaying games as such.

I believe that very few games have toyed with the idea of resolution without random elements(Fortune, as it's called around here), but I don't think that roleplaying games are impossible without it.  

From what I've heard so far, the Code of Unaris sounds like it has no chance involved, the random elements produced by the choices made by the players.  A rather neat account of it can be found here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12692&highlight=code+unaris

Likewise, Amber, Nobilis and the recent Marvel Universe rpg are all free of randomizers or Fortune based mechanics.  Have you taken a look at any of these games, if so, what do you think about them in regards to your thoughts so far?

Chris

[Phil Levis]

I think that your essay is long and drawn out

I apologize if I wasn't clear; the essay itself was not my writing, but a friend's.

and entirely focused on a specific subset of Simulationist play with RPGs.

Agreed. Although, being academic in nature, I relish the idea of discussing RPG theory on a wide range of topics, my taste for what games I enjoy playing is quite narrow. *shrug*

That said, I think you've hit upon the primary use of dice (or any form of randomizer, really) in RPGs.  That element of uncertainty.  I know there was a discussion on this very thing a couple of months back...  I'll see if I can dig it up.

Exactly. There is an additional point, however: it is necessary for the form of Simulationism the essay promotes.

Anyway, the focus on Simulationsim (and the specific subset that is Exploration of Character through Actor Stance) is limiting.  That same sense of uncertainty is useful in all forms of what we call Role Playing on the Forge.  Narrativism, the surprise shifts in the Story.  Gamism, the uncertainty of action that makes "The Gamble" possible.

Limiting in what sense? Of course uncertainty has great relevance outside the division between character and player; the particular point deals with its presence and criticality in forms of Simulationist play.

The argument, however, is deeper than that, and deals with the specification of role playing as an art form, rather than as an act in and of itself (which, it seems to me, the Forge is more concerned with). In this light, the GNS decomposition changes significantly: G is outside its scope, and N is made the province of an alternative art form, authorship. One point is that the form of Simulationism discussed is an art form not captured by an author (class A in the text) or a thespian (class B in the text). To be distinct, it must have boundaries and determining characteristics: one of those is the use of dice (or any other form of randomness). The absence of dice pushes the player further away from the character.

So, yes, you are right.  Do you think there are any other ways that randomizers are used in games?

In games, generally, or in RPGs?

In games, generally, certainly: as they would be considered outside of the scope of RPGs in terms of the text, the form of tension that randomization introduces is distinct. In a game such as Monopoly, randomization can provide tension to the player. Additionally, the degree of randomization can greatly affect the form that strategy takes: it expands the search space of moves, often to the point that greatly refined theory becomes difficult (unlike, say, chess).

This holds true in Gamerish approaches as well: uncertainty adds tension to the player.

In Narrativist approaches, randomizers can be used as challenges, seeds, or other forms of input to stimulate creation. (To some degree, I'd argue that the other participants are, to each other, random elements.)

[contracycle]

Agreed. Although, being academic in nature, I relish the idea of discussing RPG theory on a wide range of topics, my taste for what games I enjoy playing is quite narrow. *shrug*

Thats not inherently a problem - it is in fact precisely what GNS predicts.

The common view here though is that all functionally observable forms of RPG are valid as RPG.  That is, I don;t think it is viable to assert that Narr is not RPG because it is authorship,, becuase it is manifestly conducted in essentially the same medium by very similar sets of processes.

My personal view is that all three modes are nexcessary and that RPG only appears in the cinjunction of all three, even if two of those modes are "dormant" or "recessive", as it were.

So the long and the short of it is that are entirely free to assert your preference strongly, but declaring your preference to be the only valid form of RPG would be impolitic.

Anyway, moving on to the role of dice, I am unocnovinced that "uncertainty" is the ciorrect criterion by which to judge the utility of randomisers.  to me the interesting question is, why has uncertainty been introduced?  Yes i agree tyhat the uncrtainty of the character action is transposed to the player, but why is this useful or valuable?  IMO this occurs becuase it externalises the game setting; it manifests the universes  lack of concern for our wellbeing.  The tension associated with uncertainty is IMO a tension created by lack of control.

[LordSmerf]

Anyway, moving on to the role of dice, I am unocnovinced that "uncertainty" is the ciorrect criterion by which to judge the utility of randomisers. to me the interesting question is, why has uncertainty been introduced? Yes i agree tyhat the uncrtainty of the character action is transposed to the player, but why is this useful or valuable? IMO this occurs becuase it externalises the game setting; it manifests the universes lack of concern for our wellbeing. The tension associated with uncertainty is IMO a tension created by lack of control.

I agree here, the reason Fortune creates tension is that it creates uncertainty and enforces a sense of things being out of your control.  That said I think that Chris's point is very important: Fortune is by no means the only possible (or even the best) means of generating that sense.

As Chris said, Code of Unaris has absolutely no Fortune mechanics at all.  Additionally there have been discussions to the effect that one of the primary purposes of the GM in "traditional" Simulationist play is to provide uncertainty and a sense that the players aren't in control.

Phil:  I consider the idea that something must have an audience in order to be an art form.  What would you consider to be the audience for this specific type of Simulationist play?

As to using Fortune in "other games", I had meant in RPGs.  Since you want to discuss this specific set of Simulationism (which is cool with me), I should restate: Are there other ways to use randomizers in this specific form of Role Playing that you are discussing?

Thomas

[Phil Levis]

The common view here though is that all functionally observable forms of RPG are valid as RPG.  That is, I don;t think it is viable to assert that Narr is not RPG because it is authorship, becuase it is manifestly conducted in essentially the same medium by very similar sets of processes.

Yes -- that is how the Forge has chosen to define RPG, and this touches my original point about paradigm. A paradigm of scientific discussion allows a community to investigate an area more deeply, as they share terminology and assumptions; however, in so doing, it also constrains the direction of that investigation. If, instead of defining roleplaying as something "conducted in essentially the same medium by very similar sets of processes," you define it as an art form, then decompositions such as GNS become irrelevant. That does not mean one is right and the other wrong: they are merely both paths towards an underlying truth (and it seems you Forgies are much further on yours than I am on mine!).

My personal view is that all three modes are nexcessary and that RPG only appears in the cinjunction of all three, even if two of those modes are "dormant" or "recessive", as it were.

I agree: a given game doesn't fall into one of three holes. For example, in a lot of Sim play, the GM is reasonably Nar, and players must examine their character sheets and decide how to advance their characters (Gamish). Now, one could clearly create and design a game (and some here have, it seems) where one aspect can be completely elided, but I personally consider that an academic -- and worthwhile -- investigation of boundaries more than anything else, sort of like those chefs in New York who tried exploring cuisine in which there is no cooking (heat).

So the long and the short of it is that are entirely free to assert your preference strongly, but declaring your preference to be the only valid form of RPG would be impolitic.

Right. In my circle we often define "role playing" as this particular form of Sim, while Nar is "collaborative storytelling/authorship" and Game is "gaming." Those terms are not meant to be perjorative, in any sense; they merely represent how I have tried to define what it means to role play, from a different perspective, that of an art form, rather than as a science.

Anyway, moving on to the role of dice, I am unocnovinced that "uncertainty" is the ciorrect criterion by which to judge the utility of randomisers.  to me the interesting question is, why has uncertainty been introduced?  Yes i agree tyhat the uncrtainty of the character action is transposed to the player, but why is this useful or valuable?  IMO this occurs becuase it externalises the game setting; it manifests the universes  lack of concern for our wellbeing.  The tension associated with uncertainty is IMO a tension created by lack of control.

There is a distinction between randomness and uncertainty; while the former implies the latter, the latter can exist without the former (and so randomness implies uncertainty in the logical sense). Uncertainty can exist when a GM tells you whether you succeed or not, yet that is qualitiatively different than rolling a die (or drawing a card, etc.). I would even go so far as to argue that a player rolling a die to see how a character performs is qualitatively different than a GM rolling the die behind a screen or some other theatrical device.[1]

While I disgree with your use of the term uncertainty in your point, I think that it is correct if you consider randomness instead. An open and transparent set of mechanics allow players to assess their abilities a bit as a real person might be able (barring some of that scientific evidence that only competent people can gauge their competency). The argument in the essay, I would contend, is not only does uncertainty make a player closer to a character in that there is ignorance of futurity, but also randomness makes a player closer to a character in that the world is probabilistic. Your point about the universe's lack of concern is well taken; ayup, barring deus ex machina, there is always a chance that things could go very badly.

[1] This point in particular represents a point of paradigmatic clash; while the term Fortune can capture all of these effects, their merging under a single term (as Thomas does so above, in his second post) is both powerful and limiting. It is a point of abstraction which allows discourse to move beyond it, but in so doing defines how the discourse will move. I would submit that, from one point of view (a designer, perhaps?), yes, the GM rolling a die behind a screen and the player rolling a die are equivalent, while from another (the player?) they are very different. At this point, however, we're talking about the player "experience," which seems to be a bit outside the scope of what is discussed in this forum.

[Valamir]

On the topic of the essay, I think its a very good essay in how its written and presented.  It makes it very easy to identify specific points of agreement or disagreement, and for that I applaud its author.  I think there are 2 very big errors in reasoning that are encapsulated in the essay, however.

We can nevertheless say that the object of [A], and [C] is, to varying degrees, to capture the imagined reality of [D].

This I think is an inaccurate premise to base the essay on.  That is, I certainly agree that the object of A B or C MAY be to capture the imagined reality of D, I definitely do not think that that is an absolute built in requirement.

For many stories it is the situation that is crucial to the tale and the character is only there to illustrate that situation.  In other words they are a tool that is dependent on what the author needs them to be for the purpose he has in mind for the story.  This is very very different from the author envisioning them as a real living breathing human being and then attempting to portray them as true to that vision in the story.  This is also a seperate issue entirely from whether the characters are deep or two dimensional caricatures.  

I think this is somewhat indicative of the Sim preference your roleplaying has, but just as "capturing the imagined reality of the character" is often NOT the driving object of the author, it often isn't the driving object of the roleplayer either.



The second place where I think the essay goes astray is here:

I would identify the largest single factor that distinguishes the roleplayer from the author or actor as ignorance; ignorance of circumstance, ignorance of futurity, ignorance of history... But the roleplayer, ideally, genuinely shares in the ignorance of the character, not knowing, for example, what lies at the bottom of that fortuitous chute (even though Carrie and George know that it is a trash compactor).

This is actually I think very insightful and spot on.  It is precisely that ignorance of what is to come that allows for suspense and drama, two key desireables in a roleplay session.

Where the mistake is, I think, is in assuming that the only way to get that ignorance / suspense is through chance based mechanics.  Again chance (or around here typically called Fortune) mechanics are ONE of the ways this gets accomplished, but it would be a mistake to assume that its the only way.

The classic examples, of course, are Amber and Nobilis which you'd be hard pressed to define as something other than an RPG, but which manage to be full of suspense due to ignorance of the future...and accomplish that with no fortune mechanics what so ever.


I hope that response is the sort you were looking for.

[Doctor Xero]

I would like to consider four very different ways in which a human being can 'interact' with a story. As an example, I will be treating the extremely well-known story 'Star Wars.' Consider the following:

[A] Being the author of 'Star Wars' (George Lucas)

Being an actor who plays a character in the film (Carrie Fisher)

[C] Participating in a role-playing game in the 'Star Wars' universe in which one plays Princess Leia, and

[D] Actually -being- Princess Leia.

---snip!--
[E] The audience of the film 'Star Wars.'

Although it has been mentioned before, I'd like to bring up again a theatre form in which B and C (and bits of A) can become the same thing : improvisational theatre.

In many improvisational troupes, each individual actor develops specific personnae with specific habits, perspectives, and approaches.  This enables the other improvisational actors to have some idea of what the other characters will do and to revise their own behaviors accordingly.  These might be broad comedic personnae, or they might occasionally be fairly complex dramatic personnae, but while they seem new to the particular improvised situation and new to the audience, they are familiar to the other players from repeated appearances in various improvised situations, and thus the players may simulataneously act and "meta-act" out their parts in the improvisational piece.

The closest musical equivalent is jazz as played by musicians who have played with one another for a considerable amount of time.

The closest dance equivalent is bellydancing as performed by an experienced dance troupe.

The closest gaming equivalent is a group of roleplaying gamers.

I'm not suggesting that each player roleplays the same basic characters (although that happens in some groups).  In this case, each player has the character sheet, the game rules, and the social contract which refines and directs his/her player-character such that players are able to be both actors (improv actors) and gamers.

This doesn't happen in every group's style of play, of course, and some people claim this is more common with simulationist gaming than with narrativist gaming (others disagree).  I have no idea how this impacts gamist play in actor stance.

Although I have experienced a wide variety of gaming styles and gaming approaches, this is the style of roleplaying gaming which has been the default for all of my primary gaming groups during the two decades plus I have gamed.

Doctor Xero

[Phil Levis]

Are there other ways to use randomizers in this specific form of Role Playing that you are discussing?

There are definitely uses beyond the resolution of a particular action: random encounters would be a significant one. I'm hard pressed to come up with any beyond that, though. This is a good question.

Where the mistake is, I think, is in assuming that the only way to get that ignorance / suspense is through chance based mechanics.  Again chance (or around here typically called Fortune) mechanics are ONE of the ways this gets accomplished, but it would be a mistake to assume that its the only way.

The classic examples, of course, are Amber and Nobilis which you'd be hard pressed to define as something other than an RPG, but which manage to be full of suspense due to ignorance of the future...and accomplish that with no fortune mechanics what so ever.

I hope that response is the sort you were looking for.

(It is.)

I fear, however, that this might be confusing two points. The first is that uncertainty brings the player closer to the character. The second and supplemental one is that, for particular actions, ones which would be probabilistic in the real world, the most accurate (in a Sim sense) mechanism to model that uncertainty is with randomness. A more accurate rendering will diminish the player/character boundary.

In many improvisational troupes, each individual actor develops specific personnae with specific habits, perspectives, and approaches. This enables the other improvisational actors to have some idea of what the other characters will do and to revise their own behaviors accordingly. These might be broad comedic personnae, or they might occasionally be fairly complex dramatic personnae, but while they seem new to the particular improvised situation and new to the audience, they are familiar to the other players from repeated appearances in various improvised situations, and thus the players may simulataneously act and "meta-act" out their parts in the improvisational piece.

Improvisational acting is an interesting point, and one I've certainly heard LARP players try to associate themselves with (myself included at times), as it lends a sheen of artistic reputability to LARPish Sim efforts. However, having delved a bit into the matter, I think the correspondence is tenuous at best; a common rule in improv is the "no no" rule; that is, you cannot contradict anything anyone else says, and must go along with what they propose. Of course, there are artistic forms closer to what you describe, and which begin to skirt between forms A, B, and C: Mike Leigh's efforts would be my first example, although he does, eventually, generate a script of sorts, and there are many rehearsals.

From an acting perspective, one could say -- using terms some people will bristle at, it being drama -- that the English method is closer to B, while the American method is closer to C. But to diverge for a moment...

It might be helpful to, at this point, elucidate the source and purpose of the document, as I think it opens a realm of discussion generally not present on the Forge, but certainly one of a great deal of debate within certain RPG communities: consent. I don't think -- given the tidy nature of these forums -- that this thread is the right place to explore the topic, but some background might be helpful.

This document is part of a proposal to arbitrate between different CAs in a large, shared, reasonably uncontrolled game, a Wod MUSH named Dark Metal. The issue that simmered for a long time was the CA conflict between players who wanted Nar, players who wanted Sim, and players who wanted Game. The proposed solution was a system named Fate, in which players could specify the degree of control they had over their character's, well, fate. At the lowest level, Fate 1, a character couldn't roll any dice: at the highest, Fate 5 (WoD, neh?), everything was open, including torture, etc.

One of the most contentious points of the proposal was that characters with higher Fate should receive more XP; the position of the author was that XP was a reward given to players, and as you moved from a player to a Storyteller (from Sim to Nav), your taking control and reduced risk meant you received less XP (the common quip was "A Storyteller doesn't receive XP.")

The full proposal:

http://unreason.com/jfp/fate">The Fate Proposal.

[Erick Wujcik]

I am completely unable to respond to the original posting in the terminology of the Forge, but I'd still like to respond to a few of the points raised.

I would identify the largest single factor that distinguishes the roleplayer from the author or actor as ignorance...

Seems to me that the medium is a far, far larger factor dividing drama (lumping authorship and the act of performance into a single term) from role-playing.

'Ignorance,' as defined above, is often absent from drama. While many authors work from an outline, or otherwise know where they're going with a story, I've heard countless writers say things like "if I knew how it was going to end, I'd be too bored to finish" and "my characters often surprise me, and sometimes completely alter the course of the narrative." Likewise, there are directors who insist that their actors be completely ignorant of what comes next in the story, feeling that the performances will be more 'natural' if the people are kept in the dark.

On the flip side, I've seen successful role-playing where players have been completely filled in as to the events and even the outcome of the story.

While 'ignorance' is often a feature of role-playing, and is less of a feature of drama, I'd argue that there are many more important lines between the two forms of artistic expression.

In the 'Star Wars' films, when Leia raises her gun to shoot a stormtrooper, the result is dictated by George Lucas and rendered by the combination of Carrie Fisher, Industrial Light & Magic, and various faceless actors inside white platemail. In a roleplaying game, when the Leia-character raises her gun to shoot a stormtrooper, her player casts dice. The player would have created a character sheet for Princess Leia which would detail, within the confines of the game system, how skilled Leia is with a gun, and her basic likelihood of hitting a target. This would in turn be modified, depending on the sophistication of the combat system, for factors such as range, firefight cover, aiming, armor, weapon power, and so forth.

This entire description is based on a subset of role-playing experiences.

Yes, there are many role-players who would translate the Carrie Fisher dramatic role in the way you describe.

However, there are also role-players, albeit a minority, who don't view role-playing in the context of skills, or even of the 'basic likelihood of hitting a target.' They have been introduced to role-playing without the use of formal systems, and some have never even seen a character sheet, or used dice.*

If the Storyteller arbitrarily decided whether or not Leia hit the stormtrooper (and in some cases, this is appropriate), it is my contention that the player would feel cheated.

Yup, that's your contention.

Given that the hypothetical player is accustomed to dice-based role-playing systems, you'd be correct.

However, there are now a significant number of diceless systems, played by a significant percentage of players, for whom the Storyteller's 'arbitrary' rulings are customary and expected.

On the flip side, I've heard from plenty of players who complain about being 'cheated' by Storytellers who use conventional systems and dice.

But ultimately, randomness is necessary because sometimes the 'real' Leia of [D] hits, and sometimes she misses. Her proficiency, if she possesses any, should only ensure that she hits more often than not. Once again, [C] aspires towards [D]. The 'real' Princess Leia that the roleplayer is attempting to simulate aims and shoots her gun without knowing whether or not it will strike; the player, in trying to be as close to Princess Leia's perceptions as she can, shares in that experience. To put this another way, the die roll is a surrogate action, undertaken by the player, that mirrors the actions of the character in the fictional world.

The problem here is that you are assuming that randomness is the only way that a player can mirror the fictional character.

In so doing you are overlooking other possibilities of player decision-making, either involving a non-random system (like a set number of points for 'hits'), or where the Storyteller and player interact to role-play out individual shots.

...I would say is that once the elements of ignorance and chance are removed, this is no longer roleplaying. Only in ignorance is true spontaneity possible, and without spontaneity, players are script-writing...

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but you seem to imply that randomness is the only way to spontaneity.

In my experience, so long as the Storyteller is flexible, the outcome of any diceless (randomless) role-playing session is completely unpredictable, and completely spontaneous. That's because the basic components of role-playing are the players, who are themselves, individually and collectively, unpredictable and unique.

Erick

* Aside from players in the Amber Diceless community, there are quite a few people in the LARP community, especially in the more experimental groups, such as those found in Scandanavia, who are introduced to role-playing without ever encountering formal character sheets, system mechanics, or dice.

[Marco]

The idea that mechanics/dice help bridge the gap between actor and author and "actual being" is something I've seen here before and I agree with (I think the term was that the dice 'objectify the challenge in the game,' or something like that). While, as many people have said, this is not true for all roleplaying, IME, it is certainly true for a substantial amount of it and is valid commentary on that section (immersionist roleplaying--I wouldn't even be as prescriptive as to say GNS Simulationist roleplaying)

The fact that all participants, to various degrees are both in some sense author and actor in an RPG (in many modes of play, anyway) as stated here:

Now what about case [C]? Certainly, the roleplayer shares some things in common with both the author and the actor. Like the author, the roleplayer generates a background for the character, a history of who they are, what they have accomplished thus far, and a general understanding of their mental state and manner. However, unlike the author, the roleplayer does not go on to commit preconceived speeches and gestures of their character to paper, for the simple reason that the player is ignorant of the circumstances into which their character will be thrown. Like the actor, the roleplayer struggles to find a voice for their character that conforms with the character's history, and, as is the case with the best actors, genuinely tries to understand what it must be like to -be- the character. But rather than having a script to run by, the roleplayer must extrapolate (under severe time constraints) the character's response to situations as they arise, creating a script through carefully meditated speech. The process that roleplayers engage in when they 'act the part' is difficult to distinguish from everyday behavior and experience. That is, one could hold a conversation with someone who is roleplaying which should ideally be indistinguishable from (or perhaps, no less 'real' than) a conversation with a non-roleplaying person.

and here:

[3] This, obviously, cuts both ways. Even Storytellers roll dice, and come into contact with the unpredictable actions and ideas of their players. They merely hold a veto power of sorts, and the ability to interpret the results of dice to their satisfaction. The point here is that the Storyteller is a more ultimate authority than the dice, as they are author, actor, and Interpreter of the Great Die.

Is why I am very critical of the wording used in describing what is called in The Forge's lexicon The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast (that it is possible to have a game where the "GM is the author" and the "Player is the protagonist.")

As those words are undefined in a role-playing context, a traditional game has no literal author (in the way a written story has an author) and no literal protagonist (in the sense The Forge means it, certainly a description of games may involve the PC's as what would be commonly understood as the "main characters.")

In some ways the participants are all both--and defining the GM as the "author of the story" (of which the PC's are the active agent) is entirely valid based on how one measures input to the shared story.

And I think the rules (dice mechanics) in otherwise immersionist roleplaying--as well as the responsibility split of GM and Player (the GM usually determining the situation and running the world as the PC's respond to the developing situation) are ways of getting closer to [D]. I do not think the GM usually gets to "be" an NPC in the 'D' sense of the term--at least not for most of a traditional game--it is often part of the GM's task to assist the immersionist players in getting to 'D' while he or she does not.

-Marco

[Valamir]

I fear, however, that this might be confusing two points. The first is that uncertainty brings the player closer to the character. The second and supplemental one is that, for particular actions, ones which would be probabilistic in the real world, the most accurate (in a Sim sense) mechanism to model that uncertainty is with randomness. A more accurate rendering will diminish the player/character boundary.

Again I think there is a fundamental logic hole in your reasoning here.

Consider, the roleplaying session is taking place with a wall between the player and GM.  The scene is one where the player will be making several "tests" which he logically reasons (from knowledge of game mechanics and estimates of relative difficulty) his character will have a 50/50 chance of passing.

The scene commences, 7 tests are made during it, and the PC passes 4 of them and fails 3.  This result is consistant with the players expectations and estimations of the odds.  The player experiences nothing that would make them feel cheated or snap their disbelief.

The GM is on the other side of the wall.  The player has NO WAY of knowing how the GM arrived at those pass / fail decisions.  He might have rolled dice, he might have flipped a coin, he might have simply evaluated each test as they occured and arbitrarily assigned a result based on various factors of what seemed sensible combined with his own sense of drama.  

Regardless of how the pass / fail decision was made (with Fortune, Karma, or Drama mechanics) it has zero impact on the players enjoyment of the game.


Thus, your contention that fortune will produce the more realistic (and thus, more immersive) result is incorrect.  Your sense of that is based solely on what you've become used to and what your familiar with.

Your association of Fortune as being the best arbiteur is simply a matter of habit and past history and NOT any actual fundamental quality of fortune mechanics over other forms.

There are advantages and disadvantages to Fortune, vs. Karma vs. Drama mechanics...and depending on the goals of the game one may indeed be the better option for any specific application...but relative sense of realism or maintaining suspense is not one of them.

[Phil Levis]

Is why I am very critical of the wording used in describing what is called in The Forge's lexicon The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast (that it is possible to have a game where the "GM is the author" and the "Player is the protagonist.")

As those words are undefined in a role-playing context, a traditional game has no literal author (in the way a written story has an author) and no literal protagonist (in the sense The Forge means it, certainly a description of games may involve the PC's as what would be commonly understood as the "main characters.")

In some ways the participants are all both--and defining the GM as the "author of the story" (of which the PC's are the active agent) is entirely valid based on how one measures input to the shared story.

Here is where I think we are running into a paradigm clash. It all depends on the definition of terms. I agree that the term author is not perfect, as its traditional use does not reflect all of the new complexities active players bring. I would argue that those words are defined, merely not in the Forge paradigm. The assertion of TITBB is taken as canon and part of the lexicon in this community, so it's part of the intellectual construction and paradigm that defines the discussion. However, its validity depends on the meanings given to words such as "author" and "protagonist." If you want precise, technical meanings, than clearly those two are too fuzzy to be helpful, hence TITBB and the glossary's dismissal of terms such as realism or immersion. The Forge approach is to define new terms to refer to technical things, rather than precisely define terms which exist; this is often a very good approach as it means people can't fight about terminology very much.

From one standpoint, players are clearly authors as well: they do, after all, write the dialog. But their role as authors is more limited than a GM, who states what time it is, the weather, and can determine whether any act succeeds. From the perspective of actors, the GM has a role outside of either A, B, C, or D: the GM is the director. However, in commercial theater, the power relationship between the director and actor is quite different than it is in an RPG between GM and player. Among other things, it's a bit difficult to make a living playing RPGs (although someone in San Francisco does so GMing for kids).

But I would argue that the GM/player divide described in most Sim games is a very simple qualitative one, and easy to articulate in terms of the scope of power. A GM has complete veto control over everything, and is therefore a distinct role than a player. (After all, a player could try to speak and the GM could say, "No words come out of your mouth.")

In so doing you are overlooking other possibilities of player decision-making, either involving a non-random system (like a set number of points for 'hits'), or where the Storyteller and player interact to role-play out individual shots.

Yes -- those increase the barrier between character and player. Pushing the point further, not all forms of Fortune are equivalent from a playing standpoint, hence my example (in an earlier reply post) of the GM rolling the die behind the screen and the player rolling a die openly. But that is more a question of practice than theory.

[lumpley]

Hi Phil. Welcome to the Forge!

Dice aren't for uncertainty at all, even in the very narrow kind of roleplaying you're talking about.

Dice are to ease negotiation. They're to take the decision out of one person's hands.

Consider: when I'm playing your game and I roll dice, how many possible outcomes are there? Two, probably - success or failure, plus maybe a margin of success or failure. I'm there shaking that die in my hand and I know for a fact that one of two things is going to happen. I know what the two are, I've already started planning for each. Uncertainty, pretty marginal.

Suspense isn't from uncertainty. Suspense is from putting off the inevitable. Ask Alfred Hitchcock, he'll tell you.

So now check this out:

A GM has complete veto control over everything, and is therefore a distinct role than a player. (After all, a player could try to speak and the GM could say, "No words come out of your mouth.")

In the game you describe, the dice can't do their job. In that game, the GM gets to make all the important decisions, dice or no. In fact, can't the player just roll the dice without ever caring or reading their results? Or even call out false numbers? "I'm sure that whatever happens, it'll be whatever the GM wants to happen..."

That's why you think that the role of dice requires an essay. Your style of play makes dice problematic.

-Vincent