The role of dice

[Marco]

Nathan,
I'm not arguing with you just ta argue with you. I think that you are making a fairly solid and reasonable point about application of the lumpley principle to a discussion about dice--but I think you're taking the implications of that way too far.

Marco,

The thing is, if the GM is *ever* able to fudge (that is, he can disregard the dice without the other players knowing) then it's no different than if he fudges every single result. So your big grey area is just a sham. It might be that the GM doesn't fudge very often - it depends on his internal moral and ethical structures. But the fact that the GM has a choice whether or not to fudge means that he always has the option to exclude input. Just because he *doesn't* do it doesn't mean he *can't* do it. And this means that the only reason the player's input was incorporated into the game is that the GM decided to let it - he decided not to fudge.

(Emphasis added)

It isn't? I think it is. In fact, in practice the GM who only fudges under some specific situations will be very, very different from the GM who never fudges or who fudges all the time.

The argument that a GM who dice-fudges in one specific set of conditions (say, to save a PC from death when he feels the death result was not the player's fault) will fudge on any or every roll is an example of the slippery slope fallacy.

There is no shown argumentation that a GM who intradicts a game-mechanic in one specific circumstance will do so in every circumstance (or might do so in every circumstance).

So, no. I don't agree.

I've assumed so far that there's no way for the players to contribute to the SiS that doesn't involve rolling dice, and that's kind of a tall assumption. But, IME, the games that encourage the GM to make secret rolls so he can fudge them give this fudging power in the context of the GM having the final word in other situations as well.

The GM traditionally has the "final word" in most games as a referee does in a sporting event. You may not agree with the ref but their decision stands.

I assume this isn't what you're refering to though. I suspect you are refering to the GM controling en toto the outcome and perhaps the  specifics of every situation?

Is that correct?

-Marco

[Paganini]

Nathan,
I'm not arguing with you just ta argue with you. I think that you are making a fairly solid and reasonable point about application of the lumpley principle to a discussion about dice--but I think you're taking the implications of that way too far.

Yeah, I got that. :) Let me see here...

It isn't? I think it is. In fact, in practice the GM who only fudges under some specific situations will be very, very different from the GM who never fudges or who fudges all the time.

The argument that a GM who dice-fudges in one specific set of conditions (say, to save a PC from death when he feels the death result was not the player's fault) will fudge on any or every roll is an example of the slipper slope fallacy.

OK. You're focused in on specific instances. "What will *this* GM do?" I'm looking at "what options are available?"

The real issue here is deprotagonization. If the GM can alter the dice results whenever he feels like it, without getting caught, then it doesn't matter how often he feels like it. It may be that he only ever feels like it when a PC is gonna die if he doesn't alter the dice.

But the thing is, every time the dice are rolled, he has that option to alter them. Every time the dice are rolled, he has to *check and see if he feels like changing them.*

That means that, no matter how nice the GM is, and no matter how seldomly he exercises his "right to fudge," the practical fact is that the resolution mechanics of the game are GM fiat.

The GM traditionally has the "final word" in most games as a referee does in a sporting event. You may not agree with the ref but their decision stands.

I assume this isn't what you're refering to though. I suspect you are refering to the GM controling en toto the outcome and perhaps the  specifics of every situation?

Well, I was talking about player input. It's conceivable to have a game where the dice are a veil disguising the fact that the GM can decide everything by fiat, but where, at the same time, the players have real input into the SiS the rest of the time, when the dice are not involved.

((Like, say, there's a token economy, where anyone can call for a roll by spending a token, but where the GM rolls for the opposition behind his screen.

The net result is that the GM can't just call for a roll any time he feels like it (since he might be out of tokens) and the rest of the time the game progresses by means of negotiation where everyone has final say of the elements that he owns particularly.))

So, I'm just recognizing this: The fact that the GM can fudge rolls doesn't necessarily mean that *all* player input in the game is subject to his approval - just that player input that involves the fudgeable rolling mechanics.

[Phil Levis]

If the GM can alter the dice results whenever he feels like it, without getting caught, then it doesn't matter how often he feels like it. It may be that he only ever feels like it when a PC is gonna die if he doesn't alter the dice.

"Without getting caught" suggests a confrontational relationship to me. How about if, when the GM does it, it is always apparent to the players and therefore open to negotiation? I don't been negotiation in the sense of "Let's talk about this," but rather, a player can say "I object."

I'm somewhat leery your line of argument as it assumes complete specficiation before the roll. Does it count as fudging if the GM doesn't have a perfect idea of the success and failure conditions before the roll? For little things like a spot check in D20, I often see a GM just ask for a roll to get a sense of the result and reply accordingly; I'd be very surprised if a GM always had a precise DC before the roll.

[Paganini]

"Without getting caught" suggests a confrontational relationship to me.

You bet. I'm assuming that the group's social contract explicitly involves using the dice for arbitration. If the GM is undermining that arbitration, he's breaking the social contract. He must do it in secret, or the players will call him on it.

If the social contract does not contain such a stipulation, then, as I described to Marco previously, the dice are just a prop to disguise the fact that the GM is in charge of every resolution.

How about if, when the GM does it, it is always apparent to the players and therefore open to negotiation? I don't been negotiation in the sense of "Let's talk about this," but rather, a player can say "I object."

Then this is not fudging. This is the group agreeing to hold their previous agreement (to abide by the rules) in abeyance at this particular time.

I'm somewhat leery your line of argument as it assumes complete specficiation before the roll. Does it count as fudging if the GM doesn't have a perfect idea of the success and failure conditions before the roll? For little things like a spot check in D20, I often see a GM just ask for a roll to get a sense of the result and reply accordingly; I'd be very surprised if a GM always had a precise DC before the roll.

Again, in this type of thing, the dice are a prop. The discussion of fuding can't really apply here, because the dice aren't being used to arbitrate.

[Marco]

OK. You're focused in on specific instances. "What will *this* GM do?" I'm looking at "what options are available?"

The real issue here is deprotagonization. If the GM can alter the dice results whenever he feels like it, without getting caught, then it doesn't matter how often he feels like it. It may be that he only ever feels like it when a PC is gonna die if he doesn't alter the dice.

But the thing is, every time the dice are rolled, he has that option to alter them. Every time the dice are rolled, he has to *check and see if he feels like changing them.*

(Emphasis added)
If the GM only checks to see if he wants to modify the dice when a PC's life is on the line (under conditions the player was not responsible for) then it is simply not accurate to say that he is checking to see if he wants to modify the roll "Every tiime."

That means that, no matter how nice the GM is, and no matter how seldomly he exercises his "right to fudge," the practical fact is that the resolution mechanics of the game are GM fiat.

In a philosophical sense any traditional GM will have to make decisions at some point about the ramifications of PC actions. These ramifications may be made without consulting the rules at all (i.e. if the PC's kill the King's messenger the GM has to determine what the King will do by way of investigation, retribution, etc.) A traditional GM is almost certainly under no obligation to consult the players about this.

If the measure of PC protagonization is reliable, transparent, control of the consquences of their declared actions then they are all "deprotagonized" just by sitting down to play (I put it in quotes because I'm not sure what it means in this context--I'd say 'disempowered').

-Marco

[LordSmerf]

If the GM only checks to see if he wants to modify the dice when a PC's life is on the line (under conditions the player was not responsible for) then it is simply not accurate to say that he is checking to see if he wants to modify the roll "Every tiime."

Marco, this is system again.  If the system that we as a group have agreed to use is "We will use dice to arbitrate any dispute except for PC life/death" then the GM is expected to make that decision.  However, if we have agreed to "let the dice arbitrate any dispute" and the GM breaks this agreement when it comes to player life/death, then the GM has evidenced a willingness to break the rules of the game we are playing.  If we continue to play this way then what we are really doing is allowing the GM to decide each and every time the dice are rolled whether he wants to break the rules this time or not.

I don't think that anyone disagrees with the fact thta the GM may not choose to over-ride the system.  Or with the idea that the GM is perfectly within his rights if that is what the players have already agreed to.  Instead what is being said is: a) the GM is breaking the rules, and thus has taken upon himself the authority of dice outcomes, or b) the players are only claiming that they are following the dice, and they are all really just looking to the GM for arbitration.

So, either the GM is over-riding the Social Contract, or the Social Contract doesn't actually say what everyone says it does.

Thomas

[Marco]

Marco, this is system again.  If the system that we as a group have agreed to use is "We will use dice to arbitrate any dispute except for PC life/death" then the GM is expected to make that decision.  However, if we have agreed to "let the dice arbitrate any dispute" and the GM breaks this agreement when it comes to player life/death, then the GM has evidenced a willingness to break the rules of the game we are playing.  If we continue to play this way then what we are really doing is allowing the GM to decide each and every time the dice are rolled whether he wants to break the rules this time or not.

By who's estimation? Who is "we?"

In practice the players do not know (if they do know then it *is* system--admitted or otherwise).

In theory a GM who is breaking system in one circumstance is not definitionally breaking it in every circumstance (i.e. only in some circumstances != every time).

Yes, the dice-fudging GM is breaking system (or system allows it--and it's a non-issue) but it's slippery slope'n to say that if the GM is fudging in one case the whole system collapses to GM-fiat.

It means there has been a systemic violation in one case--but not necessiarily in another.

-Marco

[LordSmerf]

Marco,

Aha!  I believe I understand the disagreement now.

Here's how this works.  Let's say that we start our own country, and we decide to abide by a simple set of laws:

1. Don't lie
2. Don't kill any people
3. Don't steal stuff

Now, let's say that you feel that violating these things are okay, but only in highly specific circumstances (to save the life of an innocent, let's say).  So you are actually living by a different set of rules.

1. Don't lie unless X
2. Don't kill any people unless X
3. Don't steal stuff unless X

So, while your rules are similar, and probably have a similar outcome in practice, it is pretty clear that you have a different set of rules.  So, even if you say youare following our law, unless X, the reality of things is that you aren't following our law at all.

Therefore, if we agree "the dice arbitrate things" and you, secretly decide "the dice arbitrate things unless it's about character death" then you are playing with a similar, but different set of rules.  The result here is that while it may look like we're playing by our rules, we're actually playing by your rules.  So, yes, in practice it may be almost identical, but from a conceptual standpoint it can be argued that we aren't using our agreed-upon rules at all.

Yeah, it's basically a semantics argument, but I believe it's a valid one.

Thomas

[Marco]

No argument: the GM is breakn' the law. I've never said otherwise. What I took issue with was the following:

1. That if the GM contravines system in one case it is proper to say that the entire game has been reduced to GM-fiat.

2. That in some cases (the GM rolls out of habbit and says "well, no--that roll didn't make sense" immediately after when the roll is on the table) fudging the dice is a deceptive contravention of system (indeed, if the players don't object then it may be an undeclared legal action)

3. That if the GM is ignoring some numbers on a die roll (say a wandering monster check) but will admit a legitimate randomized range then it is identical to the GM simply picking an result (choosing an encounter).

In all of these cases and others, in real life, ignoring dice rolls is something that has, IMO/IME complex ramifications and complex reasons behind it. It isn't as simple as saying "once a law is broken, all laws are broken" or "once a person has the ability to break a law it is the same thing as breaking that law."

-Marco

[Paganini]

Smerf, it's even more simple than that. If the option to fudge exists, it exists. If the GM always rolls the dice behind the screen, then the players are deprotagonized. Even if the GM *never fudges a roll* the players are *still* deprogatonized, because everything that happened during the game happened because the GM decided to let it happen - he decided not to fudge. The GM never fudged a roll. But the players were all still at his mercy. Their outcomes only happened at the GM's sufference.  The resolution system was still GM fiat all along. The dice just happened to never indicate an outcome that disagreed with what the GM wanted.

Marco is all worried about whether or not, and how often the GM fudges. What I'm looking at is the extra layer in the resolution. Not only do we have to go through the dice as selection mechanic, but we also go through the GM as selection mechanic. None of the stuff about how often the GM fudges, what circumstances apply, what the GM is thinking, have anything to do with the general principle. As long as that "GM selection" layer is present, the "dice selection" layer is moot.

[Marco]

Maybe you can shed some light on what deprotagonized means in this context: is it like "disempowered?"

-Marco

[Paganini]

Sure. Deprotagonization is when a player is unable to contribute to the SiS.

It's like this. The basic theory of randomized resolution is that dice (or whatever) are used for arbitration, right? Like Vincent said, as a selection mechanic. We've identified some potential things that might happen, and we use dice to pick which one. Why do we need to do that? Because one guy wants one outcome, some other guy wants another outcome, etc. There's no need to roll anything if everyone is in agreement.

Assume that this is the expected role of the dice in the game, as per social contract, and that no opportunity for fudging exists. (We use a secure random number generator on a third party server, or something like that.)

In this case, the player's input consists of having an even shot at getting the result he wants when compared at the other guy's shot at getting the result the other guy wants. If one person always just picks from the list, then the other players have no say. The only time they get the result they want is because the designated picker happened to pick the one they wanted.

This is the same deal with fudging. Assuming that the role of the dice is for arbitration as per social contract, but now the GM is able to fudge. The players are deprotagonized, because the GM is the guy who always picks from the list. Even if the GM never fudges, that element is still there. Just because the GM picks the same as the dice doesn't change the fact that the GM is the one doing the picking.

It may be that the players have other ways to contribute to the SiS. But in this game, in the specific case of resolution, the players are deprotagonized by the *possibility* of fudging, whether the GM actually does it, or not.

[Callan S.]

"Without getting caught" suggests a confrontational relationship to me.

You bet. I'm assuming that the group's social contract explicitly involves using the dice for arbitration. If the GM is undermining that arbitration, he's breaking the social contract. He must do it in secret, or the players will call him on it.

If the social contract does not contain such a stipulation, then, as I described to Marco previously, the dice are just a prop to disguise the fact that the GM is in charge of every resolution.

Hold on. If the SC doesn't contain such a stipulation, why would there be any concern about 'getting caught'?

The first thing you talk about is social contract breaking. The second is where it's been left to the GM to just decide things, apparently using the dice as a rough guide (if at all). The first is an SC prob, the second has no problem at all (it's been agreed to, after all).

The players are deprotagonized, because the GM is the guy who always picks from the list. Even if the GM never fudges, that element is still there. Just because the GM picks the same as the dice doesn't change the fact that the GM is the one doing the picking.

Not really. The player or players simply say 'No'. There, that choice doesn't exist in the SIS. The GM can keep trying to second guess what they will say yes to, or he can just hand over the reigns for a moment (the reigns he was handed by players in the first place).

The players are only deprotagonised when the social contract stops them from saying 'NO!', but at the same time the GM is either cheating on the social contract, or it permits him to do the choosing, without dispute from anyone. One is a SC violation, another is the groups choice.

The basic theory of randomized resolution is that dice (or whatever) are used for arbitration, right?

Yes. But don't take that to mean have any power, and then go on to show how really certain rules are powerless (thus leading to deprotagonisation). All rules are powerless from the start (shocking, I know)...they are only granted power by each participants commitment to abide by them.

The rules arbitrate. We LET them. If we don't, they don't.

[Paganini]

Hold on. If the SC doesn't contain such a stipulation, why would there be any concern about 'getting caught'?

There isn't. The problem is when the players think that they have input, but where the GM has the ability to disregard that input in favor of his own.

[M. J. Young]

I think you guys have kinda missed the point. The dice can never establish anything, because they never have to be rolled. As Vincent described, they are a selection tool.

This is just the difference between theory and practice though. In theory-land the dice have no authority (that's in a philosophical, exactingly correct sense). I think that when the ref flips a coin at the start of a football game, if you try to explain to people that "the coin toss doesn't determine who gets to decide if they kick or receive" you're gonna get some funny looks.

It's the ref that 'has the authority' in the game--but if the ref decided to ignore the coin toss and pick his favorite team, what would happen?

It's literally true that inanimate objects have no "authority" in an RPG. It's also true that the dice "establish things" in a general and yet correct sense of the term.

-Marco

Forgive my picking nits, but dice (and coin flips) have authority; what they lack is credibility. People have credibility, not authority.

The referee is the person who decides which team goes first. He bases that decision on his interpretation of the coin flip. That's a pretty straightforward interpretation, of course, but he could announce that he thinks the coin is unbalanced, or that he didn't throw it right, or some similar objection to the manner in which it was thrown. In essence, though, even assuming that there is no possibility of objecting to what the coin says, the referee supports his credibility with the authority of the coin toss: "I credibly say that the Blue Team goes first, based on my credible interpretation of the authoritative coin flip which I interpret as having fallen to heads."

Dice decide nothing. People decide everything. Dice are referenced as the authorities supporting the statements made by people. All the die says is "17". It takes the credible statement of the interpreter of the die to say "You hit."

--M. J. Young