The role of dice

[Marco]

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

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.

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.

(Emphasis added)

Well, I think this is still a textbook slippery-slope falacy. Just because the player can't see the GM's dice rolls doesn't mean the player is not contributing to the SiS in the way he thinks he is.

You say that's a practical concern and not a theoritical one. I think your theoritical level is based on a faulty assumption. I don't know there's anywhere else to go here.

But I do think there's another issue that might be illuminating: "deprotagonization"

Imagine that the GM is rolling on the table (in plain view) but wishes to manipulate the outcomes of situations anyway. If the PC's slay the first batch of kobolds he just has more ... and more show up (until the PC's run or die or get captured or whatever).

If the PC finds a clever way into the castle the GM doesn't like but has established would sort of work ("We'll go in through the underground river water-supply!"). The GM stations a guard there (just makes it up). Maybe a large number of guards. The player makes a Stealth roll and the GM says "Good--but as it turns out, there are some people down there. Let's see if they see you: roll. roll. roll. roll. Oops! One saw you!"

In this case the GM hasn't specified how many guards are there or what their rolls to see the PC will be--he's just rolling until he gets a low enough number on the table to justify it.*

In this case the player seems to be as "deprotagonized" as if the GM was rolling dice behind the screen.

One could say this is simply another way to deprotagonize a player--however, since the traditional GM always can do this in any game then by your logic any traditional GM is doing it in all games--and no player in a game with a traditional GM is protagonized.

-Marco
* If the contract is that the GM must state how many and what their rolls are, he will still have other opportunities to control the "result he wants" (your phrase): maybe the underground interance has a strong locked gate ... and behind that, some vicious monsters ... and then there's a deep well with people at the top ... and so on.

[LordSmerf]

After re-reading this thread, I think I've come to a conclusion:

Nate, you're either mis-stating your position or you're wrong.  What is true is that if you have fudging then you are never really using the dice to decide disputes.  You are instead using the GM's judgement for resolution, and he may occasionally use the dice to help him decide (he may even always use the dice).

On the other hand, Marco is right: Just because the GM is the system arbitrator does not necesarily mean that the players are deprotaganized.  In fact, the GM may be bound by Social Contract to allow stuff he doesn't want into the SIS.

The problem comes when the players believe that the dice are arbitrating and the GM chooses to deprotaganize the players.  It's not necessarily going to happen.  Of course, the GM doesn't really have to realize that he's deprotaganizing for it to happen.

Thomas

[Callan S.]

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.

I'm sorry, this is just stepping around the idea that SC is in vital play here. The rules don't grant anyone the ability to do anything. Only the participants can...the rules are impotent without co-operation from the participants.

If the players are expecting they have input, then they expect it to be part of the social contract. The GM is either cheating on that or is ignorant of this. A rule doesn't give him the ability to do this regardless of what the players want. If you give me a sword, it gives me the ability to hurt. But I have to swing the sword, to do so. It's not the sword, it's the sword wielder that is important here. Just like a sword by itself doesn't mean people will get hurt, nor does a certain type of rule mean people will get deprotagonised.

That's all I have to say on this. I've seen Ron explain this a few times. I wish I wrote as elegantly.

[Paganini]

Noon, I'm confused by your post. I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I definitely don't understand what you're saying. :)