Random numbers (split)

[Thierry Michel]

Apologies for resurrecting an old thread, but I found recently exactly the type of thing I was thinking of here:

http://www.simmonsgames.com/design/Chance.html">Chance and wargames

So if you had any interest in the subject, you should check this page.

[Ron Edwards]

The above post was split from Rationale for random numbers in RPG.

Thierry, that was a gross breach of Forge posting policy. Your obligation was to begin a new thread, including a link to the older one. You cannot resurrect like that and say, "Oh gee, sorry" while you do it. That's like saying stop signs only apply to drivers who feel like respecting them.

The discussion of the topic may continue here, of course.

Best,
Ron

[Thierry Michel]

Thierry, that was a gross breach of Forge posting policy. Your obligation was to begin a new thread, including a link to the older one. You cannot resurrect like that and say, "Oh gee, sorry" while you do it.

Apologies for that, in my mind, the idea was to post a resource highly relevant to that old discussion, not to restart one afresh.

To add some actual content to this post, I'll just say that what I find interesting in the article, is how the different rationales apply (or not) to RPGs. Of course the essay is more limited in scope since the idea is to explore the role of chance in simulations - and for RPGs there is also (first?) a narrative role, as said in the previous thread.

[Mike Holmes]

First, I disagree with a lot of the essay, starting with it's axioms. So I would warn people to take it with a grain of salt. If we really want to go into specifics, that's probably best for somewhere else.

What I think we can take away, however, for the purposes of RPGs is the concept of limitation of knowledge. That is, in a "deterministic" game, the player may know more than seems reasonable for the character to know. To the extent that you want to keep player and character understanding of phenomena equivalent, then chance is good for this.

RPGs also have an element that wargames have a little of, but which is much heightened in RPGs over wargames. That is drama. It's fun to feel the suspense of a die roll when it happens, knowing that you could be screwed by it, or delivered magnificently. That assumes that you buy into the game as being meant to be dramatic to some extent. If not, then you'll see any randomness that's not neccessary for simulation to be useless, yes.

For narrativism, for instance, it's been said that the results of a contest do not really matter in terms of win/lose, or "accuracy." Why have them? They're merely "dramatic springboards" which serve as "handles" from which we then create the next plot element. Have you ever been at a place in resolution where it was the GM's call, and not being able to discern the most interesting move, you simply rolled a die? Same principle.

So I think that randomness definitely has a place in RPGs. It even has a place in wargames, but I'd agree with the essay in that one should carefully examine the role that it takes. Sometimes it's put in for tradition's sake, where no randomness is needed, or where player choice would be better.

Mike

[Bowen Simmons]

Hello, I kept noticing visits to my site from this thread so I thought I'd drop by, although RPG is not a signficant area of activity of mine at present (although it was once and may be again someday - who knows?)

It is an interesting question as to whether chance does in fact contribute to drama and suspense. I would say that uncertainty definitely about future events does, but is it important whether the future event is up to chance? Consider the following example:

A character is about to open a chest. The player does not know what is inside, but believes it to be of the greatest importance. Consider these three possibilities with regard to the chest:

(1) The contents are determined by the game master's decision. The player knows that this is how the contents are determined.

(2) The contents are determined by chance. The player knows that this is how the contents are determined.

(3) The player does not know how the contents are determined.

The question is: is there any difference in the player's experience as to which of these is the case? Are they equivalent or not?

[Mike Holmes]

Welcome to the Forge, Bowen.

The question is: is there any difference in the player's experience as to which of these is the case? Are they equivalent or not?

Actually there are strong differences in these approaches in terms of what modes of play are best supported by each. Or, rather, which of these techniques supports what modes of play. Not everyone plays games for the same reasons.

Check out the articles section and the glossary to get some ideas about the general theories herabouts, and you'll see what I'm talking about, I think. You'll find, I'll bet, that some of the categories can be applied to different sorts of wargamers as well.

So, for instance, some players prefer to have control over the drama of the events of the game as opposed to having a feeling of internal cause. So for these people, it's important that the GM be "fixing" the contents of the chest in order that they are the most dramatic possible. Others find this sort of "fixing" makes the game seem less "real" as there's obvious participant fiddling with what would be in a real world a deterministic fact.

Basically these "Creative Agendas" are each going to be supported more or less by randomization depending on how they are implemented. Beyond that, it's hard to generalize. Much easier to look at a specific case.

Mike