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.

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

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.

LordSmerf wrote: I think that your essay is long and drawn out

LordSmerf wrote: 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?

Phil Levis wrote:
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*

contracycle wrote: 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.

contracycle wrote: 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.

contracycle wrote: 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.

contracycle wrote: 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.

contracycle wrote: 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.

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].

Phil Levis wrote: 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.'

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

Valamir wrote: 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 wrote: 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.

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.

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

Phil Levis wrote: 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.

Phil Levis wrote: 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.

Phil Levis wrote: 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.

Phil Levis wrote: ...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 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:

Phil Levis wrote:
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.

[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.

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.

Marco wrote: 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.

Eric Wujcik wrote: 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.

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:

you wrote: 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.")

Vincent,

Hmmm--well, I may not be playing the same way as Phil (it's hard to say)--but I don't agree with you on that. As a general statement that "the dice afford credibility" I think that's all right as far as a sweeping philosophical statement goes--but when you say they don't provide suspense/etc "at all" I think:

(a) While I, in theory, agree with the GM's ability to exercise total fiat, there are pratcial limits to this. In a game I was in, the GM could "silence a character" so long as there was a cited reason I understood (or I had faith that there was an in-game explanation for the mysterious silence).

Neither I, nor my players, afford the GM complete credibility if the unfolding action of the game doesn't make sense (i.e. a peevish GM can't silence a character because 'it's ruining the story.' If the character is in space or has a sore throat, however, that veto is workable).

So in that case, the dice *do* provide credibility: the GM, in many cases, cannot override them and maintain credibility (the 'roll on the table' and the GM will have to live with it).

Despite this aspect of play, the GM still is the person at the table with the largest amount of directoral power (by a huge margine, I think, if we can come up with a metric by which to measure it). This means that the GM is still capable of exerting a massive and potentially catastrophic influence on the game (I games I play in and run a player is often more replacable than a GM for a variety of reasons I won't detail here but can go into if someone asks).

Thus I think that the GM does have that veto power (the GM can silence a character--but had better be able to back it up or at least pull a convincing con-job on us) but in many situations, especially dice driven ones, the dice command an enormous influence on play.*

Therefore:

(b) Since there are conditons where the GM either cannot credibly (or will not) override the dice, they do provide suspense. We can quibble over suspense, however rolling the dice is a gamble. The gambler playing Texas Hold'em knows all the odds, knows the results of various hands, etc. The game clearly has suspense.

Note: It may be that Phil's "style of play" has no gambling element to it (or that you don't believe gambling is suspenseful, I'm not certain)--but my style of play certainly does and I think this essay is a pretty good explanation of it.

Finally, I wouldn't say that, as far as I am concerned, dice "need an essay to explain them"--but discussions of how they relate to credibility on the part of participants and 'objectifying the challenge' (assisting me in believing that there is an objective reality in the SiS since no single human is responsible for determining all outcomes) is certainly useful.

If any mode of play that "needs an essay to explain it" is problematic, what does that say about Narrativisim, Simulationism, and Gamism?

-Marco
* Because of the GM's role in determining situation and often controlling pacing and the world's response (running NPC's working counter to the PC's off screen) I think it is very legitimate to consider the GM the "author of the story" (noting that the term 'Story' here is used vaguely, not in the glossary sense (the same way it is used vaguely in TITBB).

Hey Marco.

You wrote: So in that case, the dice *do* provide credibility: the GM, in many cases, cannot override them and maintain credibility (the 'roll on the table' and the GM will have to live with it).

lumpley wrote:
Good! My point - the dice take the decision out of the GM's hands. Your mention of "a convincing con job" reinforces this. When the GM wants the decision, he or she has to lie to you.

We'll have to hear from Phil whether in his game the GM controls outcomes or the dice do.

I'll give you that uncertainty makes suspense if you'll give me that meaningfulness makes suspense too. Meaningless uncertainty - as in my poison save while you're buying supplies - is not suspenseful.

(What, you wouldn't say that Gamism, Narrativism and Simulationism are problematic? They pose all sorts of probs. But let's debate that elsewhere if at all.)

-Vincent

Valamir wrote: 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.

lumpley wrote: We'll have to hear from Phil whether in his game the GM controls outcomes or the dice do.

I'll give you that uncertainty makes suspense if you'll give me that meaningfulness makes suspense too. Meaningless uncertainty - as in my poison save while you're buying supplies - is not suspenseful.

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

Marco wrote: While I, in theory, agree with the GM's ability to exercise total fiat, there are pratcial limits to this. In a game I was in, the GM could "silence a character" so long as there was a cited reason I understood (or I had faith that there was an in-game explanation for the mysterious silence).

This is one of those threads that got away from me. (I missed a day, due to massive disruption in my usual schedule.) I hope I'm not repeating things.

After what he described as a long preamble,

Phil wrote: Hopefully, all that has been said above is relatively uncontroversial, and more or less common knowledge.

Nope I disagree MJ. I have disagreed previously with the argument that dice are only supportiver of credibility and will do so again. The use of dice, publicly as mentioned above, is to conciously derrogate from the normal credibility negotiation IMO.

Normally, as you point out, a statement is made ex cathedra by the GM and the players have littel capacity to review or challenge that decision. But like other process, the more transparent the whole transaction is the less room it allows for illusionistic manipulation. If the contract requires all rolls be public, including those of the GM, then the contract has effectively denied situational illusionism.

Yes I'll agree that the GM's power to call for or ignore rolls mitigates this effect, but I do not think that undermines the essential validity leant to a decision by the dice. Not by a person, by the dice. Rolling behind a screen is a convention, not a universal principle, and IMO its a bad convention based upon systems that were half broken when they rolled of the presses.

Phil, one of the words people learn around here is synechdoche. It's the error of mistaking the part for the whole.

Again, I think your conclusion might stem from the Forge's abstraction of random elements into the term Fortune, thus suggesting some degree of equality. From a game design perspective, the abstraction is very useful; I think that, from a game playing perspective, it can be a bit misleading.

I believe that both M.J. and contracycle are right up to a point.

M.J. is spot on with the idea that the GM is the one who decides outcomes. Even with everyone rolling openly the GM is not required to reveal the bonuses of the opposition. Further, the GM in most groups is permitted, and even encouraged, to apply "situational modifiers" to the mix. So if he doesn't want his NPC to die it probably won't happen.

However, M.J. also isn't (as far as I can tell) taking into account that sometimes the GM has no preference, or has a preference that is not strong enough to over-ride his sense of "fairness". In these cases the GM cedes his credibility to decide an outcome directly to the dice. So the dice really can determine the outcome as Phil and contracycle have stated, but only because the GM, for whatever reason, has chosen to allow them to.

contracycle is also correct about one thing: transperency reduces the GM's ability to decide outcomes on his own. The problem is that you basically require total transperency (i.e. the opposition's stats and bonuses in their entirety, as well as all situational modifier declared up front, in addition to the dice rolls being publicly rolled) for this to be effective.

It has been my experience that the people who enjoy the kind of play that Phil is talking about don't enjoy fully transparent play. That's purely anecdotal though and I'm not sure how useful it is, but it seems to make sense. The goal of "being the character" is generally considered to be hindered by the player having knowledge that the character wouldn't have. That way of thinking and transparency just don't go well together.

Thomas

LordSmerf wrote: I believe that both M.J. and contracycle are right up to a point.

M.J. is spot on with the idea that the GM is the one who decides outcomes. Even with everyone rolling openly the GM is not required to reveal the bonuses of the opposition. Further, the GM in most groups is permitted, and even encouraged, to apply "situational modifiers" to the mix. So if he doesn't want his NPC to die it probably won't happen.

However, M.J. also isn't (as far as I can tell) taking into account that sometimes the GM has no preference, or has a preference that is not strong enough to over-ride his sense of "fairness". In these cases the GM cedes his credibility to decide an outcome directly to the dice. So the dice really can determine the outcome as Phil and contracycle have stated, but only because the GM, for whatever reason, has chosen to allow them to.

Thomas

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.

Think of it this way: System (of which mechanics are a subset) is a formalized way of creating continuity among the imaginations of the players. That is, system is what we (the participants) do to make sure that I'm imagining the same stuff that you are. When we roll the dice, we've already decided what we're going to imagine... down to a few possibilities. We're just turning to the dice to pick one.

The dice can never tells us what happens in the same way as a player can, because the dice have no creative impetus. They can't *invent.* That's why dice have no credibility. That's why mechanics have no authority. They're just algorithms to help us get from point A - "gee, there are a lot of possibilities here, what's gonna happen?" to point B - "this is what we all imagine."

Paganini wrote: 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.

Marco, you're correct, yes. But my (I guess sort of hidden) point was that the whole thing is a social contract issue. When dice are used as a selection mechanic, everyone has agreed that *no one* will pick. No one has any authority; the dice weigh a particular outcome with credibility... because everyone has decided that they will. It's the same with football. The purpose of the coin is to avoid bias. The participants involved agree to randomly select from the potential outcomes.

In an RPG, if such an agreement exists, then the GM breaks social contract by fudging. If such an agreement does not exist, then the dice do not select anything. They're merely a veil to disguise the fact that the whole thing runs on GM fiat.

Paganini wrote: Marco, you're correct, yes. But my (I guess sort of hidden) point was that the whole thing is a social contract issue. When dice are used as a selection mechanic, everyone has agreed that *no one* will pick. No one has any authority; the dice weigh a particular outcome with credibility... because everyone has decided that they will. It's the same with football. The purpose of the coin is to avoid bias. The participants involved agree to randomly select from the potential outcomes.

In an RPG, if such an agreement exists, then the GM breaks social contract by fudging. If such an agreement does not exist, then the dice do not select anything. They're merely a veil to disguise the fact that the whole thing runs on GM fiat.

Paganini wrote: 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.

When we roll the dice, we've already decided what we're going to imagine... down to a few possibilities. We're just turning to the dice to pick one.

The dice can never tells us what happens in the same way as a player can, because the dice have no creative impetus. They can't *invent.* That's why dice have no credibility. That's why mechanics have no authority.

Paganini wrote:
In an RPG, if such an agreement exists, then the GM breaks social contract by fudging. If such an agreement does not exist, then the dice do not select anything. They're merely a veil to disguise the fact that the whole thing runs on GM fiat.

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.

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.

Gareth,

There's not much I can say here to debate. It seems obvious to me that dice don't have *minds.* They don't make things up. Credibility is how likely it is that everyone else at the table will integrate what *I* make up into the SiS. Dice don't have credibility. They give credibility to some player. This is definitional.

When they suggest an outcome as you've described (wondering monsters, exploding dice, and so on) they only do that because these are outcomes we've previously agreed might be cool to imagine.

So, it's like, we gotta come to an agreement on some more basic things before we can discuss further. We lack common perceptions.

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.

Paganini wrote: 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.

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.

Marco wrote: 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 wrote:
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.

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?

Paganini wrote: 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.

Phil Levis wrote: "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 wrote:
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.

Marco wrote: 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."

LordSmerf wrote:
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.

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

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

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.

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

-Marco

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.

Paganini wrote:

Phil Levis wrote: "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.

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.

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

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

Marco wrote:

Paganini wrote: 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

Paganini wrote: 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.

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

Paganini wrote:

Noon wrote: 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.

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. :)