Dice in Gaming

From: Craig Shackleton and Rachel Collishaw <craig.rachel_at_xtra.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:44:16 +1200

    As I worked through pages of difficult material, struggling to increase my understanding of Glorantha, I stumbled upon a discussion I felt I qualified to comment on. Then I found a part of it that I _had_ to comment on.

    Chris Bell writes (referring to Richard's discussion of Dice in RPGs)

[snip]
>flat and uninspired RP. Roleplay is inspired by character motivations,
>which is generated by PC personalities. PC personalities are created,
>in part, by world background and cultural setting, which is directly
>created by level and complexity of world detail. Filters destroy RP!
>A heated political discussion between a Sartarite Thane and loyal
>Lunar Carmanina Vizier will be a hell of a lot more lively and fun
>than between two identical D&D fighters who walk, talk and act
>like they come from some town in Illinois, USA.
>

    This is true, but I also enjoy roleplaying a reaction to unusual and unexpected situations. Dice can provide the unexpected for both the players and the GM.

    Furthermore, you can't just sit down to game and know everything about a setting, culture, or hell, even your own character. Much of this develops in play. Unless you think that every new player should do intensive research before sitting down to their first game? Even for me, playing in a setting I know well, my character develops and gains depth over time. As a GM, the same thing happens to my npcs.

[snip]
>slave collar to the city of Glamour. When you play and fall in love
>with a favorite character long enough, it comes naturally, with no need
>for extra nueral hardware.
>

    Just remember the "long enough." What do you do before that happens? I play my characters with less depth at first (call this a filter if you like). Later, I retroactively assume that there was more depth in game reality all along, and it is only my representation of the character that has improved (the character has not neccessarilly changed). Likewise, setting details are often simplified at the beginning of campaigns I run, until the players get a feel for them. Then gradually I 'remove the filters' and bring in more depth.

[snip]
>Take my word for it, Vegas, if you're at the gaming table just to hang with
the
>homies,
>then CCG's may be the thing for you. However, if you want rich character
interaction

    This rather sounds like 'If you don't play my way, you aren't playing properly, so you shouldn't play.' I hope that this is not what you meant. If so, it means that Richard's 'straw man' (someone said that) has a nice meaty core. Which I believe anyways, because I've encountered this kind of gamer elitism before.

    Perhaps I'm overreacting because I dislike CCGs.

[snip]
>> My motto would be: "Let the dice add the spice. Weave your stories
>> around the outcome."

>Dice in RPG's are problematic. Essentially, player free will in anygiven
story is
>essentially illusion. However, in order to tell a good
>story, the GM must stridently maintain the *Illusion* of player free
>The replacement for randomization in any RPG is the imagination
>and action-taking of the Player involed. The weird things that players
>dream up are more than a substitute for dice-rolling. See Eric
>Wujick's excellent Amber Diceless RPG for what I mean.

    I have always felt that RPGs involve the creation of a story by three forces; The GM, the Players, and the Dice. The dice add an element that the players and GM cannot predict, requiring greater creativity in them to compensate. I really enjoy when a random effect either forces me to think of a new thing, or throws a new element into the story.

[snip Richard's original post]
>But, again, this is non-sequitur. Ultimately, the GM decides, based on
yourRP,
>whether or not the Lunar Princess is wooed. Most GM's I know
>make their decisions based on two prominent factors...the needs of the
>story, the personality and prior history of the Princess, and the history
of
>the interaction between the Princess and the (presumably male, but who
>knows? This *is* a Lunar Princess!) PC. The uncertainty factor comes
>the personality of the PC, not how good your Fast Talk/Orate is or
whatever,
>and your own RP skills and ability to make *your* character come to life.

    But one of the reasons people play RPGs is to play a character who can do what they cannot. For me and many other experienced players (including, presumably, you) the roleplaying aspect comes easilly enough that it is not neccessary to roll the dice to see how well a seduction attempt works. I can play my character well enough to convey their ability to seduce someone, and the GM should be able to decide what will work and what won't. But what about someone less able to do this; say, someone who roleplays well in other ways, but feels embarrassed publicly vocalizing a seduction attempt? As a gamemaster, I would ask what general approach they were taking, and let the dice decide.

>> The Gambling buzz is just the uncertainty buzz after all, and for some
>> reason, when there is real doubt of outcome, the rewards seem so much
>> sweeter. And RPGs are not the only place where people extrapolate great
>> achievements from a few lucky breaks.

>Again, this is where detail comes in, as well as trust. All players must
>trust their GM's to allow them to be proper participants in the story,
>as accorded to their role, and the detail level of the world background
>and the Players and GM's attention to the detail will create enough
>permutations where the outcome is *never* certain, much like our real
>world. And, dice aren't used to determine the outcome of real world
>events, except in gambling casinos.

    This, I simply don't buy at all. How can the outcome be uncertain if the GM has the final say in what happens? I, as a player, may not know the outcome, but I know damn well that it is predetermined and that the GM knows what it is.

    Of course dice don't determine what happens in real life. But there certainly is an element of luck in everything we do. Usually it isn't important, so we can ignore it. But in a dramatic situation, it _is_ important. Fortunately, my life is not as dramatic as an RPG.

>When I run, I'm not a bookie, I'm a storyteller/movie director/maestro.I
refuse to
>entrust my joint creation (with the players) to be dictated by the
>toss of dice...I allow it to follow it's own appropriate logic, as dictated
by
>motivations of the PC's and the mythic stories that lie within THEM
>(both the player and his PC.)

    With all due respect, this is the exact kind of campaign I dislike, and would never run or play in. If you and your players enjoy the game, then good on you.

    For me, as a GM, there are two events that are near the top of my list for enjoying a game. One is when the players totally derail my plot, and the other is when the dice totally derail my plot. That's when I have to become _really_ creative, and fly by the seat of my pants for the rest of the session (or even campaign).

    As a player, I enjoy taking risks. The more I feel that there is a predetermined outcome, the bigger the risks I'll take, especially if success means derailing the story. Perhaps I'm just perverse.

    Craig Shackleton


Powered by hypermail