RNG in the RPG and to "Sid Meier" or not to "Sid Meier"?

[NotAI]

Jonathan Blow says he really dislikes, e.g., when games show a 80% percent probability and mean 100% and show a 20% and really mean 0%. He says that's ****. He says that's super ******.

Which means he disagrees with Sid Meier and Tim Cain and many other developers, who argued that, for better game feel (Where's the take a drink emoji?), so psychological reasons, one number should be posted to the player, while a totally different one used underneath to calculate what actually happens in gameplay.

JB called it "Sid Meier-ing" the RNG.

Comment. This argument goes back I recall to Max Wertheimer. People don't experience probabilities or numbers linearly.

OK. So what do YOU think?

Comment. You must post reasons to vote in the thread.

[WhiteShark]

Saying that it 'feels bad' to see the real numbers is a false reasoning that leads us to where gaming is today: "Losing feels bad, so let's remove it." Learning to understand probabilities as they actually are rather than how they 'feel' is just another skill a player needs to build.

[J1M]

Fudging numbers to avoid streaks is fine as long as those hidden bonuses are communicated to the player. Using a number that is a lie is not.

[asf]

Sid meier is a ******. He does a lot of other garbage to cater to ******** players instead of actually improving the systems.

[Atlantico]

I don't like playing against a spreadsheet. I'm fine with a DM fudging the numbers to make a game more interesting/surprising/fun.

Playing against actual real numbers is too autistic for my taste

[WhiteShark]

I'm fine with a DM fudging the numbers to make a game more interesting/surprising/fun.

Nah. The GM fudging the numbers makes the outcomes less interesting, surprising, and fun. It turns tabletop into the GM's live action fantasy novel. Organic outcomes left entirely to the dice are the most interesting because they are impartial.

[Atlantico]

I'm fine with a DM fudging the numbers to make a game more interesting/surprising/fun.

Nah. The GM fudging the numbers makes the outcomes less interesting, surprising, and fun. It turns tabletop into the GM's live action fantasy novel. Organic outcomes left entirely to the dice are the most interesting because they are impartial.

Nah, it makes it more interesting, surprising, and fun.

A bad DM is a bad DM no matter how the numbers go. Organic outcomes are never off the table, you sound like your DM sucks lmao

Get a better DM

[MadPreacher]

I'm fine with a DM fudging the numbers to make a game more interesting/surprising/fun.

Nah. The GM fudging the numbers makes the outcomes less interesting, surprising, and fun. It turns tabletop into the GM's live action fantasy novel. Organic outcomes left entirely to the dice are the most interesting because they are impartial.

Nah, it makes it more interesting, surprising, and fun.

A bad DM is a bad DM no matter how the numbers go. Organic outcomes are never off the table, you sound like your DM sucks lmao

Get a better DM

My players, @The_Mask and @Kalarion say that me not fudging produces far more interesting outcomes in most cases.

[WhiteShark]

A bad DM is a bad DM no matter how the numbers go. Organic outcomes are never off the table, you sound like your DM sucks lmao

If the GM does any number fudging there cease to be organic outcomes because he only allows the "random" outcomes of which he approves. I'm glad that you have fun LARPing the GM's novel, though.

[Atlantico]

Nah. The GM fudging the numbers makes the outcomes less interesting, surprising, and fun. It turns tabletop into the GM's live action fantasy novel. Organic outcomes left entirely to the dice are the most interesting because they are impartial.

Nah, it makes it more interesting, surprising, and fun.

A bad DM is a bad DM no matter how the numbers go. Organic outcomes are never off the table, you sound like your DM sucks lmao

Get a better DM

My players, @The_Mask and @Kalarion say that me not fudging produces far more interesting outcomes in most cases.

You should DM the way you feel is best — I'm not going to tell anyone how to play, I was being facetious with @WhiteShark — and I never ever ever tell players I fudge numbers. Ever. That ruins everything.

Fudging numbers is a strategic storytelling tool for a DM, it's not done on a whim (only bad DMs do that)

Players should never ever know what the DM is doing. If they do, it ruins the fun regardless. I prefer to DM with absolute top secrecy. If I am fudging numbers, they'll never know or suspect. If they suspect, I've failed as a DM.

There are moments when an event must fail or succeed for the story written by the DM, but the players never know what events.

[Atlantico]

A bad DM is a bad DM no matter how the numbers go. Organic outcomes are never off the table, you sound like your DM sucks lmao

If the GM does any number fudging there cease to be organic outcomes because he only allows the "random" outcomes of which he approves. I'm glad that you have fun LARPing the GM's novel, though.

The DM has a story set, which is the spine of the story, and there's no need to waste time to prepare for every contingency. That's simply hilariously autistic.

The players make the meat of the story. It is a back and forth, but the players will always have to stay on the spine of the story. There is no difference between fudging numbers to put things on the right course as it is to create events that push players on the right course. It's just a tool.

Have fun LARPing in your autistic survival sim or whatever you think you're doing when you are playing PnP

[MadPreacher]

You should DM the way you feel is best — I'm not going to tell anyone how to play, I was being facetious with @WhiteShark — and I never ever ever tell players I fudge numbers. Ever. That ruins everything.

Fudging numbers is a strategic storytelling tool for a DM, it's not done on a whim (only bad DMs do that)

Players should never ever know what the DM is doing. If they do, it ruins the fun regardless. I prefer to DM with absolute top secrecy. If I am fudging numbers, they'll never know or suspect. If they suspect, I've failed as a DM.

There are moments when an event must fail or succeed for the story written by the DM, but the players never know what events.

I agree and that's how I do things when there is an actual story arc going on. In the current game, most of them aren't actually role playing a character and are doing hex crawls or city building. The story comes about from them exploring. If a character dies then they have 5 other characters that can take over.

[WhiteShark]

The DM has a story set, which is the spine of the story, and there's no need to waste time to prepare for every contingency. That's simply hilariously autistic.

The players make the meat of the story. It is a back and forth, but the players will always have to stay on the spine of the story. There is no difference between fudging numbers to put things on the right course as it is to create events that push players on the right course. It's just a tool.

Have fun LARPing in your autistic survival sim or whatever you think you're doing when you are playing PnP

This is called railroading and is antithetical to the nature of RPGs. A fixed story is a compromise made for video games, but in tabletop it is the very freedom of the players to influence outcomes in accordance with the rules which makes the whole activity worthwhile. You say that there is no difference between fudging and using events to "put things on the right course"; I concur. Neither of these are acceptable GM practices because the very idea of a 'right course' is incorrect. The RPG at its core is a simulation, and the farther it strays from that, the less it is an RPG.

[rusty_shackleford]

showing information the player character couldn't know is bad design, simple as

[Emphyrio]

CRPGs should escape the mental ghetto of trying to simulate tabletop rpg behavior and outcomes.

[J1M]

Nah, it makes it more interesting, surprising, and fun.

A bad DM is a bad DM no matter how the numbers go. Organic outcomes are never off the table, you sound like your DM sucks lmao

Get a better DM

My players, @The_Mask and @Kalarion say that me not fudging produces far more interesting outcomes in most cases.

You should DM the way you feel is best — I'm not going to tell anyone how to play, I was being facetious with @WhiteShark — and I never ever ever tell players I fudge numbers. Ever. That ruins everything.

Fudging numbers is a strategic storytelling tool for a DM, it's not done on a whim (only bad DMs do that)

Players should never ever know what the DM is doing. If they do, it ruins the fun regardless. I prefer to DM with absolute top secrecy. If I am fudging numbers, they'll never know or suspect. If they suspect, I've failed as a DM.

There are moments when an event must fail or succeed for the story written by the DM, but the players never know what events.

Maybe this works if your players have room temperature IQ?

[Acrux]

I used to be completely against DM fudging, but I've changed my view over the years. I think it should only be used sparingly (and definitely I never tell players that I've done it), but it is a tool available for DMs. I wouldn't change a player's failure to success, but I might mitigate a situation so that players stay engaged.

Seth Skorkowsky has a video with a really good example where DM fudging changes an immediate crit and TPK into a challenging fight that the party still loses, but has fun.

[WhiteShark]

I used to be completely against DM fudging, but I've changed my view over the years. I think it should only be used sparingly (and definitely I never tell players that I've done it), but it is a tool available for DMs. I wouldn't change a player's failure to success, but I might mitigate a situation so that players stay engaged.

Seth Skorkowsky has a video with a really good example where DM fudging changes an immediate crit and TPK into a challenging fight that the party still loses, but has fun.

Just do what GURPS does and encourage all players to take the Luck advantage for emergency rerolls. If the fear is that a random bad roll is going to ruin the game for everybody, then the countermeasure should be something baked into the rules, not a deception by the GM.

[Acrux]

Just do what GURPS does and encourage all players to take the Luck advantage for emergency rerolls.

I don't know GURPs very well, but I assume that would only allow players to change their own rolls, right? I would never, ever fudge a players roll.

[Piggy]

showing information the player character couldn't know is bad design, simple as

This is why Gauntlet is my favorite RPG. No numbers, no skillchecks, just hit the enemy until it dies.

[WhiteShark]

Just do what GURPS does and encourage all players to take the Luck advantage for emergency rerolls.

I don't know GURPs very well, but I assume that would only allow players to change their own rolls, right? I would never, ever fudge a players roll.

Yes, it's only your own rolls, but in GURPS the defender typically gets to roll to avoid being hit, or if the hit cannot be avoided because it is a critical, at the very least he gets rolls to stay conscious/alive.

Luck: Once per hour of play, you
may reroll a single bad die roll twice
and take the best of the three rolls!
You must declare that you are using
your Luck immediately after you roll
the dice. Once you or anyone else has
made another die roll, it is too late to
use Luck. If the GM is rolling in secret
(e.g., to see if you notice something),
you may tell him you are using your
Luck ahead of time, and he must roll
three times and give you the best
result. 15 points.

[Atlantico]

The RPG at its core is a simulation, and the farther it strays from that, the less it is an RPG.

No, that's autism. RPGs are not simulations. Typical of the GURPS crowd. Many such cases.

The RPG is at its core a game, with all kinds of abstractions of actions and events, where the DM and the players are all playing together. The game is tied together by the DM. The DM isn't a human computer, holding a virtual simulation session.

You even concede that when you claimed people should rely on their Luck score to attempt "for emergency rerolls". That's just another layer of abstraction, Luck is not descriptive of a simulation. I've DMd for many groups over many years and I've met many people who think like you and they're typically people who are affected by computer RPGs, since cRPGs are much closer to a simulation than PnP, with hard rules that railroad both the actions of players and the direction of the game itself.

Maybe this works if your players have room temperature IQ?

*rolls*

You encounter a Giant Generic Spider. Did I fudge the roll? How is your IQ going to help.

[rusty_shackleford]

rpgs are basically simulations except they added a game to play
which is why things like kenshi aren't rpgs

[somerandomdude]

I prefer to get the real numbers. There are a number of ways someone could creatively implement mechanics that steer the numbers to break up streaks without actually fudging the numbers.

For example, if I knew that an 85% to hit was closer to 40-50%, I might prefer to not gamble on a coin toss, and would possibly weigh in favor of another action.

[WhiteShark]

The RPG is at its core a game, with all kinds of abstractions of actions and events, where the DM and the players are all playing together. The game is tied together by the DM. The DM isn't a human computer, holding a virtual simulation session.

Abstractions don't make it not a simulation so long as they reasonably approximate what's supposed to be happening.

You even concede that when you claimed people should rely on their Luck score to attempt "for emergency rerolls". That's just another layer of abstraction, Luck is not descriptive of a simulation.

It is descriptive of a simulation if true chaos exists in the setting, as is typical of, say, D&D. It's also easy enough to make it be the result of subconscious psychic ability, a boon from the Fates, or whatever else works for the setting.

I've DMd for many groups over many years and I've met many people who think like you and they're typically people who are affected by computer RPGs, since cRPGs are much closer to a simulation than PnP, with hard rules that railroad both the actions of players and the direction of the game itself.

And I suppose Gary Gygax and co. were also autistic cRPG enthusiasts when they made D&D to be a dungeon exploration simulation, hm? The """story""" based style you're espousing was made popular with Dragonlance. It wasn't how RPGs were originally envisioned nor is it how they best function.

[Atlantico]

Abstractions don't make it not a simulation so long as they reasonably approximate what's supposed to be happening.

We don't have to take your word for it, actual simulators do exist. Simulators all have in common that they strive for realism above all else, that's the number one focus. RPGs do not. The G in RPG stands for Game. Not "Sim".

The description of the combat round in AD&D 2nd ed. is a very good example of how RPGs are a game and the rules an abstraction, with no attempt at realism or simulation. Making a game with a group of people and to have fun within the confines of that game is the focus of RPGs.

And I suppose Gary Gygax and co. were also autistic cRPG enthusiasts when they made D&D to be a dungeon exploration simulation, hm? The """story""" based style you're espousing was made popular with Dragonlance. It wasn't how RPGs were originally envisioned nor is it how they best function.

Ever since the late 70s a story is an expected part of even original D&D. Story was always a part of RPGs. (Dragonlance is '86 btw lol)

Probably because stories make the game more fun and they're naturally appropriate for the setting, i.e "why are we in a dungeon?"

The story element is what differentiated the RPG from the wargame and forever separated the two.

[MadPreacher]

And I suppose Gary Gygax and co. were also autistic cRPG enthusiasts when they made D&D to be a dungeon exploration simulation, hm? The """story""" based style you're espousing was made popular with Dragonlance. It wasn't how RPGs were originally envisioned nor is it how they best function.

Blackmoore and Greyhawk were all story based adventures. The Temple of Elemental Evil has a story attached to it as does quite a few of Gary's adventures. All of the first series of modules released for D&D and AD&D all had stories attached to them.

[WhiteShark]

We don't have to take your word for it, actual simulators do exist. Simulators all have in common that they strive for realism above all else, that's the number one focus. RPGs do not. The G in RPG stands for Game. Not "Sim".

The description of the combat round in AD&D 2nd ed. is a very good example of how RPGs are a game and the rules an abstraction, with no attempt at realism or simulation. Making a game with a group of people and to have fun within the confines of that game is the focus of RPGs.

RPGs are simulations because they must represent a consistent fantasy world that follows consistent rules lest it become freeform nonsense or a game totally disconnected from the fiction. Abstractions are necessary because it is impossible to simulate every detail, especially for humans, but that doesn't change the nature of the activity. RPGs are games insofar as they have goals (usually) and rules, but it is the consistent fantasy world in which the PCs may act as free agents that separates it from the more typical sort of game.

Probably because stories make the game more fun and they're naturally appropriate for the setting, i.e "why are we in a dungeon?"

You're describing motivation, not a story. And yes, motivations are necessary, just as settings and backgrounds are. What's not necessary is for the GM to predetermine the outcome, i.e. a story.

The story element is what differentiated the RPG from the wargame and forever separated the two.

I'd say it's rather the freedom of action and the independent, living fantasy world that distinguishes RPGs from all else.

[WhiteShark]

Just to make my terms absolutely clear:

Setting = "The campaign takes place in the perilous Coldpeak mountain range in which nestles the labyrinthine fortress of the dark wizard Abluvius."
Background = "Abluvius served as a court wizard but increasingly spent more time in isolated research than at the palace until one day he slew the king and disappeared with the royal treasures into the depths of his mountainous citadel."
Motivation = "The party desires the priceless treasures said to lie in the depths of the dungeon."

^ These are good and necessary for an RPG.

Story = "The party will ultimately find and defeat the now-undead Abluvius in a climactic battle at the bottom of the dungeon, suffering exactly as many casualties as the GM deems dramatically appropriate before striking the decisive blow just when all hope seems lost."

^ This makes it not an RPG.

[MadPreacher]

Story = "The party will ultimately find and defeat the now-undead Abluvius in a climactic battle at the bottom of the dungeon, suffering exactly as many casualties as the GM deems dramatically appropriate before striking the decisive blow just when all hope seems lost."

^ This makes it not an RPG.

So Saint Gary was lying when he made all of his modules?