Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Random numbers - essential in RPGs or not? Discuss!

Varvarg

Educated
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
168
Location
Sweden
Freeform roleplaying delegates all decisions to GM iirc.

So become best buddy with GM = free lootz and instawin. I think they play that mostly for dialogue and story, for which it works.

RNG is a fair and harsh mistress, and far superior, as long as the RNG ranges are balanced.
 

Zed Duke of Banville

Dungeon Master
Patron
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
11,896
Randomness in combat (and other activities) is one of the foundational aspects of RPGs. Replacing randomness with a deterministic system always makes a game less of an RPG, regardless of any merits determinism might have.
 

Elex

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
2,043
Freeform roleplaying delegates all decisions to GM iirc.

So become best buddy with GM = free lootz and instawin. I think they play that mostly for dialogue and story, for which it works.

RNG is a fair and harsh mistress, and far superior, as long as the RNG ranges are balanced.
actually GM always use fake dice throw for let the players think that their decision matter.

“rocks fall everyone die”

the good GM is the one that hide really well that process and let the players think they create the aventure and nothing is planned.



the dice and their RNG are the scapegoat that take the blame instead of the GM.

but in a computer rpg this don’t happen: RNG always feel fake, because you can reload and obtain a different result.
and more important other players get different result for doing the exact same thing.
In a videogame people simply go to the conclusion: game is unbalanced or bad designed.



when RNG is unbalanced?
when the success or fail is purely arbitrary?( 11+ on a 1d20+0?)

when the RNG ranges are “”balanced/fair ”” well it’s no more RNG but only average numbers.

a 10D10 fireball, it can’t be considered 10 damage or 100 damage, for the balance purpose, the fireball will be considered 40-60 damage or similar.

yes the fireball can actually do 100 damage or 10 damage, so the orcs should have 20 HP or 200 HP? or the orcs should have RNG health? what happen if a players have bad luck with RNG get 10 ~200 HP orcs, the player is stuck forever and must reload an old save?

so you get average numbers fireball vs average orcs healt.




so if the game can’t really consider the extreme roll, the game is still RNG?
(while a GM can and actually consider that)



players think to like RNG because different things can happen: surprise! you don’t need RNG for that.

players obessed with RNG look at the dice and ignore the GM, they fall in a trap they fail to detect the illusion.
Even in a video game the most important element is the GM not the dice or the ruleset.
 

dag0net

Arcane
Joined
Aug 5, 2014
Messages
2,729
So you're saying a really good gm isn't even "deterministic" in the [contextual] sense that one swing will always do 5 damage, she's deterministic in the sense that "you win/lose this combat whatever decisions you make" ? sounds more like a 7yr old playing rock/paper/neutron bomb
 

Hobo Elf

Arcane
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
14,036
Location
Platypus Planet
also in poe(the first and only worth mentioning) while there is RNG they implemented entropy -> tldr with each succesful evade your chance lowers and vice versa. As such its reliable and predictable.

Maybe it works for some games, but it's not a good universal solution. In games like Etrian Odyssey where some tank builds rely on evading enemies as close to 100% of the time as possible a system like this would be catastrophic and make such builds useless.
 

dag0net

Arcane
Joined
Aug 5, 2014
Messages
2,729
only useless if there are not also cumulative effects (or some other balancing mechanism) for other builds. armor degradation is just one such mechanism.
 

Luckmann

Arcane
Zionist Agent
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
3,759
Location
Scandinavia
actually GM always use fake dice throw for let the players think that their decision matter
First of all, shut up don't fucking tell them that, they're players, they don't need to know, goddammit!

Second, and more importantly, the fact that the GM fudges dice is actually irrelevant. It is the illusion that is relevant. In a way, even the most terribly balanced and completely random CRPG does this all the time, by simply narrating things that happen without player input, or by making rocks fall at just the right moment, cutting the enemies that are chasing you off, and so on and so forth. In PnP terms, it is the illusion of fairness that is important, the feeling that your investments are worthwhile but still has an element of suspense in terms of outcomes, and the idea that there's a degree of comparable power between the players/characters and the GM/the world.

Especially the latter is a complete fucking illusion at every turn. As a GM, I can hatefuck your corpse from the second you sit at my table; I choose to play into this shared delusion of fairness for the benefit of all.

And so should CRPGs.
 

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,556
As DM, when I start rolling out in the open, that is when the PCs know they have royally screwed up and a potential TPK is on the way :D
 

Luckmann

Arcane
Zionist Agent
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
3,759
Location
Scandinavia
So you're saying a really good gm isn't even "deterministic" in the [contextual] sense that one swing will always do 5 damage, she's deterministic in the sense that "you win/lose this combat whatever decisions you make" ? sounds more like a 7yr old playing rock/paper/neutron bomb
I'm of the opinion that a "good GM" should recreate a scenario and a world in as much of a reasonable fashion as possible, and let the players act as agents within that world. I always hated the idea of "encounter balance" as a hallmark of good GMing, but instead feel that if you go into a dragon's den, you're actually going to meet a dragon, whether you're lvl 1 or lvl 20, and if you pick a fight with the guards at lvl 1, you're going to have your face smashed in, whereas if you do so at lvl 20, you're likely going to murder the entire city guard.

I'm using "levels" very loosely here, obviously; I prefer level-less systems such as WFRP2, with a very uneven curve for various characters depending on how you develop. I've actually had it happen that players have picked fights with city guards and had their shit pushed in, because they were in this state of mind where I somehow had some obligation to make things fair on them, to enforce equality, but I don't: Play stupid games, win stupid prices. There are appropriate things for them to do in the world, and there are inappropriate things for them to do, and this law of averages from randomness that creates a level playing field only really works within a given range - but what it does allow for that a strictly deterministic system actually does not is precisely a range; you can be in a very tough situation, facing a higher-level opponent, and still come out ahead because you were clever, stacked the deck, and lucked out.

Likewise, it means that lower-level enemies can still present a threat. Even a group of mangy goblins can be hellish if worked right by the GM, pelting the would-be heroes until they get lucky shots and really start to fucking hurt.

That being said, what a good GM often can do is tell whether the players are going to get their shit pushed in or not. However, a GM that crafts scenarios where the players are simply assumed to survive or lose a given encounter practically no matter what is shit. A GM should always keep a backup in his head for when the players lose, and this is actually something that is hard to train out of your system, because we always assume that all battles are meant to be won, but this is far from the truth in a world without save-states, and many a noob GM have stood at a loss for words when the players fuck up and actually ends up fleeing. A GM planning "They win this.. they win this.. they lose that.." is shiiieeet.
 

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,556
... and if you pick a fight with the guards at lvl 1, you're going to have your face smashed in...

Ahh, good memories.

Having eluded an army of bad guys, the PC were running for their lives and also to warn the kingdom that the enemy is attacking (their border fort having had its Alamo moment before it could get the word out properly).
DM: You notice a trail leading off from the path you are on. (Note, this is in a thick forest that stretches for a large part of the kingdom, and hence why they managed to elude the enemy army)
Player 1 (Paladin): There has to be loot there or he won't have mentioned it. Let's go!
DM: The trail leads to a hidden cave. Very small, maybe 8-feet tall at the most. There are visible claw marks in the soft earth in front of the cave.
Player 1: We go in.
Player 2 (Druid): Wait. What sort of claw marks?
DM: You aren't sure (failed Survival and Knowledge Nature checks), but they are big. Whatever it is, you think it would be at least the size of a man.
Player 3 (Cleric): Maybe we shouldn't-
Player 1: It has to be loot. He is trying to scare us. I go in.
Other PCs: We follow.
DM: Roll initiative, please. As you enter the cave, you are greeted by the stink of a big brown bear, which looks at you and roars before charging.
Player 1: Attack!! He won't kill us! We are the PCs!

One rather one sided fight between a CR4 creature and a party of three level 1 characters later, the Cleric and Druid came running out of the cave screaming at the top of their lungs while the Paladin became the latest chewtoy for Bob the Big Brown Bear.

I love Bob...
 

Ventidius

Arbiter
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
552
I personally would have preferred it if DOS 2 had incorporated some probabilistic elements - especially in the shield system - but I don't think its using a deterministic system is a fatal flaw of the game.
On the contrary, determenistic status effects/armor in DOS2 streamline every character development in just pumping 1 stat and doing more damage, and trivialize character building, tactics and whole magic system.

That character customization was overall streamlined is not news to anyone, and hardly down to determinism alone. But the combat itself did not become any less tactical (and this was always a combat-centric series), unless you consider having to occasionally reload because of a miss tactical. Heck, the reason why the early game is so much more gruelling(especially on tactician) in this one than the first is partly down to the fact that the enemies never miss against you and you can't rely on luck/reloads to get through them, while also having so few options by that point of the game. By late game the difference between the games in this particular sense becomes trivial, since by that point in the first one proper character development helps you stack the odds heavily in your favor.

I always hated the idea of "encounter balance" as a hallmark of good GMing, but instead feel that if you go into a dragon's den, you're actually going to meet a dragon, whether you're lvl 1 or lvl 20, and if you pick a fight with the guards at lvl 1, you're going to have your face smashed in, whereas if you do so at lvl 20, you're likely going to murder the entire city guard.

This seems to be the crux of the matter, if not in the determinist vs probabilist debate, at least in the simulationist vs gamey one that runs parallel. Some people like games to sport a high degree of realism and feel lifelike, while others are more concerned with the coherence of the system itself and how well each of its parts connects with and references the others, which naturally includes the way that elements within the system balance each other out.
 
Last edited:

Hobo Elf

Arcane
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
14,036
Location
Platypus Planet
only useless if there are not also cumulative effects (or some other balancing mechanism) for other builds. armor degradation is just one such mechanism.

Evade tanks don't use armor in EO. Preferably they are 100% naked. +MWhich is why it's an interesting system / build, since it's high risk // high reward, but it would suck and not work if it was deterministic or had diminishing returns.
 

Hobo Elf

Arcane
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
14,036
Location
Platypus Planet
Some o best moments i've had in pen and paper came from good and bad falls o the dice, crpgs could learn a thing or two from that.

I don't think cRPGs could learn that trick even if they tried. You simply can't replicate the same feeling of rolling a dice with friends and beer while you're playing a cRPG where all the rolls are done in the background for you. Failing / succeeding rolls in PnP is a lot more fun since it has a social element going on.
 

Naveen

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 23, 2015
Messages
1,115
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Dices are superior. You don't even need rules, just guess the % to succeed that seems fair given the situation and let the players roll. You can improvise and make up things as you go. And if you think some specific actions don't require extreme randomness, just ignore the dice or assume everybody rolls the median value (a 10 or 11 in a d20) or compare the underlying skills/trait/whatever if it's a contest (like skill checks in many video games.) All these deterministic systems seem unnecessarily complicated.
 
Last edited:

Lonely Vazdru

Pimp my Title
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,659
Location
Agen
After the critically acclaimed "What is a RPG ?", RPG Codex is proud to bring you "What is a good GM ?". Coming soon to a thread near you. Based on a true story.
 
Last edited:

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,556
Some o best moments i've had in pen and paper came from good and bad falls o the dice, crpgs could learn a thing or two from that.
You can actually see the dice rolls in NWN. It doesn't help with the best moments thing. There is simply no suspense, no feel of holding the dice with the fate of the party literally in your hands, no one to yell with you "NOOOOOO!!!!!!" Or the DM grinning like a loon as he use your character sheet as a seat warmer :D
 

Elex

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
2,043
So you're saying a really good gm isn't even "deterministic" in the [contextual] sense that one swing will always do 5 damage, she's deterministic in the sense that "you win/lose this combat whatever decisions you make" ? sounds more like a 7yr old playing rock/paper/neutron bomb
A good GM is the one that let player play an RPG instead of play a dice gamble game, dice are a tool.

A videogame is a tool too, a tool that the developer can build for create an RPG.(actually many different tools put togheter).

The difference is videogame don't have the same limit of 5 guys around a table, the limit are different, so there is no reason for use the same tools.
 
Last edited:

Elex

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
2,043
Some o best moments i've had in pen and paper came from good and bad falls o the dice, crpgs could learn a thing or two from that.

I don't think cRPGs could learn that trick even if they tried. You simply can't replicate the same feeling of rolling a dice with friends and beer while you're playing a cRPG where all the rolls are done in the background for you. Failing / succeeding rolls in PnP is a lot more fun since it has a social element going on.
this is what the developers of Space Hulk videogame have learned, if you take a Fun tabletop game and replicate exactly the same rule on a videogame, you don't get the same result.
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/09/19/space-hulk-ascension/
RPS: Why are you making Space Hulk: Ascension?

Thomas Lund: The primary reason is that, we did the boardgame, and we tried to stick as close to the boadgame as possible, with all the implications of that. We’re really proud of what the product is now, and it pleased a group of gamers who usually do not get games, at all, in the digital space.

At the same time, also during the development of Space Hulk, we knew that there was a videogame in there as well, that could still be a turn-based strategy game, but a lot of the rules in the boardgame are there for the physical interaction and the mechanics are there to have fun with rolling dice.

It’s hard to recreate, and also some of the mechanics are there because there’s a tension going on outside of the boardgame, between the two human players who sit there. Essentially, we knew that, but we stuck with wanting to make the digital conversion. Now Ascension is basically the product out of that, where we take the core of Space Hulk and now we twist it into the game that I think a lot of people expected us to make. With a more videogame approach. That is to cater to that side of the audience. We don’t see this as a replacement game, but we see it as there are now [both] offerings. If you want to play the boardgame because you’re a fan of that kind of style, you can pick the old Space Hulk. But if you are a videogamer and want a more videogame approach, but with the same style and theme, then Ascension is the game that you want.


RPS: Just to clarify, they exist as completely separate products – you’re not getting any access to the other if you buy just one?

Thomas Lund: Two complete different audiences, two complete different products, as such. So it is what we would call a standalone expansion. Content from one doesn’t go over into the other one. We didn’t just take the DLC we had from the old Space Hulk and re-wrap it and make like an Ultimate Pack with a new label. We redid a lot. Almost all of the missions are completely new – we have 103 at this point in time.

Obviously we took some of the models from the game that we already did, so we didn’t have to do new Terminators, for example. We did add Ultra Marines and Cyclone missile launchers. We have taken out the dice mechanics and put in percentage rolls for things. We’ve taken a look at some of the rules and said ‘why is there a draw in the close combat?’ It’s because there is a tension between two people rolling dice, and if it’s equal then they have another go. But in a videogame, you don’t have tension in that kind of way when you’re rolling against the computer, so the draw doesn’t add anything. So we removed that – either you win or you lose.

Another example of that is the jamming of the Bolter. In the boardgame, that’s a pure random roll: if you have the wrong dice, your gun jams. In Ascension we kept the core idea of the Storm Bolter being able to jam, but we reworked it into an overheating situation, so if you continuously fire it overheats and you cannot fire for one turn. So you have to do some heat management. It’s turning it into a game mechanic that the player can control, instead of a random dice roll.
 

Serus

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
6,702
Location
Small but great planet of Potatohole
A DM who never kills his players is a shitty DM. Just saying.

The most fun rpg experiences i had were when everyone knew that one bad decision will leave your life at the mercy of a random roll. A real one.
Anything else is for fags.
 

laclongquan

Arcane
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
1,870,151
Location
Searching for my kidnapped sister
This idea that deterministic systems don't work in RPGs but do work in other genres seems rather odd. There are at least three ways in which multiple role-possibilities can be constructed using deterministic systems. One is using thresholds, and this is often seen in RPGs that have skill checks. If a given skill, represented by the relevant stat, is high enough against either a required check, or, in the case of combat, the countervailing enemy stat, then the action or usage of the skill is a success, if not, it is a failure.

The second is using quantification, in other words, instead of having probabilities of success or failure, the relevant stats in the character system simply determine how effective, quantitatively, the action was, e.g. having a higher score in an offensive skill does not make a character more or less likely to hit the enemy, but rather regulates the amount of damage dealt.

And finally, the most interesting way of doing it - in my view - is by piling on layers of abstraction. To use the example of dodging that was being discussed: It is possible to introduce a 'counter' mechanic - such as the Wound or Focus resources in PoE - that allows the dodging class in question to use dodges - which can take the form of 1-turn buffs - once enough counters have been accumulated through whatever means, be it taking damage, using certain types or skills or actions, damaging the enemy, etc. In fact, dodging can also be modelled using the second - quantitative - method by using a system of grazes a la Sawyer, whereby the 'grazes' - and their name can change to reflect the closeness of the hit - can be quantitatively more effective depending on the relevant skill. Maybe despite all this some might still maintain that simply implementing such things in a probabilistic way is superior/more fun/etc - it is certainly the tried and tested way - but it is not impossible to model all sorts of combat roles using a deterministic system.

Strictly deterministic systems have been tried before. They failed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diceless_role-playing_game

Aaaaand KABAM! he's right. What a truly terrible list of game. I dont recognize a one~
 

Bohrain

Liturgist
Patron
Joined
Aug 10, 2016
Messages
1,449
Location
norf
My team has the sexiest and deadliest waifus you can recruit.
I think RNG is essential for a game that strives to have some non-CYOA elements. But the more relevant question is where random distribution should be utilized.
Personally I think randomness should be a tool that forces the player to adapt in an enjoyable manner. Randomizing enemy spawn points, type or equipment and behavior to some extend, assuming it affects the way the player approaches a combat scenario makes the gameplay experience less of a mechanic execution. On the other hand I'm not a huge fan of making the most optimal approach in a given scenario prone to chance, such as being dependent on getting a good roll on a specific spell - leading to the player just reloading or trying again if it fails.
 

lukaszek

the determinator
Patron
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
12,691
deterministic system > RNG
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom