Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out.uswest.net!uunet!chi.uu.net!arb.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!world!buzzard
From: buzzard@world.std.com (Sean T Barrett)
Subject: Re: 'Deterministic' RPGs
Message-ID: <G5A0A8.8o2@world.std.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 01:03:42 GMT
References: <90rb2q$5hi$1@joe.rice.edu>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Lines: 90
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:81256

Martin Julian DeMello  <mdemello@kennel.ruf.rice.edu> wrote:
>A better solution would
>be to make the process completely determinstic - maintain a set of statistcs
>for the player, and allocate a 'threshold vector' to certain actions, such
>that the player succeeds in carrying through the action iff all his
>statistics exceed the corresponding thresholds in the action's vector.

This is an important point. Consider that in most commercial
fighting games and shooters, there's no "to hit" die roll that
determines whether you hit the other guy or not--it's determined
by the simulation, which is sufficiently deeply simulated that
there's no real place for randomness. Some games may use randomness
to determine the amount of damage done, however; but hit points
are *not* a deep simulation of a creature's health and stamina.

Let me see if I can come up with a semi-complete list of reasons
why you might want to use randomness:

1. to determine the outcome of a chaotic process that is unpredictable
   at the level of simulation of the game--for the sake of realism

   In this case randomness represents our incomplete knowledge
   (or simulation) of a process, or our incomplete knowledge or
   ability to represent the skills. Two football teams might have
   quantifiable abilities, but it's still unpredictable except
   statistically which one will win. Unless you simulate the game
   play-by-play, randomness for determining the outcome makes sense.
   By analogy, two people swordfighting is also an unpredictable
   thing, unless you simulate every swing, and random outcomes
   make sense, at least if your goal is realism. (If your goal isn't
   realism, you can have the same person win every time; in many
   games, you never have the same battle more than once anyway, so
   the realism isn't actually improved by randomness.)

2. to add depth to gameplay by making player choices more meaningful

   Without random outcomes, given actions either always work or
   always don't work, which can result in an optimal path through
   the game. By making outcomes random, players have to face
   trade-offs; e.g. taking a lower payoff action with lower risk
   in a certain situation where failure is more painful. For example,
   if the player always has two ways of crossing a gap--jumping or
   using a grappling hook--one of which takes more time but is
   guaranteed, and one which takes less time but might fail, the
   player will stick to the safer one when jumping across a pit
   with spikes at the bottom, but take the riskier quick one when
   jumping across the stream--although this could change if the
   player finds herself under time pressure.

3. replayability

   Some non-IF games use randomness to increase replayability;
   of course you can get replayability by having player-directed
   branching instead of randomness-directed branching, but randomness
   can be better since it will branch without the player intending
   to, guaranteeing the player gets a different experience even if
   the player tends to automatically do the same thing as last time.

Reasons not to use random outcomes:

1. can interfere with predictability and hence intentionality

   For those of us players who like intentionality (I find it
   deeply immersive, but not everyone cares about being immersed),
   randomness interferes; the satisfaction of intentionality is
   forming a plan and having it work; making the outcomes random
   makes it luck whether the plan works or not.

2. try until you don't die

   Some players can and will save/undo until they succeed. Some
   subset of those players are ruining their own game experience
   but can't help it. You can combat this by generating your
   random numbers early; for example, Baldur's Gate seems to
   generate your new HP for leveling up either at the time you
   get the experience needed to level up, or when you gain the
   previous level; thus you have to restore pretty far back to
   change the outcome.

3. branching interferes with storytelling

   In a p&p RPG, the DM knows exactly what series of events
   has transpired in the past, and can alter forthcoming events
   to improve the game balance and the story. An IF author has
   to anticipate every possible path through the game and make
   sure they all are well-balanced and tell good stories--well,
   if the author wants all players to have an equally good
   experience.

SeanB
