The Scarcity of DRPGs

[flyingmice]

Double-blind usually doesn't encompass simultaneous hidden decisions that are then revealed. It's usually applied to refereed games or others that use a mechanic for extended hiding of unit placement/movement until contact with the opposing side. Often used in games about carrier warfare.

I use double blind for comparing aerial maneuvers in my IHW aerial combat games - until one pilot gets positional advantage and can attempt to follow the other, that is.

-clash

[Klaus]

Double-blind usually doesn't encompass simultaneous hidden decisions that are then revealed.

Actually, that is precisely the definition I have seen. Yes, many wargames such as Battletech have an option called Double-Blind play, where neither side knows what the other is doing until one of their units has line of sight to the enemy units. You still need to make your decision without knowing what the enemy is doing, which is why those options are called Double-Blind, though since those games are turn-based it's not quite simultaneous.

[arminius]

That example from battletech is indeed "double blind" in common parlance.

But mechanics such as rock-paper-scissors are not commonly referred to as "double-blind". Same for Diplomacy, Wooden Ships & Iron Men, Dreadnought, and other games where the sequence goes:

1) "State" of the game is known to all participants.
2) All participants secretly mark orders.
3) Orders are revealed and resolved, yielding a new "state".

In some games with more complex orders this is called "si-move".

In mathematical game theory, RSP and similar games are called "simultaneous games" as contrasted with "sequential games"; "simultaneous games" are a subset of "games of imperfect information", while many games like chess are "sequential games of perfect information".

[Klaus]

That example from battletech is indeed "double blind" in common parlance.

But mechanics such as rock-paper-scissors are not commonly referred to as "double-blind". Same for Diplomacy, Wooden Ships & Iron Men, Dreadnought, and other games where the sequence goes:

1) "State" of the game is known to all participants.
2) All participants secretly mark orders.
3) Orders are revealed and resolved, yielding a new "state".

In some games with more complex orders this is called "si-move".

In mathematical game theory, RSP and similar games are called "simultaneous games" as contrasted with "sequential games"; "simultaneous games" are a subset of "games of imperfect information", while many games like chess are "sequential games of perfect information".

The most prominent example of the phrase "Double-Blind" used to refer RPS style decision making is from tournament play. In a fighting game tournament, both players must select their characters without knowledge of the other player's choice. I have also seen it used to refer to simultaneous decision making in online card games.

The term Double-Blind is derived from the medical field, where it is used to describe a test where neither the patient nor the doctor know if the patient is receiving a real drug or a placebo. In other words, a situation of "imperfect information."

It should be noted that I'm not referring to Double Blind as a technical term used in mathematical game theory. Rather, as a term used by game designers, who are mostly not mathematicians, to describe parts of their game. In my experience, "Double-Blind" is used as a synonym for "imperfect information." Slang it may be, but it's what I see used.

[arminius]

Those may be usages I'm not familiar with. What kind of tournament play are you referring to? [EDIT: Oh, I see: video games.]

But if you search for double-blind on boardgamegeek, you'll see my usage is common if not predominant.

[Klaus]

Those may be usages I'm not familiar with. What kind of tournament play are you referring to? [EDIT: Oh, I see: video games.]

But if you search for double-blind on boardgamegeek, you'll see my usage is common if not predominant.

If you search for "double blind" period you find primarily medical and psychological references. Medical was mentioned above. In psychology testing it refers to situations in which it is not known to the experimenters or the participants which person performed what action. And in wargames it refers to a situation where you don't know what the status of your opponent's army is. In all cases, the phrase "double blind" indicates all parties have incomplete information. Hidden units like you describe are legitimately described as double blind, but they are a subset. The phrase itself refers to incomplete information, of which the "fog of war" effects are one type.

[arminius]

Uh, yes, I know the use in medical trials. I wouldn't assume, though, that the use in boardgames is derived from that, just as I wouldn't connect the video game tournament usage to either one. It could be a coincidental choice of terms or superficial borrowing; the connotations are different in each field.

[Kyle Aaron]

The other aspect of the "either you can do it or you can't, no need to roll," philosophy is that the way people actually improve their abilities is to give themselves challenges they may or may not succeed at. Anyone who's ever heard someone accomplished practicing their music knows this - they try it 100 times missing notes and getting the rhythm wrong the first 99 times, and right on the 100th. But they don't know it'll be 99 failed attempts. They know the 1st attempt will almost certainly fail, but they don't know whether it'll take 5 or 500 attempts to get it right.

We improve by being willing to risk failure. The outcome is uncertain, not even the GM knows

[Trevelyan]

You can have a great GM and great players, and if they don't *know* each other, trust will be lacking even though neither is at any way at fault. I would never attempt playing or running Amber at a Con, for instance, unless maybe it was specifically an Amber Con. Once trust is established, though, you can really rock with diceless. Diced games are possible to play without trust. It's the bedrock of many Indy games.

I don't think I'd be comfortable playing any game with a GM I didn't feel I could trust, although the type and extent of that trust would be different, and arguably greater, with a diceless game than a diced game. Or perhaps it's that the base level of trust required for a diced game is easier to assume than the more extensive trust required for a good diceless game. Both games fail without trust, but the trust for diceless games needs to be earned, while the trust for diced games is more often lost.

[gabriel_ss4u]

Both games fail without trust, but the trust for diceless games needs to be earned, while the trust for diced games is more often lost.

True

This is why I game so little nowadays. I wanna game more, much more, but I am picky about who I game with. I suppose there must be gamers out there that just game with anybody that can roll dice or read from a module, whereas others have a game with a storyline brought to life as such it's pretty much worth paying for.

That was (is?) the dream my friends & I share, to have a gaming store, and be on the payroll for providing an awesome story & gaming experience. (I may mention it alot, but my GM is a rare type, the type of GM his players call from across the planet & pays his phone bill w/offer of salary, 'cause the players have to keep the game going.)
I'm nowhere as good, but I am happy from learning alot from him (so much so, I was the most dedicated of the players, even moving to the same city cross country just so we could game more.) sad we are again across the country and i love F2F gaming much more than on-line... however I am starting a game with a GM that could almost seem like a brother in spirit to my GM, so I am stoked, and excited to have another GM I feel I can trust (but it's only the beginning and I look forward to some players interactions too.)

[Croaker]

Agreed

I consider myself a veeeery average GM (I know my flaws), but when I see GM do very basic "errors" (IMO), like railroading the players, showcasing their NPCs and all, it unnerves me, and makes it very difficult for me to play with them.

[gabriel_ss4u]

I think most all GMs go thru that phase. It's part of falling in love with great stories, even if they are your own. But it's a crucial lesson to learn, so that a GM can let go of the ego and realize it's about the players.
There are many great Qualities a sought after GM should have. (Perhaps some day I will start a list of these on a thread open to add to.)

One my old group was a horrible GM, even in a Dice game.
He fell so in love with Middle Earth (loooong before the movies) (Rolemaster & MErp) that his stories revolved around describing settings and anti-climactic delivery. Great guy, great gamer (better than most) and a learning GM.
We all remember those days when we were lowly 1st/3rd level adventures.
Or even 1st or 3rd time GMs.
That 1st gaming session could make or break a future gamer me thinks.

But I am grateful for the technology of today (to reach out) and the loved ones to share it with, as well as all our health.
What are you grateful for?
Happy Thanksgiving! (It's an American thing).

[Croaker]

What are you grateful for?
Happy Thanksgiving! (It's an American thing).

Music.

And thank you! Well, happy thanksgiving to you too, then