Diceless Decision Making Techniques

[Alain Lapalme]

Paul Andrew King has said that he has only seen described two methods of
making diceless decisions: plot driven and GM whim. This post is an
attempt at providing a more substantial list of decision making techniques.

First though, I would like to say that a lot of what follows is freely
adapted from an article Sarah Kahn posted a long time ago. However, if
there is anything weird or plain wrong in this article, blame me, not her.

Here goes. The example is of Jimbo trying to hit a target.

Mechanics: Jimbo has a score of X in this ability, the task is easy so,
according to the table, he shouldn't miss. So he hits the target, no sweat.

Mechanics (re Fudge point): Jimbo's player has just spent a point to
succeed at this task so he succeeds.

Plot: If Jimbo hits, this will really make the game uninteresting, so he
misses.

Drama: It would be really neat if Jimbo hits the target right now. The
players don't expect it and a hit would really change the dynamics of the
situation. So, Jimbo hits.

Script Immunity: This NPC is too important right now. Jimbo just wings
him.
OR - If Jimbo misses, the NPC will hear the shot and open up on Jimbo.
Given that said NPC has more firepower, it is doubtful I can sustain
disbelief and still maintain Jimbo alive, so Jimbo hits the NPC.

Meta-Game Concerns: Jimbo has been having a real rough time lately. A
success would make the player feel good about his character. So Jimbo
hits.

Humour: Wouldn't be real funny if the weapon misfired. So, the weapon
misfires.

Pacing: This whole scene has gone on long enough. Everyone is bored
including me. If Jimbo hits, the scene is over. If he misses, we could go
on for a long time. Jimbo hits.

Suspension of disbelief: Jimbo is really good at it, the target is right
in the open, I can I justify a miss. So he hits.
OR
Jimbo just had a misfire. Another one, while possible, is just pushing it
too far. He hits.

Precedent: Jimbo's good. Can't think of a reason for him to miss (this is
kind of like the preceding case but the decision is made for slightly
different reasons).

Description: Jimbo has made a point of using a reliable gun. On top of
that, he always takes proper care of it, makes sure it is loaded, ...
And, he's made sure that his scope has been sighted properly, he's picked a
good spot, he's checked the weather condition. He's done his homework so
he hits.

Realism (environment) : I've made a point of telling them about the high
winds. The tree he is perched in is swaying and Jimbo knows that. No way
he can make this shot under those conditions. He misses.

Realism (character) : Jimbo's good at target shooting but he's never shot a
live target before. I know the target is not moving but still, it takes a
certain nerve to shot somebody who is defenseless, specially the first
time. Jimbo misses, but not by much.

Genre: Hero's weapons are always loaded and never misfire. He hits.

Prior Decision: I decided, before the game started, that Jimbo's third
action would fail. This is it.(not exactly diceless)

Prior decision: I decided that at 8:00 PM, something bad was going to
happen to them. It's past 8, and this is the best I can come up with. He
misses.

Game Contract: by convention, Jimbo is the marksman of the group. There
is no other reason to declare this shot a miss, so he hits.
OR
By convention, Jimbo is the geek of the group, not the marksman. There is
no reason why he should hit here. So, he misses.

NPC considerations: The NPC has done nothing to protect himself against a
sniper. Worse, there is no reason to expect a sniper to be around.
Jimbo's skill is good enough so he hits.

GM whim (I don't like the word but that's the best way I can describe it):
I don't know why, but it feels "right" that Jimbo should hit right now. I
could try to come up with reasons but I'm short on time, so he hits.

Theme: This game has the premise that "Life's a bitch". I've got to make
a point that this applies to both PC and NPCs. This is a good opportunity
to show that NPCs are real people too. Even though Jimbo is not the
greatest sniper, the conditions are good enough to warrant a hit. He hits
(GM then provides gory description).

Age of character: This is a new character(started play today). The player
is still unsure about the character. Let's see what a miss will do.

I could go on and on. I realize that many of these are a variation of the
same theme. However, I think it does show that the GM does have many
options on "how to decide".

Note that in practice, it is a combination of these which comes into play.
Rarely does any one factor have the full say. Rather, one takes a series
of relevant factors into consideration and makes the decision from these
factors.

The other point I would like to make is that the above options are not
limited to game which do not use any randomizer. Nearly all GMs use a
combination of the above to make decisions, in addition to the randomizer.
The difference is that, in diceless games, the ramdomizer, which happens to
be just one of many decision making tools, has been removed.

Alain

[Paul Andrew King]

In article <AE697D6D...@ppp34.intranet.ca>,
lap...@intranet.on.ca (Alain Lapalme) wrote:

>Paul Andrew King has said that he has only seen described two methods of
>making diceless decisions: plot driven and GM whim.

Sorry, but that isn't correct. I said that there were two for providing
results significantly different from the average.

This post is an
>attempt at providing a more substantial list of decision making techniques.
>
>First though, I would like to say that a lot of what follows is freely
>adapted from an article Sarah Kahn posted a long time ago. However, if
>there is anything weird or plain wrong in this article, blame me, not her.
>
>Here goes. The example is of Jimbo trying to hit a target.
>
>Mechanics: Jimbo has a score of X in this ability, the task is easy so,
>according to the table, he shouldn't miss. So he hits the target, no sweat.
>
>Mechanics (re Fudge point): Jimbo's player has just spent a point to
>succeed at this task so he succeeds.

OK I'll grant missing player control. Although this is too "gamey" to
interest me.

>
>Plot: If Jimbo hits, this will really make the game uninteresting, so he
>misses.
>
>Drama: It would be really neat if Jimbo hits the target right now. The
>players don't expect it and a hit would really change the dynamics of the
>situation. So, Jimbo hits.
>
>Script Immunity: This NPC is too important right now. Jimbo just wings
>him.
>OR - If Jimbo misses, the NPC will hear the shot and open up on Jimbo.
>Given that said NPC has more firepower, it is doubtful I can sustain
>disbelief and still maintain Jimbo alive, so Jimbo hits the NPC.

These are all story concerns.

>
>Meta-Game Concerns: Jimbo has been having a real rough time lately. A
>success would make the player feel good about his character. So Jimbo
>hits.

OK this has points in common with "story" and "GM whim" but isn't quite the
same. Of course it does require that the character has been a bit
neglected, so hopefully it shouldn't happen often.

>
>Humour: Wouldn't be real funny if the weapon misfired. So, the weapon
>misfires.

This can be story or whim or both.

>
>Pacing: This whole scene has gone on long enough. Everyone is bored
>including me. If Jimbo hits, the scene is over. If he misses, we could go
>on for a long time. Jimbo hits.

story.

>
>Suspension of disbelief: Jimbo is really good at it, the target is right
>in the open, I can I justify a miss. So he hits.
>OR
>Jimbo just had a misfire. Another one, while possible, is just pushing it
>too far. He hits.
>
>Precedent: Jimbo's good. Can't think of a reason for him to miss (this is
>kind of like the preceding case but the decision is made for slightly
>different reasons).
>
>Description: Jimbo has made a point of using a reliable gun. On top of
>that, he always takes proper care of it, makes sure it is loaded, ...
>And, he's made sure that his scope has been sighted properly, he's picked a
>good spot, he's checked the weather condition. He's done his homework so
>he hits.
>
>Realism (environment) : I've made a point of telling them about the high
>winds. The tree he is perched in is swaying and Jimbo knows that. No way
>he can make this shot under those conditions. He misses.
>
>Realism (character) : Jimbo's good at target shooting but he's never shot a
>live target before. I know the target is not moving but still, it takes a
>certain nerve to shot somebody who is defenseless, specially the first
>time. Jimbo misses, but not by much.
>
>Genre: Hero's weapons are always loaded and never misfire. He hits.

These are "average" results.

>
>Prior Decision: I decided, before the game started, that Jimbo's third
>action would fail. This is it.(not exactly diceless)
>
>Prior decision: I decided that at 8:00 PM, something bad was going to
>happen to them. It's past 8, and this is the best I can come up with. He
>misses.

Essentially whim.

>
>Game Contract: by convention, Jimbo is the marksman of the group. There
>is no other reason to declare this shot a miss, so he hits.
>OR
>By convention, Jimbo is the geek of the group, not the marksman. There is
>no reason why he should hit here. So, he misses.
>
>NPC considerations: The NPC has done nothing to protect himself against a
>sniper. Worse, there is no reason to expect a sniper to be around.
>Jimbo's skill is good enough so he hits.

"Average" results, again.

>
>GM whim (I don't like the word but that's the best way I can describe it):
>I don't know why, but it feels "right" that Jimbo should hit right now. I
>could try to come up with reasons but I'm short on time, so he hits.

Actually I'd tend to guess that that is more often a "story" based
concern...

>
>Theme: This game has the premise that "Life's a bitch". I've got to make
>a point that this applies to both PC and NPCs. This is a good opportunity
>to show that NPCs are real people too. Even though Jimbo is not the
>greatest sniper, the conditions are good enough to warrant a hit. He hits
>(GM then provides gory description).

Story.

>
>Age of character: This is a new character(started play today). The player
>is still unsure about the character. Let's see what a miss will do.
>
>
>I could go on and on. I realize that many of these are a variation of the
>same theme. However, I think it does show that the GM does have many
>options on "how to decide".

It's a more detailed breakdown, but with two exceptions they all fit fairly
neatly into the catgories I identified.

There's nothin I disagree with in the final two paragraphs, so I've trimmed
them.

Paul K.

[Scott A. H. Ruggels]

All of which amply serve to illustrate why I prefer dice and mechanics.
Thank you for point this out Alain. BTW, is your wrist better?

Scott

[Alain Lapalme]

In article <AE6AB059...@morat.demon.co.uk>,

pa...@morat.demon.co.uk (Paul Andrew King) wrote:

>In article <AE697D6D...@ppp34.intranet.ca>,
>lap...@intranet.on.ca (Alain Lapalme) wrote:
>

>>Prior Decision: I decided, before the game started, that Jimbo's third
>>action would fail. This is it.(not exactly diceless)
>>
>>Prior decision: I decided that at 8:00 PM, something bad was going to
>>happen to them. It's past 8, and this is the best I can come up with. He
>>misses.
>
>Essentially whim.

Funny definition of whim since the actual effect this has on the game is
totaly out of control of the players and the GM (just like a die roll). I
would consider this a randomizer.

>>
>>Game Contract: by convention, Jimbo is the marksman of the group. There
>>is no other reason to declare this shot a miss, so he hits.
>>OR
>>By convention, Jimbo is the geek of the group, not the marksman. There is
>>no reason why he should hit here. So, he misses.
>>
>>NPC considerations: The NPC has done nothing to protect himself against a
>>sniper. Worse, there is no reason to expect a sniper to be around.
>>Jimbo's skill is good enough so he hits.
>
>"Average" results, again.

I'm not sure what you mean by "average" results.

>>
>>GM whim (I don't like the word but that's the best way I can describe it):
>>I don't know why, but it feels "right" that Jimbo should hit right now. I
>>could try to come up with reasons but I'm short on time, so he hits.
>
>Actually I'd tend to guess that that is more often a "story" based
>concern...
>>
>>Theme: This game has the premise that "Life's a bitch". I've got to make
>>a point that this applies to both PC and NPCs. This is a good opportunity
>>to show that NPCs are real people too. Even though Jimbo is not the
>>greatest sniper, the conditions are good enough to warrant a hit. He hits
>>(GM then provides gory description).
>
>Story.
>>
>>Age of character: This is a new character(started play today). The player
>>is still unsure about the character. Let's see what a miss will do.
>>
>>
>>I could go on and on. I realize that many of these are a variation of the
>>same theme. However, I think it does show that the GM does have many
>>options on "how to decide".
>
>It's a more detailed breakdown, but with two exceptions they all fit fairly
>neatly into the catgories I identified.

Which are? I thought you said whim and plot. If you didn't, what were the
categories? And, also, what do you mean by whim?

[Paul Andrew King]

In article <AE6B67B8...@ppp64.intranet.ca>,
lap...@intranet.on.ca (Alain Lapalme) wrote:

>In article <AE6AB059...@morat.demon.co.uk>,
>pa...@morat.demon.co.uk (Paul Andrew King) wrote:
>

>>In article <AE697D6D...@ppp34.intranet.ca>,
>>lap...@intranet.on.ca (Alain Lapalme) wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>Prior Decision: I decided, before the game started, that Jimbo's third
>>>action would fail. This is it.(not exactly diceless)
>>>
>>>Prior decision: I decided that at 8:00 PM, something bad was going to
>>>happen to them. It's past 8, and this is the best I can come up with. He
>>>misses.
>>
>>Essentially whim.
>

>Funny definition of whim since the actual effect this has on the game is
>totaly out of control of the players and the GM (just like a die roll). I
>would consider this a randomizer.
>

In that case it isn't strictly speaking "diceless" as the term is used on
this group.

>
>>>
>>>Game Contract: by convention, Jimbo is the marksman of the group. There
>>>is no other reason to declare this shot a miss, so he hits.
>>>OR
>>>By convention, Jimbo is the geek of the group, not the marksman. There is
>>>no reason why he should hit here. So, he misses.
>>>
>>>NPC considerations: The NPC has done nothing to protect himself against a
>>>sniper. Worse, there is no reason to expect a sniper to be around.
>>>Jimbo's skill is good enough so he hits.
>>
>>"Average" results, again.
>

>I'm not sure what you mean by "average" results.

In this case simply selecting the most likely result.
>
>
[...]

>>>
>>>I could go on and on. I realize that many of these are a variation of the
>>>same theme. However, I think it does show that the GM does have many
>>>options on "how to decide".
>>
>>It's a more detailed breakdown, but with two exceptions they all fit fairly
>>neatly into the catgories I identified.
>

>Which are? I thought you said whim and plot. If you didn't, what were the
>categories? And, also, what do you mean by whim?
>

"Average" results : Select the most likely outcome, or something very
close.

"Story" : Select the result that makes the most satisfying story. Yes it
is similar to "plot" but (I hope) avoids the arguments over what "plot"
"really" means.

"Whim" : Whatever the GM feels like doing, and can't justify by other
reasons.

To which we can add :

Player-controlled mechanics : Plot points and the like.

Player enjoyment, not directly related to story : e.g. allocation of
spotlight time.

Paul K.

[Andrew Finch]

Paul Andrew King (pa...@morat.demon.co.uk) wrote:

: It's a more detailed breakdown, but with two exceptions they all fit fairly

: neatly into the catgories I identified.

Of course they do. Catgeorization is subjective.

"Audiences know what to expect, and that is all they are prepared to
believe in."

You define two categories, and then you shove everything into those two
categories. I'm not saying that's wrong, but it is useless to try
convincing someone who's made such a decision that other colors exist.
You are obviously both happy and convinced of your two color diceless
world, and that's good enough for me.

If you are really interested in living in my diceless world, even just to
see what's it's like, you actually have to move there for a while.

You can look at a flower and see the hand of a devine entity, or a
collection of random chemical processes, and there's nothing in this
world to prove one view more correct than the other.

David

[John L. Jones II]

Scott A. H. Ruggels wrote:
>
> Alain Lapalme wrote:

[Lots of examples of diceless resolution snipped]

>
> All of which amply serve to illustrate why I prefer dice and mechanics.
> Thank you for point this out Alain. BTW, is your wrist better?

Absolutely. One of the concerns I've had about diceless gaming is how one
would resolve things. This looks like a pretty complete list, and I have to say
that now more certain than ever that I don't want to bother with this type of
system. Dice and mechanics, in my opinion, do the job much better.

>
> Scott

--
John L. Jones II E-Mail: bi...@nis.lanl.gov

"Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed
troglodytes has cost me the election. And yet, if I were to have them
killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you."

Mr. Burns, The Simpsons

[Paul Andrew King]

In article <526mbm$f...@crl.crl.com>,
bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) wrote:

>Paul Andrew King (pa...@morat.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>

>: It's a more detailed breakdown, but with two exceptions they all fit fairly

>: neatly into the catgories I identified.
>

>Of course they do. Catgeorization is subjective.

Not entirely. If that were so, why did I allow the exceptions ?

>
>"Audiences know what to expect, and that is all they are prepared to
>believe in."
>
>You define two categories, and then you shove everything into those two
>categories.

Someone can't count. I started with three and allowed an extra two after
reading Alain's post. If you'd actually bothered to read my reply properly
you'd have noticed that.

I'm not saying that's wrong, but it is useless to try
>convincing someone who's made such a decision that other colors exist.

If that was true then I wouldn't have allowed the extra two.

>You are obviously both happy and convinced of your two color diceless
>world, and that's good enough for me.

Make that five plus an acknowledgement of different shades and it might be
accurate. Of course since the whole point of this post is to attack my
viewpoint, accuracy would just get in the way.

>
>If you are really interested in living in my diceless world, even just to
>see what's it's like, you actually have to move there for a while.

Been there, done that.

Paul K.

[Andrew Finch]

Paul Andrew King (pa...@morat.demon.co.uk) wrote:

: Make that five plus an acknowledgement of different shades and it might be
: accurate.

Sorry, I wasn't prepared for the leopard to change his spots. However, 5
plus shades might as well be 10, or 100, just depends where you draw the
lines, and what distinctions you're looking for. Does it really matter?

David

[Paul Andrew King]

In article <52bor6$u...@crl.crl.com>,
bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) wrote:

>Paul Andrew King (pa...@morat.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: Make that five plus an acknowledgement of different shades and it might be
>: accurate.
>
>Sorry, I wasn't prepared for the leopard to change his spots.

Actually the three had always been there, and the other two would have been
accepted if anyone had bothered to point them out.

However, 5
>plus shades might as well be 10, or 100, just depends where you draw the
>lines, and what distinctions you're looking for. Does it really matter?

Well, a hierarchical classification is inherently easier to understand, so
it's a better way to present it. Apart from that I can't see any special
reason for preferring one classification system over another.

Paul K.

[Andrew Finch]

John L. Jones II (bi...@nis.lanl.gov) wrote:

: Absolutely. One of the concerns I've had about diceless gaming is how one

: would resolve things. This looks like a pretty complete list, and I have to say
: that now more certain than ever that I don't want to bother with this type of
: system. Dice and mechanics, in my opinion, do the job much better.

I'm going to regret this, but, what job? Dice do what job better?

I mean, many of your decisions, even in heavily diced, heavy mechanics
games, are made diceless. In fact, I would say the great majority, even in
most heavy dice games. So, just what job is being done by the mechanics
and dice, which you feel gets done better than you could do without?

Which of your decisions do you allow to be replaced by the dice mechanics?
Probably combat, that's a common one. How about NPC decisions? Social
interactions? If my character is attempting to bluff his way past a guard,
do I have to roleplay this out to some extent, or can I simply role my
fasttalk skill, because the dice and mechanics are preferable to that kind
of roleplay? How about combat? There's variation there. Do I have to make
tactical decisions in character, or do I just roll a skill, because dice
and mechanics are preferable to having to roleplay that out?

There are variations in what people is feel is fair to base upon a
player's skill in roleplaying their character, and what is 'fairer' by
simply rolling a skill roll. Your comment seems to suggest that you would
opt for rolling dice rather than roleplay in most cases. I know that may
not be a particularly nice way of phrasing it, but it is the flip side of
the statement you made.

From my perspective, dice only 'do a better job' when the GM can't do
any better than the dice mechanics.

Now, I'm willing to believe that dice become a viable alternative for
doing a better job when the group contract places a low value on
subjective decisions. But it might be better to say that the dice fulfill
the group's contract better.

David

[John L. Jones II]

Andrew Finch wrote:
>
> John L. Jones II (bi...@nis.lanl.gov) wrote:
>
> : Absolutely. One of the concerns I've had about diceless gaming is how one
> : would resolve things. This looks like a pretty complete list, and I have to say
> : that now more certain than ever that I don't want to bother with this type of
> : system. Dice and mechanics, in my opinion, do the job much better.
>
> I'm going to regret this, but, what job? Dice do what job better?

Since the challenge has been issued, I guess I'm obliged to respond. Okay, here
goes. The first thing to remember is that there is a time and a place for dice. I am not
in the camp that believes everything ought to rely on dice. For example, you shouldn't
have to make a perception role for EVERYTHING. However, it does not follow from the mere
fact that you shouldn't use dice in every situation that you shouldn't use them at all.
One of the big issues I suppose is combat. From a player perspective, I find it better to
have some insight into the decision making process. If I have an 80% chance of hitting
something, and I roll, say, an 89, then I know why I missed. I find that a more palatable
solution than having the GM just say I missed because he thinks it will further the
*story*. There's also the question of damage, and it follows much the same logic as the
previous example. I'm not concerned with roleplaying as story writing. That just doesn't
interest me. Without dice I am only left with the GM's whim. Personally, I don't like
that type of arbitrariness. I don't think the GM should be in complete control of the
game; and in a diceless situation, I just don't see how that would not be the case.
One of the posters here said that in using dice one is just moving a portion of GM
arbitrariness to the dice. Even if we accept this statement as true, I'd have to say that
I think it's a good thing. The dice allow for the occurance of a number of variables
which a diceless GM is unlikely to take seriously.

> Which of your decisions do you allow to be replaced by the dice mechanics?
> Probably combat, that's a common one. How about NPC decisions? Social
> interactions? If my character is attempting to bluff his way past a guard,
> do I have to roleplay this out to some extent, or can I simply role my
> fasttalk skill, because the dice and mechanics are preferable to that kind
> of roleplay? How about combat? There's variation there. Do I have to make
> tactical decisions in character, or do I just roll a skill, because dice
> and mechanics are preferable to having to roleplay that out?

This is a good point, but I think you are missing something here. There is a
difference between character knowledge and player knowledge. If I'm really good at
debating and social interaction, and my character is as well, then it's very easy to
roleplay that sort of thing. If, however, I'm socially inept, and my character is not,
then you are making a big mistake by basing my character's success rate on my social
ineptitude. I don't know about you, but I like playing characters who can do things that
I can't. You are greatly limiting the spectrum of roleplaying if you say that you want to
roleplay out absolutely everything regardless of the skill levels of the participants. If
I know next to nothing about computers, but I'm playing a top notch computer hacker,
exactly how are we to roleplay that? I'd rather roll a break in attempt than roleplay out
the situation and make numerous mistakes that the character wouldn't (by definition). As
for the tactician, if I never roll at ALL for tactics (assuming I know nothing at all
about tactics), then it doesn't really seem like I'm playing a tactician at all. It seems
like I'm playing a modified version of myself. Some people may like that kind of thing,
and more power to them. I, however, am not one of them.
Of course this is where it helps to realize where dice are appropriate. If I do
happen to have a great deal of knowledge about something, then I don't see a problem with
roleplaying it out. But I can't know everything, and so dice provide a very good method
of adjudicating the process.
NPC decisions I really don't care very much about. I'm a big advocate of player
control (i.e. I control the actions and development of my character to the greatest
extent possible) and I would extend the same courtesy to the GM in the case of an NPC.
If you don't like reaction tables, don't use them. Your last statement appears to imply
that less roleplaying occurs in a diced game. I find that odd, because that just hasn't
been my experience. I can't help shaking the feeling that in a diceless game, we really
just have a session of the GM telling me what my character is doing.

> From my perspective, dice only 'do a better job' when the GM can't do
> any better than the dice mechanics.

I think that last statement is false. I think we differ here because you place a
high value on the GM's whim, something I just don't think I can do.

> Now, I'm willing to believe that dice become a viable alternative for
> doing a better job when the group contract places a low value on
> subjective decisions. But it might be better to say that the dice fulfill
> the group's contract better.

I'd call those decisions arbitrary, though I'm sure you won't like the connotations
that follow from that word. Still, I think the label fits, negative connotations or not,
and so I would place a low value on them. The key thing to consider here is that dice and
mechanics are not needed at every phase of the game, but that there are a number of areas
where they are of great use, and it is in those areas where I think dice and mechanics do
a better job than the GM's whim.

>
> David

[Daniel Pongratz]

John L. Jones II wrote:

>> I'm going to regret this, but, what job? Dice do what job better?

More Dice vs. Deiceless... yeah...

> Since the challenge has been issued, I guess I'm obliged to respond.
> Okay, here goes. The first thing to remember is that there is a time
> and a place for dice. I am not in the camp that believes everything
> ought to rely on dice. For example, you shouldn't have to make a
> perception role for EVERYTHING.

If this is the case, then what is the criteria for deciding whether or
not to "roll the dice?" Is it the infamous GM whim?

> One of the big issues I suppose is combat. From a player perspective,
> I find it better to have some insight into the decision making
> process. If I have an 80% chance of hitting something, and I roll,
> say, an 89, then I know why I missed.

No you don't. You don't know _why_ you missed, only _that_ you missed.
This is much more "arbitrary" than any GM whim, unless it is explained
well in a diceless manner.

> I find that a more palatable solution than having the GM just say I
> missed because he thinks it will further the *story*.

There are more ways of deciding an issue in diceless adjudication than
plot. One of the best seems to be reason. The GM determines that given
the current description, the action will not succeed. And remember that
the GM in a dice-game can alter any effect, including combat, to further
the plot. The dice do not necessarily stop him.

> I'm not concerned with roleplaying as story writing. That just doesn't
> interest me.

There are people on this list who do diceless, simulationist games. I
have yet to understand exactly how to do this, but they claim it works

> Without dice I am only left with the GM's whim. Personally, I don't
> like that type of arbitrariness.

What kind of arbitrariness do you prefer? The GM's "whim" of reason? A
consensus of the players deciding on a given issue at had? The random
roll of hard, unthinking plastic? Or, to use Mr. Berkman's terms, the
arbitrariness of GMs hiding behind the clattering of dice? I am not
sure what arbitrariness you prefer?

BTW, "whim" is about as loaded as you can get, Mr. Jones... :)

> I don't think the GM should be in complete control of the game; and in
> a diceless situation, I just don't see how that would not be the case.

The GM is always in control of the game, dice or no dice. Sure the
players have input, and in the good games they have a great deal of
input, but the GM is the final arbiter. But I don't see how the control
issue changes much between dice and diceless. You give the power of the
dice to the reason of a human being.

> One of the posters here said that in using dice one is just moving a
> portion of GM arbitrariness to the dice. Even if we accept this
> statement as true, I'd have to say that I think it's a good thing. The
> dice allow for the occurance of a number of variables which a diceless
> GM is unlikely to take seriously.

Mr. Berkman a while ago (I think it was him) posted an example of
diceless combat. It was one of the most interesting things I've read on
the `net. I never once knew what was coming next, nor did things ever
seem predictable. It was great. It got me thinking about diceless
resolution.

>> Which of your decisions do you allow to be replaced by the dice
>> mechanics? Probably combat, that's a common one. How about NPC
>> decisions? Social interactions? If my character is attempting to
>> bluff his way past a guard, do I have to roleplay this out to some
>> extent, or can I simply role my fasttalk skill, because the dice and
>> mechanics are preferable to that kind of roleplay? How about combat?
>> There's variation there. Do I have to make tactical decisions in
>> character, or do I just roll a skill, because dice and mechanics are
>> preferable to having to roleplay that out?

> This is a good point, but I think you are missing something here.
> There is a difference between character knowledge and player
> knowledge.

That wasn't quite his point, I think. What he meant to emphasize was
"roll" not "skill". Skills exist in diceless systems, just that they
aren't rolled on. This allows for a distinction between character and
player knowledge.

> [...]

> Your last statement appears to imply that less roleplaying occurs in
> a diced game. I find that odd, because that just hasn't been my
> experience.

I don't think he was saying that no role-playing occurs in a diced game.
How many diceless games have you been in, Mr. Jones? It seems to me
that diceless adjudication necessarily enforces role-playing, requiring
greater descriptions and actions. But that's just my initial view.

> I can't help shaking the feeling that in a diceless game, we really
> just have a session of the GM telling me what my character is doing.

Do you feel that in a diced game, the dice keep telling you what you do?
In principle, there is no difference; the adjudication system tells you
what you do, does it matter if it is done by person or by plastic.

>> From my perspective, dice only 'do a better job' when the GM can't do
>> any better than the dice mechanics.

> I think that last statement is false. I think we differ here because
> you place a high value on the GM's whim, something I just don't think
> I can do.

There's that loaded language again... maybe if you stop calling it "GM
whim" you would be more comfortable with it.

> I'd call those decisions arbitrary, though I'm sure you won't like the
> connotations that follow from that word. Still, I think the label
> fits, negative connotations or not, and so I would place a low value
> on them. The key thing to consider here is that dice and mechanics are
> not needed at every phase of the game, but that there are a number of
> areas where they are of great use, and it is in those areas where I
> think dice and mechanics do a better job than the GM's whim.

I doubt Mr. Berkman will mind if you label things arbitrary, since dice
are just as aritrary, if not more so, that any but the most insane GM's
whim.

I use dice in my gaming. For several reasons. The biggest reason is
that I am not fully sure of my abilities of description or my
capabilities of neutrality. I question if I could run diceless well.
The second reason is that any potential player seems to be unwilling to
(again, paraphrasing Mr. berkman) to pierce the dice-veil. And if there
is one thing I can be sure of regarding dice/diceless, consensus is a
must if diceless is to be used.

> John L. Jones II

--
Dan Pongratz <dp...@nis.lanl.gov> http://nis-www.lanl.gov/
NIS - 2 {505-665-0019} {MS D436}

Hold the mayo... but pass the cosmic awareness, please!

[John L. Jones II]

Daniel Pongratz wrote:
>
> John L. Jones II wrote:
>
> >> I'm going to regret this, but, what job? Dice do what job better?
>
> More Dice vs. Deiceless... yeah...
>
> > Since the challenge has been issued, I guess I'm obliged to respond.
> > Okay, here goes. The first thing to remember is that there is a time
> > and a place for dice. I am not in the camp that believes everything
> > ought to rely on dice. For example, you shouldn't have to make a
> > perception role for EVERYTHING.
>
> If this is the case, then what is the criteria for deciding whether or
> not to "roll the dice?" Is it the infamous GM whim?

Sometimes. My point is not to eliminate the GM from the equation
(though that does present an interesting thought experiment). The point
remains that in a diced game EVERYTHING does not necessarily fall to the
GM's judgement.

> > One of the big issues I suppose is combat. From a player perspective,
> > I find it better to have some insight into the decision making
> > process. If I have an 80% chance of hitting something, and I roll,
> > say, an 89, then I know why I missed.
>
> No you don't. You don't know _why_ you missed, only _that_ you missed.
> This is much more "arbitrary" than any GM whim, unless it is explained
> well in a diceless manner.

A bit nitpicky, but fair enough. My point is that the player has some
insight into the process. I don't know if I understand how the diced
resolution is "much more 'arbitrary' than any GM whim," care to explain?

> > I find that a more palatable solution than having the GM just say I
> > missed because he thinks it will further the *story*.
>
> There are more ways of deciding an issue in diceless adjudication than
> plot. One of the best seems to be reason. The GM determines that given
> the current description, the action will not succeed. And remember that
> the GM in a dice-game can alter any effect, including combat, to further
> the plot. The dice do not necessarily stop him.

You're right. In fact, the question of how to resolve a situation in
a diceless manner was addressed by Alain in a post some time ago. In it,
he gave a variety of methods by which a diceless GM could come to a
solution. I didn't find any of them to be as satisfactory as dice and
mechanics. I still don't. You are right to point out that the GM is not
controlled by the dice, but it is much easier to see if he is acting
capriciously in a diced game than in a diceless one. Basically I'm arguing
that the GM should have some constraints, and dice, in my opinion, provide
a good method of doing so.

> > I'm not concerned with roleplaying as story writing. That just doesn't
> > interest me.
>
> There are people on this list who do diceless, simulationist games. I
> have yet to understand exactly how to do this, but they claim it works

They do this in theory, but from what I can tell it still boils down
to whatever furthers the story. In all fairness, if furthering of the
story is the primary goal, I don't think you can beat diceless. The GM has
total control of the outcomes, so it's much easier to keep the story
coherent.

> > Without dice I am only left with the GM's whim. Personally, I don't
> > like that type of arbitrariness.
>
> What kind of arbitrariness do you prefer? The GM's "whim" of reason? A
> consensus of the players deciding on a given issue at had? The random
> roll of hard, unthinking plastic? Or, to use Mr. Berkman's terms, the
> arbitrariness of GMs hiding behind the clattering of dice? I am not
> sure what arbitrariness you prefer?
>
> BTW, "whim" is about as loaded as you can get, Mr. Jones... :)

All language is loaded Mr. Pongratz. GM's judgement may be a softer
use of language, but to say that would be to miss something very
important, in my opinion. By the way, I'm not trying to say that GM's are
these evil creatures out to get the players. My only point is that I am
less comfortable in a situation where the GM is making ALL of the calls.

> > I don't think the GM should be in complete control of the game; and in
> > a diceless situation, I just don't see how that would not be the case.
>
> The GM is always in control of the game, dice or no dice. Sure the
> players have input, and in the good games they have a great deal of
> input, but the GM is the final arbiter. But I don't see how the control
> issue changes much between dice and diceless. You give the power of the
> dice to the reason of a human being.

"You give the power of the dice to the reason of a human being." Now
Mr. Pongratz, how is it you can lecture me about loaded language, and then
write a sentence like the one above? You make a number of assumptions, and
they are similar to the ones that most of the diceless advocates appear to
agree with. First, that the GM is neutral. That is simply not the case. If
the GM could take in all available factors and probabilities, and
eliminate meta-game issues like "furthering the story," or "Jimmy's in a
bad mood let's cheer him up," and other such things, then maybe I wouldn't
be so averse to it. Unfortunately, no such creature exists.
Actually, now that I think about it, one method of diceless that I
would probably agree with is one in which everyone involved (i.e. the GM
and the players) came to a consensus on the success or failure of a
particular action. If you are content to leave the players out of the
equation (and I fail to see how diceless does not do that) then I'll have
to stick with dice.
Also, from the players perspective (well, in my opinion anyway), the
GM is more constrained in a diced game. Capricious actions (I suppose
you'll call that loaded too) are much easier to see in a diced game. I am
of course assuming that capricious on the part of the GM is a bad thing.

> Mr. Berkman a while ago (I think it was him) posted an example of
> diceless combat. It was one of the most interesting things I've read on
> the `net. I never once knew what was coming next, nor did things ever
> seem predictable. It was great. It got me thinking about diceless
> resolution.

You're right. It was a really nice story, but trying to put myself in
the players perspective left me a bit cold. I'm still left with that
metagame story aspect. I'm almost left wondering whether it's really
necessary for me to be there.

> >> Which of your decisions do you allow to be replaced by the dice
> >> mechanics? Probably combat, that's a common one. How about NPC
> >> decisions? Social interactions? If my character is attempting to
> >> bluff his way past a guard, do I have to roleplay this out to some
> >> extent, or can I simply role my fasttalk skill, because the dice and
> >> mechanics are preferable to that kind of roleplay? How about combat?
> >> There's variation there. Do I have to make tactical decisions in
> >> character, or do I just roll a skill, because dice and mechanics are
> >> preferable to having to roleplay that out?
>
> > This is a good point, but I think you are missing something here.
> > There is a difference between character knowledge and player
> > knowledge.
>
> That wasn't quite his point, I think. What he meant to emphasize was
> "roll" not "skill". Skills exist in diceless systems, just that they
> aren't rolled on. This allows for a distinction between character and
> player knowledge.

My question remains, just how does skill resolution occur in a
diceless system? My examples (you snipped them but I hope you read them)
are still quite valid. If I have to roleplay EVERYTHING, we will run into
problems when I do not have the knowledge my character does. The computer
hacking example is a good illustration of this. If I know next to nothing
about computers, and we roleplay the situation out we are going to run
into problems. First, I think it's bad form to base your subjective
decision making process (I hope that's not loaded) on my lack of
knowledge. In this instance I would make mistakes that my character never
would. If ALL we have are the roleplaying aspects, then I'm left playing a
modified version of myself. I've said it before, some people like that
sort of thing, I just don't happen to be one of them. The other side of
this is why bother taking other skills at all? Unless I know them I won't
be able to roleplay them and thus I will be punished for that lack of
knowledge in the game when the issue of skill resolution comes up. Rolling
vs. a skill in these circumstances eliminates those problems and allows me
to play characters that are not carbon copies of myself.

> > Your last statement appears to imply that less roleplaying occurs in
> > a diced game. I find that odd, because that just hasn't been my
> > experience.
>
> I don't think he was saying that no role-playing occurs in a diced game.
> How many diceless games have you been in, Mr. Jones? It seems to me
> that diceless adjudication necessarily enforces role-playing, requiring
> greater descriptions and actions. But that's just my initial view.

How many have I been in? It depends what you mean by diceless. I've
been through quite a number of game sessions where dice weren't used at
all. To that extent I've been in several. My point is that one can have or
not have a great deal of roleplaying in a diced game. I fail to see how
diceless would allow for more of that. I agree that diceless is might be
more descriptive, but that's dependent on the both the GM and the players.
While relying on description is initially attractive, it will necessarily
incur the problems I discussed in the the previous paragraph.

> > I can't help shaking the feeling that in a diceless game, we really
> > just have a session of the GM telling me what my character is doing.
>
> Do you feel that in a diced game, the dice keep telling you what you do?
> In principle, there is no difference; the adjudication system tells you
> what you do, does it matter if it is done by person or by plastic.

More loaded language, but that's beside the point. I would say it
does matter if it's the GM or the dice. From my impressions of diceless
(and I really have done a lot of research about this before formulating my
opinions) I'm still left with the feeling that I'm not really a necessary
part. Diceless appears to be more of an exercise in novel writing. I don't
roleplay for that. Some people do and that's fine. From the standpoint of
player control, there is more of a feeling of control. I have some input
into the resolution of the matter, even for things I don't know much
about. That's just not the case with diceless.

> >> From my perspective, dice only 'do a better job' when the GM can't do
> >> any better than the dice mechanics.
>
> > I think that last statement is false. I think we differ here because
> > you place a high value on the GM's whim, something I just don't think
> > I can do.
>
> There's that loaded language again... maybe if you stop calling it "GM
> whim" you would be more comfortable with it.

It doesn't matter what I call it. We can call it nice cuddly
marshmallows for all I care. It still doesn't change the reality of the
situation. Tell me this, how is it not GM whim?

> > I'd call those decisions arbitrary, though I'm sure you won't like the
> > connotations that follow from that word. Still, I think the label
> > fits, negative connotations or not, and so I would place a low value
> > on them. The key thing to consider here is that dice and mechanics are
> > not needed at every phase of the game, but that there are a number of
> > areas where they are of great use, and it is in those areas where I
> > think dice and mechanics do a better job than the GM's whim.
>
> I doubt Mr. Berkman will mind if you label things arbitrary, since dice
> are just as aritrary, if not more so, that any but the most insane GM's
> whim.

How are they more so? I've heard this before, but have yet to see any
support for that statement. Even if it were true, and I don't for a minute
think it is, I would argue that it's better to spread the arbitrariness
around rather than have it all located in one place.

> I use dice in my gaming. For several reasons. The biggest reason is
> that I am not fully sure of my abilities of description or my
> capabilities of neutrality. I question if I could run diceless well.
> The second reason is that any potential player seems to be unwilling to
> (again, paraphrasing Mr. berkman) to pierce the dice-veil. And if there
> is one thing I can be sure of regarding dice/diceless, consensus is a
> must if diceless is to be used.

Neutrality is a big factor, and I do not think that ANY GM is
capable of being fully neutral. Description can be a good thing, but at
times I believe it can be a hindrance. I don't like being forced to play
carbon copies of myself, that's not why I roleplay. If I happen to have
the relevant skill, then fine, let's do the description thing. But if I
don't, I shouldn't be punished for it. It may be the case that there are
types of diceless gaming where the GMs judgement is clear cut. Perhaps the
method I mentioned of involving more than one person actually exists. I'm
open to different ways of handling diceless, perhaps one of the readers on
the newsgroup could fill me in. Something that keeps getting lost in these
discussions is the fact that dice are just tools, and there is a time and
a place for them. One thing that seems clear is that the players have a
degree of insight into the decision making process that does not appear to
exist in a diceless environment. Perhaps part of the problem is that I ask
questions, a lot of questions (even if only internally), and diceless
doesn't appear to do a good job of answering them.

>
> > John L. Jones II
>
> --
> Dan Pongratz <dp...@nis.lanl.gov> http://nis-www.lanl.gov/
> NIS - 2 {505-665-0019} {MS D436}
>
> Hold the mayo... but pass the cosmic awareness, please!

--

[Daniel Pongratz]

John L. Jones II wrote:

>> If this is the case, then what is the criteria for deciding whether or
>> not to "roll the dice?" Is it the infamous GM whim?

> Sometimes. My point is not to eliminate the GM from the equation
> (though that does present an interesting thought experiment). The point
> remains that in a diced game EVERYTHING does not necessarily fall to the
> GM's judgement.

But when is that decision made? When do the GM/players decide that a certain
issue need not be settled by dice. I'm confused...

>> No you don't. You don't know _why_ you missed, only _that_ you missed.
>> This is much more "arbitrary" than any GM whim, unless it is explained
>> well in a diceless manner.

> A bit nitpicky, but fair enough. My point is that the player has some
> insight into the process. I don't know if I understand how the diced
> resolution is "much more 'arbitrary' than any GM whim," care to explain?

My point is that without an explanation of the failure, the result is just as
arbitrary.

Let me get something straight, IMO diceless adjudication is like a magnifier of
games (this is actually conjecture), it makes a good GM with good players
better, and makes a bad situation worse.

Diceless adjudication performed in a manner similar to _bad_ diced games will
be even worse, and entirely horrible...

Player: "I attack the Orc. Do I hit?"
GM: "No."
Player: "bummer... Next turn I attack again, do I hit?"
GM: "Yes."
Player: "whoo hoo!"

Now this is arbitrary adjudication... and is worse than dice, because the
player cannot see anything. But this is, as far as I can tell, horrible GMing
(and playing). Diceless cannot be judged by this. Contrast this with...

Player: "My barbarian swiftly runs forward, screaming his clans ancient
battle-cry. I feint to the hapless Orcs head, but then quickly bring my blade
down to strike at his leg."
GM: "Well, the Orc stands stedfast. You can spy a look of fear in his eyes,
hidden behind his shield. Your feint catches him off-guard and he brings his
shield too high. His club is too slow to block your blow to his leg. Your
powerful blow cuts cleanly into his knee, and the hapless Orc falls screaming
to the floor."

This is a better description, indicitive of better GMing and Playing. The
point of the diceless advocates is that the description of the circumstances,
as well as the situation and the requisite skills involved, will weigh together
to determine the situation. Diceless GMs use their brains to decide if the
attack works or not, they don't appeal to dice.

Its not as if they have "no reason" and thus are arbitrary. In fact, quite the
opposite. They do have a reason why the attack (or whatever) suceeds or fails.
These reasons are exactly what the diced situation lacks. Thus they are
arbitrary in the exact way diceless resolution is not.

if you disagree with this, you will have to take up your lack of faith in human
reason with your local philosopher...

>> There are more ways of deciding an issue in diceless adjudication than
>> plot. One of the best seems to be reason. The GM determines that given
>> the current description, the action will not succeed. And remember that
>> the GM in a dice-game can alter any effect, including combat, to further
>> the plot. The dice do not necessarily stop him.
>
> You're right. In fact, the question of how to resolve a situation in
> a diceless manner was addressed by Alain in a post some time ago. In it,
> he gave a variety of methods by which a diceless GM could come to a
> solution. I didn't find any of them to be as satisfactory as dice and
> mechanics.

You didn't find the "According to reason, this attempt should fail"
adjudication. In my mind, this is the only legitimate, primary decision
factor. I guess other factors could be used in minor ways too.

> I still don't. You are right to point out that the GM is not
> controlled by the dice, but it is much easier to see if he is acting
> capriciously in a diced game than in a diceless one.

Not if She's a good GM. Or else the players are paranoid and looking for a
situation where they were "screwed." if the players are capable of this level
of paranoia, they shouldn't be playing in a diceless game.

> Basically I'm arguing that the GM should have some constraints, and dice, in
> my opinion, provide a good method of doing so.

And I think Reason is also an adequate limitation.

> They do this in theory, but from what I can tell it still boils down
> to whatever furthers the story. In all fairness, if furthering of the
> story is the primary goal, I don't think you can beat diceless. The GM has
> total control of the outcomes, so it's much easier to keep the story
> coherent.

I doubt those simulationists would agree with you saying that. I would say
that given a situation where the circumstances are ambiguous, then other
qualifiers besides Reason must be used. This would include plot and genre and
fairness. But hopefully that wouldn't occur too often. But I still feel that
the GM would easily be able to hide that "arbitrariness". Of course, those
specific "secondary" modifiers could be decided upon in a campaign contract.

> All language is loaded Mr. Pongratz.

Well, if you want to go down _that_ road...

> GM's judgement may be a softer
> use of language, but to say that would be to miss something very
> important, in my opinion. By the way, I'm not trying to say that GM's are
> these evil creatures out to get the players. My only point is that I am
> less comfortable in a situation where the GM is making ALL of the calls.

But you are more comfortable when plastic makes ALL those calls? I don't think
you're saying GMs are evil, I just think you are too concerned with subjective
contamination from the GM.

>> The GM is always in control of the game, dice or no dice. Sure the
>> players have input, and in the good games they have a great deal of
>> input, but the GM is the final arbiter. But I don't see how the control
>> issue changes much between dice and diceless. You give the power of the
>> dice to the reason of a human being.

> "You give the power of the dice to the reason of a human being." Now
> Mr. Pongratz, how is it you can lecture me about loaded language, and then
> write a sentence like the one above?

What? All diceless means is that whatever you used dice for, you now use some
other system (probably non-random, I don't want to get into that discussion).
So by definition, in the usual diceless game, you give whatever the power the
dice had to a person, the GM. I don't see how that's loaded.

> You make a number of assumptions, and
> they are similar to the ones that most of the diceless advocates appear to
> agree with. First, that the GM is neutral. That is simply not the case.

If you mean by "neutral = objective" of course GMs aren't neutral. People
cannot be fully objective. However, by neutral I mean that the GM tries to
weigh all the evidence and factors and come with a fair decision. I'm pretty
sure that none of the diceless advocates advocate neutrality.

> If the GM could take in all available factors and probabilities, and
> eliminate meta-game issues like "furthering the story," or "Jimmy's in a
> bad mood let's cheer him up," and other such things, then maybe I wouldn't
> be so averse to it. Unfortunately, no such creature exists.

Because we're human, you shy away from our reasoning power. Should we decide
liability suits by dice. "Such and such a company has a 70% of being liable
for this accident... oh, too bad, a 71 on the dice, you can go now."

Your mistrust of reason, human reason, tainted, biased, wonderful human reason
is disheatening.

> Actually, now that I think about it, one method of diceless that I
> would probably agree with is one in which everyone involved (i.e. the GM
> and the players) came to a consensus on the success or failure of a
> particular action. If you are content to leave the players out of the
> equation (and I fail to see how diceless does not do that) then I'll have
> to stick with dice.

If you're using reason, not dice, as your adjudicator, how can you NOT ask your
fellow compadres about situations. The GM is not the only possessor of a brain
at a diceless table. Many of the .advocacy people, diced and diceless, have
the players get involved in deciding the outcome. It is dice that leave the
players, and the GM, out of the decision process.

> Also, from the players perspective (well, in my opinion anyway), the
> GM is more constrained in a diced game. Capricious actions (I suppose
> you'll call that loaded too) are much easier to see in a diced game. I am
> of course assuming that capricious on the part of the GM is a bad thing.

Again, only if the player is paranoid and on the prowl for "screwing" is he
likely to see the "capricious nature" of diceless adjudication. in fact, it is
much easier to "screw" players with dice, because they assume you actually
rolled the dice.

> You're right. It was a really nice story, but trying to put myself in
> the players perspective left me a bit cold. I'm still left with that
> metagame story aspect. I'm almost left wondering whether it's really
> necessary for me to be there.

Perhaps your a paranoid player?

> My question remains, just how does skill resolution occur in a
> diceless system?

Exactly how they occur in a diced game. You have Difficulties associated to
actions, and if its too high, you don't suceed.

> [...]

> It doesn't matter what I call it. We can call it nice cuddly
> marshmallows for all I care. It still doesn't change the reality of the
> situation. Tell me this, how is it not GM whim?

If logic is whim, then it is whim. Call it what you will. Whim is fine.

[Mark Apolinski]

John L. Jones II wrote:
>
> > > One of the big issues I suppose is combat. From a player perspective,
> > > I find it better to have some insight into the decision making
> > > process. If I have an 80% chance of hitting something, and I roll,
> > > say, an 89, then I know why I missed.
> >
> > No you don't. You don't know _why_ you missed, only _that_ you missed.
> > This is much more "arbitrary" than any GM whim, unless it is explained
> > well in a diceless manner.
>
> A bit nitpicky, but fair enough. My point is that the player has some
> insight into the process. I don't know if I understand how the diced
> resolution is "much more 'arbitrary' than any GM whim," care to explain?
>

If I may, the player doesn't have any 'insight' into the process.
They simply know the mechanic. Would it make a difference if they player
didn't know their skill percentage and rolled? With all due respect,
this really seems like a manifestation of *fear*. I think that this
anxiety that many on this list express all boils down to a deep seated
fear of not understanding what's going on. Not that that's a bad thing
except in the way that all fear is bad, and of course I would never
coerce anyone to play in a way that they feel uncomfortable. But I ask
you this, IF you enjoyed diceless, would you have any *rational*
objection, or is your entire argument based upon what feels good for
you? I ask this in all seriousness and meaning no disrespect.

> My question remains, just how does skill resolution occur in a
> diceless system? My examples (you snipped them but I hope you read them)
> are still quite valid. If I have to roleplay EVERYTHING, we will run into
> problems when I do not have the knowledge my character does. The computer
> hacking example is a good illustration of this. If I know next to nothing
> about computers, and we roleplay the situation out we are going to run
> into problems. First, I think it's bad form to base your subjective
> decision making process (I hope that's not loaded) on my lack of
> knowledge. In this instance I would make mistakes that my character never
> would. If ALL we have are the roleplaying aspects, then I'm left playing a
> modified version of myself. I've said it before, some people like that
> sort of thing, I just don't happen to be one of them. The other side of
> this is why bother taking other skills at all? Unless I know them I won't
> be able to roleplay them and thus I will be punished for that lack of
> knowledge in the game when the issue of skill resolution comes up. Rolling
> vs. a skill in these circumstances eliminates those problems and allows me
> to play characters that are not carbon copies of myself.
>

I will attempt to tell you how I do it, but all it really comes down
to is figuring out a solution that incorporates
*both* the player's roleplay and the character's skills. One of my
favorite methods is simply by providing the information that the player
lacks *at the time that they need it for their decision.* If the PC is
hacking a computer system, then I would first ask them what their goal
is, then inform them of *some* various ways of attaining that goal along
with the major possible risks. They then have the option of deciding
among the possiblities I outlined or choosing "none of the above". The
latter means that they ask me more questions and I supply more answers
until they decide upon a course of action. This, of course, assumes a
thinking, intelligent player who is capable of assimilating new
information and making an informed decision, kind of like being a juror
or consulting with a lawyer on something new. This method also assumes
that the GM have the missing knowledge or have access to the missing
knowledge either in the form of a written reference or another player.
If *no-one* knows how to hack a computer system (or whatever), then (A)
I don't see how it matters in making a decision and (B) I believe it's
at least the GM's responsibility to find out. But that's just me.

If you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to answer. Probably
the best way would be to go through a sample exchange. Also, ask Dave
Berkman about his 'locus of control' method.

>
> Neutrality is a big factor, and I do not think that ANY GM is
> capable of being fully neutral.

If I said I was thusly capable, would you call me a liar? How could
you know?

> Something that keeps getting lost in these
> discussions is the fact that dice are just tools, and there is a time and
> a place for them.

I think all the diceless advocates agree with you here, it's just that
the time and place for them is for use with
*random* processes and we don't have any.

> One thing that seems clear is that the players have a
> degree of insight into the decision making process that does not appear to
> exist in a diceless environment. Perhaps part of the problem is that I ask
> questions, a lot of questions (even if only internally), and diceless
> doesn't appear to do a good job of answering them.
>

Here's that anxiety problem again. If you have questions, who are you
asking? Even if I were playing in a dice-using game I wouldn't answer
them. Why is it so important that you understand *why*? Especially when
it's only an algorythm.

Very sincerely,

Mark

[Kevin R. Hardwick]

On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, John L. Jones II wrote:

> Daniel Pongratz wrote:
> Sometimes. My point is not to eliminate the GM from the equation
> (though that does present an interesting thought experiment). The point
> remains that in a diced game EVERYTHING does not necessarily fall to the
> GM's judgement.

But that isn't true in a diceless game either. IME--and at this point
I've had a fair bit in both methods--diceless adjudications make
assumption clashes much more obvious, much more quickly. In the diced
games in which I have played (I'm playing in one currently) the structure
of the diced mechanics can--and often does--serve to conceal assumption
clash, to obfuscate the setting. This undermines SOD, for me. When I
succeed at something, I want the character level rationalization for it
(which can include "you got lucky," although it is usually more detailed
than that). In a diced system in which the players roll the dice openly,
I have to rationalize the result of the roll, which inevitably distances
me from being IC--this is not so much of a problem when the GM rolls the
dice in secret, but it can intrude even then.

Diced play depends for the legitimcay of the adjudication on the mechanic
used to translate the number rolled into a game result. An illegitimate
outcome is one which does not accord with the mechanic, or which has not
been produced by the right process.

Diceless play depends for its legitimacy on the common sense of the group
as a whole--does the adjudication make sense, in the context of the
setting?

In diced play, the key question--does the adjudication make sense in the
context of the setting and the immediate situation, is subordinate to the
mechanic that produces the outcome.

There are ways to mitigate much of this problem, and still address some of
the problems simulationists have with diceless. But the diced mechanics
that result are rather unconventional.

> You are right to point out that the GM is not
> controlled by the dice, but it is much easier to see if he is acting
> capriciously in a diced game than in a diceless one.

This has categorically not been my experience. In a diceless game, GM
caprice is immediately obvious. That may sound counter-intuitive, but
that has emphatically been my experience. The most capricious games I've
been in have been diced--precisely because the seemingly objective
mechanics permit the caprice to be hidden for much longer.

I'm curious about your experience here, which would seem to be quite
different from mine. Can you give an example of a diceless game in which
GM caprice remained hidden? When you did the post-game post-mortem, how
did the GM pull that off?

Best,
Kevin

[Mark Apolinski]

Doug Lampert wrote:
>
> This is exactly why I will not play diceless. Let me see, your fighter is
> running into a one on one situation. His feint and attack are spread too far,
> The ork steps to the side, and skewers you while you are redirecting you
> weapon. Let me be blunt, our characters typically know more about this sort
> of combat than ANYONE alive in the world today, much less you and your GM.
> My roleplaying response is to say I attack as seven+ years of training under
> people who do this for living tells my character to attack. He does what he
> thinks best, and it should work better than any half baked plan you can come
> up with, even if I knew everything there was to know about hand to hand
> combat, what is the lighting like, the footing, the wind, describe my enemy's
> stance and gear in detail, in fact I want a holographic picture, and then
> maybe I could tell you what I would do were it for real. Without that all I
> can say is I do the best I can, and give very general descriptions (aggressive,
> defensive, ext...) anything more is like asking someone who has never used
> a computer to describe how he will write a program, and having someone else
> who has never used a computer decide if it will work based on how he likes
> the description.
>
> Your descriptions may or may not give a greater feel of realism, but they
> definitely do not give realism.

Pardon my French, but this is bullshit. Over and over Daniel has
stated that diceless games are *not* adjudicated solely by description.
If that fighter (the character now) has a skill level in combat that
represents 20 years of experience and being a veteran of many fights and
they decide to do that, then who are you (who self-admittedly knows less
about combat then the PC) to say it is the wrong thing to do?

Realism is not the goal of *any* roleplaying game. The goal is
verisimilitude. The *appearance* of realism. If realism were the goal,
how can you justify all the varying opinions currently in and out of
print? Since they're all slightly different, they can't all be right.
Tell me, which game system is the *one* that is realistic?

OK, sarcasm off. Obviously, the goal in all RPGs is verisimilitude.
If it's *close enough*, it's fine. You can't please all the people, all
the time.

If you're interested in the quite legitimate and
independant-of-diced-or-diceless-considerations techniques of how to run
characters with knowledge or experience that the players lack, I'd be
fully willing to participate further.

Mark

[Daniel Pongratz]

John Jones sat down at the gubmant's computer to type this:

I tried to fix the line-wrap so others might get involved in this
discussion. Maybe someone more familiar with diceless gaming,
since I've never done it. Or maybe someone who justs wants to slap
John or myself silly.

>> No. "Because the dice say so" is not an explanation to why your
>> character failed. It is merely metagaming resolution. There can
>> be explanation in a diced game, but only if the GM provides it.

> Sure it is. I have an 80% chance of doing something (it doesn't
> matter what). I roll something above 80. That means the action
> fell into the realm of the 20% that I failed. Like it or not, it
> qualifies as an explanation.

It qualifies as a metagame reason why the action failed. It gives
no explanation (ie why the action failed) to the player or the
character. We just disagree about what constitutes an explanation.
I am concerned with character views, while you are concerned with
mainly meta-game stances. Fine.

>> Really, the GM doesn't say yes or no, Mr. Jones. The GM looks
>> at the situation and, at least in the example above, the answer
>> is obvious. Not always the case, but it does occur.

> Obvious to whom? Here's a suggestion. Why not have the players
> determine the outcome of their characters actions, and the GM
> determine the other stuff (campaign setting, NPC's, etc).

Sounds great. I love it. Perfectly diceless. Of course, the
player will have to know the exact situation, and their character's
ability, to honestly gauge the issue. This is a contract issue,
though.

> If you have a problem with the players telling you that they hit
> or missed, then we have a contradiction in your reasoning.

Its a good thing I think the idea is great. I've never said a
diceless game could not do this. I actually would advocate this I
if ever ran the stuff.

> [...]

>> GMs are fallable, but dice aren't? Now I'm really confused.
>> GMs use reason, yes flawed, but reason, while dice use chance.
>> Dice ALWAYS come up with the right answer? Well, in a diced
>> game, they do by definition. At least I can argue with a GM
>> using reason... all I can do is throw the little pieces of
>> plastic.

> That old saw just won't work here Mr. Pongratz. Dice are used in
> certain contexts with agreed upon rules of interpretation. You
> know, we just don't see that with the diceless resolution now do
> we?

We don't? Boy, that sure is confusing. There are such creatures
as Mechanical, diceless games. These have pre-determined
interpretations. And in a systemless, diceless game, the contract
needs to decide, whatever the system (dice or diceless), how
situations are resolved.

>> If you hate capriciousness, then look it up in a dictionary. If
>> it comes close to "random" then you can see why I am confused
>> about this issue.

> It's how the GM's resolution is non-random that escapes me.

A lack of unpredictability can be a problem, but I think a good
description/situation from the GM can go a long way too alleviate
this.

>> [Player input]

> What input? I've already detailed the problems with relying
> solely on description. Have you missed those? Do I need to
> restate them again?

And you seem to be missing my point that diceless resolution does
not _solely_ reside on description. If there are mechanics, then
they will overwhelm the resolution, just as the dice overwhelm any
descriptive bonus given to them.

Players always control their characters. The GM doesn't take
control of the characters, or no more than they do in diced games.

> Ok, now I understand. Explain this, how does one do diceless in a
> manner which will allow for this type of roleplay? Remember, I
> don't care to write a novel here.

Well, I think you are being unfair when you say that diceless is
just "writing a novel". My only "problem" with diceless
simulationists is how they resolve ties in probability. In a genre
game, the tie goes "to the genre", but with simulationists, I don't
see how they do this. Maybe they would show me in email (hint
hint, nudge nudge... you know, John, I wonder if anyone else is
reading?)

>> And we won't have it in a diced game either, since humans (or
>> really smart chimps) are playing. That nasty taint of human
>> "whim" will always rise up.

> The dice aren't neutral? Now I'm confused.

Of course the dice are uncaring, unthinking hunks of plastic. But
they are irrelevent without some kind of human intervention.

>> Mr. Jones, you've obviously missed my entire point about skills.
>> It is really quite simple. There need be no (non, nada, zilch,
>> zip, etc.) difference between diced and diceless skill
>> resolution. You absolutely do not have to play a carbon copy of
>> yourself.

> Dammit Mr. Pongratz, how many times do I have to ask this before > I get a response?

As soon as you understand my relatively simple answer.

> I've explained numerous times that the description based paradigm
> has serious flaws when you try to roleplay/explain/whatever
> skills that you personally have no knowledge about?

Yes, there can be problems with this. But only when trying to
describe it In-Character. While talking about about in the
Authorial stance, I don't see the problem. I know nothing about
fixing cars. So while describing what my expert mechanic character
does In Character will be impossible. But I can describe him from
a detatched, third person view, using skill ability, past
experiences, and the GMs situation of the problem.

But more importantly, description is not the _sole_ decision rule.
If the diceless game has a system, then just use the numbers. The
difficulty is 6, I have Mechanics 8. Therefore I succeed. No
description is needed. Just as with dice.

Or, if there are no number (a mechanicless system) then I describe
my character's Mechanic skill in terms of his schooling (he is an
engineer), his experience (he was a NASCAR mechanic), or any
specific instances (he rebuilt his grandparents 1920 Jalopy). Then
the GM, or whoever is adjudicating the resolution, determines if
this is enough for the task at hand. It is the same as using
numbers, essentially, but uses words instead.

Let me say this again. With regards to player/character knowledge
there need be no difference between dice and diceless skill
resolution. The only possible situation which could arise is
something which we have had _NO_ contact with. That is why I
brought up the "Systemless Magic" thread later.

> Dice handle the situation very well, of that I think there is
> little dispute.

Well, I dispute this not. But I do dispute that diceless does it
any differently from diced resolution.

> So tell me, precisely, how in the world we resolve the issue of
> handling skill resolution where I have no personal knowledge
> (other than the skill's description) of the skill involved?

No personal knowledge, or no authorial knowledge. And again,
description is not necessarily that important.

>> You absolutely amaze me, Mr. Jones. Yes. Dammit, Yes! In a
>> diced game players influence the adjudication process concerning
>> their characters. Amazingly enough, they do so as well in a
>> diceless game, too. More amazingly, the way they do it is the
>> exact same way, by description. Even more amazingly, in a
>> diceless process, that method has even more weight than in a
>> diced mechanism.

> More weight? Please explain, because I really don't see it.

Although descriptions are not vital, they can greatly influence
resolution, especially in a systemless game.

>> Hmm... you say you were observant. Did you observe the fact
>> that the GM had no idea what the player was going to do _in
>> every instance_. A pretty bad job of novel writing. Did you
>> observe that the player actually described what he did _at all
>> times_, not the GM. Pretty bad when writing a novel. Did you
>> observe that if the player had not been deciding the actions,
>> the whole scenario would have gone absolutely differently.
>> Pretty shaky writing, if I do say so.

> Okay Mr. Pongratz, let's examine something about novel writing,
> since it appears I was being a bit hasty. Some writers have been
> known to enlist the help of assistants, amazing but true. Perhaps
> they need help designing some of the major protagonists (read
> player characters). Certainly the player can help with that.
> Perhaps the author decides to write the novel in conjunction with
> the other person(s), that's not altogether uncommon either. We
> have a situation like, situation x happens, how would person y
> react? The player, assuming he has a feel for the character, can
> provide explanations for that.

Sure, some authors collaborate. But does that mean that one, and
just one, author wrote the book? No. Everyone who collaborated on
the vignete is a co-author. So your accusation that the GM is just
writing what he wants is still wrong. And even if you hate the
description, one way to describe RPGing is collaborative fiction.
That's the truth. Whether or not you should "play up" that
description is another question, but the fact that it _is_ fiction
should not be in dispute.

> The excerpt looked like a small novella, and read like one. We
> have a situation where the GM is essentially determining all of
> the outcomes. I don't know that I like that.

But you like it when the dice determine most of the actions? If
you remove the Out-of-character conversations, how would you know
if the PC and the GM were rolling dice "behind the scene". It read
like a novella because it was very weel done. That means it was
very good, not very bad (and since it was done over email, the GM
had more time to decide upon certain issues).

> I like having a bit more control over my character's actions, and
> in a diced game, I have some of it.

What? I've said this before and I'll say it again, diceless only
transfers the power of the dice to the GM. You don't lose any
control over your character's actions. Yes, the GM determines if
you succeed or not, but the dice previously did this. How have you
given up anything else? The GM doesn't control your character,
just as the dice never did.

> Note this is not to say that dice are perfect, I've never
> claimed that. Without them, the players has only marginal input
> into the decision.

I suppose in your straw man, there is no difference between
"marginal input" and "a great deal of input, up to the final
decision."

> What's worse, if the GM has a different view of a characters
> abilities than the player does then we have some major problems.
> I believe the diceless advocates call this assumption clash. The
> major problem with this is that the players view really doesn't
> matter in those instances. More importantly though, the player's
> view should be in line with the GM's if only to mitigate these
> instances.

Assumption clash is a problem, which is why GM description is so
important. Assumption clash is the fault of the GM, usually for
not describing things well enough. But another problem is
stubborness. If any player/GM is unwilling to give up on a pet
idea, then any game (dice or diceless) will suffer. Just as in any
arbitration, an arbitor is needed to make the final call if
necessary. I would place that mantle on the GM.

> Now, the bottom line of the combat excerpt was that the success
> and failure of every action lied solely with the GM, and that's
> why I question whether the player really needed to be involved.
> Certainly he served a purpose, but was he necessary?

Necessary is such a bad word. Is he necessary. no. Is gaming
necessary. no. Is oxygen necessary. maybe. I mean you could
always die, right. So maybe we should talk about contextual
necessity. Oxygen is necessary if we want to live. And the player
is necessary if we want to game. So yes, he was necessary. The
whole game (not story) would have been moot without him and the
wierd decisions he made would have been missed. Without the player,
there would be no game.

Mr. Jones, I could write a scenario as a GM doing the exact same
thing, but just me, and instead use dice. According to your
interpretation, players aren't necessary in a diced game either.
In that case, all that is necessary is dice. Oh boy, what a game!

> However, if the player could determine the success rate of his
> character's actions (and I see no reason why his reasoning should
> be in any way inferior to the GM's) then I doubt that I would
> have a problem with the system. If both combat participants
> explain what they're doing (be it NPC vs. PC or PC vs PC) and
> then put the result up to a vote of all members present, I
> probably wouldn't have a problem. When we have one person doing
> everything, then I have a problem.

That is how I see the best kind of diceless gaming to be done. Of
course, I think "vote" is too formal a term. And I think the GM
needs to be the final arbiter, like the VP in the Senate.

>> [...]

> I've told you when it occurs, at the behest of everyone involved.
> If I have a high perception skill does that mean I should roll to
> notice everything? Of course not, some things should be taken for
> granted. I'll say it again, combat and skill resolution are
> really the only things I find dice useful for (say, when the
> outcome of an event is much less certain).

Well, I don't see the difference between Perception and Skill
resolution.

>> See the Systemless Magic discussion for this.

> Well that's my point, we can't know everything. Do you have any
> solutions?

Of course you can't know everything. But there is a difference
between "In Character" knowledge and "Authorial" knowledge. I
don't know how to fix a car, but I'm pretty sure I could describe
someone fixing a car, as long as it wasn't me. The problem with
magic is that I've never seen someone cast a spell, so describing
it "Authorially" is difficult. That is why such issues need to be
described well before the game.

>> Even better. Logic is bad. Logic is arbitrary. Logic is
>> generally undesireable. If there is a way to do diceless without
>> having to resort to mere logic, then I'm all for it.

> Whine whine . . . Seriously, how is it you can equate logic and
> whim Mr. Pongratz?

Well, I was talking about reason, and you kept talking about whim.
So I asked if logic (a subset of reason) is equal to whim. You
seemed to say yes. Oh well...

>> Or how about... Randomness is bad. Randomness is arbitrary.
>> Randomness is generally undesireable. If there is a way to do
>> [diced] gaming without having to resort to mere randomness, then
>> I'm all for it.

> I take it you have no answers for this.

Of course I do... it's called diceless gaming.

You kind of walked into that one, John...

[Daniel Pongratz]

John L. Jones II wrote:

Sorry about the line length. But I'm too lazy to fix it.

>>>> No you don't. You don't know _why_ you missed, only _that_ you missed.
>>>> This is much more "arbitrary" than any GM whim, unless it is explained
>>>> well in a diceless manner.

> And my point is that there is an explanation. You don't find probabilities to
> be satisfactory. I'm sympathetic to that, but please don't say that there's NO
> explanation.

No. "Because the dice say so" is not an explanation to why your character failed.
It is merely metagaming resolution. There can be explanation in a diced game, but
only if the GM provides it.

> [descriptive combat]

> More descriptive? Yes, but where's the real difference. It still comes down
> to the GM saying yes or no. You can dress up a pig . . . . By the way, you still
> haven't mention why diced resolution would be "much more arbitrary" than a
> diceless one.

Really, the GM doesn't say yes or no, Mr. Jones. The GM looks at the situation
and, at least in the example above, the answer is obvious. Not always the case,
but it does occur.

Define Arbitrary. If it comes close to "random" then you've answered your own
question.

>> if you disagree with this, you will have to take up your lack of faith in human
>> reason with your local philosopher...

> It's your complete and total faith in human reason that I disagree with. My
> local philosoper concurs.

Perhaps if you'd stop seeing things in black and white, you could get beyond this
problem you seem to have. A little taint is not the end of the world, nor is a
little faith.

> Whose reason? The GM's? Isn't that the whole point of this discussion. The
> fallability of the GM's reason is precisely why the diceless resolution is so
> problematic.

GMs are fallable, but dice aren't? Now I'm really confused. GMs use reason, yes
flawed, but reason, while dice use chance. Dice ALWAYS come up with the right
answer? Well, in a diced game, they do by definition. At least I can argue with a
GM using reason... all I can do is throw the little pieces of plastic.

>> Not if She's a good GM.

> No fair, you know I hate the use of the feminine gender Mr. Pongratz.

I've always thought that calling it "using" is rather abusive, don't you? :)

> This is not a question of paranoia. I think capriciousness is a bad thing,
> you obviously disagree. I argue that it's easier to see if capriciousness is
> present with the use of dice. I am at a loss as to how one would discover this
> without them.

If you hate capriciousness, then look it up in a dictionary. If it comes close to
"random" then you can see why I am confused about this issue.

> You are missing my point that the players have at least some insight into the
> decision making process. That's just not the case in diceless. I believe Alain
> posted something along these lines not too long ago, but unfortunately, I didn't
> save the post.

Wait! Who said that the player's have no input or insight. That is abso-smurfly
wrong. Its so wrong, its not even funny. A major Straw Mannequin! :) Players have
a huge ammount of input in diceless. _Their_ description of _their_ character's
actions will decide whether or not the action succeeds. The only input the GM
makes is to take into account the situations that player doesn't know.

> There's too much jargon here. Tell me exactly what you mean by simulationist,
> because right now, I don't know that I understand what you're saying.

AFAIK, a simulationist is one who tries to run a realistic game, ie to simulate
life. I could be dead wrong, though. They aren't as concerned with the meta-game
issues of plot or genre. You, Mr. Jones, by this definition, are a simulationist.

> [...]

>> If you mean by "neutral = objective" of course GMs aren't neutral. People
>> cannot be fully objective. However, by neutral I mean that the GM tries to
>> weigh all the evidence and factors and come with a fair decision. I'm pretty
>> sure that none of the diceless advocates advocate neutrality.

> Fine. I like neutrality. We don't have it in a diceless resolution. On that
> much it appears we can agree.

And we won't have it in a diced game either, since humans (or really smart chimps)
are playing. That nasty taint of human "whim" will always rise up.

> By the way, I find it interesting to note that you had absolutely no response
> to my questions regarding the roleplaying skill solution. I can only take that to
> mean that you agree that in a diceless game we are generally forced to play
> carbon copies of ourselves.

Mr. Jones, you've obviously missed my entire point about skills. It is really
quite simple. There need be no (non, nada, zilch, zip, etc.) difference between
diced and diceless skill resolution. You absolutely do not have to play a carbon
copy of yourself.

>> If you're using reason, not dice, as your adjudicator, how can you NOT ask your
>> fellow compadres about situations. The GM is not the only possessor of a brain
>> at a diceless table. Many of the .advocacy people, diced and diceless, have
>> the players get involved in deciding the outcome. It is dice that leave the
>> players, and the GM, out of the decision process.

> I've seen this argument before as well. How are the players left out of the
> decision process? To me it seems like they are a major part of it (at least with
> respect to their characters).

You absolutely amaze me, Mr. Jones. Yes. Dammit, Yes! In a diced game players
influence the adjudication process concerning their characters. Amazingly enough,
they do so as well in a diceless game, too. More amazingly, the way they do it is
the exact same way, by description. Even more amazingly, in a diceless process,
that method has even more weight than in a diced mechanism.

>> Perhaps your a paranoid player?

> Not at all. I'm just very observant. Really, you didn't find that example to
> be vaguely similar to an excerpt from a novel? Why did the player need to be
> involved at all? The GM could just as well have written the story without the
> players. The whole thing harkens back to your examples of roleplay. Different
> dress, same pig (i.e. Did I succeed? No? Bummer . . .).

Hmm... you say you were observant. Did you observe the fact that the GM had no
idea what the player was going to do _in every instance_. A pretty bad job of
novel writing. Did you observe that the player actually described what he did _at
all times_, not the GM. Pretty bad when writing a novel. Did you observe that if
the player had not been deciding the actions, the whole scenario would have gone
absolutely differently. Pretty shaky writing, if I do say so.

Absolutely amazing. You say that the players can influence play and decide upon
actions in a diced game, but take away those platics polyhedron's and the whole
situation instantly changes. Amazing, those dice are much more powerful than I
originally thought!

I think your problem is that you are replacing the dice with an equally random (or
"arbitrary" or "capricious" or "whim-full") GM. Yes. If the GM is as arbitrary as
the plastic, then you have a reason to be mad. But that is not necessarily the
case. The GM should operate with reason. Yes, that reason can be flawed, but
there is still reason, however flimsy, behind the GM's decision. Dice have no
reason. They are the capricious, arbitrary, whim-full ones.

> That's not really an answer. In a diced game, even with the difficulties, you
> usually (depending on the system) have a chance to succeed. Here the GM has
> already made up his mind.

Umm... no. A GM who decides to screw you will, but a GM who is being reasonable
won't necessarily make up his mind until the situation occurs. Even so, you have
yet to answer how diceless skill resolution is used in a diced game. When does it
occur? And if you admit that a given situation should have automatic failure/
success, then what does it matter if it's a diced or diceless resolution system.

>>> [...]

> There were a lot of good arguments here, it would have been nice if you had
> addressed some of them.

Didn't have time. Anyway, I think you miss the point. Diceless is descriptive
based, not necessarily roleplaying based. In .advocacy terms, actions can be
described in an Authorial stance as well as an In-Character stance. And as an
author, merely describing activities is pretty easy, and as long as we haven't been
locked up in a box, we should be able to describe our characters doing
such-and-such from an authorial stance. The only problem would be with something
which is completely alien to us. See the Systemless Magic discussion for this.

>> If logic is whim, then it is whim. Call it what you will. Whim is fine.

> Good. Whim is bad. Whim is arbitrary. Whim is generally undesirable. If there
> is a way to do diceless without having to resort to mere whim, then I'm all for
> it (really).

Even better. Logic is bad. Logic is arbitrary. Logic is generally undesireable.
If there is a way to do diceless without having to resort to mere logic, then I'm
all for it.

Or how about... Randomness is bad. Randomness is arbitrary. Randomness is

generally undesireable. If there is a way to do [diced] gaming without having to
resort to mere randomness, then I'm all for it.

> John L. Jones II

[Doug Lampert]

In article <325ADD01...@nis.lanl.gov>,

Daniel Pongratz <dp...@nis.lanl.gov> wrote:
>
>But when is that decision made? When do the GM/players decide that a certain
>issue need not be settled by dice. I'm confused...
>

Apparently you are easily confused. In CORPS the rules explicitly give a
method for deciding when a task is so easy no roll is required. In my game
I simply make the call, if someone objects they tell me. This is much the
same as diceless except that the question of success or failure is not in my
hands once I have admitted there is a chance the event could go multiple ways.

This is exactly why I will not play diceless. Let me see, your fighter is
running into a one on one situation. His feint and attack are spread too far,
The ork steps to the side, and skewers you while you are redirecting you
weapon. Let me be blunt, our characters typically know more about this sort
of combat than ANYONE alive in the world today, much less you and your GM.
My roleplaying response is to say I attack as seven+ years of training under
people who do this for living tells my character to attack. He does what he
thinks best, and it should work better than any half baked plan you can come
up with, even if I knew everything there was to know about hand to hand
combat, what is the lighting like, the footing, the wind, describe my enemy's
stance and gear in detail, in fact I want a holographic picture, and then
maybe I could tell you what I would do were it for real. Without that all I
can say is I do the best I can, and give very general descriptions (aggressive,
defensive, ext...) anything more is like asking someone who has never used
a computer to describe how he will write a program, and having someone else
who has never used a computer decide if it will work based on how he likes
the description.

Your descriptions may or may not give a greater feel of realism, but they

definitely do not give realism. Further it seems to be impossible for most
people to produce an independent stochastic process. I. e. Your GM cannot
help but include a long term bias into his decision making, this seems to
be fairly basic to how the human mind works.

DougL

[Daniel Pongratz]

John L. Jones II wrote:

Boy, we sure do have a lot to say about this.

> Wonderful, there's little else to talk about then. I'll have the
> player control I want, and you'll have the descriptive issues you
> want.

We seem to disagree a lot for two people who have nothing to discuss!

> The systems I've seen that are mechanical really just use a
> substitute for dice. I take diced to mean more than the use of pieces
> of plastic. You can use tarot cards, fate points, or any other such
> item if you wish. In my book all are diced games.

By having a system, all I really mean is that there are abstractions
involved. These could include numbers (8 STR) or descriptive terms
(Good Fencing). But it is possible to have no system, using just
description of the character to define the character. No abstractions.

> You see, here is where I have the problem. Earlier you gave the
> example of bad roleplaying. Do I hit? No. Bummer. Do I hit? Yes. Yeah!

That example was mainly an indictment of the GM, not the player.
Sometimes, all the player can do is essentially "I use skill X". Of
course, they can do that with flair or not, but if that's all they think
they can do, that's it. The GM needs to describe why the player htis or
misses. Especially if its a diceless system. if there is no system,
then you need to rely more upon Authorial description (Bob, my mechanic,
fixes this nuclear accelorator the same way he fixed the last 20). And
the GM needs to describe what happens.

> So I'll ask, do I succeed? Now to you, that's bad roleplaying.

No, its not great description, it is Authorial role-playing (my nuclear
phyisicist builds the widget, just like his textbook says).

> I need to have more description than that. My point remains, if I have
> no, or very limited knowledge about the project, then I will not be
> able to describe/roleplay it very well. Even if I could, it would be
> to a much lesser degree than the character in question.

You may not know _how_ to fix a reactor, but you know _that_ your
character does. That is the Authorial stance. It is a detatched way of
describing someone doing something. Description need not be first
person.

> My problem is with the locus of all control. In what I'll call
> traditional diced, it does not all lie with the GM. In what I'll call
> traditional diceless it does.

The locus of control in diced games is in the dice. The locus of
control in a diceless game is in anything which is not random. It is
wrong to assume that control for any kind of diceless game goes to the
GM. That's just the most common kind. Diceless is a much broader
category than diced.

> I don't think I'm
> being unfair, I just don't see how traditional diceless occurs outside
> of the novella standpoint. Now if everyone controls their respective
> characters, then there ceases to be a problem.

Well, everyone controls their characters as much as they do in a diced
game. Do you not see that?

>> Of course the dice are uncaring, unthinking hunks of plastic. But
>> they are irrelevent without some kind of human intervention.

> This is a very limited view of what it means to have a diced game.

What, you mean that I can have a diced game that involves _no_ human
thought?

> I think I may be confused by what you mean by authorial stance. I
> assume you mean the stance of the player in question. If you really
> know nothing about fixing cars, exactly how do you describe it from a
> "detached, third person view?"

I can describe a mechanic. He does mechanic things... crawl under cars,
open hoods, etc. Basically, Authorial stance is a detatched, 3rd person
description of the actions. I describe my mechanic as using his skill
to do what he knows how to do. Yes, this is similar to minimal
description, but it does two things. First, it makes the GM actually
think of the description (assuming he knows what to do). And two, it
eliminates any assumption clash, since the GM is doing the description.

You're not the first person not to understand the Authorial stance. In
fact, I doubt I do.

> [player/character knowledge]

> Clearly there's a difference, whether you care to see it or not is
> another matter entirely.

You can assert whatever you want, John, but if you want to make claims
like that you had better prove something. I have argued that there need
be no difference between dice and diceless. You have provided nothing
but assertions and assumptions. Why don't you try to convince me,
instead of assuming it is impossible.

> [...]

> I didn't say it was very bad. Quite the opposite, it's very good at
> what it does. I just don't happen to care for what it did. My point
> is, and always has been, that the GM shouldn't be controlling all
> aspects of the game. The diceless examples you have mentioned all
> violate that principle.

All I have advocated is that the GM should have the final say.

> I haven't put up a straw man. Quite the contrary. If the GM makes
> all the calls regarding everything, then I don't see how the player
> has a great deal of input. Of course you'll say that what descriptions
> for, but that ignores the point entirely.

"all the calls regarding everything"... do you think this is necessary
for any kind of diceless, or just an unfair, easily attacked subset of
diceless games?

How does the description issue miss the point entirely? Is description
a bad thing? I think its a good thing, and should be rewarded (that
does _not_ mean that the lack of it should be punished, though).

>> Assumption clash is a problem, which is why GM description is so
>> important. Assumption clash is the fault of the GM, usually for
>> not describing things well enough. But another problem is
>> stubborness. If any player/GM is unwilling to give up on a pet
>> idea, then any game (dice or diceless) will suffer. Just as in any
>> arbitration, an arbitor is needed to make the final call if
>> necessary. I would place that mantle on the GM.

> There a difference between final call and only call, yes?

Why, yes there is. I've been trying to say that for a while. you did
it so eloquently. So, do you agree with me now?

> {apparently slick use of a definition]

> Well Dan, if you want to go THAT route, then none of this is
> necessary. My point was that in the context of the game, the player
> wasn't a necessary component. I question the advantages of traditional
> diceless roleplaying from the player perspective. Actually, I posted
> that question not too long ago and got maybe two responses. That's
> pretty telling I would say.

My point was that it is not a game without players, John. For a game,
players are as necessary as oxygen. Since he was describing a game,
then, the players were necessary. By definition. Goldfish aren't
necessary for rollerskating, and players aren't necessary for writing
fiction. But it was a game, not fiction. You're using circular logic.
He was writing fiction because the player wasn't necessary; and the
player wasn't necessary because he was essentially writing fiction. The
phrase "in the context of the game, the player wasn't a necessary
component" is akin to "in the context of combustion, the oxygen wasn't
necessary".

As far as the reasons to play diceless from a player's perspective.
Yes, there were only two responses. But they had very good reasons.
And you never responded to them. I think THAT is telling.

>> [...]

> That's a fair point, though in most of the diced games I've been
> in, the primary focus was not on what furthers the story.

From the player's perspective. What makes you think you could tell if
the GM was skewing the action to further the plot, in a diceless or
diced game?

> Well sure Dan, in obvious cases there is no difference. My point is
> that you use dice when the situation is less clear cut. That's the
> difference that makes the difference.

Well, I don't "go diceless" John, so yes, I do agree with you with this.
This is a problem I have with it. I just had a problem with your other
reasons.

>>>> Or how about... Randomness is bad. Randomness is arbitrary.
>>>> Randomness is generally undesireable. If there is a way to do
>>>> [diced] gaming without having to resort to mere randomness, then
>>>> I'm all for it.

>>> I take it you have no answers for this.

>> Of course I do... it's called diceless gaming.

>> You kind of walked into that one, John...

> Ehh, no. The last comment was asking whether you had answers about
> the issues as a whole. I see I should have been more clear on the
> matter.

Oh, sure, try to talk your way out of it now...

[John H Kim]

OK, like Sarah, I was going to express some personal opinions
for the record on diceless play. I would agree with many of her
objections to dice-using play, but I would note that most of these
are about _tendencies_ rather than _neccessities_.

Certainly the average dice-using game is teenagers playing AD&D,
which has many problems. More generally, the majority of dice-using
games will probably have rigid mechanics and very little description
(or perhaps clumbsy after-the-fact explanations). This does not deter
me much from dice because these are not generally true for my dice-using
games: I do not have any less description in my dice-using games, nor
do I find my descriptions any more after-the-fact or stilted.

I do have a problem with dice as meta-game distractions from
the in-game experience, but for me it has to be weighed against the
meta-game distraction of diceless resolution (which could be crippling
at times for me).

Daniel Pongratz <dp...@nis.lanl.gov> wrote:
: Let me get something straight, IMO diceless adjudication is like a

: magnifier of games (this is actually conjecture), it makes a good GM
: with good players better, and makes a bad situation worse.

Well, that hasn't really been true for me. I think it is
true that diceless play requires a lot more, and thus in case of
problems puts pressure on the GM and players to improve. It thus
encourages more description and more meta-game communication (i.e.
about fairness, genre, the process of adjudication, etc.).

However, for example, I did not notice much increase in
description when I switched to diceless, since my style already
involved a lot of description.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

Sarah <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
>In our games, the use of the dice is always the GM preference. I can't,
>off-hand, ever remember a game in which it was the players, rather than
>the GM, who said: "I think we should use dice for this game." It just
>doesn't happen that way. As we see it, the dice are a GM tool, not a
>player one. From the player perspective, IME, at any rate, the dice
>would not be missed should the GM decide to forego them.

Hmmm. My experience mostly matches with this, but I would add
an exception: some players who have not tried diceless play have
anxiety about doing so, and would prefer to remain with a dice-using
system they know. Then again, I think this is primarily a reaction
against experimentation rather than anything inherent about dice.

-*-*-*-
>
>(1) Use of the dice forces an abrupt shift of consciousness from
>the IC stance to a meta-game one that I find particularly uninteresting.
>Furthermore, it usually does so at the very moments when I _least_ want
>to leave the imaginary reality of the game world.

Hmm. On the one hand, I agree with this. On the other hand,
for me this blends in with a large number of meta-game distractions,
such as character skill versus player skill, Q&A with the GM for what
I see ("Is he holding his shield high or low?"), and so forth.

The major part of the distraction for me is in mechanics or
overly-complicated die rolls. I barely notice die-rolling in a
current _Call of Cthulhu_ game, because I instantly get the result
from the die roll and report it to the GM (i.e. "I rolled a 28 on
a 40 skill"). However, I have certainly had problems with _Ars Magica_
and particularly with _Champions_ (i.e. roll 15d6 and total it two
different ways).

-*-*-*-
>(4) Dice make meta-game interventions glaring and obvious, which is
>hard on SOD.
[...]
>If the GM is fudging, I personally would rather not have the fact shoved
>in my face. I'd rather be told in the post-game discussion than have
>it be glaringly obvious in play. The game contract I prefer calls for
>honesty in such matters (mileage here varies), but I'd rather be told
>about it _later._ It's easier on SOD that way.

Hmmm. I find that if things are set up well, then meta-game
intervention is sufficiently rare that it isn't a very significant
factor. If I felt that frequent meta-game fudges were neccessary, then
I might go diceless, or I might simply take to rolling the dice to
myself rather than having the players roll openly.

My feeling is that if you have to regularly fudge, say, to keep
the PC's alive, then you are using an inappropriate set of conventions
and/or mechanics. For example, my dice-using pulp games never require
any glaring fudging -- instead, progressive failures by the PC's will
just keep throwing them into more and more dire straights.
i.e. The rope bridge snaps, and the young Lord Meyer barely holds on.
His grip fails him, and he tumbles down several feet before his leg
catches a rung. If he continues to roll crit failures, then perhaps
he falls into the mist, and we have to wait for the next episode to
here of his remarkable rescue and return.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Faith - Faith is an island in the setting sun.
jh...@columbia.edu | But Proof - Proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Columbia University | - Paul Simon, _Proof_

[John H Kim]

OK, a few comments about the contrast of mechanics and
dice-using combat with diceless description-based combat, in reply
to Mark and John Jones. More generally, I want to address how
mechanics can fill in for lack of player knowledge to allow for
reasoned and interesting character choices.

Mark Apolinski <mar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>John L. Jones II wrote:
>: One of the big issues I suppose is combat. From a player perspective,
>: I find it better to have some insight into the decision making
>: process. If I have an 80% chance of hitting something, and I roll,
>: say, an 89, then I know why I missed.
>

> If I may, the player doesn't have any 'insight' into the process.
>They simply know the mechanic. Would it make a difference if they player
>didn't know their skill percentage and rolled?

*YES*. This is the major factor for me in the contrast between
description-based and mechanics-using combat. If I know the mechanics,
then I can make reasoned choices. For example, say I am playing a
skilled martial artist, but I myself have never trained or been in a
serious fight. I want to choose between a jump kick and a lunge to
punch my opponent. On what basis can I choose?

In a description-based game, I could engage in a Q&A with the
GM. Or perhaps if I am given authority, I could define one of these
as more appropriate on the spot. Or I might simply choose arbitrarily,
since I have no idea what it is like in real life.

In a mechanics-using game, I know what the modifiers for these
are, and thus this becomes a more character-centered decision. Do I
take a risky chance at greater damage, or do I work at throwing him
off-balance by a more defensible maneuver? In this case, the choice
already means something concrete.

-*-*-*-

I find I can easily "dumb down" when I am playing a character
who is not skilled at combat. For a skilled character, knowing the
mechanics gives me a sense of mastery, whereas description-based
negotiating always leaves me distracted by the difference between
player and character skill.

I know that a lot of people cannot digest mechanics in this way
without harming their In-Character (IC) view. I figure that people are
affected in different ways by various distractions: plot, dice,
number-crunching, music, etc. It depends on the person which is
most distracting.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

>
>With all due respect, this really seems like a manifestation of *fear*.
>I think that this anxiety that many on this list express all boils down
>to a deep seated fear of not understanding what's going on. Not that
>that's a bad thing except in the way that all fear is bad, and of
>course I would never coerce anyone to play in a way that they feel
>uncomfortable. But I ask you this, IF you enjoyed diceless, would you
>have any *rational* objection, or is your entire argument based upon
>what feels good for you?

Uh, excuse me? What's the difference exactly between being
"afraid" of not understanding -- and "preferring" to understand.
I think that this is basically a matter of taste, which is exactly
what John Jones expressed: he prefers to know better how the result is
decided upon.

For some possible reasons for this, consider my example above.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

>
>One of my favorite methods is simply by providing the information that
>the player lacks *at the time that they need it for their decision.*
>If the PC is hacking a computer system, then I would first ask them what
>their goal is, then inform them of *some* various ways of attaining that
>goal along with the major possible risks. They then have the option of
>deciding among the possiblities I outlined or choosing "none of the above".
>The latter means that they ask me more questions and I supply more answers

>until they decide upon a course of action. [...]

>If *no-one* knows how to hack a computer system (or whatever), then (A)
>I don't see how it matters in making a decision and (B) I believe it's
>at least the GM's responsibility to find out. But that's just me.

OK, let me continue the example of combat. Let's say that
neither the GM nor the player knows anything about martial arts combat.
In the mechanics-using case, the player can still make a reasoned
choice between the kick and the punch. Rather than simply telling
the GM to do whatever seems best, he can make these sorts of choices.

This is where I find mechanics of the most use -- for situations
where "common sense" is not so applicable. Everyday situations are
pretty much understood and I don't find much need for mechanics.
However, I like having mechanics for things like combat, magic,
starship tactics, and so forth.

Further, let's say the mechanics don't cover computer hacking.
The GM can use his own knowledge of hacking to offer choices which
will modify the resolution. The method is still valid under dice-using
and even (perhaps) mechanics-using games.

[Stan Apolinski]

John H Kim wrote:
>
> Mark Apolinski <mar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> >With all due respect, this really seems like a manifestation of *fear*.
> >I think that this anxiety that many on this list express all boils down
> >to a deep seated fear of not understanding what's going on. Not that
> >that's a bad thing except in the way that all fear is bad, and of
> >course I would never coerce anyone to play in a way that they feel
> >uncomfortable. But I ask you this, IF you enjoyed diceless, would you
> >have any *rational* objection, or is your entire argument based upon
> >what feels good for you?
>
> Uh, excuse me? What's the difference exactly between being
> "afraid" of not understanding -- and "preferring" to understand.
> I think that this is basically a matter of taste, which is exactly
> what John Jones expressed: he prefers to know better how the result is
> decided upon.
>

That question was not meant as an attack, but intended to test an
idea of mine. I think that the primary reason anyone prefers any game
system, diced or diceless, over the rest is just a matter of what feels
the most comfortable. My point is that if this is the case, why don't
the posters of these anti-diceless sentiments just say so? (Probably
because such a statement wouldn't convince anybody to change their
opinions(IMO).) Even if you have reasons, they all basically boil down
to "what feels comfortable/better". I just don't see the point of
another post by a diced *or diceless* advocate becrying their problems
with the other method. Instead of bitching at the opposite camp, why
don't they just start a thread about all the wonderful techniques in the
style of play that they *do* play? That IS what this thread started out
as, isn't it? So where did all the Diceless Decision making techniques
go? I want to see some.

If someone out there doesn't like diceless, why don't you start your
own thread like: "Excellent Dice-Based Gaming Techniques," and leave
this one to people who want to discuss diceless?

> For some possible reasons for this, consider my example above.
>
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
> >
> >One of my favorite methods is simply by providing the information that
> >the player lacks *at the time that they need it for their decision.*
> >If the PC is hacking a computer system, then I would first ask them what
> >their goal is, then inform them of *some* various ways of attaining that
> >goal along with the major possible risks. They then have the option of
> >deciding among the possiblities I outlined or choosing "none of the above".
> >The latter means that they ask me more questions and I supply more answers
> >until they decide upon a course of action. [...]
> >If *no-one* knows how to hack a computer system (or whatever), then (A)
> >I don't see how it matters in making a decision and (B) I believe it's
> >at least the GM's responsibility to find out. But that's just me.
>
> OK, let me continue the example of combat. Let's say that
> neither the GM nor the player knows anything about martial arts combat.
> In the mechanics-using case, the player can still make a reasoned
> choice between the kick and the punch. Rather than simply telling
> the GM to do whatever seems best, he can make these sorts of choices.
>
> This is where I find mechanics of the most use -- for situations
> where "common sense" is not so applicable. Everyday situations are
> pretty much understood and I don't find much need for mechanics.
> However, I like having mechanics for things like combat, magic,
> starship tactics, and so forth.
>

Look, both diced and diceless games have ways of doing
*all the same things*. They have to or they would be incomplete games.
They just do them in different ways. Both types can handle character
knowledge different from player knowledge; both types can handle combat;
both types can handle task resolution. If you prefer one type to
another, fine. I can accept that. Fini, and lets move on to something
more interesting, like systemless-magic techniques or whatever.

Caveat: Anyone who would post something like, "I don't like diceless
games because I would be forced to roleplay out skills that my character
has but that I don't, and I don't want to be limited to playing clones
of myself. That's why I prefer diced games," is an idiot and a fool and
is just publicly proclaiming their ignorance for all to see.

By and large their are three major categories of discussions on this
newsgroup: Attacks on diced/diceless play; Defense of diced/diceless
play; and intelligent questions about diced/diceless techniques. Can you
guess yet which ones I think are a waste of time? :)

Mark

P.S. The flames weren't aimed at you, John. :)

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Looking specifically at description-based methods of diceless resolution
(as opposed to plot-based) here:

In the partially d-b games I've played I have seen two problems which I
think Mark is missing. They are clearly not problems for everyone, but
they are problems for me.

(a) Verisimilitude may suffer if the player knows that her detailed
description, and the GM's detailed response, are necessarily bullshit
due to lack of expertese. I don't have to know *how* a trained security
officer would check out a room to know that I can't fake what she'd
really be doing, and being asked to fake it damages verisimilitude
for me. (This particular character rolls dice a *lot* in order to
abstract away details which I know I can't do justice to.)

The problem here is not that the outcomes are unrealistic; if both
GM and player are happy with unrealistic outcomes, they're fine.
The problem is that the player knows a little too much to believe
in her own descriptions, but not enough to improve them. Sure,
I could pick up some books on how to do security, but there is a
limit to how much work I'm willing to put in; and a magician
character or a starship pilot would have less recourse to that method.

(b) In the only multi-player partially d-b game I've ever played, players
who were eloquent and poetic in their descriptions had an overwhelming
advantage which nothing short of the imposition of mechanics seemed to
limit. Players who were *not* eloquent and poetic tended to have
to quit the game as they were unable to feel as though they were
making a contribution. I tried running a similar game shortly
thereafter, and gave up on the style when I encountered the same
problems.

Luckily this second factor doesn't apply to our usual one-on-one games,
except that the PC about whom I'm the most excited currently *does* tend
to get the most favorable outcomes. We find small amounts of dice use a
good corrective to this tendency.

Not everyone has their sense of verisimilitude supported, or damaged, by
the same things; an approach that works for one player may not work for
another. Mark, can you try to keep this point a little more firmly in
mind?

Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu

[Ennead]

John L. Jones II (bi...@nis.lanl.gov) wrote:

: Daniel Pongratz wrote:
: > The GM doesn't control your character,

: > just as the dice never did.

: Right. I don't want that power transferred.

I don't _want_ the GM to not control my character; I want the
*dice* to not control my character!

<ahem> Forgive me, gentlemen. As you were.

-- Sarah, splitting infinitives
with reckless abandon

[Ennead]

John H Kim (jh...@vanakam.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
: OK, like Sarah, I was going to express some personal opinions

: for the record on diceless play. I would agree with many of her
: objections to dice-using play, but I would note that most of these
: are about _tendencies_ rather than _neccessities_.

Certainly. I did try to make that clear, and I had hoped that the
inclusion of the fact that my group uses dice would have underscored that
point.

Given a choice between playing in two separate games, run by GMs
unknown to me, and knowing nothing about the games themselves, save that
one was to be run with dice and the other without, I would personally, as
a player, gamble on the diceless game. What it boils down to here is
that, all other things being equal, I would prefer not to have to deal
with the dice, as I find them inherently intrusive. I don't, however,
find them so terribly intrusive in and of themselves as to object to their
use across the board. They can be used in ways that reduce their
intrusiveness to such a low level that I can tolerate it with sanguinity.

: I do have a problem with dice as meta-game distractions from

: the in-game experience, but for me it has to be weighed against the
: meta-game distraction of diceless resolution (which could be crippling
: at times for me).

<nod> Frankly, sometimes I find the amount of non-mechanical
meta-game distraction I _can_ tolerate, and even enjoy, surprising. I
barely notice it while it is happening, of course, but in retrospect
(particularly when listening to tapes of game sessions), I am often struck
by how much of it there was. I can easily imagine how others might find
it crippling to IC play.

[my experience has been that the players don't give a fig about
the dice, while the GM is the one to desire their use]

: Hmmm. My experience mostly matches with this, but I would add

: an exception: some players who have not tried diceless play have
: anxiety about doing so, and would prefer to remain with a dice-using
: system they know. Then again, I think this is primarily a reaction
: against experimentation rather than anything inherent about dice.

True. It is probably significant that my group plays without
mechanics. A group that has already decided to drop mechanics from its
games is probably less likely to feel much anxiety over the dice issue.

[my argument that dice make meta-game interventions very blatant,
thus harming SOD]

: Hmmm. I find that if things are set up well, then meta-game

: intervention is sufficiently rare that it isn't a very significant
: factor.

Interesting. For me, it is the very rarity of the occurrence that
can make it, when it does happen, feel very significant indeed. If the GM
is regularly fudging or ignoring die rolls, then it doesn't bother me as
much, perhaps because I begin to view the game as essentially diceless
anyway. When the GM abides by the diced result consistently, however,
then it establishes in my mind an expectation of this behavior -- and once
this happens, I experience any deviation (such as a fudge or an override)
as a *jolt,* which makes the fudge gain subjective significance often
quite out of proportion to its actual in-game importance.

: If I felt that frequent meta-game fudges were neccessary, then

: I might go diceless, or I might simply take to rolling the dice to
: myself rather than having the players roll openly.

Well, naturally, I always prefer closed rolls made by the GM.
They solve an enormous number of the problems I-as-player have with dice
use. Perhaps I'm just overly simplistic in this regard -- when it comes
to dice, I tend to take the view that if I don't see them, they can't hurt
me. ;)

-- Sarah

[Larry D.Hols]

Hallo,

> > John L. Jones II (bi...@nis.lanl.gov) wrote:
> >
> > : Absolutely. One of the concerns I've had about diceless gaming is how one
> > : would resolve things. This looks like a pretty complete list, and I have to say
> > : that now more certain than ever that I don't want to bother with this type of
> > : system. Dice and mechanics, in my opinion, do the job much better.
>

> Since the challenge has been issued, I guess I'm obliged to respond. Okay, here
> goes. The first thing to remember is that there is a time and a place for dice. I am not
> in the camp that believes everything ought to rely on dice. For example, you shouldn't
> have to make a perception role for EVERYTHING. However, it does not follow from the mere
> fact that you shouldn't use dice in every situation that you shouldn't use them at all.
> One of the big issues I suppose is combat. From a player perspective, I find it better to
> have some insight into the decision making process. If I have an 80% chance of hitting
> something, and I roll, say, an 89, then I know why I missed. I find that a more palatable
> solution than having the GM just say I missed because he thinks it will further the
> *story*.

This is just my opinion, but for what it's worth....

I have not been involved in any diceless games, and have decided that I do not want to
involve myself in any. When I am playing, there are two levels of play occuring
simultaneously. The first level is that of the character -- I am playing a persona in the
game setting. The other level -- the more important of the two -- is that of the player,
in that I am playing a game.

I say that the second level is the more important. If I just wanted to place myself in a
position to experience an imaginary role, I would not need any other participants around me
to play a game. I would simply write stories about the persona and and explore interaction
with an imaginary environment on my own. I can experience other worlds and situations and
personas without playing a game.

When I choose to share that experience with others, I am playing a game. That is the
reason for the group interaction, and that places constraints on the experience. If I
should wish to confront a hostile (but very slow-witted) giant in a story, I can sort out
at my leisure how the persona would act, how the giant would react, and how the matter
would be sorted out. If such an encounter takes place in a game environment, the
constraints of the game itself are present. As I am playing the game, I want to know how
the matter can be resolved in game terms and how exactly the success or failure of the
approach chosen will be resolved. Without this knowledge, my ability to choose a course of
action is constrained.

It could be argued that the character wouldn't know the odds of any given action's success.
That is true, but then, the character isn't playing a game. If I wish to just leave the
probability of success up to narrative or whim, I will write about the character and
experience the vision I have of the character clear and untainted by outside influence. My
character is a "star", mind you, and will not become a extra in somebody else's story; the
only way to ensure that is to not place the character in a game.

Playing in a game necessitates the character sharing the spotlight with others. That is
fine, but I want to know for what reasons the spotlight will move. If another character
takes center stage because great strength is called for -- and my character is strong -- I
want to know how much stronger the other character is. The game structure is what details
characters in this way, and defines their capabilities. For example, if I know that my
character can perform the intracacies of the gongolian moocarena without mistake only 3 of
4 tries, and Joe's character can perform it correctly 9 of 10 tries, then I'll let Joe take
the lead in trying to impress the village elders.

Playing with dice (and other numbers) also means the GM and I are on the same terms. A
mere description of capability is nice, but if the GM and I have differing concepts of what
the description means -- even if only slightly different -- then what would seem to be a
reasonable response on my part could seem to be foolhardy to him. It also makes
decision-making processes more difficult without being able to know the parameters. Using
numbers can give "hard" odds while using descriptions gives at best only "soft" odds. (eg.
"As I understand the descriptions, my character should have a better than even chance to
win this race." If the descriptions are not understood correctly.....)

Using numbers and dice also help to define the character. If I am writing, then the
character need only be defined in loose terms, as the environment is also defined thusly
and I decide outcomes in interactions. Going into a game setting provides a different sort
of interaction, one that I have little control over. For me to interact within this
structure means I have to have a firm grasp on the capabilities of my character,
capabilities that I feel confident about gauging correctly so that I can interact with the
setting properly. Knowing that my character has an 80 percent chance of performing a
difficult task in stressful situations (under otherwise ideal circumstances) gives me a
better grasp of the character than knowing that he is "Very Good" at the skill. A better
understanding of the character also helps in roleplaying the character.

So.... as a player, I find that numbers and dice help to define the character and the
setting in a fashion that allows me to be comfortable playing in it. If I am not
comfortable playing the game, then I have no reason to play the game.

In reading this thread, I have followed the arguments about dice not giving reasons for
results, while diceless GM decisions provide a rationale and understanding and so are
better. I am unmoved by this reason. The dice provide a reason for a failure -- your
reach exceeded your grasp in this endeavour. It is then a simple matter to explain the
scene. If you have an 80 percent chance of success, and you roll an 81, you missed and it
takes little imagination to say "your opponent parried with the sinister edge of his
shield." To say that your character is going to feint high and slash low doesn't change
the odds of success: a better description does not equal greater skill.

For example, I shoot skeet. If I miss the target, I can generally figure out the direction
of the miss. That does not mean that I will successfully destroy the next target.
Understanding the nature of the failure does not increase my skill in shooting.

The same is true in the game. You describe your attack on the foe as above. Using dice,
you know that you have an 80 percent chance of success. If you roll a success, the stroke
worked as described. If you rolled a failure, then the opponent parried or stepped back or
disappeared in a cloud of smoke. Using a diceless system, you are successful and the
stroke worked as described. If you failed, the opponent parried or stepped back or
disappeared in a cloud of smoke, whatever the GM says. The description has -- or should
have -- no effect on the capabilities of the character.

And I believe that numbers define those capabilities best, and using dice to help decide
outcomes is preferable to leaving all such matters up to another person who may have
differing conceptions of things than I do.

One final note -- I do not advocate using dice for all decisions.

Larry

[Scott A. H. Ruggels]

Andrew Finch wrote:
>
> John L. Jones II (bi...@nis.lanl.gov) wrote:
>
> : Absolutely. One of the concerns I've had about diceless gaming is how one
> : would resolve things. This looks like a pretty complete list, and I have to say
> : that now more certain than ever that I don't want to bother with this type of
> : system. Dice and mechanics, in my opinion, do the job much better.
>

> I'm going to regret this, but, what job? Dice do what job better?
>

> I mean, many of your decisions, even in heavily diced, heavy mechanics
> games, are made diceless. In fact, I would say the great majority, even in
> most heavy dice games. So, just what job is being done by the mechanics
> and dice, which you feel gets done better than you could do without?

Agreed.

>
> Which of your decisions do you allow to be replaced by the dice mechanics?
> Probably combat, that's a common one. How about NPC decisions? Social
> interactions? If my character is attempting to bluff his way past a guard,
> do I have to roleplay this out to some extent, or can I simply role my
> fasttalk skill, because the dice and mechanics are preferable to that kind
> of roleplay? How about combat? There's variation there. Do I have to make
> tactical decisions in character, or do I just roll a skill, because dice
> and mechanics are preferable to having to roleplay that out?

I would say yes. The dice are there, when the player is incapable of
acting at the character's level of skill and capability.

>
> There are variations in what people is feel is fair to base upon a
> player's skill in roleplaying their character, and what is 'fairer' by
> simply rolling a skill roll. Your comment seems to suggest that you would
> opt for rolling dice rather than roleplay in most cases. I know that may
> not be a particularly nice way of phrasing it, but it is the flip side of
> the statement you made.

Well in some cases dice rolling is faster than roleplaying, Not that
this is a good thing, but it is good when glossing over the less
interesting, less important, or less fun aspects of the game.

>
> From my perspective, dice only 'do a better job' when the GM can't do
> any better than the dice mechanics.

Sometimes this is the case.

>
> Now, I'm willing to believe that dice become a viable alternative for
> doing a better job when the group contract places a low value on
> subjective decisions. But it might be better to say that the dice fulfill
> the group's contract better.
>

> David

I can agree with that in part.

Scary, I'm agreeing with him...

Scott

[John L. Jones II]

Mark Apolinski wrote:
>
> John L. Jones II wrote:
> >
> If I may, the player doesn't have any 'insight' into the process.
> They simply know the mechanic. Would it make a difference if they player
> didn't know their skill percentage and rolled? With all due respect,
> this really seems like a manifestation of *fear*. I think that this
> anxiety that many on this list express all boils down to a deep seated
> fear of not understanding what's going on. Not that that's a bad thing
> except in the way that all fear is bad, and of course I would never
> coerce anyone to play in a way that they feel uncomfortable. But I ask
> you this, IF you enjoyed diceless, would you have any *rational*
> objection, or is your entire argument based upon what feels good for
> you? I ask this in all seriousness and meaning no disrespect.

No disrespect taken. This is not a manifestation of fear or anxiety,
though I can see how it could be interpreted that way. Personally, I just like
to understand what's going on. I prefer to know the reasons for things.
Meta-game explanations work well for me, and provide a way for me to gain
insight into the decison making process. This may seem a bit odd, but
meta-gaming constructs (be they dice or whatever) do not hinder my
in-character stance at all. Seperating the various types of knowledge has
never been a problem for me. Some people want explicit descriptions of why
they failed, and a part of me is sympathetic to that. I've played in a number
of diced games where the explanations were quite vivid. It's just not a
necessary component for me. As for the last statement, I suppose what feels
good is a part of the reason. I don't mean for my posts to be taken as a
diatribe against diceless. My initial hope was that the diceless advocates,
who may or may not have encountered my reservations would post solutions for
them.

> I will attempt to tell you how I do it, but all it really comes down
> to is figuring out a solution that incorporates
> *both* the player's roleplay and the character's skills. One of my
> favorite methods is simply by providing the information that the player
> lacks *at the time that they need it for their decision.* If the PC is
> hacking a computer system, then I would first ask them what their goal
> is, then inform them of *some* various ways of attaining that goal along
> with the major possible risks. They then have the option of deciding
> among the possiblities I outlined or choosing "none of the above". The
> latter means that they ask me more questions and I supply more answers
> until they decide upon a course of action. This, of course, assumes a
> thinking, intelligent player who is capable of assimilating new
> information and making an informed decision, kind of like being a juror
> or consulting with a lawyer on something new. This method also assumes
> that the GM have the missing knowledge or have access to the missing
> knowledge either in the form of a written reference or another player.
> If *no-one* knows how to hack a computer system (or whatever), then (A)
> I don't see how it matters in making a decision and (B) I believe it's
> at least the GM's responsibility to find out. But that's just me.

For (A)Well, I see that it could cause a problem if we both realize that
we don't know what we're talking about. For (B), I am in total agreement.

> If you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to answer. Probably
> the best way would be to go through a sample exchange. Also, ask Dave
> Berkman about his 'locus of control' method.

Thanks, I just might do that.

>
> >
> > Neutrality is a big factor, and I do not think that ANY GM is
> > capable of being fully neutral.
>
> If I said I was thusly capable, would you call me a liar? How could
> you know?

I wouldn't call you a liar, I just wouldn't believe you. You're right, I
would have no way of knowing (but we can say that about anything really) if
you're telling the truth.

> I think all the diceless advocates agree with you here, it's just that
> the time and place for them is for use with
> *random* processes and we don't have any.

I know, that's one of the things that has me puzzled.

> Here's that anxiety problem again. If you have questions, who are you
> asking? Even if I were playing in a dice-using game I wouldn't answer
> them. Why is it so important that you understand *why*? Especially when
> it's only an algorythm.

It's a character flaw. I like knowing why things happen, irregardless of
whether the character knows why. It's just a preference.

> Very sincerely,
>
> Mark

[Daniel Pongratz]

Kevin R. Hardwick wrote:

> John L. Jones II wrote:

>> Daniel Pongratz wrote:

>> Sometimes. My point is not to eliminate the GM from the equation
>> (though that does present an interesting thought experiment). The
>> point remains that in a diced game EVERYTHING does not necessarily
>> fall to the GM's judgement.

Actually, John wrote this. I agree with you, Mr. Hardwick.

[Daniel Pongratz]

Mary K. Kuhner wrote:

> Looking specifically at description-based methods of diceless
> resolution (as opposed to plot-based) here:

> In the partially d-b games I've played I have seen two problems which
> I think Mark is missing. They are clearly not problems for everyone,
> but they are problems for me.

> [Descriptions can be BS]

I think this is a problem only if you're trying _too_ hard to be honest.
I mean, for all you know, your explanation could be right. This
situation, if I understand correctly, should only come up when both all
the players and the GM have no idea about the situation. I really don't
have a problem with the BS explanation. Its like Star Trek's
technobabble. As a physicist, I know most of its complete BS, but it
sounds fun and it works for them. I think it would be fun to start
speaking technobabble when descrbing my engineer fixing warp-core
breach.

> [eloquent domination]

This is a problem. All I can say is that the GM needs to intervene/
recognize the situation. Some people aren't as gregarious as other, and
they should recognize that a description from Lawrence Olivier should
not be weighed directly against a description from me. Yes its
subjective and maybe unfair, but the reverse can be worse.

> Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu

[John L. Jones II]

Kevin R. Hardwick wrote:
>
> But that isn't true in a diceless game either. IME--and at this point
> I've had a fair bit in both methods--diceless adjudications make
> assumption clashes much more obvious, much more quickly. In the diced
> games in which I have played (I'm playing in one currently) the structure
> of the diced mechanics can--and often does--serve to conceal assumption
> clash, to obfuscate the setting. This undermines SOD, for me. When I
> succeed at something, I want the character level rationalization for it
> (which can include "you got lucky," although it is usually more detailed
> than that). In a diced system in which the players roll the dice openly,
> I have to rationalize the result of the roll, which inevitably distances
> me from being IC--this is not so much of a problem when the GM rolls the
> dice in secret, but it can intrude even then.

It's been my experience that assumption clash means less in a diceless
system. The degree of meaning(lessness) will depend of course on the game
system and how the dice are used. However, since we are not dealing with a
"choice the GM made," we will have problems with assumption clash, but fewer of
them. The assumption clashes I've dealt with have more to do with meta-gaming
aspects. You are right to point out that assumption clashes are more apparent
in a diceless game. My response is twofold. First we have a different type of
assumption clash. Second, there seems to be no recourse for the player.

[snipped portion about various ways to interpret diced and diceless resolution
mechanics. I can't say that I disagree with much or any of this so I'll move
on.]

> > You are right to point out that the GM is not
> > controlled by the dice, but it is much easier to see if he is acting
> > capriciously in a diced game than in a diceless one.
>

> This has categorically not been my experience. In a diceless game, GM
> caprice is immediately obvious. That may sound counter-intuitive, but
> that has emphatically been my experience. The most capricious games I've
> been in have been diced--precisely because the seemingly objective
> mechanics permit the caprice to be hidden for much longer.

I find that odd. In a diced situation, if I make certain rolls, and I know
what those results should be, and something else happens, then I get a bit
suspicous (sorry about the sentence construction). I think it's a bit easier to
hide things in a diceless environment since the GM is making all the calls
(i.e. he's determining the success rate of all the actions). I'm not saying
it's impossible to detect GM caprice in a diceless game. It usually becomes
apparent sooner or later. It's just that from what I can tell, it would be
easier for the GM to do so. Maybe it's because the GM has more control over
gameplay.

> I'm curious about your experience here, which would seem to be quite
> different from mine. Can you give an example of a diceless game in which
> GM caprice remained hidden? When you did the post-game post-mortem, how
> did the GM pull that off?

Not off the top of my head. I should explain that while I've played in
diceless situations, I've never actually done a full-blown diceless game.
Usually caprice is something I just happen to notice during the game, or
afterwards (if I'm off thinking about the campaign). There are very few
instances where I've pointed the caprice out to the GM however.
>
> Best,
> Kevin

[John L. Jones II]

John L. Jones II wrote:

> It's been my experience that assumption clash means less in a diceless
> system.

Oops. I meant to say that assumption clash means less in a *diced* system. Sorry for
any confusion.

[John L. Jones II]

Daniel Pongratz wrote:
>
> > [eloquent domination]
>
> This is a problem. All I can say is that the GM needs to intervene/
> recognize the situation. Some people aren't as gregarious as other, and
> they should recognize that a description from Lawrence Olivier should
> not be weighed directly against a description from me. Yes its
> subjective and maybe unfair, but the reverse can be worse.

That's odd. Didn't you write in a previous post that the GM should reward
vivid descriptions from the player? To be fair you mention not punishing the
less eloquent player, but I'm not sure that means anything. The player is after
all missing out on points (or benefits or whatever) that he could have gotten if
he were more poetic. I think Mary is right in that it is unfair to the less
eloquent player. It's unclear how the reverse, treating them equally I suppose,
would be worse. Presumably the eloquent player will continue to be eloquent, and
the less oratorically gifted player wouldn't feel left out.

>
> > Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu

>
> --
> Dan Pongratz <dp...@nis.lanl.gov> http://nis-www.lanl.gov/
> NIS - 2 {505-665-0019} {MS D436}
>
> Hold the mayo... but pass the cosmic awareness, please!

--

[Daniel Pongratz]

John L. Jones II wrote:

> That's odd. Didn't you write in a previous post that the GM should
> reward vivid descriptions from the player?

You expect less from those who can give less.

[John L. Jones II]

Daniel Pongratz wrote:
>
> John L. Jones II wrote:
>

> > That's odd. Didn't you write in a previous post that the GM should

> > reward vivid descriptions from the player? To be fair you mention

> > not punishing the less eloquent player, but I'm not sure that means
> > anything. The player is after all missing out on points (or
> > benefits or whatever) that he could have gotten if he were more
> > poetic. I think Mary is right in that it is unfair to the less
> > eloquent player. It's unclear how the reverse, treating them
> > equally I suppose, would be worse. Presumably the eloquent player
> > will continue to be eloquent, and the less oratorically gifted
> > player wouldn't feel left out.
>

> You expect less from those who can give less.
>

I see.

> --
> Dan Pongratz <dp...@nis.lanl.gov> http://nis-www.lanl.gov/
> NIS - 2 {505-665-0019} {MS D436}
>
> Hold the mayo... but pass the cosmic awareness, please!

--

[John H Kim]

A few somewhat repetitive comments to Daniel and John Jones
on diceless versus dice-using games. The main point I want to make
here is to avoid stereotypes of either, and also a reminder about
the topic...

Daniel Pongratz <dp...@nis.lanl.gov> wrote:
>John L. Jones II wrote:
>> My problem is with the locus of all control. In what I'll call
>> traditional diced, it does not all lie with the GM. In what I'll call
>> traditional diceless it does.
>
>The locus of control in diced games is in the dice. The locus of
>control in a diceless game is in anything which is not random. It is
>wrong to assume that control for any kind of diceless game goes to the
>GM. That's just the most common kind. Diceless is a much broader
>category than diced.

I would raise objections to both of these statements. I don't
think that either "traditional" category is terribly appropriate. The
locus of control varies whether or not you are using dice, and trying
to define by averages is silly, IMO. The average dice-using game is
male teenagers playing AD&D, the average diceless game is probably
pre-teens playing make-believe. Neither of these says a whole lot
about anything fundamental.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

>
>> You see, here is where I have the problem. Earlier you gave the
>> example of bad roleplaying. Do I hit? No. Bummer. Do I hit? Yes. Yeah!

>> So I'll ask, do I succeed? Now to you, that's bad roleplaying.
>
>No, its not great description, it is Authorial role-playing (my nuclear
>phyisicist builds the widget, just like his textbook says).

>You may not know _how_ to fix a reactor, but you know _that_ your
>character does. That is the Authorial stance. It is a detatched way of
>describing someone doing something. Description need not be first
>person.

The question is by what method does the GM decide if the
player just says "I build the widget". The character might succeed
or fail -- what makes him choose one over the other.

There are a bunch of methods by which the GM might decide,
but the ones described have not fit, I think, with John Jones'
preferences. For example, the GM might decide based on the plot,
or whatever seems the most dramatic/in-genre. Or he might decide
arbitrarily, trying to simulate randomness by whim. Or he might
decide based on a meta-game mechanic (like Plot Points), and so
forth. Alain made a list of these, which is part of what John
is reacting to, I think.

None of these are perfect for every situation, and I think
that if you discuss "Dicelesss Decision-Making Techniques" the
problems with each are a valid concern. If the player uses Authorial
role-playing (in your terms), then how would you as GM decide what
happens?

[Daniel Pongratz]

John H Kim wrote:

> None of these are perfect for every situation, and I think
> that if you discuss "Dicelesss Decision-Making Techniques" the
> problems with each are a valid concern. If the player uses Authorial
> role-playing (in your terms), then how would you as GM decide what
> happens?

Well, I'm not really sure if my use of Authorial role-playing is
correct, so I'll stop using it that way. Basically, if I were to
adjudicate a diceless use of skills (building a widget) I would
consider the following:

a) relevant skill of the character: whether you have "widget building
level 20" or a long description describing how well the character can
build widgets.

b) difficulty of the task: how hard is it to build this particular
widget? Are there extenuating circumstances that would make the task
easier (extra time, good lab) or harder (limited time, poor equipment)?

c) plot and genre: would the widget greatly hinder/help the plot? Is
the widget just a waste of time (maybe a red herring?)? Is the widget
unlikely in the genre? Can someone just sit down and build widget's in
this genre?

d) Fairness: Am I unfairly restricting player inginuity when he tries
to build a widget?

This is how I would adjudicate a diceless situation, not necessarily in
this order. Of course, this is the exact same thing I do in diced
games, although Fairness is usually not an issue, since the dice do
make that moot.

> John Kim

[John L. Jones II]

Ennead wrote:
>
> John L. Jones II (bi...@nis.lanl.gov) wrote:
> : Daniel Pongratz wrote:
> : > The GM doesn't control your character,
> : > just as the dice never did.
>
> : Right. I don't want that power transferred.
>
> I don't _want_ the GM to not control my character; I want the
> *dice* to not control my character!

Okay, fair enough. So how do we solve the problem?

> -- Sarah, splitting infinitives
> with reckless abandon

--

[Mary K. Kuhner]

In article <325D2433...@nis.lanl.gov> Daniel Pongratz <dp...@nis.lanl.gov> writes:
>Mary K. Kuhner wrote:

>> [Descriptions can be BS]

>I think this is a problem only if you're trying _too_ hard to be honest.
>I mean, for all you know, your explanation could be right. This
>situation, if I understand correctly, should only come up when both all
>the players and the GM have no idea about the situation.

Unfortunately, my esthetic sense rebels at doing things wrong and
knowing that they are wrong. It's not a matter of honesty, it's
a matter of wanting to feel that I "am" the character (this is what I
mainly play for) and needing to be able to have a mental model
of what s/he is doing in order to feel this way.

>I really don't
>have a problem with the BS explanation. Its like Star Trek's
>technobabble. As a physicist, I know most of its complete BS, but it
>sounds fun and it works for them. I think it would be fun to start
>speaking technobabble when descrbing my engineer fixing warp-core
>breach.

It's okay, but for me being able to actually make decisions, have bright
ideas, weigh the options, etc. is *much* more fun than spouting
technobabble that doesn't have any implications. I don't mind
technobabble in itself--I can play and enjoy Shadowrun, for example--
but I don't want to be making up statements that don't connect to
anything in the game world.

On a recent demon hunt Markus saw a demon do something odd. He was
able to have an "Aha!" insight and realize what this odd behavior
implied, because we have a good working understanding of what demons are
like in this setting. This let him save the situation and impress his
allies. I felt very pleased by this, because I had succeeded in thinking
of something clever and I was right. I don't get the same satisfaction
out of making something up and having the GM decree that it's right.
The mental "click" of having the insight is lost.

Many situations are too complicated and foreign for me to be able to
have a *real* Aha insight into them. I am willing to accept having
an insight regarding an artificial model; it captures the mental
process and the excitement of insight, even if the model is not
realistic.

Look at it this way. If I am playing a starship engineer, and no one
knows anything about starship engineering (there is neither a real
model nor an artificial one) what can I do? I can make up buzzwords,
which is fun from an Actor stance, but there is nothing for me to
do IC except try to capture the character's emotions (confidence,
anxiety, whatever). I cannot capture his thoughts; I have nothing to
think about. I can't even experience an analog of his thoughts by
working on a problem I *can* understand, which is what artificial models
give me.

Note that this is not a dice/diceless issue, it is a mechanics issue.
As it happens we tend to do starship engine stuff diceless,
but I *do* have a model. The jump drive on Radiant is arcane. To
work, it needs a ship free of arcane contamination, and a crew in mental
harmony with each other, and correctly tuned crystals. So if it
stops working, my engineer will know various things he can try:
talk to the crew about possible conflicts, scour the ship for physical
or magical contamination, retune the crystals. I can make some
decisions--is it time to give up on scouring and start asking
into the Captain's sex life? If there *is* a conflict, should we sit
still until it is fully addressed, or drug the offending people and
jump right away? Is it worth retuning the crystals, which takes
days, just on suspicion? Will doing so calm down the crew, or
just make them antsy? These are questions I could have an intelligent
discussion on, because I know enough (albeit in a very abstract
way--I have no idea what "tune the crystals" means other than that
it takes days and is risky without a workship) to weigh pros and cons.
(It helps that we have turned a mechanics problem into a people problem
by setting things up this way, and everyone has some intuitive insight
into people problems. This makes getting a sufficiently detailed
model a lot easier. But the principle is of more general use, I think.)

Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu

[Karen J. Cravens]

In article <53e3e9$f...@crl.crl.com>, bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) wrote:
>John L. Jones II (bi...@nis.lanl.gov) wrote:
>

>: Absolutely. One of the concerns I've had about diceless gaming is how one
>: would resolve things. This looks like a pretty complete list, and I have to say
>: that now more certain than ever that I don't want to bother with this type of
>: system. Dice and mechanics, in my opinion, do the job much better.
>
>I'm going to regret this, but, what job? Dice do what job better?
>
>I mean, many of your decisions, even in heavily diced, heavy mechanics
>games, are made diceless. In fact, I would say the great majority, even in
>most heavy dice games. So, just what job is being done by the mechanics
>and dice, which you feel gets done better than you could do without?

The job of making a decision *without* feeling that a particular
result is required by either plot or reality. Or the
ever-ill-defined "GM whim".

Some of us want that. Different worldviews.

Karen
--...................................................................
Phoenyx Roleplaying Listserver - majo...@phoenyx.wichita.ks.us
Home of elyria-L, Aria PBeM RPG
http://www2.southwind.net/~phoenyx/elyria

[Larry D.Hols]

Hallo,

I agree with Mr. Jones in this matter; diceless systems relying upon decision of the GM
seem to be capricious in nature. I am not comfortable with them.

John L. Jones II wrote:
>
> > Mr. Jones, you've obviously missed my entire point about skills. It is really
> > quite simple. There need be no (non, nada, zilch, zip, etc.) difference between
> > diced and diceless skill resolution. You absolutely do not have to play a carbon
> > copy of yourself.
>

> Dammit Mr. Pongratz, how many times do I have to ask this before I get a

> response? I've explained numerous times that the description based paradigm has

> serious flaws when you try to roleplay/explain/whatever skills that you personally

> have no knowledge about? Dice handle the situation very well, of that I think there is
> little dispute. So tell me, precisely, how in the world we resolve the issue of

> handling skill resolution where I have no personal knowledge (other than the skill's

> description) of the skill involved? Or must we do something similar to the LARPers and
> "examine another character concept?"
>

I also offer the observation that mere description of complicated maneuvers or manuevers
that take a lot of skill to perform does not mean the character will successfully
complete them. For example, describing a series of feints and manuevers comprising the
sophisticated attack pattern of a skilled fighter does not mean that the fighter
automatically can pull it off. The opponent's maneuvering has a lot do do with the
success of the attack. Why should a GM call an attack successful just because the
player described it in detail? Why not respond with "The orc dodges at the last moment
and the sword blade whispers past his ear?" The description of the orc's manuevering is
not highly detailed, nor does it involve a complex sequence, but why should that
determine whether or not it was successful?

A diced system includes the concept of greater sophistication and complexity in
attacking on the part of the more skilled opponent. That is refelcted (among other
things) in the higher skill rating. A higher skill rating does not guarantee every
attack will be a success; indeed, it shouldn't guarantee that any attack will be a
success. Possessing greater skill should only guarantee a greater chance of success.

(Note: better teams do not always win, just like better boxers do not always win, etc.)

> > > I've seen this argument before as well. How are the players left out of the
> > > decision process? To me it seems like they are a major part of it (at least with
> > > respect to their characters).
> >
> > You absolutely amaze me, Mr. Jones. Yes. Dammit, Yes! In a diced game players
> > influence the adjudication process concerning their characters. Amazingly enough,
> > they do so as well in a diceless game, too. More amazingly, the way they do it is
> > the exact same way, by description. Even more amazingly, in a diceless process,
> > that method has even more weight than in a diced mechanism.
>

This is the sticking point for me. As above... how does a better description on the
part of the player equate to more skill on part of the character? Why would anybody
want that to be the case? (Nobody's character could succeed at anything if the GM gave
the best descriptions....)

> What's worse, if the GM has a different view of a characters abilities than the player
> does then we have some major problems. I believe the diceless advocates call this
> assumption clash. The major problem with this is that the players view really doesn't
> matter in those instances.

The heart of the problem.

> Now, the bottom line of the combat excerpt was that the success and failure of
> every action lied solely with the GM, and that's why I question whether the player
> really needed to be involved. Certainly he served a purpose, but was he necessary?

> However, if the player could determine the success rate of his character's actions
> (and I see no reason why his reasoning should be in any way inferior to the GM's) then
> I doubt that I would have a problem with the system. If both combat participants
> explain what they're doing (be it NPC vs. PC or PC vs PC) and then put the result up
> to a vote of all members present, I probably wouldn't have a problem.

But if they both give convincing descriptions, who gets skewered?

> When we have one
> person doing everything, then I have a problem.

Bingo!

> > > Good. Whim is bad. Whim is arbitrary. Whim is generally undesirable. If there
> > > is a way to do diceless without having to resort to mere whim, then I'm all for
> > > it (really).
> >
> > Even better. Logic is bad. Logic is arbitrary. Logic is generally undesireable.
> > If there is a way to do diceless without having to resort to mere logic, then I'm
> > all for it.
>

> Whine whine . . . Seriously, how is it you can equate logic and whim Mr.
> Pongratz?
>

Okay, let's examine the logical approach here:
Player: My character circles the table to attack the orc on the left end of the line
(so none of the other orcs can cleanly engage him at the same time -- let them attack
someone else.) Konan bears his shield high and left-- to the side of the orc's sword--
to forestall any attacks to the high line. Konan feints high to keep the orc's arms up
and slashes at the orc's knee, attempting to disrupt the orc's mobility.

(Reasonable choice of manuevers.)

GM: The orc pulls a swing short across the front of your shield, while pulling his head
to the side to avoid the feint you made at his head. He reverses his sword, twisting
the blade into line for a backhanded slash....
(Reasonable response to the initial actions of the PC.)
....into your ribs above your slash at his legs, which he steps past.

So, who was successful in this faceoff? The PC? The orc? From the description, both
had a firm grasp of swordplay. How should this be decided? The GM decides everything
based on description? Well, his description was as reasonable as the player's, so the
orc was successful.

The problem that comes to light deals with the relative skill levels of the combatants.
The PC is a highly skilled swordsman, while the orc is a basic grunt. Although not
assured of victory in any given encounter, the swordsman should be able to expect to
overmatch orc grunts in single combat. Based on just the descriptions, the orcs could
win as often as the swordsman.

"But the GM can make the decisions to have the PC successful more often than the orc."
That is true. That does not depend upon the descriptions, though, but the GM balancing
ratios. Dice can do that much easier.

And the dice can do something the GM would have a more difficult time with. There is a
chance that the weaker combatant will get the better of the better combatant. Rolls of
the dice can produce this result at any given time. The GM has a bit more difficult
time staging this.

Larry

[Andrew Finch]

Stan Apolinski (mar...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

: Caveat: Anyone who would post something like, "I don't like diceless

: games because I would be forced to roleplay out skills that my character
: has but that I don't, and I don't want to be limited to playing clones
: of myself. That's why I prefer diced games," is an idiot and a fool and
: is just publicly proclaiming their ignorance for all to see.

Well, ignorant of diceless game methods, yes. Those sorts of fear
statements should probably be replaced with better questions to an
appropriate thread.

: By and large their are three major categories of discussions on this

: newsgroup: Attacks on diced/diceless play; Defense of diced/diceless
: play; and intelligent questions about diced/diceless techniques. Can you
: guess yet which ones I think are a waste of time? :)

And I agree. Unfortunately, the frist two are often the best vehicles for
education, on both sides. They are most likely to be attended by people
who haven't been through the same argument in this group over the last
couple of years. :)

Maybe we can start and keep two open threads. One for diceless pointers.
One for diced. And just re-direct people to the appropriate discussion,
or ask them to re-state their opinions as questions to the group.

At least this probably ought to go in the FAQ. John?

David

[Andrew Finch]

John L. Jones II (bi...@nis.lanl.gov) wrote:

: the slightest idea how to go about doing this. I've never seen anyone do
: this so I can't describe his actions to any great degree of detail. I
: can't avoid pitfalls that the character would, because I may not know
: that plutonium needs to be handled in just such a way. I may not know a
: lot of other things involved with the process.

Same problem, diced or diceless. In a diced game, I have no valid way to
adjudicate difficulty levels, or modifiers, and all I can do is randomize
a result. '4 above your required roll, sure that sounds fine, you succeed'.

Now if that makes you happy, that's fine, but I don't see much difference
going into the same situation diceless 'well, you have the Skill Rank for
it, you had lots of time to prepair, you got in touch with those military
suppliers, you assume the parts are top quality, it sounds like you've
got a bomb to me'.

Neither one is totally satisfying to my SOD, but then it's not that big a
deal. We aren't nuclear physicists, and we aren't playing a game where
this comes up often. If it does, I would expect 10 pages on nuclear
devices, in mecahnics or description, I don't care, and then I can do a
ebtter job, diced or diceless, and it will work with or without the pieces
of numbered plastic.

: My problem is with the locus of all control. In what I'll call

: traditional diced, it does not all lie with the GM. In what I'll call
: traditional diceless it does.

What 'traditional diceless' games are we referring to? My experience
would be to say that traditional diced puts the GM heavily in charge, and
traditional diceless gives much of that power to the players, as a matter
of practical application.

This is really a non-issue.

: I didn't say it was very bad. Quite the opposite, it's very good at

: what it does. I just don't happen to care for what it did. My point is,
: and always has been, that the GM shouldn't be controlling all aspects of
: the game. The diceless examples you have mentioned all violate that
: principle.

Would you like some that don't? Would it matter?

: I haven't put up a straw man. Quite the contrary. If the GM makes
: all the calls regarding everything, then I don't see how the player has

: a great deal of input. Of course you'll say that what descriptions for,
: but that ignores the point entirely.

No, it doesn't. But I don't know if you'll be able to see that without
diving in and experiencing it. I don't know if you'll like diceless play,
and you may very well hate it, but if you experience it, I think you'll
see that players in no way lose control of the game, and, in fact, become
a more integral part of the decision process.

David

[Andrew Finch]

John H Kim (jh...@namaste.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:

: The average dice-using game is

: male teenagers playing AD&D, the average diceless game is probably
: pre-teens playing make-believe. Neither of these says a whole lot
: about anything fundamental.

I think it says a whole lot, and I think you can feel it when playing
diced or diceless. Now, what you're more comfortable with, and what you
see as bug or feature, that's another thread.

David

[Andrew Finch]

John L. Jones II (bi...@nis.lanl.gov) wrote:

: it's impossible to detect GM caprice in a diceless game. It usually becomes

: apparent sooner or later. It's just that from what I can tell, it would be
: easier for the GM to do so. Maybe it's because the GM has more control over
: gameplay.

I don't know what kinds of diceless games you're playing, but I find that
the GM has *less* control over gameplay in the diceless systems I tend to
use. Honestly, the control issue probably has little to do with the dice
or lack thereof, and a lot more to do with the group playing the game.

David

[Andrew Finch]

Daniel Pongratz (dp...@nis.lanl.gov) wrote:

: Mr. Berkman a while ago (I think it was him) posted an example of
: diceless combat. It was one of the most interesting things I've read on
: the `net. I never once knew what was coming next, nor did things ever
: seem predictable. It was great. It got me thinking about diceless
: resolution.

Well, thank you. That certainly makes it worthwhile.

: That wasn't quite his point, I think. What he meant to emphasize was
: "roll" not "skill". Skills exist in diceless systems, just that they
: aren't rolled on. This allows for a distinction between character and
: player knowledge.

You got it.

: I don't think he was saying that no role-playing occurs in a diced game.
: How many diceless games have you been in, Mr. Jones? It seems to me
: that diceless adjudication necessarily enforces role-playing, requiring
: greater descriptions and actions. But that's just my initial view.

And my experience. Now, I've been with some really good diced GMs, and
they definitely get roleplaying. And I enjoy diced games. But a good
diceless stint will give you a different perspective. And you may find
that you've been missing things you weren't even fully aware of in your
diced games.

Mr. Jones posted:

: > I can't help shaking the feeling that in a diceless game, we really
: > just have a session of the GM telling me what my character is doing.

You can shake that simply be playing in a few good diceless games.

: Do you feel that in a diced game, the dice keep telling you what you do?
: In principle, there is no difference; the adjudication system tells you
: what you do, does it matter if it is done by person or by plastic.

And there it is. Result description is where it's at. The interface
between GM and players is in description, and words, and emotional
response, and rrespect. Respect your players, and diced or diceless,
you'll avoid most of the really bad mistakes.

Mr. Jones again:

: > I'd call those decisions arbitrary, though I'm sure you won't like the
: > connotations that follow from that word. Still, I think the label
: > fits, negative connotations or not, and so I would place a low value
: > on them. The key thing to consider here is that dice and mechanics are
: > not needed at every phase of the game, but that there are a number of
: > areas where they are of great use...

Well, that is certainly a matter of opinion. Dice may do a better job for
you than GM whim. That's fine. They just don't do a better job for me
than my whims, which I respect very highly.

: I doubt Mr. Berkman will mind if you label things arbitrary, since dice
: are just as arbitrary, if not more so, that any but the most insane GM's
: whim.

That would be correct.

David

[Andrew Finch]

John H Kim (jh...@vanakam.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:

: In a description-based game, I could engage in a Q&A with the
: GM. Or perhaps if I am given authority, I could define one of these
: as more appropriate on the spot. Or I might simply choose arbitrarily,
: since I have no idea what it is like in real life.

: In a mechanics-using game, I know what the modifiers for these
: are, and thus this becomes a more character-centered decision.

John, I don't disagree with you. But the reason I think this is easier in
a diced-mechanic game has to do with the way most diced-mechanic games are
written, and the way most diceless games are played, at least at present,
and it's hard to compre, for now.

A mechanic is a shorthand, very condensed way of describing the way
things work. So the diced-mechanic game is giving the player a way of
understanding how various parts of combat work. At least within the
parameters of those details accepted by the system.

Most diceless games are currently played by dropping the dice from a
diced-mechanic game. This also drops away the useful descriptions. You
are left with the situation you describe. The few published diceless
games are still now dealing with core rules issues, and, for the most
part, havent yet addressed things like combat, magic, psionics,
superpowers, etc., in detail. You are left with more or less the same
situation.

However, I do believe there are good diceless ways of describing, for
example, the way martial arts combat works, that will allow diceless
players to experience the same kind of feeling of having a 'good
estimate', that diced-mechanics currently provide. It's just that they
aren't out yet, and probably won;t be for another year or two (from us or
someone else). But I know there are ways of writing good descriptive
systems which will provide for that feeling of security and groundedness.

: However, I like having mechanics for things like combat, magic,

: starship tactics, and so forth.

I don't think it's a matter of mechanic so much as information. Well,
mechanic is a fine word. What we lack are the diceless mechanics for
these genre specific things. I agree.

We've provided a diceless magic system in Ironwood. I want to do diceless
martial arts for Embrace Tiger - Return to Mountain, I'm sure other
companies are looking to do the same sorts of things. It's only a matter
of time.

David

[Mark D. Apolinski]

Larry D.Hols wrote:
>
> Playing in a game necessitates the character sharing the spotlight with others. That is
> fine, but I want to know for what reasons the spotlight will move. If another character
> takes center stage because great strength is called for -- and my character is strong -- I
> want to know how much stronger the other character is. The game structure is what details
> characters in this way, and defines their capabilities. For example, if I know that my
> character can perform the intracacies of the gongolian moocarena without mistake only 3 of
> 4 tries, and Joe's character can perform it correctly 9 of 10 tries, then I'll let Joe take
> the lead in trying to impress the village elders.
>

The question is, how would you determine this in Real Life (tm)? You
*can* determine such things without reference to artificialities. Or are
you saying that a diced-simulationist game is impossible? :)

> Playing with dice (and other numbers) also means the GM and I are on the same terms. A
> mere description of capability is nice, but if the GM and I have differing concepts of what
> the description means -- even if only slightly different -- then what would seem to be a
> reasonable response on my part could seem to be foolhardy to him. It also makes
> decision-making processes more difficult without being able to know the parameters. Using
> numbers can give "hard" odds while using descriptions gives at best only "soft" odds. (eg.
> "As I understand the descriptions, my character should have a better than even chance to
> win this race." If the descriptions are not understood correctly.....)

Strange, but this whole concept of removing the "probablility
knowledge" in favor of a more "realistic" in-character knowledge of
one's skill level was one of the rationalizations in the first diceless
game system I ever saw. I see it as a feature, not a glitch.

Mark

[John L. Jones II]

Larry D.Hols wrote:
>
> I also offer the observation that mere description of complicated maneuvers or manuevers
> that take a lot of skill to perform does not mean the character will successfully
> complete them. For example, describing a series of feints and manuevers comprising the
> sophisticated attack pattern of a skilled fighter does not mean that the fighter
> automatically can pull it off. The opponent's maneuvering has a lot do do with the
> success of the attack. Why should a GM call an attack successful just because the
> player described it in detail? Why not respond with "The orc dodges at the last moment
> and the sword blade whispers past his ear?" The description of the orc's manuevering is
> not highly detailed, nor does it involve a complex sequence, but why should that
> determine whether or not it was successful?
>
> A diced system includes the concept of greater sophistication and complexity in
> attacking on the part of the more skilled opponent. That is refelcted (among other
> things) in the higher skill rating. A higher skill rating does not guarantee every
> attack will be a success; indeed, it shouldn't guarantee that any attack will be a
> success. Possessing greater skill should only guarantee a greater chance of success.
>
> (Note: better teams do not always win, just like better boxers do not always win, etc.)

You bring up a very interesting point. I had only thought about the problems that
would arise when one or both participants don't know what they're talking about. That
concern was basically in response to the point that diceless games rely more on
description. This perspective presents an entirely different dilemma. Relying on
description even when the particpants know what they're doing causes a great deal of
problems as well. The only solution I can currently see for the diceless advocates is to
play in a heavily mechanized game. Of course if they do this, then I'm at a loss for why
they've decided to go diceless in the first place.

[John L. Jones II]

Andrew Finch wrote:
>
> : My problem is with the locus of all control. In what I'll call
> : traditional diced, it does not all lie with the GM. In what I'll call
> : traditional diceless it does.
>
> What 'traditional diceless' games are we referring to? My experience
> would be to say that traditional diced puts the GM heavily in charge, and
> traditional diceless gives much of that power to the players, as a matter
> of practical application.

Would you care to explain how this is the case? Mr. Pongratz gave it a
shot, and, in my estimation, he did not succeed in doing so. Since the GM is
making all the decisions (about success and failure that is), then it is
difficult for me to see how any power is transferred to the players.

> This is really a non-issue.

It is for me.

> : I didn't say it was very bad. Quite the opposite, it's very good at
> : what it does. I just don't happen to care for what it did. My point is,
> : and always has been, that the GM shouldn't be controlling all aspects of
> : the game. The diceless examples you have mentioned all violate that
> : principle.
>
> Would you like some that don't? Would it matter?

Yes and yes. To date I have yet to see a diceless example where that
principle was not violated. If you can show me a few that don't, I just might
end up converted (or at least more sympathetic).

> David

[John L. Jones II]

Note: Mr. Finch, none of the following is directed toward you.

Andrew Finch wrote:
>
> Stan Apolinski (mar...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : Caveat: Anyone who would post something like, "I don't like diceless
> : games because I would be forced to roleplay out skills that my character
> : has but that I don't, and I don't want to be limited to playing clones
> : of myself. That's why I prefer diced games," is an idiot and a fool and
> : is just publicly proclaiming their ignorance for all to see.

Hmm, I must have missed this vitriolic piece of wisdom when it first came
about. Thank goodness for Deja News, or I would never have had the opportunity to
read it in its entirety.
Realizing that the "Caveat" could only have been written by an uneducated clod
who is incapable of reading a post in its proper context, I am less angered about
Stan's response than I would otherwise have been. The only ignorance being shown
here is his own. Still, seeing that ignorance is generally a bad thing, I will try
to show the context of my statements, and then address the pseudo-argument that
Stan advances.
This section of the thread began with my writing a response to the various
diceless decision making techniques that were posted some time ago. Mr. Finch, if I
recall correctly, questioned my response and so I sought to clarify it. Basically,
I listed a number of problems that I thought would arise in a diceless situation.
One of the questions Mr. Finch posed was whether it is better to roleplay out the
descriptive aspects of a situation or to simply make a skill roll. My response was
that in cases where the player knows something about the skill in question, then I
have no problem roleplaying out (actually, I prefer it). The problem as I see it,
is when the character has skills that the player does not. Roleplaying the skill
then becomes a tedious affair at best. If I'm playing a very skilled tactician, and
I know nothing at all about tactics (other than the skill description), then I'm at
a loss as to how one effectively roleplays this. My point was that dice and
mechanics handle this situation very well. You make a tactics roll and move on.
Later, when you have a greater knowledge of the subject, using dice becomes less of
a necessity. In the diceless situation, the problem becomes more acute. Unless one
is playing in a heavily mechanized game, it is not at all clear how to go about
roleplaying this. Since description plays such an important part in the GMs
decision making (at least that's what I've been led to believe), we run into a very
serious problem. Here, we have a GM making decisions based on my (admittedly) bad
descriptions. Roleplaying the situation out leads to me making a number of mistakes
that my character (by definition) never would. So, I am in effect being punished
for choosing skills that I have no personal knowledge about. Thus the clone
reference. If I am limited to just taking skills that I have personal knowledge
about, then that will limit my roleplaying experience as a whole.
I really did not think that this was a unique problem, and it was my hope that
a few of the diceless GMs out there would post responses on how they dealt with the
problem. One of those individuals (Mark Apolinski, perhaps you know him?) did just
that. Since you appear to be pretty firmly entrenched in the diceless camp, perhaps
you'd care to input a few suggestions.
Therefore, the clone reference will be largely game dependent. With a good
deal of mechanics, the problem can probably be solved. With a good deal of
player/GM interaction, the problem can also be alleviated. However, if the GM's
rulings place an emphasis on description and roleplay, then the clone problem can
still crop up.

[Daniel Pongratz]

John L. Jones II wrote:

> Note: Mr. Finch, none of the following is directed toward you.

Actually, It is David. David Berkman, I believe. Why can't people have email accounts
with their actually names in them? Are you shy, David, or just hiding from the police?
:)

>> Stan Apolinski (mar...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

>> : Caveat: Anyone who would post something like, "I don't like diceless
>> : games because I would be forced to roleplay out skills that my character
>> : has but that I don't, and I don't want to be limited to playing clones
>> : of myself. That's why I prefer diced games," is an idiot and a fool and
>> : is just publicly proclaiming their ignorance for all to see.

> Hmm, I must have missed this vitriolic piece of wisdom when it first came
> about. Thank goodness for Deja News, or I would never have had the opportunity to
> read it in its entirety.

IF you read it in its entirity, you would notice that he did end by saying he wasn't
attacking you. Of course, it did have a dangerously placed smiley, so who knows what
his intent was.

> Realizing that the "Caveat" could only have been written by an uneducated clod
> who is incapable of reading a post in its proper context, I am less angered about
> Stan's response than I would otherwise have been. The only ignorance being shown
> here is his own. Still, seeing that ignorance is generally a bad thing, I will try
> to show the context of my statements, and then address the pseudo-argument that
> Stan advances.

Remember, the psuedo-argument that Stan advanced is only the end of a long, well
articulated argument. This attack, if you perceive it as such, was not the flavor of
the whole post.

> [...]

> If I'm playing a very skilled tactician, and
> I know nothing at all about tactics (other than the skill description), then I'm at
> a loss as to how one effectively roleplays this. My point was that dice and
> mechanics handle this situation very well. You make a tactics roll and move on.

This is an abstraction of the tactics skill. How is this any different from using a
tactics skill in a diceless environment? My character is a good tactician, so I come up
with a good tactical solution. What that solution *is* is still a problem. But it is a
problem solved by neither diceless nor diced resolution.

> Later, when you have a greater knowledge of the subject, using dice becomes less of
> a necessity. In the diceless situation, the problem becomes more acute. Unless one
> is playing in a heavily mechanized game, it is not at all clear how to go about
> roleplaying this. Since description plays such an important part in the GMs
> decision making (at least that's what I've been led to believe), we run into a very
> serious problem.

If you have been led to beleive that, you need to reuse DejaNews and find all the times
I (and others) have told you that description is not vital to diceless gaming.
Important. Yes. Just as in diced gaming. Helpful. Yes. Vital. No. If no one knows
the proper description for the skill or skill level at hand, then you can a) ignore
description, or b) give a "technobabble" description which is defined to be equivalent
to your skill. So if the GM and the player both have no idea what the proper tactical
solution is, but the player is a "Extraordinary" Tactician, then whatever technobabble
he spews will be the equivalent of an "Extraordinary" Tactician's plan.

A pure description-based adjudicator is an extreme case of diceless mechanics.

The situation that you're describing should never happen, in a diced or diceless game.
If you are playing a tactically smart person, but you describe something the GM KNOWS to
be foolish, than the GM needs to tell you as much. It is the GMs responsibility to
simulate the expert tactician as much as it is the players. It isn't, and definitely
shouldn't, be an "us vs. them" attitude of gaming, which is exactly what you're
describing.

Your arguments are good for why there needs to be skills, either abstracted or
explicitly explained, in a game environment. None of the people that have been
defending diceless have said otherwise. Our problem (or my problem) is how you see this
as a problem that dice can help alleviate. Each of us, Mr. Apolinski, Mr. Berkman, and
myself, have repeatedly tried to show you that it need not be a problem in a diceless
game.

> John L. Jones II

[John L. Jones II]

Daniel Pongratz wrote:
>
> John L. Jones II wrote:
>
> > Note: Mr. Finch, none of the following is directed toward you.
>
> Actually, It is David. David Berkman, I believe. Why can't people have email accounts
> with their actually names in them? Are you shy, David, or just hiding from the police?
> :)

Oh. Sorry. Andrew Finch was the name on the address, so I thought I was corresponding
with him. I figured that David was his middle name. Oh well, David, none of my response to
Stan was directed toward you.

> >> Stan Apolinski (mar...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> >> : Caveat: Anyone who would post something like, "I don't like diceless
> >> : games because I would be forced to roleplay out skills that my character
> >> : has but that I don't, and I don't want to be limited to playing clones
> >> : of myself. That's why I prefer diced games," is an idiot and a fool and
> >> : is just publicly proclaiming their ignorance for all to see.
>
> > Hmm, I must have missed this vitriolic piece of wisdom when it first came
> > about. Thank goodness for Deja News, or I would never have had the opportunity to
> > read it in its entirety.
>
> IF you read it in its entirity, you would notice that he did end by saying he wasn't
> attacking you. Of course, it did have a dangerously placed smiley, so who knows what
> his intent was.

Dan, if you had read his entire post, you would realize that he was referring to John
Kim. That's who the smiley was in reference to. Given the wording of the "caveat," I would
be hard pressed to see how it wasn't aimed at me. However, if the attack was not aimed at
me (and I suppose at this point that only Stan can verify this) then I will be more than
happy to formally apologize.

> This attack, if you perceive it as such, was not the flavor of
> the whole post.

Sorry, I don't see any other way to take it.

> > If I'm playing a very skilled tactician, and
> > I know nothing at all about tactics (other than the skill description), then I'm at
> > a loss as to how one effectively roleplays this. My point was that dice and
> > mechanics handle this situation very well. You make a tactics roll and move on.
>
> This is an abstraction of the tactics skill. How is this any different from using a
> tactics skill in a diceless environment? My character is a good tactician, so I come up
> with a good tactical solution. What that solution *is* is still a problem. But it is a
> problem solved by neither diceless nor diced resolution.

I've tried to explain it to you, and it has become rather obvious that I have failed
in doing so. Judging from the posts here, other people do follow my train of thought. I
think part of the problem is that you don't see dice as *resolving* anything.

> > Later, when you have a greater knowledge of the subject, using dice becomes less of
> > a necessity. In the diceless situation, the problem becomes more acute. Unless one
> > is playing in a heavily mechanized game, it is not at all clear how to go about
> > roleplaying this. Since description plays such an important part in the GMs
> > decision making (at least that's what I've been led to believe), we run into a very
> > serious problem.
>
> If you have been led to beleive that, you need to reuse DejaNews and find all the times
> I (and others) have told you that description is not vital to diceless gaming.
> Important. Yes. Just as in diced gaming. Helpful. Yes. Vital. No. If no one knows
> the proper description for the skill or skill level at hand, then you can a) ignore
> description, or b) give a "technobabble" description which is defined to be equivalent
> to your skill. So if the GM and the player both have no idea what the proper tactical
> solution is, but the player is a "Extraordinary" Tactician, then whatever technobabble
> he spews will be the equivalent of an "Extraordinary" Tactician's plan.

Oh, so now description isn't that important? Yes you have said ad nauseam that there
need be no difference. When I have asked for clarification, you have been less than
forthcoming. Yes, in a heavily mechanized diceless game, we can alleviate this problem, I
said as much at the end of my post (the one you've just responded to). However, a point
made in one of the earlier posts was that in making a decision the GM will take into
account the players description. Now if you are saying that the player just uses
technobabble (something I have little use for, but that's another matter) and the GM fills
in the relative details, then we are left with an even bigger problem. Now the GM is
coming up with a description for what the character does, evaluates that decision, using
whatever method tickles your fancy, and comes to a conclusion. This leaves me with even
less player control than I had originally thought.

> A pure description-based adjudicator is an extreme case of diceless mechanics.

Perhaps it is. It seems odd that one would spend so much time touting the wonders of
description based mechanics just to forego them later. I really think this section has
gone too far. The player/character skill thing is really among the least of the problems
that I see in diceless gaming.

> The situation that you're describing should never happen, in a diced or diceless game.
> If you are playing a tactically smart person, but you describe something the GM KNOWS to
> be foolish, than the GM needs to tell you as much. It is the GMs responsibility to
> simulate the expert tactician as much as it is the players. It isn't, and definitely
> shouldn't, be an "us vs. them" attitude of gaming, which is exactly what you're
> describing.

I disagree. I don't think it's the GMs responsibility AT ALL to simulate the expert
tactician. The us vs. them attitude is a bit irrelevant. I think it's a bit of a nonissue
in the diceless environment. If it devolves to that level, then the GM will lose the
ability to be fair (assuming he ever could be) to the players.

> Your arguments are good for why there needs to be skills, either abstracted or
> explicitly explained, in a game environment. None of the people that have been
> defending diceless have said otherwise. Our problem (or my problem) is how you see this
> as a problem that dice can help alleviate. Each of us, Mr. Apolinski, Mr. Berkman, and
> myself, have repeatedly tried to show you that it need not be a problem in a diceless
> game.

Well, Mark Apolinski has. Mr. Berkman may have as well. Right now, Mark Apolinski's
examples are the only ones that stand out in my mind as potential solutions. My initial
problems of power balance and GM control still remain, but I doubt that those can be
resolved. There is a glimmer of hope though, Mr. Berkman claims to have a few examples
which show that my concerns can be addressed. Hopefully he'll post them in the future.

[Daniel Pongratz]

John L. Jones II wrote:

>> This is an abstraction of the tactics skill. How is this any
>> different from using a tactics skill in a diceless environment? My
>> character is a good tactician, so I come up with a good tactical
>> solution. What that solution *is* is still a problem. But it is a
>> problem solved by neither diceless nor diced resolution.

> I've tried to explain it to you, and it has become rather obvious that
> I have failed in doing so. Judging from the posts here, other people do
> follow my train of thought. I think part of the problem is that you
> don't see dice as *resolving* anything.

<sound of head hitting the table...>

<repeatedly...>

Now I know why this topic is such a pariah. No one ever listens to you.

Ever.

Ever.

Ever.

I stopped posting to this thread because I was tired of beating my head
against a wall of stubborness. I responded here just to be a bit
flippant, and to make a quick point that I would hope could be
understood. Unfortunately, the wall is still there.

John, please tell me the differerence between the two scenarios. PLEASE,
show me the difference you see!

GM: "You come across a valley with the goblin army advancing slowly
towards you."
Player: "I use my Tactics skill, which is a 16 or less, to position my
troops. [rolls a 10]"
GM: "Well, you position them very well..."

GM: "You come across a valley with the goblin army advancing slowly
towards you."
Player: "I use my 'Excellent' Tactics [I learned at the academy, blah,
blah, blah] skill to position my troops."
GM: "Well, you position them very well..."

What is the difference? In one situation dice told you how well you
succeeded, in the other, your skill told you how well you succeeded.

I'm going to repeat what I said above, so that you might understand it
this time. If you have any questions as to the meaning, just ask...

"This is an abstraction of the tactics skill. How is this any different
from using a tactics skill in a diceless environment? My character is a
good tactician, so I come up with a good tactical solution. What that
solution *is* is still a problem. But it is a problem solved by neither
diceless nor diced resolution."

> [....]

> Oh, so now description isn't that important?

Important? Yes. Necessary? No. Do you not understand the distinction?
Flat walls are important to a building, but not necessary.

> Yes you have said ad nauseam that there need be no difference. When I
> have asked for clarification, you have been less than forthcoming.

<head hitting the table... again>

Why do I do this...

I haven't been forthcoming? I repeatedly said that you could just use
the skill abstraction, if no description could be given. Or just use no
description. I repeatedly said that description wasn't necessary. It
was just gravy added to the game, to help smoothly digest some raw
mechanics or some such. I have no idea what you mean that I haven't
given you clarification. I give and give, and you just keep blissfully
looking at the ceiling tiles. How many tiles are there, John?

> Yes, in a heavily mechanized diceless game, we can alleviate this
> problem, I said as much at the end of my post (the one you've just
> responded to).

It need not be heavily mechanized. All it needs to have is some way of
quantifying skills. We have a way in Real Life (i.e. experience and
training), so why not use that in a diceless game.

> Now if you are saying that the player just uses technobabble (something
> I have little use for, but that's another matter) and the GM fills in
> the relative details, then we are left with an even bigger problem. Now
> the GM is coming up with a description for what the character does,
> evaluates that decision, using whatever method tickles your fancy, and
> comes to a conclusion. This leaves me with even less player control
> than I had originally thought.

Its amazing that you see technobabble robbing players of control when I
see it giving them possibly too much control. When giving technobabble
(appropriate only when neither party, the GM or player, know the "real"
solution) the player gives/describes the right answer. The GM doesn't
come up with a description, but uses the technobabble description as the
right answer (or as right as skill allows). The GM doesn't use any
method to adjudicate technobabble. It is essentially the players writing
the "story" at that point.

>> A pure description-based adjudicator is an extreme case of diceless
>> mechanics.

> Perhaps it is. It seems odd that one would spend so much time touting
> the wonders of description based mechanics just to forego them later.

Description GOOD. Only description BAD. Air is good for you, but
injecting air into your veins is bad. Good things can be bad if used
improperly.

> I really think this section has gone too far. The player/character
> skill thing is really among the least of the problems that I see in
> diceless gaming.

I happen to agree wholeheartedly. Of course, I never saw it as a problem
in the first place.

>> The situation that you're describing should never happen, in a diced
>> or diceless game. If you are playing a tactically smart person, but
>> you describe something the GM KNOWS to be foolish, than the GM needs
>> to tell you as much. It is the GMs responsibility to simulate the
>> expert tactician as much as it is the players. It isn't, and
>> definitely shouldn't, be an "us vs. them" attitude of gaming, which is
>> exactly what you're describing.

> I disagree. I don't think it's the GMs responsibility AT ALL to
> simulate the expert tactician. The us vs. them attitude is a bit
> irrelevant. I think it's a bit of a nonissue in the diceless
> environment. If it devolves to that level, then the GM will lose the
> ability to be fair (assuming he ever could be) to the players.

The "us vs. them" attitude is exactly what you're describing. You are
afraid that the GM will allow your skillful character to make a mistake
that the GM knows is wrong but you do not. Well, if the GM was doing his
job properly, then perhaps he should tell your skillful character when he
is about to do something dumb.

GM: "You approach the edge of the canyon, will the cliff walls rising in
three directions. The crevass opens into an open area, where, at the
opposite end of you, you see Ms. Muffit, your DNPC, tied and gagged."
Player: [skill tactics 16-, or some other abstraction saying "very good"]
"I ride ahead as fast as I can to untie her."
GM: "Umm... do you really think that's a good idea? The setup is just
screaming 'ambush'."

The GM doesn't play the character, he just recalls the character's
skills.

I am not talking about the GM setting out to screw you. I am talking
about your worries that the GM is going to withold information your
character should have. If your character is an expert at skill X, but
your player isn't, then it is up to the GM to provide you all the
relevant information that _he_ knows about skill X. As long as the other
players. And if no one has any idea how skill X actually works, then you
can just "wing it" and use technobabble.

>> Your arguments are good for why there needs to be skills, either
>> abstracted or explicitly explained, in a game environment. None of
>> the people that have been defending diceless have said otherwise. Our
>> problem (or my problem) is how you see this as a problem that dice can
>> help alleviate. Each of us, Mr. Apolinski, Mr. Berkman, and myself,
>> have repeatedly tried to show you that it need not be a problem in a
>> diceless game.

> Well, Mark Apolinski has. Mr. Berkman may have as well.

What did Mark say that I didn't? Not to be defensive, but this entire
conversation has gotten to the point of sheer lunacy. I am tempted to
look up his replies, and my replies, and show you that I have been trying
to communicate with you for God-knows-how-many posts. But communication
is a two-way street.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

"John L. Jones II" <bi...@nis.lanl.gov> writes:

[how can a diceless game transfer control to the players?]

John, could you please reduce the line lengths?--your posts are
very hard to read and even harder to reply to. 60 characters is
the usual limit, and 56 is better to allow for quote-symbols.

There are various techniques which can be used (in either diced
or diceless games, though they are perhaps more often used in
diceless) to transfer some of the decision-making to the players.
This is probably what David was talking about. For example, you
can ask the player "Would your character be able to do that?" and
abide by his answer. You can encourage the player to make up
details of the setting and then adjucate on the basis of those
details--"Is there a gun in Casey's desk?" You can transfer
adjucation responsibility for certain subparts of the game
to a player: I believe Sarah's game tends to have the player most
familiar with a technical subject adjucate outcomes involving
that subject, especially when his/her character is not involved.

David is fond of a technique in which the GM gives the outcome
(eg. "You fail") and asks the player to provide the justification.
_Theatrix_ uses an explicit mechanic, Plot Points, which the
player can use to override a GM judgement under certain
circumstances. (Both of these generally drive me crazy,
but they work for other groups so I can't discount them.)

In a PBeM diceless game, we chose to handle many normally GM-
decided questions by having the player describe what she thought
would happen, and then the GM would normally accept that and go on
from the endpoint of the player's description. Only rarely
would he cut off the player description and say that something
else happened instead. Conversely, the game involved a lot
of GM determination of PC thoughts and actions, with player right
of veto. Basically, whoever was writing the current turn had
great liberty to describe both setting and character events,
though the GM retained veto over setting and the player over
character decisions. This probably would not have worked
well with multiple players (too hard to get consensus). It was
the most drastic transfer of control I've ever seen--it made for a
very different game, but it still (usually) felt like a game.

I remember vividly the email turn I received that started with
"She puts the burning hot cup into Catalina's hands and begins her
story. Cut this turn off at the point where you think Catalina
could no longer bear to hold the cup."

I think David is wrong to describe this as a diced/diceless
dichotomy, but perhaps diceless games (which need more human
decisions made) are more likely to spread the responsibility
around. In any case, you can use similar techniques in diced
and diced/mechanics games. My husband belongs to a GURPS
game in which technical questions about magic are normally
handled by one particular person, no matter who is GMing.
Group design of setting is another general example, equally
applicable to diced and diceless games.

Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu

[Kevin R. Hardwick]

On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, John L. Jones II wrote:

> Andrew Finch wrote:
> >
> > : My problem is with the locus of all control. In what I'll call
> > : traditional diced, it does not all lie with the GM. In what I'll call
> > : traditional diceless it does.
> >
> > What 'traditional diceless' games are we referring to? My experience
> > would be to say that traditional diced puts the GM heavily in charge, and
> > traditional diceless gives much of that power to the players, as a matter
> > of practical application.
>
> Would you care to explain how this is the case? Mr. Pongratz gave it a
> shot, and, in my estimation, he did not succeed in doing so. Since the GM is
> making all the decisions (about success and failure that is), then it is
> difficult for me to see how any power is transferred to the players.

No, I won't. With all due deference to John, who was upset when David
suggested this may be something you just have to experience, I think for
some people this may just have to be where you leave this.

I can *categorically* say that my experience in both diced and diceless
supports Pongratz' points, and I thought he did an adequate job of
explaining them. I have played in some diced games that worked to
decenter the GM, and many that were rather authoritarian. Some of the
authoritarian games were excellent, some were terrible. I have also
played in authoritarian diceless games, and they were universally awful,
and it was apparant very quickly that that was the case. In general,
diceless games are either not authoritarian, or dead in the water from the
start. I believe that that is a feature of diceless play. But hell, why
take just my word on it? David, Alain, Reimer, Mark, John, Sarah--anyone
else with real experience playing diceless--can you report your experience
in this regard?

Let's establish that the phenomena exists and is legitimate, before we try
to explain it. All my experience suggests that it does, and it is :)

All my best,
Kevin

[John L. Jones II]

Daniel Pongratz wrote:
>
> >John L. Jones II wrote:
>
> <sound of head hitting the table...>
>
> <repeatedly...>
>
> Now I know why this topic is such a pariah. No one ever listens to you.

Whatever Dan. I'm tempted to just let this die, but there may be a question
or two in here worth answering.

> I stopped posting to this thread because I was tired of beating my head
> against a wall of stubborness. I responded here just to be a bit
> flippant, and to make a quick point that I would hope could be
> understood. Unfortunately, the wall is still there.

Dan, the only thing you've said (quite repeatedly, is that there NEED BE
NO DIFFERENCE). I suppose that means something if I already understood what that
lack of difference would be.

> John, please tell me the differerence between the two scenarios. PLEASE,
> show me the difference you see!
>
> GM: "You come across a valley with the goblin army advancing slowly
> towards you."
> Player: "I use my Tactics skill, which is a 16 or less, to position my
> troops. [rolls a 10]"
> GM: "Well, you position them very well..."
>
> GM: "You come across a valley with the goblin army advancing slowly
> towards you."
> Player: "I use my 'Excellent' Tactics [I learned at the academy, blah,
> blah, blah] skill to position my troops."
> GM: "Well, you position them very well..."
>
> What is the difference? In one situation dice told you how well you
> succeeded, in the other, your skill told you how well you succeeded.

Actually the GM told me how well I succeeded, but that's another point
entirely. The difference is the resolution of the possibility of failure. Now in
both cases we have a success, so there's no effective difference. However, if
one or both were failures, then there is a question of why the person failed. In
the second example the failure is would be there because the GM chose for you to
fail, either due to whim, or story concerns. In the former I have a metagame
reason, the dice, which provides the answer (I KNOW you don't think metagame
answers are satisfactory, but you were asking the differences that I happen to
see). Finally, we have a lack of description in the second part, which means I
still don't know what actually happens, to use your terminology. Now, the
similarities are that both examples do not provide the in-character descriptions
that you seem to admire ("you position them well" is just another way of saying
"you succeed"; and both are pretty vague). If that's the case, where is the
advantage in going diceless? With dice I have a metagame reason that is quite
satisfactory. What do we have from the other side Dan?

> > Yes you have said ad nauseam that there need be no difference. When I
> > have asked for clarification, you have been less than forthcoming.
>
> <head hitting the table... again>
>
> Why do I do this...

I don't know, no one is making you.

[...]

> > Yes, in a heavily mechanized diceless game, we can alleviate this
> > problem, I said as much at the end of my post (the one you've just
> > responded to).
>
> It need not be heavily mechanized. All it needs to have is some way of
> quantifying skills. We have a way in Real Life (i.e. experience and
> training), so why not use that in a diceless game.

It's more than that. We need a way of quantifying them so that both the
player and the GM are operating on the same level. If my character has a "really
good" tactics skill, that may have a different meaning for both of us.
Unfortunately, if you are GMing, then your view is the only one that matters in
this instance. With a great deal more mechanics, this problem can be alleviated
to a great extent.

> > Now if you are saying that the player just uses technobabble (something
> > I have little use for, but that's another matter) and the GM fills in
> > the relative details, then we are left with an even bigger problem. Now
> > the GM is coming up with a description for what the character does,
> > evaluates that decision, using whatever method tickles your fancy, and
> > comes to a conclusion. This leaves me with even less player control
> > than I had originally thought.

> Its amazing that you see technobabble robbing players of control when I
> see it giving them possibly too much control. When giving technobabble
> (appropriate only when neither party, the GM or player, know the "real"
> solution) the player gives/describes the right answer. The GM doesn't
> come up with a description, but uses the technobabble description as the
> right answer (or as right as skill allows). The GM doesn't use any
> method to adjudicate technobabble. It is essentially the players writing
> the "story" at that point.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. From your last post it
appeared that you were saying (well writing actually) that the players uses
technobabble to explain something. Technobabble doesn't really mean anything.
The GM still has to fill in the details. He also has to decide if those details
are enough for the character to succeed at whatever it is he is doing. There is
no assumption of success here. The technobabble just acts as the player's "vivid
description" of what he is trying to do. Therefore, I see even less control on
the part of the player. Now if the player dictates whether he succeeds or fails,
and uses technobabble as the explanation (for that success or failure), then you
are correct. The GM does lose some control, as the player is essentially writing
the story. Actually, that's a good thing; since I think the GM has too much
control in a diceless situation anyway.

> Description GOOD. Only description BAD. Air is good for you, but
> injecting air into your veins is bad. Good things can be bad if used
> improperly.

Or not at all. The point here is that you have not shown that diceless is
superior in this regard. Both styles of play can have vivid description. I
happen to think that diced systems have a better method of resolving the above
problem. You don't seem to see a difference. Hopefully I've explained that
difference. If it's still unclear I suppose I can try again.

[...]

> > I disagree. I don't think it's the GMs responsibility AT ALL to
> > simulate the expert tactician. The us vs. them attitude is a bit
> > irrelevant. I think it's a bit of a nonissue in the diceless
> > environment. If it devolves to that level, then the GM will lose the
> > ability to be fair (assuming he ever could be) to the players.
>
> The "us vs. them" attitude is exactly what you're describing. You are
> afraid that the GM will allow your skillful character to make a mistake
> that the GM knows is wrong but you do not. Well, if the GM was doing his
> job properly, then perhaps he should tell your skillful character when he
> is about to do something dumb.
>
> GM: "You approach the edge of the canyon, will the cliff walls rising in
> three directions. The crevass opens into an open area, where, at the
> opposite end of you, you see Ms. Muffit, your DNPC, tied and gagged."
> Player: [skill tactics 16-, or some other abstraction saying "very good"]
> "I ride ahead as fast as I can to untie her."
> GM: "Umm... do you really think that's a good idea? The setup is just
> screaming 'ambush'."
>
> The GM doesn't play the character, he just recalls the character's
> skills.

Hey, I actually don't disagree with this (maybe I'm coming down with
something). This last point explains your postion much better. Your use of the
word simulate was a bit unclear.

> I am not talking about the GM setting out to screw you. I am talking
> about your worries that the GM is going to withold information your
> character should have. If your character is an expert at skill X, but
> your player isn't, then it is up to the GM to provide you all the
> relevant information that _he_ knows about skill X. As long as the other
> players. And if no one has any idea how skill X actually works, then you
> can just "wing it" and use technobabble.

That's the problem Dan, I don't like technobabble. You see it as useful, I
don't begrudge you that. I'm just not a big fan of spouting of a ton of BS and
pretending it means something. Now mechanics mean something, and I can make
statements or judgments about those mechanics that make sense (for more info I
would recommend reading some of Mary Kuhner's posts on the matter, they are
really quite good).

> > Well, Mark Apolinski has. Mr. Berkman may have as well.
>
> What did Mark say that I didn't? Not to be defensive, but this entire
> conversation has gotten to the point of sheer lunacy. I am tempted to
> look up his replies, and my replies, and show you that I have been trying
> to communicate with you for God-knows-how-many posts. But communication
> is a two-way street.

Mark said a lot of things that you didn't. He gave a number of specific
examples where he explained how he tries to resolve the problem. He explains
this very clearly and with little abstraction. Your replies just tended to
repeat themselves (which caused ME to bang my head against the wall). Look up
your replies if you would like, I really don't care. You're right to say that
communication is a two way street. Unfortunately, it appears that we've been
talking past each other for some time now. You remind me a bit of Anselm when he
said that his arguments are only for those that already believe his conclusion.
I don't think you are totally to blame for this miscommunication, but by no
means has this all been my fault.

> Dan Pongratz <dp...@nis.lanl.gov> http://nis-www.lanl.gov/

--

[John L. Jones II]

Daniel Pongratz wrote:
>
> John L. Jones II wrote:
>

> Congratulations to any one who has made it this deep into this morass. You have my
> condolances.

And mine as well.

> This will be my last post on this insufferable thread, unless things improve
> greatly.

Is that a promise? Sorry, the sarcasm is getting just a bit thick at this point.

> > Dan, the only thing you've said (quite repeatedly, is that there NEED BE
> > NO DIFFERENCE). I suppose that means something if I already understood what that
> > lack of difference would be.
>

> I suppose this is in reference to issue #1. Yes, I have repeated myself
> continually when I have been saying that there need be no difference between player
> control in a diced or a diceless environment. I have also repeatedly said that the
> only change in power in a diceless game is to remove the power the dice had and to
> give it to some other, non-random aribter, lets say the GM. I have also been
> repeatedly saying this. At least 3 or 4 times. This is an argument. If you don't
> understand what it means, then you can ask. If you don't understand its impact,
> I'll show you.

Dan is right in that two of the problems I see with diceless gaming deal with the
issue of character control and the potential for a blurred distinction between player and
character knowledge (there are others, but Dan appears to only be interested in those
two). In a mechanics heavy diceless game, I have already conceded that the issue can be
resolved. In a non-mechanics heavy (or even freeform) game, the problem will resurface due
to assumption clash. Assumption clash, to my mind is a more serious matter in a diceless
environment, and that is why I see a problem.
Also, the second point was merely a response to the claim that dicelessness relies
more on description and is thus to be preferred. I was giving an example where description
could actually be harmful to the gaming environment (i.e. the clone argument). There were
two responses to this. One was Dan's, who said that description wasn't THAT important. The
other was by Mark, who gave a few examples of how to alleviate the problem. Of the two, I
find Mark's to be more satisfactory.
The main thing to realize is that point two was more of an aside than anything else,
and much more was made of it than should have been. Now onto issue number one.

> diced game: players have power (they decide what their characters feel and do),
> dice have power (they decide when actions succeed or fail), GMs have power (they
> control the setting and the NPCs).
> diceless game: players have power (they decide what their characters feel and do),
> GMs have power (they control the setting, NPCs, and whether actions succeed or
> fail).
>
> By this, it is possible for the GM to gain power without the players ever losing
> it. This is what is meant by giving the power of the dice (success or failure) to
> the GM. The GM functions as the dice is this situation, and only if the dice
> controlled your character before, does the GM control your character now.

The thing you miss here Dan is that the dice only did one thing before. I am, and
have been, talking about a partitioning of the GMs power. The GM controls the setting and
NPCs, but they do not control the success and failure of every action. Think of it as a
scale. The GMs job on one plate, and the players' on the other. For me (and others as
well), the situation is balanced. Now, if we place the job of the dice onto the GMs plate,
we will have an imbalance. The GM will be doing too much. That is why (among other things)
I do not want the power to be transferred. Too much can happen now. In addition to the
setting and NPCs, the GM will make the determination of the success and failure of every
action. If my character get hit (or fails, or whateer) it is because the GM chose for that
to happen. Note that I am not talking about the decision making process, for now, that's
irrelevant. What is relevant here is that it is the GMs choice. Dice allow for the making
of a decision without feeling that the result is because of story concerns, GM whim, or
whatever else you'd like to fill in. We have a field of results, assign probabilities and
move on. I really do not see how you can deny that the GM has more control in a diceless
environment. You make it seem like the determination of success or failure of every action
is some minor activity. I have also said that the have the feel of the GM controlling the
character because the success or failure of everything the character does is based on
whatever the GM wants to have happen. If we tack on controlling the setting and the NPCs,
you can see why the players may end up on the losing side of the equation. That is why
your argument fails Dan.

> For your claim of issue #1 to succeed, you must show that the GM, in addition to
> taking the power of the dice (i.e. success or failure), he also takes something
> that was, in a diced game, left outside both the realm of dice and the GM. You
> have yet to do this. All you do is complain that I keep repeating myself. That is
> because I have an unanswered answer to issue #1 which you refuse to accept, don't
> understand, or completely ignore.

False dilemma oh philosophical one (nice try though). But I've already addressed that
point so we can move on.

> >> What is the difference? In one situation dice told you how well you
> >> succeeded, in the other, your skill told you how well you succeeded.
>
> > Actually the GM told me how well I succeeded, but that's another point
> > entirely.
>

> The GM says the exact same thing in both instances.

True, but the meaning was not the same in both instances. If you don't understand
this point send me a note and I will try to clarify it.

> What does this have to do with player/character knowledge?

Nothing. I believe you were asking about the differences I saw between the two
scenarios. That was one of them. Really, I was just trying to answer the question.

> > In the second example the failure is would be there because the GM chose for you
> > to fail, either due to whim, or story concerns. In the former I have a metagame
> > reason, the dice, which provides the answer (I KNOW you don't think metagam

> > answers are satisfactory, but you were asking the differences that I happen to
> > see).
>

> Actually, its a metagame reason in both situations. And you are more likely not to
> get a meta-game answer in a diceless game. But that's just a nit-pick.

If the actual decision is a metagame reason then I suppose you are correct. The lack
of that reason hampers my suspension of disbelief (actually it comes really close to
obliterating it).

> Maybe this is why, in my games, whenever I asked you to make a perception roll, you
> would always say "yes" instead of "by 3". That always got on my nerves.

Clarifying what you wanted would have saved your nerves. If you ask "do you make your
perception roll", and I answer yes then where is the problem? Now if you had asked "what
do you make your perception roll by", and I answer yes, then I can see how that would get
on your nerves.

> >> It need not be heavily mechanized. All it needs to have is some way of
> >> quantifying skills. We have a way in Real Life (i.e. experience and
> >> training), so why not use that in a diceless game.
>
> > It's more than that. We need a way of quantifying them so that both the
> > player and the GM are operating on the same level. If my character has a "really
> > good" tactics skill, that may have a different meaning for both of us.
> > Unfortunately, if you are GMing, then your view is the only one that matters in
> > this instance. With a great deal more mechanics, this problem can be alleviated
> > to a great extent.
>

> Huzzah! Assumption clash! Another porblem I have with diceless gaming! Why
> didn't you just use these arguments before?

Actually I have. The problem is that I spent more time on the other issues.

> >> Description GOOD. Only description BAD. Air is good for you, but
> >> injecting air into your veins is bad. Good things can be bad if used
> >> improperly.
>
> > Or not at all. The point here is that you have not shown that diceless is
> > superior in this regard. Both styles of play can have vivid description. I
> > happen to think that diced systems have a better method of resolving the above
> > problem. You don't seem to see a difference. Hopefully I've explained that
> > difference. If it's still unclear I suppose I can try again.
>

> I don't have to show a damn thing is this regard, oh slippery philosopher type. I
> do not have the burden of proof. I am not the one claiming that one system is
> better than another, I am merely arguing that your indictments against diceless
> gaming (issues #1 & 2) are wrong. All I have to do is prove that those arguments
> are wrong, not prove that diceless is right. I can't prove diceless is right,
> because I've never done it.

Oh sure, try to get out of it now . . . (Gardner would be proud). My posts on this
section of the thread were in response to someone (I forget who right know) who listed
some things that he saw diceless gaming doing better. I disputed those points. I am merely
listing some problems that I see with the diceless environment. I suppose in that sense
neither of us have the burden of proof. My only point was to show that diceless gaming was
not to be preferred except under limited circumstances. To clarify, they would be:

1) If using dice or mechanics hinders your suspension of disbelief. If they do, then by
definition, a diceless system will be better for you. Personally, I have the opposite
problem.
2) If your main objective in roleplaying is collective storywriting. I don't think you can
beat diceless if that's your main objective. It is not mine, however, and so it does
not strike me as a selling point.
3) You do not have a problem with too much GM control.

Finally, the hope was that the diceless advocates out there (of which you may or may not
be one) would post potential solutions (assuming they saw the same problems).

> > That's the problem Dan, I don't like technobabble. You see it as useful, I
> > don't begrudge you that. I'm just not a big fan of spouting of a ton of BS and
> > pretending it means something. Now mechanics mean something, and I can make
> > statements or judgments about those mechanics that make sense (for more info I
> > would recommend reading some of Mary Kuhner's posts on the matter, they are
> > really quite good).
>

> Mechanics are just agreed upon technobabble. At least in a diceless game we can
> appeal to our experience and common sense. Or haven't you ever had a problem with
> a game mechanic?

If you are now claiming that in a diced environment that we cannot appeal to our
experience and common sense, then you've set up a bigger straw man than I ever dreamed
possible. How else do we modify game mechanics, or do you just accept them as is? Do you
really mean to tell me that experience and common sense played no role in any of the games
you've GMed or played in?

> So in conclusion, i would like to just say that I have never run nor played in a
> diceless game. But with regards to issue #1 and issue #2, I have endeavored to
> show that diceless resolution are no worse at (1) player control or (2) player/
> character knowledge than a diced game is.

I think I've clarified the situation with number two. However, the problem with GM
control remains. In all honesty, I do not think that it can be resolved. From what I've
been able to gather, you either are comfortable with that level of control, or you are
not. I'm not comfortable with it. That's why in my first response I said that dice and
mechanics do the job much better. Assumption clash is still an issue, but it is not nearly
as big a problem as it would be in a diceless environment. There are problems with how a
decision *feels* to the player (and there are quite a few posts out there that verify this
thought) in a diceless environment. In a diced environment, there are clear metagame
reasons for why things occur. Unless the GM explains explicitly how he came to a decision
(something which may slow down the game a great deal), then we will not have those
explanations in a diceless environment. Admittedly, some of these issues are not going to
be a problem for other people. Perhaps that is why they go with diceless. They remain
sticking points for me, however, and so I see no reason to go diceless.

> --

> Dan Pongratz <dp...@nis.lanl.gov> http://nis-www.lanl.gov/

> NIS - 2 {505-665-0019} {MS D436}
>
> Hold the mayo... but pass the cosmic awareness, please!

--

[Daniel Pongratz]

John L. Jones II wrote:

Congratulations to any one who has made it this deep into this morass. You have my
condolances.

I have erred in this argument in a major way (well, some might say more than one).
I have failed to tell you why I continue posting to this thread. Mr. Jones posted
that he disfavored (or something to that extent) diceless gaming because it 1)
robbed players of control and 2) blurred the distinction between player and
character knowledge. My whole point, throughout this thread is to defend diceless
gaming on these 2 issues. I am not, and have not, been advocating that diceless is
better than diced gaming. I cannot make that decision. I have only been trying to
show that, on these 2 issues that Mr. Jones brought forth, diceless gaming is
innocent, or at least as guilty as diced gaming. I hope this is clear now.

This will be my last post on this insufferable thread, unless things improve
greatly.

> [...]

> Dan, the only thing you've said (quite repeatedly, is that there NEED BE
> NO DIFFERENCE). I suppose that means something if I already understood what that
> lack of difference would be.

I suppose this is in reference to issue #1. Yes, I have repeated myself

continually when I have been saying that there need be no difference between player
control in a diced or a diceless environment. I have also repeatedly said that the
only change in power in a diceless game is to remove the power the dice had and to
give it to some other, non-random aribter, lets say the GM. I have also been
repeatedly saying this. At least 3 or 4 times. This is an argument. If you don't
understand what it means, then you can ask. If you don't understand its impact,

I'll show you.

diced game: players have power (they decide what their characters feel and do),
dice have power (they decide when actions succeed or fail), GMs have power (they
control the setting and the NPCs).
diceless game: players have power (they decide what their characters feel and do),
GMs have power (they control the setting, NPCs, and whether actions succeed or
fail).

By this, it is possible for the GM to gain power without the players ever losing
it. This is what is meant by giving the power of the dice (success or failure) to
the GM. The GM functions as the dice is this situation, and only if the dice
controlled your character before, does the GM control your character now.

For your claim of issue #1 to succeed, you must show that the GM, in addition to

taking the power of the dice (i.e. success or failure), he also takes something
that was, in a diced game, left outside both the realm of dice and the GM. You
have yet to do this. All you do is complain that I keep repeating myself. That is
because I have an unanswered answer to issue #1 which you refuse to accept, don't
understand, or completely ignore.

>> John, please tell me the differerence between the two scenarios. PLEASE,

>> show me the difference you see!

>> GM: "You come across a valley with the goblin army advancing slowly
>> towards you."
>> Player: "I use my Tactics skill, which is a 16 or less, to position my
>> troops. [rolls a 10]"
>> GM: "Well, you position them very well..."

>> GM: "You come across a valley with the goblin army advancing slowly
>> towards you."
>> Player: "I use my 'Excellent' Tactics [I learned at the academy, blah,
>> blah, blah] skill to position my troops."
>> GM: "Well, you position them very well..."

>> What is the difference? In one situation dice told you how well you
>> succeeded, in the other, your skill told you how well you succeeded.

> Actually the GM told me how well I succeeded, but that's another point
> entirely.

The GM says the exact same thing in both instances.

> The difference is the resolution of the possibility of failure. Now in

> both cases we have a success, so there's no effective difference. However, if
> one or both were failures, then there is a question of why the person failed.

What does this have to do with player/character knowledge?

> In the second example the failure is would be there because the GM chose for you

> to fail, either due to whim, or story concerns. In the former I have a metagame
> reason, the dice, which provides the answer (I KNOW you don't think metagam

> answers are satisfactory, but you were asking the differences that I happen to
> see).

Actually, its a metagame reason in both situations. And you are more likely not to

get a meta-game answer in a diceless game. But that's just a nit-pick.

> Finally, we have a lack of description in the second part, which means I

> still don't know what actually happens, to use your terminology.

We have a lack of description in the first part, too. Remember, the GM says the
exact same thing in both instances. The success of the dice roll is irrelevent,
since the mechanics and the GM have to interpret it. And the result of that
interpretation comes from the GM, which is what he does when he says you did it
"well."

Maybe this is why, in my games, whenever I asked you to make a perception roll, you
would always say "yes" instead of "by 3". That always got on my nerves.

> Now, the similarities are that both examples do not provide the in-character

> descriptions that you seem to admire ("you position them well" is just another
> way of saying "you succeed"; and both are pretty vague). If that's the case,
> where is the advantage in going diceless? With dice I have a metagame reason that
> is quite satisfactory. What do we have from the other side Dan?

Hallelujah! You understand! This was in response to issue #2, that diceless blur
the player/character knowledge distinction. My whole point of the example above
was to show you that, in your Tactician example, a player with no knowledge of
tactics can still use a tactics skill in a diceless game. As a matter of fact it
is the exact same resolution. You finally see that. Diceless games can maintain
the player/character distinction just as well as a diced game can.

The problem you identify is with randomness, a problem I have with diceless too.

>>> Yes you have said ad nauseam that there need be no difference. When I
>>> have asked for clarification, you have been less than forthcoming.

>> <head hitting the table... again>

>> Why do I do this...

> I don't know, no one is making you.

It's my "good argumentation" gene which is making me do this.

>> It need not be heavily mechanized. All it needs to have is some way of
>> quantifying skills. We have a way in Real Life (i.e. experience and
>> training), so why not use that in a diceless game.

> It's more than that. We need a way of quantifying them so that both the
> player and the GM are operating on the same level. If my character has a "really
> good" tactics skill, that may have a different meaning for both of us.
> Unfortunately, if you are GMing, then your view is the only one that matters in
> this instance. With a great deal more mechanics, this problem can be alleviated
> to a great extent.

Huzzah! Assumption clash! Another porblem I have with diceless gaming! Why

didn't you just use these arguments before?

>> Description GOOD. Only description BAD. Air is good for you, but

>> injecting air into your veins is bad. Good things can be bad if used
>> improperly.

> Or not at all. The point here is that you have not shown that diceless is
> superior in this regard. Both styles of play can have vivid description. I
> happen to think that diced systems have a better method of resolving the above
> problem. You don't seem to see a difference. Hopefully I've explained that
> difference. If it's still unclear I suppose I can try again.

I don't have to show a damn thing is this regard, oh slippery philosopher type. I

do not have the burden of proof. I am not the one claiming that one system is
better than another, I am merely arguing that your indictments against diceless
gaming (issues #1 & 2) are wrong. All I have to do is prove that those arguments
are wrong, not prove that diceless is right. I can't prove diceless is right,
because I've never done it.

>> I am not talking about the GM setting out to screw you. I am talking
>> about your worries that the GM is going to withold information your
>> character should have. If your character is an expert at skill X, but
>> your player isn't, then it is up to the GM to provide you all the
>> relevant information that _he_ knows about skill X. As long as the other
>> players. And if no one has any idea how skill X actually works, then you
>> can just "wing it" and use technobabble.

> That's the problem Dan, I don't like technobabble. You see it as useful, I
> don't begrudge you that. I'm just not a big fan of spouting of a ton of BS and
> pretending it means something. Now mechanics mean something, and I can make
> statements or judgments about those mechanics that make sense (for more info I
> would recommend reading some of Mary Kuhner's posts on the matter, they are
> really quite good).

Mechanics are just agreed upon technobabble. At least in a diceless game we can

appeal to our experience and common sense. Or haven't you ever had a problem with
a game mechanic?

So in conclusion, i would like to just say that I have never run nor played in a
diceless game. But with regards to issue #1 and issue #2, I have endeavored to
show that diceless resolution are no worse at (1) player control or (2) player/
character knowledge than a diced game is.

I am not trying to show that diceless is superior, just that Mr. Jones initial
arguments saying it is inferior are wrong.

> John L. Jones II

--

Dan Pongratz <dp...@nis.lanl.gov> http://nis-www.lanl.gov/

[Mark D. Apolinski]

John L. Jones II wrote:
>

> You bring up a very interesting point. I had only thought about the problems that
> would arise when one or both participants don't know what they're talking about. That
> concern was basically in response to the point that diceless games rely more on
> description. This perspective presents an entirely different dilemma. Relying on
> description even when the particpants know what they're doing causes a great deal of
> problems as well. The only solution I can currently see for the diceless advocates is to
> play in a heavily mechanized game. Of course if they do this, then I'm at a loss for why
> they've decided to go diceless in the first place.
>
>

I don't understand what you're talking about here. I'll take a stab
and say that diceless task adjudication is *not* description-driven and
it has no problem with situations in which "even the best teams loose."
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that _Theatrix_ opened up that
possibility (of high-skill characters failing) much more for me than any
other diceless game system.

If you're so at a loss, then why don't you ask a diceless advocate? We
"went" diceless because we prefer it to dice-based games. Why else??

Mark

[Mark D. Apolinski]

John L. Jones II wrote:
>

> Daniel Pongratz wrote:
> >
> > If you have been led to beleive that, you need to reuse DejaNews and find all the times
> > I (and others) have told you that description is not vital to diceless gaming.
> > Important. Yes. Just as in diced gaming. Helpful. Yes. Vital. No. If no one knows
> > the proper description for the skill or skill level at hand, then you can a) ignore
> > description, or b) give a "technobabble" description which is defined to be equivalent
> > to your skill. So if the GM and the player both have no idea what the proper tactical
> > solution is, but the player is a "Extraordinary" Tactician, then whatever technobabble
> > he spews will be the equivalent of an "Extraordinary" Tactician's plan.
>
> Oh, so now description isn't that important? Yes you have said ad nauseam that there
> need be no difference. When I have asked for clarification, you have been less than
> forthcoming. Yes, in a heavily mechanized diceless game, we can alleviate this problem, I
> said as much at the end of my post (the one you've just responded to). However, a point
> made in one of the earlier posts was that in making a decision the GM will take into
> account the players description. Now if you are saying that the player just uses
> technobabble (something I have little use for, but that's another matter) and the GM fills
> in the relative details, then we are left with an even bigger problem. Now the GM is
> coming up with a description for what the character does, evaluates that decision, using
> whatever method tickles your fancy, and comes to a conclusion. This leaves me with even
> less player control than I had originally thought.
>

Not only do you not get it, but it sounds like you aren't even trying
to get it. I don't see any questions here that lead me to believe that
you have a sincere desire to learn. It seems instead that you are just
bashing diceless games.

Look, I understand it is difficult to hold anything like a normal
conversation over Usenet, and that fact makes it quite difficult to
perform a question & answer session intended to explain a new concept,
but it can be done if you stay focused on what you don't understand and
keep asking questions until you do. I went through the same thing. But
there's no sense ridiculing what you think is a ridiculous assertion. If
it's so ridiculous, don't you think that there may have been a
miscommunication? Don't you think that people who play diceless require
their universe to make sense too? That they're not going to be devoting
time and energy to a hobby that makes no sense?

Start with the assumption that diceless *does* make sense (somehow),
and keep investigating until you find that sense. It's very easy to get
the wrong inference on Usenet since feedback is very slow, but be
patient. The method I used was to find *one* particular advocate that I
liked and could understand and just stuck with them until I understood
things (using Email as well as Usenet).

Good luck.

> > The situation that you're describing should never happen, in a diced or diceless game.
> > If you are playing a tactically smart person, but you describe something the GM KNOWS to
> > be foolish, than the GM needs to tell you as much. It is the GMs responsibility to
> > simulate the expert tactician as much as it is the players. It isn't, and definitely
> > shouldn't, be an "us vs. them" attitude of gaming, which is exactly what you're
> > describing.
>
> I disagree. I don't think it's the GMs responsibility AT ALL to simulate the expert
> tactician. The us vs. them attitude is a bit irrelevant. I think it's a bit of a nonissue
> in the diceless environment. If it devolves to that level, then the GM will lose the
> ability to be fair (assuming he ever could be) to the players.
>

See, someone who has a *lot* more experience than you regarding
diceless games is telling you something and you disagree. Wouldn't a
better way to handle this be to ask, "But how is it the GMs
responsibility?", or "Are you saying that in diceless games the GM has
to take on some of the responsibility from the players?" Questions
clarify, statements block. You're blocking.

Mark

[John L. Jones II]

Mark D. Apolinski wrote:

> Not only do you not get it, but it sounds like you aren't even trying
> to get it. I don't see any questions here that lead me to believe that
> you have a sincere desire to learn. It seems instead that you are just
> bashing diceless games.

This will probably be my last post on the matter for some time. It's
not that I am not trying to understand the world view. Believe me, I am.
It's not even a case of bashing diceless games. If I wanted to do that,
I'd adopt tactics similar to other posts that I've seen in this vein. The
description thing isn't even that important to me. It's something that
has only very rarely come up in any of the games that I've played, and in
those cases I just went and bolstered my knowledge on the subject. This
has resulted in me participating in diceless resolution for a lot of
these instances. In my opinion, you just don't need the dice in those
situations unless there's some weird variable that hasn't been taken into
consideration. All the description argument was meant to do was show that
a decision based paradigm for adjudication will run into it's fair share
of problems.

> Look, I understand it is difficult to hold anything like a normal
> conversation over Usenet, and that fact makes it quite difficult to
> perform a question & answer session intended to explain a new concept,
> but it can be done if you stay focused on what you don't understand and
> keep asking questions until you do. I went through the same thing. But
> there's no sense ridiculing what you think is a ridiculous assertion.

I don't believe I've ever used the word ridiculous (or anything even
remotely similar to it) in any of my posts regarding diceless gaming.
Such language rarely, if ever, accomplishes anything when evaluating the
strength or weakness of something. I don't think any of the posts
regarding this matter have been ridiculous (with the exception of the one
post that directly insulted me). After further study, I think that most
of my concerns with regard to diceless gaming can be alleviated, and I
thank most of the various posters on this (and other threads) for helping
me to see that. The only issue that remains a real sticking point for me
is the issue of GM control. As I've said in an earlier post, I don't know
that this last issue can be resolved. I've seen a few solutions to that
problem (thanks Mary, by the way, I hope this line length is more
palatable to you), but from what I can gather, most of the people doing
this type of gaming don't see it as a problem. To that I say fair enough.

> Start with the assumption that diceless *does* make sense (somehow),
> and keep investigating until you find that sense. It's very easy to get
> the wrong inference on Usenet since feedback is very slow, but be
> patient. The method I used was to find *one* particular advocate that I
> liked and could understand and just stuck with them until I understood
> things (using Email as well as Usenet).

I don't deny that it works or makes sense somehow. If it didn't, I
doubt very seriously that there would be so many advocates for it. Your
advice, however, is well taken. I'll keep investigating the matter.

> See, someone who has a *lot* more experience than you regarding
> diceless games is telling you something and you disagree.

Actually that's false. I know Dan personally, and I also know that
he does not have a great deal more experience than me regarding this
topic. A different perspective? Certainly. Unfortunately, he appears to
lie in the camp that does not see the problems that I see as problems (I
hope that made sense). Anyhow, I'll end by reiterating that there appear
to be solutions for most of my concerns about diceless gaming. There are
one or two other sticking points, and I honestly don't know if I'll ever
find satisfactory solutions for them.

> Mark

Regards,

John

[Daniel Pongratz]

Mark D. Apolinski wrote:

> See, someone who has a *lot* more experience than you regarding
> diceless games is telling you something and you disagree.

Thanks for the compliment, but I really have _no_ first-hand
experience with diceless gaming. I've just been describing things
how I would do them, or how the diceless-advocates have answered
here before.

> Mark

[Andrew Finch]

John L. Jones II (bi...@nis.lanl.gov) wrote:

: The only issue that remains a real sticking point for me

: is the issue of GM control. As I've said in an earlier post, I don't know
: that this last issue can be resolved.

Well, there's one good way to tell. There are several diceless systems
currently on the market, and picking one up and playing with it for a bit
will probably answer that question better than any amount of people
telling you it isn't a problem here. The fact is that the dynamic between
player and GM changes under a diceless paradigm, assuming the game isn't
to be an excuse for GM ego worship.

Even Amber, which is cut and dried high number wins, GM makes the
decision, isn't authoritarian in practice. And the tone of all the
published diceless games I've seen, and the style of those gamers
atracted to them, and the suggestions on how to run the game, all point
to a very non-authoritarian style. I suppose that someone could pick one
up, and use it to act consistently in the GM's own personal favor
(whatever that would be), but I can't imagine the group that would play.

Actually, that isn't exactly true. As a diceless GM, I indulge my petty
cravings for ego gratification all the time. I feel best as a GM when my
players leave the game interested, involved, and wanting more. So I
consistently make authoritarian decisions that are as fair, realistic,
detailed, well described, and character/story positive as I can.
Something I have never found a diced system quite as capable of.

David

[Andrew Finch]

Daniel Pongratz (dp...@nis.lanl.gov) wrote:

: Actually, It is David. David Berkman, I believe. Why can't people have

: email accounts with their actually names in them? Are you shy, David, or
: just hiding from the police?

: :)

Actually, this account is a company account for Backstage Press, which is
a partnership, and not a corporation, and the guy who opened and payed
for the account originally was Andrew Finch, one of the partners.

I've tried changing the name on the account. Heck, I even have friends
who work at CRL tech. support. I'm still waiting...

David

[John H Kim]

In answer to Kevin's question (regarding authoritarianism in
dice-using/diceless games).

Kevin R. Hardwick <krhr...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>I have played in some diced games that worked to decenter the GM, and
>many that were rather authoritarian. Some of the authoritarian games
>were excellent, some were terrible. I have also played in authoritarian
>diceless games, and they were universally awful, and it was apparant
>very quickly that that was the case. In general, diceless games are
>either not authoritarian, or dead in the water from the start. I believe
>that that is a feature of diceless play. But hell, why take just my
>word on it? David, Alain, Reimer, Mark, John, Sarah--anyone else with
>real experience playing diceless--can you report your experience
>in this regard?

Hmmm. Hard for me to say. The most authoritarian campaigns I
have played in were diceless -- but as you say, it was fairly obvious
from the start. I have also played in authoritarian games which were
dice-using.

The question is, was the authoritarian nature of the dice-using
games more noticable than *an equivalent amount* of authoritarianism
in the diceless games. Really, I can't say based purely on experience.
On this board, there have been two competing explanations for the
phenomena (as Kevin puts it):

1) Diceless play makes authoritarianism more obvious.

2) Diceless play makes authoritarianism worse (and hence more
noticable on account of its intensity).

Since many other factors were different between the campaigns,
it is hard to pin down the effect of dice or their lack. I've played
in about 4 1/2 diceless campaigns, for what it's worth, and I can't
distinguish easily between these.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-

David Berkman wrote:
: Even Amber, which is cut and dried high number wins, GM makes the

: decision, isn't authoritarian in practice.

Uh, that depends on where you played in. The _Amber_ campaign
I played in was IMO the worst case of authoritarianism that I have
experinced.

:
: And the tone of all the published diceless games I've seen, and the

: style of those gamers atracted to them, and the suggestions on how
: to run the game, all point to a very non-authoritarian style. I
: suppose that someone could pick one up, and use it to act consistently
: in the GM's own personal favor (whatever that would be), but I can't
: imagine the group that would play.

We played for several months of the _Amber_ campaign for the
PC-to-PC interactions. Eventually, however, it became intolerable and
to end it we ganged up on his favored NPC. For what it's worth, based
on my reading of the _Amber_ DRPG, prior to the campaign I predicted
exactly the authoritarianism problems that happened.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Faith - Faith is an island in the setting sun.
jh...@columbia.edu | But Proof - Proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Columbia University | - Paul Simon, _Proof_

[Kevin R. Hardwick]

On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, John L. Jones II wrote:

> The only issue that remains a real sticking point for me
> is the issue of GM control. As I've said in an earlier post, I don't know
> that this last issue can be resolved.

Well, I can certainly understand why you are frustrated with the
conversation. I understand *in theory* why you are worried about this
control issue--but I can also say that for me, *in practice* it has not
been a problem. Maybe that is an artifact of my style of play--I don't
know. But I can say with utmost confidence that these control issues are
not *necessary* attributes of diceless play, since they did not, in
practice, crop up in my games, and I ran for a number of hard-core, Scott
Ruggles-style, die-hard simulationists.

I'd be happy to discuss my experiences with you, if you desire. Maybe if
we moved the conversation to concrete examples rather than abstractions
then we could make further progress in the conversation. I'm sure that
David, Alain, John Kim, Sarah, and Mark, who have more experience with
this style of play than do I, could also be induced to contribute actual
examples of play.

To start the ball rolling, perhaps you could reiterate concisely your
worries about locus of control? I'd suggest that you do that under a new
subject head (maybe "Locus of Control in Diceless Play"?), if for no other
reason than to start the conversation with fresh karma :) I'd suggest
further that we all agree that the conversation will be specifically about
exploring your concerns, in the context of real examples of play as
adduced by GMs or players with real experience playing diceless--that is,
let's agree to keep the conversation as far away from abstractions, and as
rooted as possible in concrete sequences taken from actual games.

How about it?

My best,
Kevin

[John H Kim]

Some answers to John Jones regarding diceless play from a
different source...

On the one hand, I agree with some of the *potential* problems
he mentions. On the other hand, there are various ways of addressing
this. There are certainly ways to address the problems he is talking
about, although ultimately it comes down to a matter of taste (and
perhaps mood) which method you prefer.

John L. Jones II <bi...@nis.lanl.gov> wrote:
>Two of the problems I see with diceless gaming deal with the issue of

>character control and the potential for a blurred distinction between
>player and character knowledge (there are others, but Dan appears to
>only be interested in those two). In a mechanics heavy diceless game,
>I have already conceded that the issue can be resolved. In a
>non-mechanics heavy (or even freeform) game, the problem will
>resurface due to assumption clash. Assumption clash, to my mind is a
>more serious matter in a diceless environment, and that is why I see
>a problem.

Hmm. It seems to me that assumption clash is a problem
of freeform play more than a problem with the lack of dice. If
you depend on detailed player descriptions,

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

>
>Daniel Pongratz wrote:
>> diced game: players have power (they decide what their characters
>> feel and do), dice have power (they decide when actions succeed or
>> fail), GMs have power (they control the setting and the NPCs).
>> diceless game: players have power (they decide what their
>> characters feel and do), GMs have power (they control the setting,
>> NPCs, and whether actions succeed or fail).

[...]

>> For your claim of issue #1 to succeed, you must show that the GM,
>> in addition to taking the power of the dice (i.e. success or
>> failure), he also takes something that was, in a diced game, left
>> outside both the realm of dice and the GM.

Uh, that assumes that this is a linear relationship -- that
control doesn't vary. In my opinion, the GM can potentially have
more control in a diceless game by combination of factors. For
example, he can now set up an NPC for a certain purpose, and in
addition to tweaking his stats, he can alter the success of that
NPC's actions.

This is perhaps a worst-case, but IMO it is worth talking
about especially since I have played in it. For example, this is
addressed in _Theatrix_ by Plot Points and the suggestion of
troupe-based play.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

>
>Dice allow for the making of a decision without feeling that the
>result is because of story concerns, GM whim, or whatever else you'd
>like to fill in. We have a field of results, assign probabilities and
>move on. I really do not see how you can deny that the GM has more
>control in a diceless environment.

Two points. First, I think Daniel was saying that the
*players* did not have less control, not that the GM did not have
more control.

Second, there are various ways of addressing this. The
players can be given more control by various methods: Whimsy Cards,
Plot Points, troupe-style play, etc.

To get more concrete: Let's say that this is a troupe-style
sci-fi game. The players share the responsibility of creating a
coherent world. One player (perhaps a real-life scientist) becomes
the authority on the futuristic technology. Now when a question
regarding "technobabble" comes up, *he* is the one who answers it --
even if he is not the GM.

By bringing the players *in* on the question of world design,
we reduce the possibility of assumption clash and at the same time
give more power to the players (since when a question comes up *they*
might be the authority rather than the current GM).

-*-*-*-*-*-*-

>
>> > That's the problem Dan, I don't like technobabble. You see it as
>> > useful, I don't begrudge you that. I'm just not a big fan of
>> > spouting of a ton of BS and pretending it means something. Now
>> > mechanics mean something, and I can make statements or judgments
>> > about those mechanics that make sense (for more info I would
>> > recommend reading some of Mary Kuhner's posts on the matter, they
>> > are really quite good).
>>
>> Mechanics are just agreed upon technobabble. At least in a
>> diceless game we can appeal to our experience and common sense. Or
>> haven't you ever had a problem with a game mechanic?

Hmm, I have to agree with John here -- first of all,
mechanics can be appealed via common sense exactly the same way
diceless decisions can. And with mechanics, the agreed-upon
modification will stay for other conflicts. Further, mechanics are
more than agreed-upon technobabble. They are not as good as true
understanding, but can at least support a fair amount of reasoning
and weighing of options. By mechanics, one solution might be
clearly superior than another means of doing the same thing.

"Technobabble" to me implies meaningless explanations
(i.e. you want a certain effect, and string together buzz-words
for something which will produce that effect). There is no way
of objectively judging one solution against another.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
[Re: the problem of GM control]

>There are problems with how a decision *feels* to the player (and
>there are quite a few posts out there that verify this thought) in a
>diceless environment. In a diced environment, there are clear
>metagame reasons for why things occur. Unless the GM explains
>explicitly how he came to a decision (something which may slow down
>the game a great deal), then we will not have those explanations in a
>diceless environment.

Certainly there is a difference in feel, as many people
have attested to. However, I would like to point out an analogy.

You can have a dice-using game where the GM rolls in
secret. In this case, the players do not have an meta-game reason
for each decision -- but they are assured that there is one, and
they know roughly what it is.

A diceless game should work on roughly the same principle.
The players do not have access to how each decision was made, but
there is an agreed-upon contract of how those decisions should be
made, and they trust that the GM sticks to that.

[Andrew Finch]

John H Kim (jh...@vanakam.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:

: We played for several months of the _Amber_ campaign for the

: PC-to-PC interactions. Eventually, however, it became intolerable and
: to end it we ganged up on his favored NPC. For what it's worth, based
: on my reading of the _Amber_ DRPG, prior to the campaign I predicted
: exactly the authoritarianism problems that happened.

Theoretically, that should make them easier to avoid. Your GM didn't.
Kevin has said that sort of play comes across really badly in a diceless
game, and is quite obvious. Evidently it was. I think those diceless
games are short lived.

Can a diced game stand the same kind of attitude and survive? Probably
better, anyway.

Which would seem to support Kevin's contention, and my experience, and,
from what it sounds like, at least part of yours.

David

[Kevin R. Hardwick]

On 18 Oct 1996, Andrew Finch wrote:

> Which would seem to support Kevin's contention, and my experience, and,
> from what it sounds like, at least part of yours.

Smile. Actually, I wasn't contending anything--I was simply reporting my
own experiences, although I must say that they do seem in line with your
own, and also with John's. Would any of the other diceless GMs out there
care to comment on this?

My best,
Kevin

[Mark D. Apolinski]

John H Kim wrote:
>
> Hmm, I have to agree with John here -- first of all,
> mechanics can be appealed via common sense exactly the same way
> diceless decisions can. And with mechanics, the agreed-upon
> modification will stay for other conflicts. Further, mechanics are
> more than agreed-upon technobabble. They are not as good as true
> understanding, but can at least support a fair amount of reasoning
> and weighing of options. By mechanics, one solution might be
> clearly superior than another means of doing the same thing.
>
> "Technobabble" to me implies meaningless explanations
> (i.e. you want a certain effect, and string together buzz-words
> for something which will produce that effect). There is no way
> of objectively judging one solution against another.
>

Well, I think we're going to have to define terms again. The current
discussion grew out of a discussion of Player Empowerment through
Improvisation. "Technobabble", meaning the pseudo-science explanations
in Sci-Fi games, is just one element of such improvisation. There are
still a lot of things a player can say in-character without recourse to
the GM that are not Technobabble as defined above. So the technique of
letting the players improve their character's expertise is still a good
one even if one doesn't use "Technobabble". What do we call the
non-Technobabble?

Mark

[Scott A. H. Ruggels]

Mark D. Apolinski wrote:
>
> John L. Jones II wrote:
> >

Okay, I'll bite. So, why did you leave a perfectly good set of dice in
your sock drawer when you went out gaming one day? To me. I have never
seen diceless as an advantage for the elements that I enjoy gaming for.
I now this is old territory, but a re-interation of the reasoning might
be of some benifit for the Newbies.

Scott

Scott

[Scott A. H. Ruggels]

Could have been worse. Could have been Slipnet.

" ....ring.... ring....click... No one is available to answer your call
right now. Please hold until a customer service representative can be
connected to you.... (On hold for years, and hung up)

Scott

[John L. Jones II]

John H Kim wrote:
>
> Hmm. It seems to me that assumption clash is a problem
> of freeform play more than a problem with the lack of dice. If
> you depend on detailed player descriptions,

That would appear to be the case, yes.

> To get more concrete: Let's say that this is a troupe-style
> sci-fi game. The players share the responsibility of creating a
> coherent world. One player (perhaps a real-life scientist) becomes
> the authority on the futuristic technology. Now when a question
> regarding "technobabble" comes up, *he* is the one who answers it --
> even if he is not the GM.
>
> By bringing the players *in* on the question of world design,
> we reduce the possibility of assumption clash and at the same time
> give more power to the players (since when a question comes up *they*
> might be the authority rather than the current GM).

Very interesting. I like that idea. No, that's not quite true, I
like that idea a lot. Perhaps there's a light at the end of the tunnel.

> John Kim | "Faith - Faith is an island in the setting sun.
> jh...@columbia.edu | But Proof - Proof is the bottom line for everyone."
> Columbia University | - Paul Simon, _Proof_

--

[Michael Schloss]

Scott A. H. Ruggels (scott....@3do.com) wrote:
: Andrew Finch wrote:
: >

: I would say yes. The dice are there, when the player is incapable of
: acting at the character's level of skill and capability.

Have you ever heard of bluffing? A diceless GM can go into as little or
as much detail as he feels neccessary. Besides, you don't need to know
every nuance about something to role-play it. Take your hacking
example. You don't need to describe exactly what the character is
doing for him tpo do it.

: > There are variations in what people is feel is fair to base upon a
: > player's skill in roleplaying their character, and what is 'fairer' by
: > simply rolling a skill roll. Your comment seems to suggest that you would
: > opt for rolling dice rather than roleplay in most cases. I know that may
: > not be a particularly nice way of phrasing it, but it is the flip side of
: > the statement you made.

: Well in some cases dice rolling is faster than roleplaying, Not that
: this is a good thing, but it is good when glossing over the less
: interesting, less important, or less fun aspects of the game.

Not true. Therre seems to be an idea that you need to give lengthy
description of everything that is ever done, in diceless games. The GM
can go into as little or as much detail as he feels neccessary. If two
arch-enemies are fighting, then go into extreme detail, describing every
maneuver and tactic. This makes it more dramatic. But if the character
is just fighting a number of nameless orcs (for example), then you can
gloss over a lot of the details, and just describe the battle in an
exciting way, like "as you run towards them, you skewer the first
surprised orc before he knows what's going on. Then his two friends move
in on you. You avaid the first one's blows easily, but the second one
gets a cut in across your side. It probably isn't all that deep, but it
sure hurts. You hold them off for a short while, until you see a gap in
the bigger orc's defen?~ces, whick you take advantage of, slicing him
almost in half. he crumples to the ground YNbscreaming pitifully..."

To get an idea how to pace combat, read a couple of noverls. Writers
have to do this stuff all the time. Think about it. Would the fight
scene in any nover be as exciting if if its written like a "phased
combat. "First Conan swings at the monster and misses. Then the monster
gets its turn, and barely misses conan. Then conan gets to go again
, and his, doing a moderate amount of damage. Then the monster strikes
at conan, hurting him badly...etc"

[Mark D. Apolinski]

Scott A. H. Ruggels wrote:
>
> Okay, I'll bite. So, why did you leave a perfectly good set of dice in
> your sock drawer when you went out gaming one day? To me. I have never
> seen diceless as an advantage for the elements that I enjoy gaming for.
> I now this is old territory, but a re-interation of the reasoning might
> be of some benifit for the Newbies.
>

I switched because the diceless games I ran and played in seemed more
alive than the diced ones. By this I mean that I didn't consult rules as
much, I was able to play my character more, the descriptions of actions
and the environment were more vivid, and I generally had a better time.

Mark

[Travis S Casey]

>Scott A. H. Ruggels wrote:
>
> Okay, I'll bite. So, why did you leave a perfectly good set of dice in
> your sock drawer when you went out gaming one day? To me. I have never
> seen diceless as an advantage for the elements that I enjoy gaming for.
> I now this is old territory, but a re-interation of the reasoning might
> be of some benifit for the Newbies.

Personally, I originally went diceless (and systemless, too) because
it was more convenient. I liked to run solo adventures for my friends,
and we'd often do them while taking a walk, driving somewhere, at
school, and in other places where it was inconvenient or impossible to
have character sheets and dice.

I first started running games that way back in '83. At first, I did it
because I was forced to by circumstances. As time went on, I grew to
appreciate the fact that the players seemed more involved that way, and
that I was more descriptive when I didn't have dice as a crutch... at
first because I wanted to give plenty of details about why things were
happening the way they were so the players would be less likely to
protest, but later because I enjoyed it.

I've found that running diceless and systemless games has improved my
skills as a GM, even when I'm using dice. I still use dice and regular
systems when it's convenient... when I'm running a real, sit-down game
where I can have dice, paper, and rulebooks handy. However, I feel very
comfortable just "winging it," without one or more of those things.

Recently, most of my gaming friends moved away, so I started a PBEM.
I've been running it diceless and systemless, simply because it's much
easier for me that way.

A lot of people on this group tend to give the impression that it has
to be all or nothing... that you have to be either a completely diceless
GM or you have to be a slave to the dice. IMHO, all games are mixtures
of each stance, and there's no reason that you can't run a game one way
today and another tomorrow... even in the same campaign, with the same
characters. I've been doing it for thirteen years now, in dozens of
campaigns with over a dozen different groups... and it's worked very
well for me. :-)
--
|\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <ca...@cs.fsu.edu>
ZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ System Administrator, FSU CS department
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' (904) 644-7339; Room 011 Love
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) No one agrees with me. Not even me.
rec.games.design FAQ: http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~casey/design.html

[John H Kim]

This is partly an answer to Scott Ruggels question about why
go diceless -- to go with many other people's answers. I ran several
diceless games as a pre-teen (branching off of AD&D), but was
converted to _Champions_ and moved on to various more mechanical
systems. I played in several diceless campaigns in college and grad
school, none of which caught my fancy. I participated in a
troupe-style _Theatrix_ campaign for a while, which could best be
described as uneven, I think.

At this point, diceless play per se remains for me a
limited-use trick. I am interested in running a (diceless) game set
at Corwin's court in the universe of Zelazny's Amber, but I remain
dissatisfied with the techniques of diceless play that I have seen and
heard discussed. I want to come up with some new techniques or
mechanics before I start. (In particular, I deeply loath Phage Press'
_Amber DPRG_ as an abomination, which in part forms an inspiration for
me to do Amber *right*).

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

Travis S Casey <ca...@nu.cs.fsu.edu> wrote:
>A lot of people on this group tend to give the impression that it has
>to be all or nothing... that you have to be either a completely diceless
>GM or you have to be a slave to the dice. IMHO, all games are mixtures
>of each stance, and there's no reason that you can't run a game one way
>today and another tomorrow... even in the same campaign, with the same
>characters. I've been doing it for thirteen years now, in dozens of
>campaigns with over a dozen different groups... and it's worked very
>well for me. :-)

Uh, to be fair, very few dice-using advocates have suggested
that you have to be a slave to the dice.

Personally, my usual ideal is to run a medium-mechanics,
low-dice-using game -- but this is often limited by dependence on
published material and player familiarity with known systems.
Certainly there were sessions of my Star Trek game where we never took
the dice out of our bags. OTOH, I would not call it a diceless game.

I'm in the process of developing my personal system to the
point where I can use it regularly for a variety of settings. (I'll
let people know when I release an edition of my Star Trek game).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Travis S Casey]

John H Kim <jh...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu> wrote:

> At this point, diceless play per se remains for me a
>limited-use trick. I am interested in running a (diceless) game set
>at Corwin's court in the universe of Zelazny's Amber, but I remain
>dissatisfied with the techniques of diceless play that I have seen and
>heard discussed. I want to come up with some new techniques or
>mechanics before I start. (In particular, I deeply loath Phage Press'
>_Amber DPRG_ as an abomination, which in part forms an inspiration for
>me to do Amber *right*).

Amber is the only diceless system I've seen, but I'd been running games
without dice for years when I first saw it, so I'd already "found my
groove" for diceless.

>-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>Travis S Casey <ca...@nu.cs.fsu.edu> wrote:
>>A lot of people on this group tend to give the impression that it has
>>to be all or nothing... that you have to be either a completely diceless
>>GM or you have to be a slave to the dice. IMHO, all games are mixtures
>>of each stance, and there's no reason that you can't run a game one way
>>today and another tomorrow... even in the same campaign, with the same
>>characters. I've been doing it for thirteen years now, in dozens of
>>campaigns with over a dozen different groups... and it's worked very
>>well for me. :-)
>
> Uh, to be fair, very few dice-using advocates have suggested
>that you have to be a slave to the dice.

Well, I didn't say that dice-using advocates have said that... however,
people on both sides have treated the other side as if they must be
all-or-nothing. That's what I was really getting at.

> Personally, my usual ideal is to run a medium-mechanics,
>low-dice-using game -- but this is often limited by dependence on
>published material and player familiarity with known systems.
>Certainly there were sessions of my Star Trek game where we never took
>the dice out of our bags. OTOH, I would not call it a diceless game.

I'd call medium-mechanics, low-dice my ideal as well. I wouldn't
call most of my games "diceless" either, but I've run complete sessions,
including combats, without dice... just because it wasn't convenient
to use them right then.

[Lea Crowe]

In article <54j3ll$s...@news.fsu.edu> ca...@nu.cs.fsu.edu "Travis S Casey"
writes:

> A lot of people on this group tend to give the impression that it has
> to be all or nothing... that you have to be either a completely diceless
> GM or you have to be a slave to the dice.

Mumph grumph... I suspect more diced types actually feel entitled to
override the dice when it suits them than feel that they must obey every
whim of the holy polyhedra.

I've also been in a "diceless" game where people used dice when they
felt the diceless resolution system wasn't serving them properly.

Seems like people will ignore the "official" paradigm, whichever it is,
when they don't want to use it. Quite the opposite of "all or nothing,"
in fact. Which pretty much backs up your point, in an odd sort of way.

--
l...@hestia.demon.co.uk Ka ao, ka ao, ka awatea!

[Jason Newquist]

Travis S Casey (ca...@upsilon.cs.fsu.edu) wrote:

: Recently, most of my gaming friends moved away, so I started a PBEM.

Incidentally, many people equate online frp gaming with PBEM.

In particular, I'd suggest investigating holding an online gaming session
on an interactive realtime platform. Just set up a time and session
length, have everyone logon to the same MUSH, MUD or IRC channel and go
at it.

It's most convenient to set up and use one's own private MUSH. You can
just ignore all the built-in features you don't needs, and configure and
program what you do need.

Most people hear "MUSH" and simply equate it with an actual kind of
interactive social environment. In fact, they are remarkably flexible
and can accomidate a great deal of realtime interactive purposes.

Indeed, I find it to be an ideal solution, overcoming many of the same
geographic problems that makes PBEM so convenient (but the time
requirement remains, making it difficult to have a game with people from
>2 continents -- but it has been done), overcoming the drudgery pacing of
PBEM games, while improving on roleplaying and, for 99% of players,
expression of their character.

It's an excellent choice.

Jason Newquist, Netcom Online Communications newq...@netcom.com
Network Administrator, Network Operations Center San Jose, California
.....................................................................fnord....
A man's life is interesting primarily when he has failed. For it's a sign
that he tried to surpass himself. - Georges Clemenceau

[Scott A. H. Ruggels]

Mark D. Apolinski wrote:
>
> Scott A. H. Ruggels wrote:
> >
> > Okay, I'll bite. So, why did you leave a perfectly good set of dice in
> > your sock drawer when you went out gaming one day? To me. I have never
> > seen diceless as an advantage for the elements that I enjoy gaming for.
> > I now this is old territory, but a re-interation of the reasoning might
> > be of some benifit for the Newbies.
> >
>

> I switched because the diceless games I ran and played in seemed more
> alive than the diced ones. By this I mean that I didn't consult rules as
> much, I was able to play my character more, the descriptions of actions
> and the environment were more vivid, and I generally had a better time.
>
> Mark

Okay.. could you go into more detail? What are you looking for in a
game? An Evironment? a Story? What?

Scott

[Ennead]

Kevin R. Hardwick (krhr...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:

: . . . .In general,

: diceless games are either not authoritarian, or dead in the water from the
: start. I believe that that is a feature of diceless play. But hell, why
: take just my word on it? David, Alain, Reimer, Mark, John, Sarah--anyone
: else with real experience playing diceless--can you report your experience
: in this regard?

Er...no. I can't, really. I've never played in a diceless game
that I would consider "authoritarian" in the least. In all of the
diceless games I've experienced, the locus of control has been extremely
diffuse.

Mind you, I can certainly *imagine* an authoritarian diceless
game. I have no doubts that such an animal could exist. I suspect that
it would be dreadful. But I've yet to have the misfortune of experiencing
such a game myself.

-- Sarah

[Jaana Heino]

Mark D. Apolinski (Mark.Ap...@jpl.nasa.gov) wrote:
: I switched because the diceless games I ran and played in seemed more

: alive than the diced ones. By this I mean that I didn't consult rules as
: much, I was able to play my character more, the descriptions of actions
: and the environment were more vivid, and I generally had a better time.

I play with my current group because:
a) they don't consult the rules too much
b) I am able to play my characters fully
c) the descriptions of actions and the environment are really vivid and
d) I generally have a real good time.

The only difference to your point is that we use dice...:) IMHO, the
dice add to the feeling of aliveness (which I also value really high).
Some amount of randomisation gives me the idea that there is, as in real
life, some force not dependant on people's choices that affects their
life. (Some might call it god or fate. I call it randomity in RL too.) I
understand that in diceless games the GM and the other players are
supposed to act as that force, but somehow that does not feel real to
me. I know my GM is a very creative person, but I still think that one
person can create only so many different situations...

To me, roleplaying is more than just interactive fiction... I do not
want to just create a story, I want to *be* my character for a little
time. And that living as another requires the feeling that 'my' life is
not totally controlled by anyone... not even by the best GM in the
world or my very wonderful fellow players.

--
Jaana Heino-----------------email: jant...@cc.helsinki.fi----
Iivisniemenkuja 4 F 70----------------------------------------
02260 Espoo----------------"Power corrupts, but we still------
FINLAND---------------------need electricity." D.W.Jones------

[Jaana Heino]

Travis S Casey (ca...@upsilon.cs.fsu.edu) wrote:

: Personally, I originally went diceless (and systemless, too) because

: it was more convenient. I liked to run solo adventures for my friends,
: and we'd often do them while taking a walk, driving somewhere, at
: school, and in other places where it was inconvenient or impossible to
: have character sheets and dice.

:) Just reminds of me of the time when we suddenly started playing
some social interaction from our Elric!-game in a party, and then one
thing led to another and then GM asked "Anyone got dice?". Several
little bags of them were thrown at him... and a few minutes of play
passed, until a few minutes later he rubbed his forehead and said: "You
wouldn't happen to have you character sheets with you?" - to which
several voices said, prefectly together: "But of course we do!".

So, nothing against diceless, but that is not reason for us to
change...:) We seem to carry our dice and our char sheets with us
everywhere...:)

: I first started running games that way back in '83. At first, I did it
: because I was forced to by circumstances. As time went on, I grew to

: appreciate the fact that the players seemed more involved that way, and
: that I was more descriptive when I didn't have dice as a crutch... at
: first because I wanted to give plenty of details about why things were
: happening the way they were so the players would be less likely to
: protest, but later because I enjoyed it.

I *think* that one reason for the fact that people believe that diceless
encourages better roleplay is because they try diceless at the exactly
same time when they start to develop to better roleplayers (this
development seems to have to do with age and with years of rpg
experience). In some cases, I think, it is more a coninsidence than a
real correlation...

[Jaana Heino]

Michael Schloss (bk...@torfree.net) wrote:
: A diceless GM can go into as little or

: as much detail as he feels neccessary. Besides, you don't need to know
: every nuance about something to role-play it. Take your hacking
: example. You don't need to describe exactly what the character is

: doing for him to do it.

Um. All good points about good roleplaying, but I cannot really see what
dicelessness has to do with all these good points... My group uses dice,
and all what you just said is possible in our games too.

: To get an idea how to pace combat, read a couple of noverls. Writers

: have to do this stuff all the time. Think about it. Would the fight
: scene in any nover be as exciting if if its written like a "phased
: combat. "First Conan swings at the monster and misses. Then the monster
: gets its turn, and barely misses conan. Then conan gets to go again
: , and his, doing a moderate amount of damage. Then the monster strikes
: at conan, hurting him badly...etc"

Not bad phasing, just bad description...:) If your diced game battle
description is at that level, you don't need to get rid of the dice, but
to get rid of the GM and the players...:)

Read a few novels: in most the major battles are described by more than
just a few words. Great swings, just-and-just dodges, breaking weapons,
getting weak by bleeding more and more every minute... Dice give you an
idea about what happenes next - and in many cases an idea you maybe
wouldn't have done yourself (not probable enough, not seeming fair, just
didn't come to mind). The description you have to make yourself, and it
is a common mistake to suppose that dice users wouldn't do that.

[Neelakantan Krishnaswami]

In article <326FC3...@3do.com>, "Scott A. H. Ruggels" <scott....@3do.com> writes:
> Mark D. Apolinski wrote:
> >
> > Scott A. H. Ruggels wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay, I'll bite. So, why did you leave a perfectly good set of dice in
> > > your sock drawer when you went out gaming one day? To me. I have never
> > > seen diceless as an advantage for the elements that I enjoy gaming for.
> > > I now this is old territory, but a re-interation of the reasoning might
> > > be of some benifit for the Newbies.
> > >
> >

> > I switched because the diceless games I ran and played in seemed more
> > alive than the diced ones. By this I mean that I didn't consult rules as
> > much, I was able to play my character more, the descriptions of actions
> > and the environment were more vivid, and I generally had a better time.
> >

> > Mark
>
> Okay.. could you go into more detail? What are you looking for in a
> game? An Evironment? a Story? What?

Well, on the theory that more POVs are good, I'll intrude into your
conversation, since Mark's experience closely matches my own. (The
reasons may be completely different, but hey...)

Basically, the diceless game felt a lot more real, more like
there was a real world that I was reacting to than the diced
games (even the very good ones) that I have played in.

This is because for me, the ``realness'' of the game world is
transmitted by the descriptions of the game world.

Also, in order for me to believe in the game world as a real place,
it helps a lot if there is a congruence between the way things
happen in the game world and the way events are resolved.

In the game world, effects are the products of causes. With a
standard set of mechanics (GURPS, OtE, any game on the market),
the result is produced by rolling a die to determine the success
or failure, and then inventing a verbal explanation to explain
the result.

This really eats away at my SOD. We are coming up with the
effect -- success or failure -- and then inventing the causes --
the verbal explanation. This is so utterly backwards from the
way things are supposed to work in the game world that I have
trouble believing in the reality of the game world.

Is this a clear explanation?

Neel
-----
Check out a rec.games.frp.advocacy FAQ at:
http://www.mit.edu/people/neelk/rgfa-glossary.html
-----

[Andrew Finch]

Jaana Heino (jant...@cc.Helsinki.FI) wrote:

: To me, roleplaying is more than just interactive fiction... I do not

: want to just create a story, I want to *be* my character for a little
: time. And that living as another requires the feeling that 'my' life is
: not totally controlled by anyone... not even by the best GM in the
: world or my very wonderful fellow players.

It's the same reason we all play, to some greater or lesser extent,
including all the diceless advocates. If diceless gamers couldn't get that
feeling without the dice, there would be no argument for dropping them.

David

[Jeff Stehman]

Neelakantan Krishnaswami (ne...@mit.edu) wrote:

: This really eats away at my SOD. We are coming up with the

: effect -- success or failure -- and then inventing the causes --
: the verbal explanation. This is so utterly backwards from the
: way things are supposed to work in the game world that I have
: trouble believing in the reality of the game world.

: Is this a clear explanation?

To me, yes, but let me ask you this. If you don't know which comes
first, the effect or the cause, what does that do to your SOD? I ask
because there have been diceless examples given in which, based on the
gm's explanation of the example, the effect did come before the cause.
Also, I'm certain I can run a diced, face-to-face game in which the
players are unaware the game is diced. Thus they wouldn't know if
effect came before cause as long as the descriptions flowed together
in a smooth, sensible manner. This leaves me curious where exactly
the line is drawn.

--
Jeff Stehman Senior Systems Administrator
ste...@southwind.net SouthWind Internet Access, Inc.
voice: (316)263-7963 Wichita, KS
URL for Wichita Area Chamber of Commerce: http://www.southwind.net/ict/

[Neelakantan Krishnaswami]

In article <54rl5s$g...@opal.southwind.net>, ste...@jade.southwind.net (Jeff Stehman) writes:
|> Neelakantan Krishnaswami (ne...@mit.edu) wrote:
|>
|> : This really eats away at my SOD. We are coming up with the
|> : effect -- success or failure -- and then inventing the causes --
|> : the verbal explanation. This is so utterly backwards from the
|> : way things are supposed to work in the game world that I have
|> : trouble believing in the reality of the game world.
|>
|> : Is this a clear explanation?
|>
|> To me, yes, but let me ask you this. If you don't know which comes
|> first, the effect or the cause, what does that do to your SOD? I ask
|> because there have been diceless examples given in which, based on the
|> gm's explanation of the example, the effect did come before the cause.
|> Also, I'm certain I can run a diced, face-to-face game in which the
|> players are unaware the game is diced. Thus they wouldn't know if
|> effect came before cause as long as the descriptions flowed together
|> in a smooth, sensible manner. This leaves me curious where exactly
|> the line is drawn.

If we were running a game, and you were secretly using
dice to resolve the action, I wouldn't care. Even if you
told me you you were using GURPS, I wouldn't care, as long
as I didn't have to worry about it.

This is because all my interaction with the game world would
be verbal. The GM is a black box, and whatever makes you
comfortable is fine with me. Heck, you could read sheep
entrails and I'd be happy.

What bothers me is when *I* need to switch back and forth
between game-mechanical and game-world modes of thought. (The
backwardness makes the switching hard for me, so I don't
like it.)

In your example, I wouldn't need to switch back and forth,
so it wouldn't bother me.

[Scott A. H. Ruggels]

Jaana Heino wrote:
>
> Mark D. Apolinski (Mark.Ap...@jpl.nasa.gov) wrote:

> : I switched because the diceless games I ran and played in seemed more

> : alive than the diced ones. By this I mean that I didn't consult rules as
> : much, I was able to play my character more, the descriptions of actions
> : and the environment were more vivid, and I generally had a better time.
>

> I play with my current group because:
> a) they don't consult the rules too much
> b) I am able to play my characters fully
> c) the descriptions of actions and the environment are really vivid and
> d) I generally have a real good time.
>
> The only difference to your point is that we use dice...:) IMHO, the
> dice add to the feeling of aliveness (which I also value really high).
> Some amount of randomisation gives me the idea that there is, as in real
> life, some force not dependant on people's choices that affects their
> life. (Some might call it god or fate. I call it randomity in RL too.) I
> understand that in diceless games the GM and the other players are
> supposed to act as that force, but somehow that does not feel real to
> me. I know my GM is a very creative person, but I still think that one
> person can create only so many different situations...
>

> To me, roleplaying is more than just interactive fiction... I do not
> want to just create a story, I want to *be* my character for a little
> time. And that living as another requires the feeling that 'my' life is
> not totally controlled by anyone... not even by the best GM in the
> world or my very wonderful fellow players.
>

Yes! Yes! give the man a ceeegar! This is why I game too! Boy if i was
even in Finland i would love to look you guys up!

Scott

[Mark Apolinski]

Jaana Heino wrote:
>
> Michael Schloss (bk...@torfree.net) wrote:
> : A diceless GM can go into as little or
> : as much detail as he feels neccessary. Besides, you don't need to know
> : every nuance about something to role-play it. Take your hacking
> : example. You don't need to describe exactly what the character is
> : doing for him to do it.
>
> Um. All good points about good roleplaying, but I cannot really see what
> dicelessness has to do with all these good points... My group uses dice,
> and all what you just said is possible in our games too.
>

The fact that you have dice to use will have an effect on how things
are done in your game. In playing a game in which there is no dice
option, situations arise which force one to consider methods that one
would otherwise have not considered. Just because you *can* use
techniques like intense description, doesn't give your game the look or
the feel of a diceless game. I prefer diceless.

Mark

[Mothra]

Mark Apolinski <Mark.Ap...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

~Jaana Heino wrote:
~>
~> Michael Schloss (bk...@torfree.net) wrote:
~> : A diceless GM can go into as little or
~> : as much detail as he feels neccessary. Besides, you don't
need to know
~> : every nuance about something to role-play it. Take your
hacking
~> : example. You don't need to describe exactly what the
character is
~> : doing for him to do it.
~>
~> Um. All good points about good roleplaying, but I cannot
really see what
~> dicelessness has to do with all these good points... My group
uses dice,
~> and all what you just said is possible in our games too.
~>
~
~ The fact that you have dice to use will have an effect on how
things
~are done in your game. In playing a game in which there is no
dice
~option, situations arise which force one to consider methods
that one
~would otherwise have not considered. Just because you *can* use
~techniques like intense description, doesn't give your game the
look or
~the feel of a diceless game. I prefer diceless.
~
~
~
~ Mark

Sounds to me that you like what every good roleplayer likes, a
game that is vivid and fun. Just because you haven't experienced
this with dice doesn't mean it isn't possible. BTW, could you
elaborate on the "situations" that arise and "force" you to
consider more possibilities. Personally I don't know of any
situation that would force me to consider something that I
wouldn't have thought of just because there are or aren't a group
of small geometric solids within sight.

I'm really interested in you're reply.
.

'He that may still fight, heal him
He that may fight no more, give him peace
He that is dead, take from him the Chapter's due'
-attributed to Master of the Apothacarion Aslon Marr

[Mark Apolinski]

Mothra wrote:
>
> Sounds to me that you like what every good roleplayer likes, a
> game that is vivid and fun. Just because you haven't experienced
> this with dice doesn't mean it isn't possible. BTW, could you
> elaborate on the "situations" that arise and "force" you to
> consider more possibilities. Personally I don't know of any
> situation that would force me to consider something that I
> wouldn't have thought of just because there are or aren't a group
> of small geometric solids within sight.
>
> I'm really interested in you're reply.
>

Many diced advocates on this forum have given examples of situations
from their experience in which, after taking account of all the
situational modifiers, they were uncertain of how the event should turn
out if they were to run the adjudication dicelessly. They've stated that
they honestly have no idea how to adjudicate such a situation except to
roll dice (or whatever). If they were in a diceless game, and this was
not an option, then they would have to make a decision somehow, right?
There must be some factor by which this decision may be made. Perhaps a
factor that has been considered, becomes the pivotal factor, taking on
more significance than had previously been determined. Perhaps it's
metagame concerns like the story, or plot points. Whatever. When dice
are not an option, something else has to take its place. I think it's
like a blind person's other senses hightening. They really don't
improve, but the attention they're given increases.

I know from personal experience that there is a significant difference
in the way one can develop an adventure for diced or diceless play. I
usually adapt modules or adventures from other games for use in my
diceless ones. I tried that once in an adventure which did not map onto
a diceless paradigm at all *as written*. The situation basically was one
where the main characters had to sneak onto the grounds of the mansion
of a human nobleman collaborating with alien invaders who had conquered
the Earth. (The PCs were part of the resistance.) The module had many
situations of the sort you regularly find in a simulationist-type
adventure. Can they bypass the security on the main gate? Can they sneak
past guard patrols and dogs? Can they find their way to the
collaborator's office where the important files are kept? Can they open
the safe without triggering any alarms? Can they make it out safely with
the documents? Etc. All these "can they's" took on a different
significance in the light of dicelessness. For example: the main gate.
Adjudicating dicelessly, I thought "How can they NOT succeed here? If
they don't, the adventure is over before it begins." Similarly were the
rest of the challenges resolved. I found this distasteful. Without some
kind of story-related or metagame-related input, the adjudications of
these tasks became boring and silly. One can run this sort of situation
with dice very easily; it takes on many characteristics of a war game
where we just sit back and find out what's going to happen. But, *by
itself*, I found it impossible to run dicelessly.
This is the kind of situation I think David was referring to long ago
when the group was discussing the Sniper example. He said that if the
success or failure of action didn't matter to the plot or character, he
just skipped it with some kind of narrative filler like, "OK, your
mission to the collaborator's mansion was successful, you find...".
That's exactly the situation here. I needed to make the misson important
in some way to the plot or the characters in order to give it meaning,
which I did not. I find this a significant difference from diced play.

The thing is, I know that diceless play differs from diced play. But
I'm not sure how. I used to think it was the higher level of description
or even the story-related mechanics, but as has been pointed out, those
things can be used in diced play as well. But that doesn't give diced
play the same feel as diceless. They're still different. Why do you
think they are, or do you think there is no difference? Also, I still
question whether the *amount* of description is the same. In all the
diced games I've played, yes the description of the action made a
difference in what modifiers were assigned, but that's where the
description ended. It still doesn't feel like diceless play.

P.S. I guess my post about trap-situations got lost. I had posted a
question about D&D like death-trap (or hurt-trap) situations that I
remember from my early days of role-playing. I remember that a lot of
them were set up in such a way that there *was* only one solution to the
trap (puzzle-situations fit this question too). In such situations, I
ask of the diced advocates, did you use dice at all and if so exactly
how? I wonder because I don't remember my GM doing so. We either had to
figure out the answer or face the consequences. This is the most
diceless situation I can think of that most diced advocates are likely
to have experienced. I also asked, did you like or dislike these
situations and why?

Sincerely,

Mark

[Lee Short]

To me, the above reply reads as "Dicelessness forces GM to make
his in-game decision based on meta-game factors or his own whim".

Certainly this forces the GM to consider more factors,
but not more *in game* factors.

I for one would rather spend *less* attention on metagame
concerns while actually gaming, but quite clearly YMMV.

Do you feel this is an unfair characterization, or do
you agree?

> I know from personal experience that there is a significant difference
> in the way one can develop an adventure for diced or diceless play. I
> usually adapt modules or adventures from other games for use in my
> diceless ones. I tried that once in an adventure which did not map onto
> a diceless paradigm at all *as written*. The situation basically was one
> where the main characters had to sneak onto the grounds of the mansion
> of a human nobleman collaborating with alien invaders who had conquered
> the Earth. (The PCs were part of the resistance.) The module had many
> situations of the sort you regularly find in a simulationist-type
> adventure. Can they bypass the security on the main gate? Can they sneak
> past guard patrols and dogs? Can they find their way to the
> collaborator's office where the important files are kept? Can they open
> the safe without triggering any alarms? Can they make it out safely with
> the documents? Etc.

Sounds like a horrible, one-tracked adventure to me.

While many adventures are like this, few good ones
are -- whether they be diced or diceless.

> The thing is, I know that diceless play differs from diced play. But
> I'm not sure how. I used to think it was the higher level of description
> or even the story-related mechanics, but as has been pointed out, those
> things can be used in diced play as well. But that doesn't give diced
> play the same feel as diceless. They're still different. Why do you
> think they are, or do you think there is no difference?

From your descriptions above, I'd say it is primarily due
to the difference in the attention payed to the metagame.
I can readily see how this would change the feel of a
game.

> Also, I still
> question whether the *amount* of description is the same. In all the
> diced games I've played, yes the description of the action made a
> difference in what modifiers were assigned, but that's where the
> description ended.

Surely you realize that the description doesn't
*have to* end when the dice are rolled.

Frankly, the amount of description I use tends
to vary with the situation. Some situations I
describe in detail, some I summarize quickly.
Sometimes my judgement in this matter disagrees
with my players' preferences, and they'll ask for
either more or less description than I was giving.

> P.S. I guess my post about trap-situations got lost. I had posted a
> question about D&D like death-trap (or hurt-trap) situations that I
> remember from my early days of role-playing. I remember that a lot of
> them were set up in such a way that there *was* only one solution to the
> trap (puzzle-situations fit this question too). In such situations, I
> ask of the diced advocates, did you use dice at all and if so exactly
> how?

You mean when I was in high school and used such
contraptions? IIRC, we only used dice for things
like "can Therin jump before the floor falls out from
under him?"

>I wonder because I don't remember my GM doing so. We either had to
> figure out the answer or face the consequences. This is the most
> diceless situation I can think of that most diced advocates are likely
> to have experienced. I also asked, did you like or dislike these
> situations and why?

By and large, I thought they were incredibly contrived.

Lee

--
Lee Short -- home/office
Software Commissar,
Black Cat Solutions, Inc, Minneapolis MN
C/C++, Ada, Java consulting blac...@pro-ns.com

[Jaana Heino]

Mark Apolinski <Mark.Ap...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> The fact that you have dice to use will have an effect on how things

>are done in your game. In playing a game in which there is no dice

>option, situations arise which force one to consider methods that one

>would otherwise have not considered. Just because you *can* use

>techniques like intense description, doesn't give your game the look or

>the feel of a diceless game. I prefer diceless.

Hm. I cannot see how diceless game would force me to consider options I
wouldn't otherwise consider. If I cannot think of it when using dice,
how could I think of it when not using them?

Just because you *can* use techniques like intense description doesn't
of course mean that you *do* use them... but I again fail to see what
that has to do with diced or diceless...

And what comes to the fact that you prefer diceless, that's fine with
me. As long as you don't try to tell me that my group cannot do real
description or plot choices or real IC roleplaying or what-have-you
because we use dice. So far every 'good side of diceless' I have heard
of has been possible to do with diced too, and most of them things
that we do as regularly as any of your diceless groups...

--
Jaana Heino-----------------email: jant...@cc.helsinki.fi----
Iivisniemenkuja 4 F 70----------------------------------------

02260 Espoo--------------------"DEATH TO ALL FANATICS!"-------
FINLAND-------------------------------------------------------

[John L. Jones II]

Mark Apolinski wrote:
>
> P.S. I guess my post about trap-situations got lost. I had posted a
> question about D&D like death-trap (or hurt-trap) situations that I
> remember from my early days of role-playing. I remember that a lot of
> them were set up in such a way that there *was* only one solution to the
> trap (puzzle-situations fit this question too). In such situations, I
> ask of the diced advocates, did you use dice at all and if so exactly
> how? I wonder because I don't remember my GM doing so. We either had to
> figure out the answer or face the consequences. This is the most
> diceless situation I can think of that most diced advocates are likely
> to have experienced. I also asked, did you like or dislike these
> situations and why?

Yes, I've had (and even GM'd long ago) those types of situations, and
no, dice were not used. There's really not much of a point. Such
situations may run afoul of the character knowledge vs. player knowledge
dilemma, however.
Personally, I liked those situations just fine. Though to be honest, a
lot if it probably had to do with the constraints on the decision space.
There's one way out, and you either find it out or you fail (or die, or
whatever). I especially like situations where the GM is not afraid of a
negative outcome (I'm not a big fan of script immunity).

> Mark