Diceless vs Dice: Here We Go Again
Mad Chris
somewhat violent discussion about Diceless vs Diced. I may
have been the first person foolish enough to do so (if anyone
else wants to claim this dubious honour, go ahead). Now, I
find myself dragged back in.
I find myself in the interesting position of not only having
played in diceless and diced games, and not only having GMd
diceless and diced games, but also having written diced and
diceless systems.
My experience tells me this:
1. Some genre's are inherently incapable of supporting a
diceless game. Diceless is only suited to a
certain type of game. In contrast, a diced system
CAN be applied to any setting, but in some cases
a diceless system is CONSIDERABLY superior. Amber
is a good example of this: it simply wouldn't be
the same with dice.
2. Players who go away and play diceless and then come
back to diced play have generally benefited
from the experience. Diceless teaches people
who hadn't already made the leap from playing
a role playing game, to role-playing in a role
playing game that there is more to the game
than dice. This, IMO, has got to be good.
3. Diceless roleplaying is flawed. Everyone will have
different opinions on this, but one thing I
have noticed is that Diceless works well with
a large group, because the GM doesn't need to
supervise all the players, who can interact
with each other until an arbitration is needed.
This is fine, but it also tends to leave people
sitting around doing nothing as a side product,
which is bad. That said, this is not peculiar to
diceless. My current Wednesday game has a
structure much like this (although it is diced)
and it's an effort to ensure players don't get
left out.
4. Diced roleplaying is flawed. Diced role playing
relies on rules systems which, like computer
programs, always contains bugs. This can
interfere with the flow of play, particularly
if the GM is not experienced enough to
jury rig rules.
5. Diceless will never replace diced, anymore than
diced will ever make diceless extinct.
Diceless has been around for longer than
Amber, and it'll be around for a lot
longer still. Diceless can never provide
the dizzy thrill of the lucky roll, or the
moment of tension before an all important
dice roll and conversely, no diced system
will ever have the speed or flexibility
of a diceless system.
In summary:
The recent public acceptance of diceless
role playing has widened the hobby by introducing
a second branch which complements, rather than
challenges, the original branch of role playing
games. Long may they both live.
Mad Chris,
Discordia Incorporated.
Andrew Finch
There is no genre which can not be handled by a diceless system. We've
proven that to ourselves by trying everything we could think of. In our
experience it is diced systems, by their very rules structures, that
have difficulty handling certain genres.
Diceless systems can easily match the thrill just before an important die
roll. Instead they substitute the thrill just before making an important
(possibly life or death) decision.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Travis S Casey
>proven that to ourselves by trying everything we could think of. In our
>experience it is diced systems, by their very rules structures, that
>have difficulty handling certain genres.
I have to disagree. In a diced system, it is always possible to run
any aspect of the game without using dice; thus, you can have the
benefits of a diceless system when you want them.
Of course a diceless system can handle any genre: the better question
than "what genres can you do" is "what genres do diceless systems
work especially well for?"
>Diceless systems can easily match the thrill just before an important die
>roll. Instead they substitute the thrill just before making an important
>(possibly life or death) decision.
Diced systems can and do have this thrill as well.
--
Travis S. Casey <ca...@cs.fsu.edu>
FAQ maintainer for rec.games.design and alt.vampyres (interim)
No one agrees with me. Not even me.
Paul Jackson
I will assert that you cannot possibly do "Riverboat Gamblers RPG" diceless
in such a fashion as to satisy everybody (you couldn't satisfy me, for
example). I'd go further, in my opinion well less than half the people
playing rpgs would be happy to play "Riverboat Gamblers" diceless.
Note, by diceless I mean "without randomization devices". Please don't tell
me it would be wonderful with cards.
--
Paul Jackson
christopher charles bickford
>In article <2rpkrq$o...@crl.crl.com>, Andrew Finch <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>>I agree with what you've said, except that:
>>
>>There is no genre which can not be handled by a diceless system. We've
>>proven that to ourselves by trying everything we could think of. In our
>>experience it is diced systems, by their very rules structures, that
>>have difficulty handling certain genres.
>>
>>Diceless systems can easily match the thrill just before an important die
>>roll. Instead they substitute the thrill just before making an important
>>(possibly life or death) decision.
>
>I will assert that you cannot possibly do "Riverboat Gamblers RPG" diceless
>in such a fashion as to satisy everybody (you couldn't satisfy me, for
>example). I'd go further, in my opinion well less than half the people
>playing rpgs would be happy to play "Riverboat Gamblers" diceless.
If you can find an idea that would satisfy half of the gaming
market, I'm sure you'd be rich as soon as you could get it marketed :) I
can think of ways to run riverboat gamblers diceless that would be quite
fun. Of course they'd emphasize the various aspects of getting on board
the riverboats, finding the mark and deemphasize the card playing
aspect.
I mean look at the gaming market. T$R, that gaming monolith has
25% of the market, last I checked. Of course, the data is skewed with
M:tG and all, but nevertheless. Also, T$R sells more than 1
game/supplement/book, but I think you see my point.
Question: What genres do you find suitable for diceless? Are
there any?
>Note, by diceless I mean "without randomization devices". Please don't tell
>me it would be wonderful with cards.
>--
>
>Paul Jackson
--
Chris Bickford | Ghiloni's Axiom:
Cbic...@ucs.indiana.edu | People are stupid and annoying.
Kid Kibbitz
> Question: What genres do you find suitable for diceless? Are
>there any?
As one of the original (in this thread, anyway) advocates of diced gaming,
I'd have to say that the genres I'd find MOST suitable for diceless are
high society (any era), any sort of infiltration-style espionage, some sort
of high-ball politics type thing (again, from any era), or
anything else where the emphasis is on one's social/personal interactions
with others and where task resolution (be it combat or lockpicking or
whatever) is of secondary importance. I'd even prefer diceless
for such a campaign. In addition, I think diceless will at least be
competitive with, if not superior to, diced systems for "hopeless" style
games--Cthulu, for example, where I played for a full semester without
rolling dice (other than for san checks, which can easily be glossed over).
Where I start to dislike diceless is where any complex task resolution is
involved; in these cases, too much is dependent on relatively arbitrary
decisions, and I'd rather have those arbitrary decisions made by impartial
and statistically well-curved dice than by my (or someone else's) whim. If
you were running the campaign in a plot-oriented fashion, then "serving the
plot" is a good no-dice indicator of success/failure; however, I personally
don't care for plot-driven RPG's, and so this is not of significance to me
personally. (If I *were* interested in plot-driven RPG's, they would also
be on the list of those genres well-suited for diceless play.)
Just MHO,
--Kid Kibbitz
Loren Miller
>in such a fashion as to satisy everybody (you couldn't satisfy me, for
>example). I'd go further, in my opinion well less than half the people
>playing rpgs would be happy to play "Riverboat Gamblers" diceless.
Duh!
I bet you could do a great game diceless, and without any randomization at
all, if the storyline were exciting enough. I don't think you could do a
campaign though. But this is completely different from other campaigns. The
whole point of a gambling story is to gamble, right? And gambling always
involves random results, so random results are essential to the story. I do
not think they are essential to most other genres.
Still, I think you'd have more fun using roulette wheels and cards for a
riverboat gambler campaign than using dice (except for the craps table).
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller LO...@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu
Into the flood again, same old trip it was back when
Andrew Finch
part fun. Possibly even more fun than with dice.
I wasn't taking a hit on diced gaming, I was only stating that diceless
games are capable of doing any genre you might imagine. Which ones are
they best at? All of them. A good diceless system has no specialties, and
may handle almost any genre with ease and flexibility. Note that Amber is
only one implementation of a diceless system. Amber is good for a
particular type of game. Theatrix on the other hand, by its very nature,
is totally universal.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
David Kennard
> You can think of ways to run Riverboat Gamblers diceless that you'd find fun.
> You can probably even find ways of running it that I'd find fun. What you
> couldn't do is find a way of running it that I'd find as much fun as if you
> ran it with at least some dice. Without dice, you CANNOT generate the
> tension of a high stakes poker game in a way that would satisfy me.
For me, this is like saying "without swords or other weapons
you can not generate the tension of a combat scene." It's just
not true. A "riverboat gambling RPG" is not about actually
gambling any more than an RPG is about actually fighting, summoning
demons, or climbing a cliff. What you're saying is that dice (or
cards, roulette wheels, etc.) are necessary for a *live-action* RPG,
or that gambling implements are necessary for gambling. I like props
in gaming, but I keep in mind that props are all they are. In the
case of gambling in RPGs it is only coincidence that the implements
resemble a common RPG task and scene resolution tool.
hmmm... maybe *that's* the answer to this discussion of diced
vs. diceless gaming: get rid of the dice and hand the players
pistols. (the GM gets bulletproof glass, of course)
A task comes up and the GM sets up a target at an appropriate
"difficulty distance".
Party conflict can get a little messy...
and there's always a chance for a "fumble"...
maybe more experienced characters entitle one to use autofire.
or explosives.
:) :)
Dave Kennard
da...@unh.edu
Paul Jackson
christopher charles bickford <cbic...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>In article <1994May23.1...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> pa...@turing.toronto.edu (Paul Jackson) writes:
>>In article <2rpkrq$o...@crl.crl.com>, Andrew Finch <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>>>There is no genre which can not be handled by a diceless system. We've
>>>proven that to ourselves by trying everything we could think of. In our
>>>experience it is diced systems, by their very rules structures, that
>>>have difficulty handling certain genres.
>>>
>>>Diceless systems can easily match the thrill just before an important die
>>>roll. Instead they substitute the thrill just before making an important
>>>(possibly life or death) decision.
>>
>>I will assert that you cannot possibly do "Riverboat Gamblers RPG" diceless
>>in such a fashion as to satisy everybody (you couldn't satisfy me, for
>>example). I'd go further, in my opinion well less than half the people
>>playing rpgs would be happy to play "Riverboat Gamblers" diceless.
>
> If you can find an idea that would satisfy half of the gaming
>market, I'm sure you'd be rich as soon as you could get it marketed :) I
>can think of ways to run riverboat gamblers diceless that would be quite
>fun. Of course they'd emphasize the various aspects of getting on board
>the riverboats, finding the mark and deemphasize the card playing
>aspect.
You can think of ways to run Riverboat Gamblers diceless that you'd find fun.
You can probably even find ways of running it that I'd find fun. What you
couldn't do is find a way of running it that I'd find as much fun as if you
ran it with at least some dice. Without dice, you CANNOT generate the
tension of a high stakes poker game in a way that would satisfy me.
> I mean look at the gaming market. T$R, that gaming monolith has
>25% of the market, last I checked. Of course, the data is skewed with
>M:tG and all, but nevertheless. Also, T$R sells more than 1
>game/supplement/book, but I think you see my point.
Ok, I should have said "in my opinion over half those people who would be
willing to play RiverBoat Gamblers would have a better time if it was run
with at least some diced resolution as opposed to purely diceless.
> Question: What genres do you find suitable for diceless? Are
>there any?
I do prefer low dice games to completely diceless games. However, a genre
like Amber is quite suitable for diceless play as the dice are really only
useful (in my opinion) infrequently. Mind you, I don't think that the
systemless Amber "system" is very good but thats a differernt argument.
--
Paul Jackson
christopher charles bickford
>In article <Cq9nz...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
>christopher charles bickford <cbic...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>In article <1994May23.1...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> pa...@turing.toronto.edu (Paul Jackson) writes:
>>>I will assert that you cannot possibly do "Riverboat Gamblers RPG" diceless
>>>in such a fashion as to satisy everybody (you couldn't satisfy me, for
>>>example). I'd go further, in my opinion well less than half the people
>>>playing rpgs would be happy to play "Riverboat Gamblers" diceless.
>>
>> If you can find an idea that would satisfy half of the gaming
>>market, I'm sure you'd be rich as soon as you could get it marketed :) I
>>can think of ways to run riverboat gamblers diceless that would be quite
>>fun. Of course they'd emphasize the various aspects of getting on board
>>the riverboats, finding the mark and deemphasize the card playing
>>aspect.
>
>You can think of ways to run Riverboat Gamblers diceless that you'd find fun.
>You can probably even find ways of running it that I'd find fun. What you
>couldn't do is find a way of running it that I'd find as much fun as if you
>ran it with at least some dice. Without dice, you CANNOT generate the
>tension of a high stakes poker game in a way that would satisfy me.
Sure. I can't argue with that. Of course, the statement is so
narrow it doesn't really mean that much. I mean you won't find a way to
run a high-stakes poker game that would interest me. Diced or diceless.
Although I agree (sigh, on .advocacy no less) that gambling without dice
would not be the same. Had I a choice, I'd use the dice for that
aspect.
>Ok, I should have said "in my opinion over half those people who would be
>willing to play RiverBoat Gamblers would have a better time if it was run
>with at least some diced resolution as opposed to purely diceless.
I'll buy that, subject to the caveat that the gambling would be
central to the game. Although there is a lot to be said for that epic
facedown, I suspect they are rather rare. Of course, I'm not interested
in RBG, but I see where dice are useful (SAN checks or their equivalent
being a prime example).
In short, I agree with your point, though I don't really care
for the type of game where the dice are central. Before someone else
says this, I know that I could do horror without dice. It wouldn't be
the same though, and I prefer to keep the dice for horror checks, and
various other purposes. JMO.
>> Question: What genres do you find suitable for diceless? Are
>>there any?
>
>I do prefer low dice games to completely diceless games. However, a genre
>like Amber is quite suitable for diceless play as the dice are really only
>useful (in my opinion) infrequently. Mind you, I don't think that the
>systemless Amber "system" is very good but thats a differernt argument.
The system itself is not that good. What makes Amber survive as
a game is the legions of slavering Amber fanatics. I count myself among
them, just so no feathers get ruffled.
Sandy Wible
> I will assert that you cannot possibly do "Riverboat Gamblers RPG" diceless
>
> Note, by diceless I mean "without randomization devices". Please don't tell
> me it would be wonderful with cards.
Now, this is a totally different situation. Without even touching on the
merits of dice/diceless systems, what you're talking about is a prop, not a
game mechanic, not a plot device. It's a playing aid.
Sandy (Will)
wo...@genie.geis.com
Sandy Wible
> Where I start to dislike diceless is where any complex task resolution is
> involved; in these cases, too much is dependent on relatively arbitrary
> decisions, and I'd rather have those arbitrary decisions made by impartial
> and statistically well-curved dice than by my (or someone else's) whim. If
Considering task resolution mechanics, in diced systems what you have is a
table lookup, possibly with modifiers based on situational variables, such as
skill of the person in case, current weather, whatever. When the results are
biased in one direction or another (toward success or failure), the dice are
obviated and in fact are liabilities. They are then used as crutches for the
imagination of those involved. Why roll a die..."Oh, success, let's see,"
roll, "you hit his left arm, and it fractures with an audible ::snap!::" when
you can do it yourself? It's like looking at pictures of your cousin white
water rafting instead of boating down the Colorado River in person. You miss
out on the thrill of doing it yourself, you don't hone certain skills sitting
on your butt looking at photos, and most of all, it's more fun!! Sure, there's
something to be said for being "fair", but life isn't fair. Anybody who tells
you different is selling something.
Now, we have left the case for a task to be resolved that is in doubt. It's
either in doubt because genuinely the pros and cons are very closely weighted,
or else because the variables are too complex for us gamers to compute. Like
astrophysics. *I* sure don't know how to compute a hyperspace jump. You?
The thing is, if it's really that close, then all you're doing with dice is
giving away your freedom of choice. Passing on the judgement to God, if you
will. Giving away the freedom, and the responsibility as well.
The last paragraph is just so against the grain for me, and my personal
philosophy of life, that I refuse to submit meekly to any such from the
government. Why should I back off my principles for a _game_? :)
Now, don't get me wrong, I love playing Axis & Allies as much as the next
guy. <grin> I call that wargaming. I call Amber role-playing. You can
combine the two if you want, but I prefer to get my doses in concentrated form.
Sandy (Will)
wo...@genie.geis.com
Nicholas Charles Argall
: >There is no genre which can not be handled by a diceless system. We've
: >experience it is diced systems, by their very rules structures, that
: >have difficulty handling certain genres.
: I have to disagree. In a diced system, it is always possible to run
: any aspect of the game without using dice; thus, you can have the
: benefits of a diceless system when you want them.
Yes, but that wasn't his point. Can you please give an example of a
situation which can't be handled by a diceless system?
: Of course a diceless system can handle any genre: the better question
: than "what genres can you do" is "what genres do diceless systems
: work especially well for?"
Well?
Andrew Finch
It's the system that matters. Amber as a system works well for a limited
number of things. It also happens to be diceless. Hero works well for a
larger, but still limited number of things. It's diced. Theatrix works
well anywhere (biased opinion), and has the great merit of being diceless
(for those of us who see merit in that).
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Taki Kogoma
rec.games.frp.advocacy:
>Diceless roleplay works especially well for all genres. End of story.
Remember what I said about sweeping generalizations?
>David Berkman
>Backstage Press
And *please* get the 'Andrew Finch'/'David Berkman' confusion cleared
up.
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) kog...@unm.edu
I'll get a life when someone demonstrates it would be superior to
what I have now.
George Harris
>I agree with what you've said, except that:
>
>There is no genre which can not be handled by a diceless system. We've
>proven that to ourselves by trying everything we could think of. In our
>experience it is diced systems, by their very rules structures, that
>have difficulty handling certain genres.
Whoops, arrogance rears its ugly head. What you've proven is
"There is nothing we can think of that cannot be handled with a diceless
system." Since you are an unapologetic advocate of diceless play the
meaningfulness of this result is suspect.
Try "Diceless systems, by their very deterministic nature, lack the
unexpected and uncontrived spontaneity needed by certain genres."
>Diceless systems can easily match the thrill just before an important die
>roll. Instead they substitute the thrill just before making an important
>(possibly life or death) decision.
Diced systems can easily match the intricate plotting and character
development of diceless systems, if the GMs aren't so sloppy to create
plots so fragile they could be destroyed by a single unexpected occurance.
>David Berkman
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George...@bbs.oit.unc.edu or, preferably gha...@jade.tufts.edu
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ The above does not represent OIT, UNC-CH, laUNChpad, or its other users. /
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hans M Dykstra
A Lapalme <ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>
>In a previous article, a-j...@microsoft.com (John Reiher) says:
>
>>
>>Any situation that exceeds the GM's knowledge or experience. Do you know
>>how to do a triple bypass operation on a person's heart?
>>
>I'm sorry but I don't see how. Please explain this because all I see is
>that with a dice system, the GM decides the odds of succeeding while in a
>diceless system, the GM decides success or failure. In either cases, the
>GM can be totally ignorant of how it can be really done.
In a diced system, the system itself provides a guide (and note, no more
than a guide) for how the character's skill interacts with the difficulty
of the task, in a way that is easily encoded on a single line on the
character sheet, and understood by both player and GM:
Surgery: 100%
[This would tell me that my character is able to breeze through routine
surgery like tonsillectomy, but when it comes to difficult things like
a triple bypass, he's probably not the guy to do it.]
In a diceless system, you could do the same thing, but it requires three
or more lines on the sheet for each skill, or excessive reliance on
stereotypes and/or archetypes. (IMO, of course.) It also can put a lot
of emphasis on bull-shitting the GM into allowing you a success; this is
the diceless equivalent of a rules-lawyer.
In short, I think you *can* do anything diceless, short of simulating
genuinely random events; I just wouldn't want to.
***
hmd
John Reiher
> In <Cq9q0...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> kidk...@expert.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>
> > Where I start to dislike diceless is where any complex task resolution is
> > involved; in these cases, too much is dependent on relatively arbitrary
> > decisions, and I'd rather have those arbitrary decisions made by impartial
> > and statistically well-curved dice than by my (or someone else's) whim. If
>
> you can do it yourself? It's like looking at pictures of your cousin white
> water rafting instead of boating down the Colorado River in person. You miss
> out on the thrill of doing it yourself, you don't hone certain skills sitting
> on your butt looking at photos, and most of all, it's more fun!! Sure, there's
> something to be said for being "fair", but life isn't fair. Anybody who tells
> you different is selling something.
But in a "diceless" RPG you are not "doing it yourself". The GM is listening to
your description of your character's actions, then deciding whether or not the
character succeeds in doing them. Using your analogy of white water rafting,
it's akin to listening to your cousin talk about his white water rafting and
answering your questions about it.
> Now, we have left the case for a task to be resolved that is in doubt. It's
> either in doubt because genuinely the pros and cons are very closely weighted,
> or else because the variables are too complex for us gamers to compute. Like
> astrophysics. *I* sure don't know how to compute a hyperspace jump. You?
> The thing is, if it's really that close, then all you're doing with dice is
> giving away your freedom of choice. Passing on the judgement to God, if you
> will. Giving away the freedom, and the responsibility as well.
No, you are letting the game mechanics adjucate the situation. Do you know how
to build a car engine? Nope...but your character does, and has a certain
profeciency in doing so. So how do you adjucate him rebuilding a V8 engine?
You either let the GM flip a mental coin in his head or you roll the dice.
Dice are not God, they are simply tools to speed up play. I've played in
"diceless" games where the action drags because the GM had to work out all
the possibilities of our actions, where in a "diced" game, a few simple rolls
of the dice would have sped up play. (Of course there are times where the
rolling of dice slow down what happens, and a diceless version may be
faster.)
> Sandy (Will)
> wo...@genie.geis.com
-----
John
-----
This mine, not yours or yours or yours, and especially not my company's
opinion.
John Reiher
> Travis S Casey (ca...@pi.cs.fsu.edu) wrote:
> : >experience it is diced systems, by their very rules structures, that
> : >have difficulty handling certain genres.
>
> : I have to disagree. In a diced system, it is always possible to run
> : any aspect of the game without using dice; thus, you can have the
> : benefits of a diceless system when you want them.
>
Any situation that exceeds the GM's knowledge or experience. Do you know
how to do a triple bypass operation on a person's heart? I sure don't, I'm
not even sure of what would be required before, during, or after the
operation to insure its success. But my character does. Dice allow your
character to do things that you don't know how to do.
>
> : Of course a diceless system can handle any genre: the better question
> : than "what genres can you do" is "what genres do diceless systems
> : work especially well for?"
>
> Well?
>
Pulp adventure, where, if the conventions of the genre are adhered to,
would be perfect for a diceless game. The characters are always better
than their foes in fighting, thinking, and everything else, that the
story is more important than the action.
Political intrigue is another genre that is suited for diceless rpgs.
John
----
These are mine, not yours or yours or yours, and especially not my company's
opinions.
christopher charles bickford
>In article <2rrni8...@edna.cc.swin.edu.au> 943...@edna.swin.edu.au wrote:
>> Yes, but that wasn't his point. Can you please give an example of a
>> situation which can't be handled by a diceless system?
>
>Any situation that exceeds the GM's knowledge or experience. Do you know
>how to do a triple bypass operation on a person's heart? I sure don't, I'm
>not even sure of what would be required before, during, or after the
>operation to insure its success. But my character does. Dice allow your
>character to do things that you don't know how to do.
Triple bypass surgery in diceless system:
"What's your medical skill? {It works, It doesn't work}"
In diced system:
"What's you medical skill? Roll. {It works, It doesn't work}"
Note that these simple descriptions can be expanded for dramatic
potential in either type of system.
Alexander Williams
>competitive with, if not superior to, diced systems for "hopeless" style
>games--Cthulu, for example, where I played for a full semester without
>rolling dice (other than for san checks, which can easily be glossed over).
>
>Where I start to dislike diceless is where any complex task resolution is
>involved; in these cases, too much is dependent on relatively arbitrary
>decisions, and I'd rather have those arbitrary decisions made by impartial
>and statistically well-curved dice than by my (or someone else's) whim. If
This is just the reason why I require dice for my Cthulhu/Dark
Conspiracy/Kult gaming... I refuse to take all the rap for the innumerable
horrible things that happen to the characters. :)
--
tha...@runic.via.mind.org (Alexander Williams) | PGP 2.x keya avail
Email is the right of the masses. So do it. | DF 22 16 CE CA 7F
Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be the Whole of the | 98 47 13 EE 8E EC
Law. Love is the Law, Love Under Will. -oOo- | 9C 2D 9B 9B
===================================================================
"Democracy isn't just the best form of government; its the only one
even remotely worth a damn. Only democracy guarantees people get
what they deserve."
-- Zeno Marley (Early 21st Century Mercenary-Philosopher)
[Dark Conspiracy RPG, pg 29]
Andrew Finch
: In a diced system, the system itself provides a guide (and note, no more
: than a guide) for how the character's skill interacts with the difficulty
: of the task, in a way that is easily encoded on a single line on the
: character sheet, and understood by both player and GM:
: Surgery: 100%
: [This would tell me that my character is able to breeze through routine
: surgery like tonsillectomy, but when it comes to difficult things like
: a triple bypass, he's probably not the guy to do it.]
: In a diceless system, you could do the same thing, but it requires three
: or more lines on the sheet for each skill, or excessive reliance on
: stereotypes and/or archetypes.
In Theatrix, a diceless game, the system provides a guide, (note, no more
than a guide) for how a character's skill interacts with the difficulty
of the task. All this in a way that can be encoded on a single line in a
character sheet (although you may take more if you wish). This is a rules
question that has absolutely nothing to do with the use of dice (or not).
By the way, the above skill in Theatrix would be encoded as:
[10.0] Surgery.
So many lines to read.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
A Lapalme
In a previous article, a-j...@microsoft.com (John Reiher) says:
>
>Any situation that exceeds the GM's knowledge or experience. Do you know
>how to do a triple bypass operation on a person's heart? I sure don't, I'm
>not even sure of what would be required before, during, or after the
>operation to insure its success. But my character does. Dice allow your
>character to do things that you don't know how to do.
>
I'm sorry but I don't see how. Please explain this because all I see is
that with a dice system, the GM decides the odds of succeeding while in a
diceless system, the GM decides success or failure. In either cases, the
GM can be totally ignorant of how it can be really done.
Alain
--
David H. Thornley
>In <Cq9q0...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> kidk...@expert.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>
>> Where I start to dislike diceless is where any complex task resolution is
>> involved; in these cases, too much is dependent on relatively arbitrary
>> decisions, and I'd rather have those arbitrary decisions made by impartial
>> and statistically well-curved dice than by my (or someone else's) whim. If
>
> Considering task resolution mechanics, in diced systems what you have is a
>table lookup, possibly with modifiers based on situational variables, such as
>skill of the person in case, current weather, whatever. When the results are
>biased in one direction or another (toward success or failure), the dice are
>obviated and in fact are liabilities.
If what you mean is that it's clear that a task will succeed or fail (i.e.,
lifting a physics textbook or lifting a battleship) then it's not necessary
to roll, well, I know of no GM who will require such a roll in any diced
game.
If you mean that dice are a liability when it is merely likely that an
action will or will not fail, I strongly disagree. If I can do something
10% of the time, then I have a right to expect that I'll succeed about
10% of the time. Humans are notoriously poor at simulating random events.
For an example, suppose I'm thinking of breaking into a small encampment
to rescue a friend. I am tough, and can in general easily defeat any guard.
On the other hand, I will eventually be worn down, and I don't know
exactly how many guards I'm likely to encounter, or how easy it will be
to raise an alarm.
In a diced system, the GM can determine these things randomly, and need not
make any big decision about whether I succeed or not. The GM can assign
certain chances based on how he or she visualizes the situation, and can
roll the appropriate dice. The one thing the GM has to do is to be prepared
for both success and failure on my part.
In a diceless system, the GM usually needs to determine whether the attempt
should succeed or not. This is a far more major decision. The GM can
try to be guided by how well I describe what I'm doing, but that's not
fair since it rewards the good speakers and will make me reluctant to try
something I personally don't know much about. In the meantime, the
suspense is partially gone since the GM will have to decide whether I
succeed or fail, and this can happen at any time.
In deciding whether to do this thing or not, it seems to me that the
considerations are different depending on whether the GM is using dice
or not, and it is perfectly reasonable to prefer diced gaming to diceless
for this sort of thing.
>They are then used as crutches for the
>imagination of those involved. Why roll a die..."Oh, success, let's see,"
>roll, "you hit his left arm, and it fractures with an audible ::snap!::" when
>you can do it yourself?
No way! I broke an elbow a little over a year ago, and I'm not doing it
to anybody else in a social setting. What I want to happen is for the
GM to say what goes on at an appropriate level of detail, and it doesn't
seem to me to be that much different whether the GM rolls a few dice first
or not.
> Now, we have left the case for a task to be resolved that is in doubt. It's
>either in doubt because genuinely the pros and cons are very closely weighted,
>or else because the variables are too complex for us gamers to compute. Like
>astrophysics. *I* sure don't know how to compute a hyperspace jump. You?
> The thing is, if it's really that close, then all you're doing with dice is
>giving away your freedom of choice. Passing on the judgement to God, if you
>will. Giving away the freedom, and the responsibility as well.
>
I'm an agnostic, so I'll have to disagree with the concept of surrendering
my judgment to God. I don't know that that's possible.
> The last paragraph is just so against the grain for me, and my personal
>philosophy of life, that I refuse to submit meekly to any such from the
>government. Why should I back off my principles for a _game_? :)
No reason. Why would you impose them on anybody else? If you want to
say that you prefer diceless gaming, that's cool. If you want to say it's
superior to diced gaming, drop the personal philosophy and religion and
give some actual reasons.
Nor have you established that giving up the GM's freedom of choice is a
bad thing. Suppose I'm in a campaign where it is reasonable to expect
some sort of PC casualties, and the party embarks on a risky operation.
My character is killed, and this may make me unhappy. In a diced game,
it's the luck of the dice, and that's the way things go. I knew there
was a chance of this happening, and there's a certain fitness to it.
In a diceless game, it's the GM's decision that my character died, as
opposed to somebody else's, and that fact is likely to have repercussions.
Perhaps I won't feel comfortable about starting another character,
possibly I'll worry about my role-playing technique, maybe I'll play
more recklessly with my next character because the GM won't kill my
character twice in rapid succession.
Therefore, I think there are games that call for diced and games that
call for diceless systems. The sort that I prefer to play usually call
for dice. You may prefer the sort that call for diceless.
DHT
Ray Trent
>character sheet (although you may take more if you wish). This is a rules
>question that has absolutely nothing to do with the use of dice (or not).
>
>By the way, the above skill in Theatrix would be encoded as:
>[10.0] Surgery.
Hope that's enough for context.
I'm a bit too lazy (and admittedly jaded about "revolutionary" gaming
systems to be the first on my block to go check this out, so perhaps
you can answer this question:
If, in Theatrix, there is some abstraction of skill level so as to
relieve the players from having to actually role play something they
may know nothing about, how does the GM decide a specific (pardon the
loaded phrasing) dicey instance?
What does the GM do with a situation s/he thinks has a ~50/50 chance
of having the attempted outcome?
I posit that "mentally flipping a coin" is a poor substitute for the
real thing.
But suppose you choose the outcome that is "better for the story". Why
do you need the skill level at all?
Is it just that "good stories" don't have people blow things they
should be good at without a good reason?
Does "player is taking advantage of that knowledge" count as a "good
reason"?
--
"When you're down, it's a long way up
When you're up, it's a long way down
It's all the same thing
And it's no new tale to tell" ../ray\..
George Harris
>
>> Where I start to dislike diceless is where any complex task resolution is
>> involved; in these cases, too much is dependent on relatively arbitrary
>> decisions, and I'd rather have those arbitrary decisions made by impartial
>> and statistically well-curved dice than by my (or someone else's) whim. If
>
> Considering task resolution mechanics, in diced systems what you have is a
>table lookup, possibly with modifiers based on situational variables, such as
>skill of the person in case, current weather, whatever. When the results are
>biased in one direction or another (toward success or failure), the dice are
>obviated and in fact are liabilities.
We're (allof us, I'm not the person to whom you replied) talking
about two different things here. Kidkibitz is talking about the execution
of a model of a subset of reality. You're talking about the creation of the
model.
In *any* game there is going to be some model created of actions
that take place in the game world. The model might be a table on which
a die-roll is checked against the appropriate column, or merely a roll
against a number, below or above (or right on), or comparison of two
characters' ability scores, or the GM's evaluation of the situation and
consequent decision. Now, in whichever way the model is represented,
it could be biased in one direction or the other. That is a property
of a model in and of itself, and not of its representation.
So, when we're talking about modeling (subsets of) reality, what
we want to do is get as accurate a model as we can. That's the first
step, before we decide how we want to implement the model (there are other
concerns, of course, since if your model involves Fourier transforms and
simultaneous solution of partial differential equations in seven variables,
it won't be very convenient for a game). Usually, a model will give a
range of possible outcomes, with their attendant probabilities. In some
instances, only one outcome will have any significant probability, but
generally that will be the exception.
Then, we want to represent the model. Since what we have is a
range of possible outcomes and attendant probabilities, using some
mehcanical probabilistic device seems appropriate, whether it be dice,
a spinner, cards or what have you. Human beings are notoriously bad
probabilistic devices (unless used in unorthodox ways [drop him from
the Goodyear blimp; face up, you win; face down, you lose]). So, if
you represent your model, once developed, by a human being making decisions
and trying to balance the outcomes over time, *in addition* to whatever
flaws your model might have, you have introduced the additional problem
of a poor(in a probabilistic sense) decision maker.
Of course, if you aren't interested in a campaign where events are
consistent as much as in one where you get good drama (or, as is more
likely the case, melodrama), then abandoning mechanical probabilistic
devices may be the way to go. But the preference of what *type* of game
you prefer doesn't make the best way to play *another* type of a game a
crutch, or indeed flawed in any way.
>They are then used as crutches for the
>imagination of those involved. Why roll a die..."Oh, success, let's see,"
>roll, "you hit his left arm, and it fractures with an audible ::snap!::" when
>you can do it yourself? It's like looking at pictures of your cousin white
>water rafting instead of boating down the Colorado River in person. You miss
>out on the thrill of doing it yourself, you don't hone certain skills sitting
>on your butt looking at photos, and most of all, it's more fun!! Sure, there's
>something to be said for being "fair", but life isn't fair. Anybody who tells
>you different is selling something.
Let's see if I've got this straight. You'd rather experience it
your self. So, instead of the GM telling you that, say, your opponent hit
your right leg with a polearm, giving you a multiple compound fracture of
the femur and a severed femoral artery, you'd rather he *actually* hit you
in the right leg with a pole-arm, giving you a compound fracture of your
femur and severing your femoral artery? I've heard of live-action gaming,
but isn't that a little extreme?
> Now, we have left the case for a task to be resolved that is in doubt. It's
>either in doubt because genuinely the pros and cons are very closely weighted,
>or else because the variables are too complex for us gamers to compute. Like
>astrophysics. *I* sure don't know how to compute a hyperspace jump. You?
Nope. When things are uncertain, there's no telling which way
things are going to go. You have no control over that.
> The thing is, if it's really that close, then all you're doing with dice is
>giving away your freedom of choice. Passing on the judgement to God, if you
>will. Giving away the freedom, and the responsibility as well.
Freedom of choice? What choice? If I drop my buttered toast on the
carpet, I doon't *choose* which side it lands on. It just happens. It's
not my choice, although dropping it may be my responsibility.
> The last paragraph is just so against the grain for me, and my personal
>philosophy of life, that I refuse to submit meekly to any such from the
>government. Why should I back off my principles for a _game_? :)
How about because the game is supposed to model some analog of
the universe, and with the universe you don't have a choice about most of
the things that happen. UNless, of course, you can choose to ignore
gravity and make all the lights turn green.
> Now, don't get me wrong, I love playing Axis & Allies as much as the next
>guy. <grin> I call that wargaming. I call Amber role-playing. You can
>combine the two if you want, but I prefer to get my doses in concentrated form.
Amber is no more concentrated role-playing than GURPS, RQ or Hero.
It just happens to be a style you prefer, and which many others find
abhorrent. Now, if you need to use that difference to make yourself feel
special, well, don't expect anyone else to buy into your personal fantasy.
>Sandy (Will)
>wo...@genie.geis.com
George Harris
>Diceless roleplay works especially well for all genres. End of story.
Bullshit. End of story.
Gee, isn't stating personal preference as statement of absolute
fact without any support fun?
>It's the system that matters. Amber as a system works well for a limited
>number of things. It also happens to be diceless. Hero works well for a
>larger, but still limited number of things. It's diced. Theatrix works
>well anywhere (biased opinion), and has the great merit of being diceless
>(for those of us who see merit in that).
Theatrix does not work at all well in any genre where there are
events that occur repeatedly that are meant to have unpredictable outcomes
that follow a particular probability distribution, because without a
mechanical aid, human beings are very very bad at simulating probability
distributions.
End of story.
>David Berkman
Jose Garcia
John Reiher <a-j...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>In article <2rrni8...@edna.cc.swin.edu.au> 943...@edna.swin.edu.au wrote:
>> Yes, but that wasn't his point. Can you please give an example of a
>> situation which can't be handled by a diceless system?
>
>Any situation that exceeds the GM's knowledge or experience. Do you know
>how to do a triple bypass operation on a person's heart? I sure don't, I'm
>not even sure of what would be required before, during, or after the
>operation to insure its success. But my character does. Dice allow your
>character to do things that you don't know how to do.
>
It seems to me that this would be possible in any game with a "surgeon"
skill.
--
Jose Garcia
Andrew Finch
don't mind taking responsibility for doing all those terrible things to
the players. In fact, I enjoy the diceless version for its shear
hopelessness. Cthulu players are there for the H.P. Lovecraft experience,
and so far they don't seem to mind getting it, in abundance.
As for what genres Theatrix is and is not capable of, all those who have
not read it will not know. Which is fine. Just don't be certain until
you've taken the opportunity to read it. So far, I have not been
contridicted by anyone who has had the chance to actually see the game.
And hopefully we'll have some reviews on the net soon, and we'll see.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Nicholas Charles Argall
: In article <2rpkrq$o...@crl.crl.com> bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) writes:
: >I agree with what you've said, except that:
: >
: >There is no genre which can not be handled by a diceless system. We've
: >proven that to ourselves by trying everything we could think of. In our
: >experience it is diced systems, by their very rules structures, that
: >have difficulty handling certain genres.
: Whoops, arrogance rears its ugly head. What you've proven is
: "There is nothing we can think of that cannot be handled with a diceless
: system." Since you are an unapologetic advocate of diceless play the
: meaningfulness of this result is suspect.
If we can imagine it, we can resolve it diceless. If we can't imagine it,
what's the point of bringing it up?
: Try "Diceless systems, by their very deterministic nature, lack the
: unexpected and uncontrived spontaneity needed by certain genres."
Arrogance to you too!
: >Diceless systems can easily match the thrill just before an important die
: >roll. Instead they substitute the thrill just before making an important
: >(possibly life or death) decision.
: Diced systems can easily match the intricate plotting and character
: development of diceless systems, if the GMs aren't so sloppy to create
: plots so fragile they could be destroyed by a single unexpected occurance.
ARROGANCE!!!
Diceful randomness is useful to add spontaneity. Diceless might well be
good, although I didn't like Amber 'cause it left me in the cold. (Might
like Theatrix, can't find it down in Australia...)
: Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
Nick
Mad Chris
>: I have to disagree. In a diced system, it is always possible to run
>: any aspect of the game without using dice; thus, you can have the
>: benefits of a diceless system when you want them.
>Yes, but that wasn't his point. Can you please give an example of a
>situation which can't be handled by a diceless system?
This really isn't the issue. Yes, any situation can be dealt with
using a diceless system. Any situation can be dealt with using
a diced system as well. Any situation can be resolved by slicing
a watermelon as well.
And who's to say that one solution is
better than the other? You? God? Eris?
Why can't you people accept that there is no one answer here.
Diceless gaming isn't some superbreed of role playing that
invalidates diced gaming any more than it is some sickly
runt cousin to diced.
And you want one thing that diceless can't do?
It can't provide the kind of effect on many people that diced
resolution does. It can resolve the situation in other
ways but it can't Be diced. If you don't enjoy the heady thrill
of diced resolution from time to time, don't claim that you
are somehow superior to those that do.
I may be flaming a little too hard here, but I am responding
to the Tone of your post, not necessarily your opinions. I
don't know entirely what they are, beyond the content of your
post.
Mad Chris.
Magnus Lie Hetland
##
Try "Diceless systems, by their very deterministic nature, lack the
unexpected and uncontrived spontaneity needed by certain genres."
Come on! do you think human behaviour (in the form of GM-Player
interaction) is any more deterministic than dice? Not much. And do you feel that
there are genres that are unfit for non-interactive fiction (like literature,
films, drama etc.) simply because these forms of fiction are completely
deterministic? I think you'll find that what it boils down to (whether you're
playing with or without dice, system etc.) is whether or not the GROUP can handle
the genre with their current tools.
--
Either the next statement is true, or this signature is a Paradox.
The previous statement is false and this signature is a Paradox.
Magnus
Lie
Hetland
Magnus Lie Hetland
> In article <2rsdlt$g...@crl.crl.com> bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) writes:
> >Diceless roleplay works especially well for all genres. End of story.
>
> Bullshit. End of story.
>
> Gee, isn't stating personal preference as statement of absolute
> fact without any support fun?
>
> >It's the system that matters. Amber as a system works well for a limited
> >number of things. It also happens to be diceless. Hero works well for a
> >larger, but still limited number of things. It's diced. Theatrix works
> >well anywhere (biased opinion), and has the great merit of being diceless
> >(for those of us who see merit in that).
>
> Theatrix does not work at all well in any genre where there are
> events that occur repeatedly that are meant to have unpredictable outcomes
> that follow a particular probability distribution, because without a
I wonder; what genres are you talking about? "The Raid of the Normal
Distribution".. I Don't really know. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with
roleplaying or storytelling with me. It seems to have even less to do with the
notion of genre.
> mechanical aid, human beings are very very bad at simulating probability
> distributions.
>
"PDRPG - The Probability Distribution RolePlaying Game" - Sounds really
GREAT!!! ;) (I wonder who would want to play a probability-distribution anyway.
If this is important to you then...well...Fair enough.)
> End of story.
>
> >David Berkman
> --
> Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
>
> George...@bbs.oit.unc.edu or, preferably gha...@jade.tufts.edu
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> \ The above does not represent OIT, UNC-CH, laUNChpad, or its other users. /
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Antoon Pardon
: In article <2s6gm8$1...@samba.oit.unc.edu>, George...@launchpad.unc.edu (George Harris) writes:
: > In article <2rsdlt$g...@crl.crl.com> bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) writes:
: > >Diceless roleplay works especially well for all genres. End of story.
: >
: > Bullshit. End of story.
: >
: > Gee, isn't stating personal preference as statement of absolute
: > fact without any support fun?
: >
: > >It's the system that matters. Amber as a system works well for a limited
: > >number of things. It also happens to be diceless. Hero works well for a
: > >larger, but still limited number of things. It's diced. Theatrix works
: > >well anywhere (biased opinion), and has the great merit of being diceless
: > >(for those of us who see merit in that).
: >
: > Theatrix does not work at all well in any genre where there are
: > events that occur repeatedly that are meant to have unpredictable outcomes
: > that follow a particular probability distribution, because without a
: I wonder; what genres are you talking about? "The Raid of the Normal
: Distribution".. I Don't really know. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with
: roleplaying or storytelling with me. It seems to have even less to do with the
: notion of genre.
Well how about a tournament. Two competitors are matched against each other
The loser drops out and the winner continues to the next round. With a big
prize for the winner and some smaller prizes for second, third and forth.
Now how do you resolve this without dice if the competitors are closely matched?
(Say each competitor has at least a chance of 1/3 to win against any other)
You just can't say that someone wins half of his matches (Although that might
be the most probable outcome with the dice) because the order in witch things
happen is important.
========================================================================
Antoon Pardon <apa...@vub.ac.be>
Brussels Free University Computing Centre 02/650.37.16
========================================================================
Andrew Finch
: Well how about a tournament. Two competitors are matched against each other
: The loser drops out and the winner continues to the next round. With a big
: prize for the winner and some smaller prizes for second, third and forth.
: Now how do you resolve this without dice if the competitors are closely matched?
: (Say each competitor has at least a chance of 1/3 to win against any other)
: You just can't say that someone wins half of his matches (Although that might
: be the most probable outcome with the dice) because the order in witch things
: happen is important.
This is an interesting problem in statistics, but hardly a roleplaying
problem. In a diceless game, we would actually roleplay through the
important parts of such a tournament. In fact, I think most diced systems
would recomend the same. Or, your players could watch you determine the
entire outcome of the tournament with dice, without reference to them at
all, but using only your keen sense of probabilistic curves and your
handy random number generators. I bet they can hardly wait to discover
what's happened to them.
No, diceless systems are incapable of producing statistical problems for
the GM, that is true. We just roleplay.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
A Lapalme
Yeah, yeah. I know a hint when I see one. The review is written but I
still need to organize a bit. Maybe tomorrow.
BTW, I doubt any review will cut downt he amount of name calling in this
thread. This is advocacy, after all.
Alain
--
Reimer Behrends
[...]
: Theatrix does not work at all well in any genre where there are
: that follow a particular probability distribution, because without a
: mechanical aid, human beings are very very bad at simulating probability
: distributions.
This is more than offset by the fact that humans are also very very bad
at recognizing flawed probability distributions. Otherwise nobody would
play diced games :-). Seriously, I don't know about a single role-playing
game that simulates probabilities with the accuracy you apparently claim
is an inherent advantage of diced systems. And while dice are only a tool
and I, having never played diceless, probably expect too much of diceless
systems, my main complaint about dice is that they more often than not
have the feeling of a bike with rectangular wheels if you get my drift
(all IMHO, of course and consider the above to be liberally sprinkled
with smileys).
I also don't think that the equation diceless = GM fiat necessarily holds.
One could (theoretically, but not in practice) introduce action resolution
by playing a game of chess, with less skilled characters having less game
pieces to start with. Of course this isn't exactly practicable and the
character of a good chess player would have a definite advantage, but I
think it should be possible to merge such a concept satisfactorily into
a role-playing system, especially for complex actions llike combat. The
main advantage would be reproducible cause-and-effect chains, I think.
Reimer Behrends
Kid Kibbitz
behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de (Reimer Behrends) writes:
>I also don't think that the equation diceless = GM fiat necessarily holds.
>One could (theoretically, but not in practice) introduce action resolution
>by playing a game of chess, with less skilled characters having less game
>pieces to start with. Of course this isn't exactly practicable and the
>character of a good chess player would have a definite advantage, but I
>think it should be possible to merge such a concept satisfactorily into
>a role-playing system, especially for complex actions llike combat. The
>main advantage would be reproducible cause-and-effect chains, I think.
This (or anything like it) would be awful (IMHO, of course).
First of all, I can beat most any non-serious chessplayer with queen odds
or worse; does this mean my character can do almost anything in the game
world? I think any such action resolution system one enacts is going to
have a similar problem--if I am skilled at whatever resolution system you
devise, I will likely wind up with an overwhelming advantage. I suppose
you would have to build up something like Piers Anthony's gaming grid from
the Apprentice Adept series, but even then, navigating the grid itself is a
definite skill.
More serious, however, is how blantantly and recklessly such a system
obliterates the separation between character ability and player ability.
Several other people have objected to diceless play along the same lines,
arguing that resolution strictly by accurate/believable roleplay gives
tremendous disadvantage to those who simply aren't teriffic iprov actors or
who aren't familiar with the character's setting. This task resolution is
just more of the same; regardless of what my character is supposed to be,
s/he is going to be inhibited (or bolstered) by MY ability to play chess or
tiddly-winks or throw darts or whatever.
--Kid Kibbitz
George Harris
>
>As for what genres Theatrix is and is not capable of, all those who have
>not read it will not know. Which is fine. Just don't be certain until
>you've taken the opportunity to read it. So far, I have not been
>contridicted by anyone who has had the chance to actually see the game.
Probably because those who realize a diceless game is inadequate
for their needs are sensible enough not to purchase it. This data point
isn't particular meaningful either. Your full of those, aren't you?
Reimer Behrends
: In article <2se3rn$p...@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE>
: behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de (Reimer Behrends) writes:
: >I also don't think that the equation diceless = GM fiat necessarily holds.
: >One could (theoretically, but not in practice) introduce action resolution
: >by playing a game of chess, with less skilled characters having less game
: >pieces to start with. Of course this isn't exactly practicable and the
: >character of a good chess player would have a definite advantage, but I
: >think it should be possible to merge such a concept satisfactorily into
: >a role-playing system, especially for complex actions llike combat. The
: >main advantage would be reproducible cause-and-effect chains, I think.
: This (or anything like it) would be awful (IMHO, of course).
Isn't this a bit strong? Diced games aren't exactly the best thing
since sliced bread, either, but I wouldn't call the mechanism awful.
All task resolution mechanisms have advantages and disadvantages (I
could name quite a few disadvantages of rolling dice, btw.) and they
should be weighed against each other before passing judgment in such
a decisive fashion.
: First of all, I can beat most any non-serious chessplayer with queen odds
: or worse; does this mean my character can do almost anything in the game
: world? I think any such action resolution system one enacts is going to
: have a similar problem--if I am skilled at whatever resolution system you
: devise, I will likely wind up with an overwhelming advantage. I suppose
: you would have to build up something like Piers Anthony's gaming grid from
: the Apprentice Adept series, but even then, navigating the grid itself is a
: definite skill.
Two points. First, you will notice by carefully rereading what I wrote
that I admitted the existence of the problem myself. Second, I don't
think the problem is unsurmountable. After all, GURPS character creation
(or character creation in any point-based system) is a definite skill,
yet good role-players usually can resist abusing it.
: More serious, however, is how blantantly and recklessly such a system
: obliterates the separation between character ability and player ability.
: Several other people have objected to diceless play along the same lines,
: arguing that resolution strictly by accurate/believable roleplay gives
: tremendous disadvantage to those who simply aren't teriffic iprov actors or
: who aren't familiar with the character's setting. This task resolution is
: just more of the same; regardless of what my character is supposed to be,
: s/he is going to be inhibited (or bolstered) by MY ability to play chess or
: tiddly-winks or throw darts or whatever.
Hmm, isn't this the very same argument in a different disguise? And, after
all, in a highly theoretical one this time? There'll always be players who
get more of the action, and, more important: If it is possible to even out
the odds in a game of Go fairly accurately, why shouldn't it be possible
with role-playing? Btw, I'm not that much in love with the idea; I just
thought it deserved to be mentioned. I'm of course aware that it requires
more thought then just setting up the odds for a dice roll.
(Hmm, I hope I didn't pour too much fuel into the fire.)
Reimer Behrends
Andrew Finch
: Probably because those who realize a diceless game is inadequate
: for their needs are sensible enough not to purchase it. This data point
: isn't particular meaningful either. Your full of those, aren't you?
Actually George, the game has been read by people who have started out
with very skeptical positions. And how would you know whether the game
was inadequate for your needs. Hell, you've been so vocal I offered you a
free copy to read, and to post whatever you thought on the net, good or
bad. And you didn't want to take the opportunity. So exactly what position
besides ignorance are you talking from? If you wish to post what you
think without even reading the game, then the least you could do is to be
civil. Or, you could take the offer and put your brain where your mouth is.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Antoon Pardon
: Antoon Pardon (apa...@rc1.vub.ac.be) wrote:
I'm sorry but your answer didn't satify me. Lets make it a targetshooting
tournament. How do you roleplay the fact that you aim and shoot at the
target. How does the G.M. roleplay all of the N.P.C. or how does he decide
what score N.P.C. will get. Let me inform you that in this session the
individual matches were not the important part of the scenario. But
depending on the outcome various intrigues might come into play to help
ensure various side-kickers to win there bet. So how do you decide the
outcome of N.P.C. vs N.P.C. matches which where in this case the most
occuring. You can hardly let the G.M. roleplay them all out.
Kid Kibbitz
>Kid Kibbitz (kidk...@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
>: In article <2se3rn$p...@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE>
>: behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de (Reimer Behrends) writes:
>
>: >I also don't think that the equation diceless = GM fiat necessarily holds.
>: >One could (theoretically, but not in practice) introduce action resolution
>: >by playing a game of chess, with less skilled characters having less game
>: >pieces to start with. Of course this isn't exactly practicable and the
>: >character of a good chess player would have a definite advantage, but I
>: >think it should be possible to merge such a concept satisfactorily into
>: >a role-playing system, especially for complex actions llike combat. The
>: >main advantage would be reproducible cause-and-effect chains, I think.
>
>: This (or anything like it) would be awful (IMHO, of course).
>
>Isn't this a bit strong? Diced games aren't exactly the best thing
>since sliced bread, either, but I wouldn't call the mechanism awful.
>All task resolution mechanisms have advantages and disadvantages (I
>could name quite a few disadvantages of rolling dice, btw.) and they
>should be weighed against each other before passing judgment in such
>a decisive fashion.
I'm not sure what you're asking here--is my opinion strong, or is my
opinion expressed in a strong manner? Yes and no, respectively. To me,
one of the premiere features (and, in fact, *defining* features) of a
role-playing game is the ability to--you guessed it--adopt a variety of
roles. Indeed, one measure of both a role-player and a role-playing
system, by my opinion, is how well s/he or it can represent a wide variety
of characters within the appropriate genre. In this respect, dice are
quite neutral; they have no effect on the width or bredth of characters one
can adopt or successfully play. Your mechanism, OTOH, is NOT neutral, as
discussed below.
I probably should have included this definitional stuff in my original
post; might've saved some interpretational difficulties.... Live 'n' learn,
I guess. :-/
>: First of all, I can beat most any non-serious chessplayer with queen odds
>: or worse; does this mean my character can do almost anything in the game
>: world? I think any such action resolution system one enacts is going to
>: have a similar problem--if I am skilled at whatever resolution system you
>: devise, I will likely wind up with an overwhelming advantage. I suppose
>: you would have to build up something like Piers Anthony's gaming grid from
>: the Apprentice Adept series, but even then, navigating the grid itself is a
>: definite skill.
>
>Two points. First, you will notice by carefully rereading what I wrote
>that I admitted the existence of the problem myself.
Ah, that's not how I read your above; I thought your concern was for the
impracticality of chess as an arbitrater in terms of duration--that is, if
every time I want to perform an action, I have to play a chess game (which
can take 15 minutes to several hours or more), that will hamper role-play,
to say the least. :) This is relatively cosmetic, as a game of
tiddly-winks (for example) can pass relatively quickly--sometimes faster
than rolling and summing dice in HERO. :-)
>Second, I don't
>think the problem is unsurmountable. After all, GURPS character creation
>(or character creation in any point-based system) is a definite skill,
>yet good role-players usually can resist abusing it.
This is a little different, I think.... Obviously, you may think
differently. But you seem to be suggesting that I will throw a chessgame
given queen-odds deficit, even though I could win it, because I'm a good
roleplayer. In this case, what's the point of the mechanism? This really
fits the diceless mode well, I suppose, since I the player am really
deciding whether my character will succeed in the task based on whether I
choose to win a chess game or not. (Again, the game of chess itself is
only the analogy to whatever resolution system one might use.)
>: More serious, however, is how blantantly and recklessly such a system
>: obliterates the separation between character ability and player ability.
>: Several other people have objected to diceless play along the same lines,
>: arguing that resolution strictly by accurate/believable roleplay gives
>: tremendous disadvantage to those who simply aren't teriffic iprov actors or
>: who aren't familiar with the character's setting. This task resolution is
>: just more of the same; regardless of what my character is supposed to be,
>: s/he is going to be inhibited (or bolstered) by MY ability to play chess or
>: tiddly-winks or throw darts or whatever.
>
>Hmm, isn't this the very same argument in a different disguise?
Not quite; they are, however, related. The first was the point that the
mechanism itself is flawed in the sense that applying odds to a chessgame
doesn't necessarily affect the outcome; in fact, between poor players, the
difference between one pawn, three pawns, or even two knights or a bishop
and a rook or whatever is virtually meaningless, because poor players have
poor visibility of the game. Once again, this holds across most resolution
systems, though perhaps not as strongly as for chess; if you're an expert
marksman and I'm not, then the deficit you would have to be assessed in
order to lose to me at riflery is staggering. (If you don't believe this,
just watch a slo-mo video of a good marksman some time... They can actually
delay their heartbeat so that the pulse doesn't affect their aim!!)
The second point was that besides the inherent flaw in this mechanism of
assigning odds, the concept in general breaks the player-character
division.
> And, after
>all, in a highly theoretical one this time? There'll always be players who
>get more of the action, and, more important: If it is possible to even out
>the odds in a game of Go fairly accurately, why shouldn't it be possible
>with role-playing?
Here's the trick: one can even out the GAME; one cannot even out the
PLAYERS. And in role-playing, the PLAYERS need to be, as much as possible,
on even footing, so that the CHARACTER differences can be manifested.
Incidentally, another effect I didn't mention of your plan is that it lacks
granularity, especially among *good* competitors. For example, if you give
Karpov just a single pawn against Kasparov, I'd put my money on Karpov.
If you switch it, Kasparov gets my vote. Thus, unless you start getting
*really* bizarre and intricate in the weighting mechanism--which would
really require an expert on both chess and the players involved--you will
get have almost a determined system: any slight advantage (comparable to,
e.g., a skill 48 vs. a skill 50 on a % scale) will probably result in a
clear victory.
>Btw, I'm not that much in love with the idea; I just
>thought it deserved to be mentioned. I'm of course aware that it requires
>more thought then just setting up the odds for a dice roll.
Fair enough.
But then, the question become obvious: Is it *in any way* superior
to a die roll? I suppose this question requires a definition of
"superiority," but.... So be it.
>(Hmm, I hope I didn't pour too much fuel into the fire.)
Ditto. :)
--Kid Kibbitz
Andrew Finch
: tournament. How do you roleplay the fact that you aim and shoot at the
: target. How does the G.M. roleplay all of the N.P.C. or how does he decide
: what score N.P.C. will get. Let me inform you that in this session the
: individual matches were not the important part of the scenario. But
: depending on the outcome various intrigues might come into play to help
: ensure various side-kickers to win there bet. So how do you decide the
: outcome of N.P.C. vs N.P.C. matches which where in this case the most
: occuring. You can hardly let the G.M. roleplay them all out.
Why roleplay aiming and shooting? It seems we have aplot going here. The
important thing is the pressure on the character, the game interaction,
and the roleplay. Here's two possible scenarios.
The first is that the PC has the match in the bag, but must not win. It
has been highly suggested that this guy throw the fight, y'know what I
mean. Lest he be found trying to swim with the fishies the next day. Yeah
sure, he can make the shots, but then the big guy on the sidelines starts
giving him the evil eye. When he's dragged off the range by his 'manager'
after the third round, for a 'pep' talk, then we get to see what the
character is really made of. He's in a bad situation. How is he going to
handle it. Win and try to get away? Fold, and do what about his
reputation? The plot dictates how to handle such situations. Only without
a plot do we need to worry about probabilities of winning, where the dice
fill in what would otherwise be boring.
The second scenario. The PC is not good enough to win, but someone
powerful has been convinced he is. In fact, he'll either win, or he'll be
saying goodbye to his girlfriend, at the funeral. Now what does our
earstwhile hero do. He can't wait until the end of the match. Shot after
shot, closer to death. And he's losing. He'd better start to think of
something fast. Hold it, he's holding a gun. The big guy sent to watch
him, and report the outcome of the contest back to his boss, stands out
of the crowd over there in the corner. One quick shot, and our hero could
be running for the exit. Then all he has to do is evade the ploice, break
into the mansion where she's being held, and resue her before she's
killed. Piece of cake.
This is why dice are dangerous. They allow the GM to stop thinking,
ignore his/her plot, and roll instead.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Kid Kibbitz
Lapalme) writes:
>In a previous article, kidk...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Kid Kibbitz) says:
>
>>Egads, I knew Theatrix was based on drama, but I didn't realize it relied
>>so heavily on MELO-drama. Can't a cigar sometimes be just a cigar? What
>>if the character just wants to pick up some extra target practice, and
>>maybe gain some cash along the way (using, if necessary, one of your "plot
>>points")? Either he wins, and can afford that brand-spankin'-new dead-on
>>accurate sniper rifle, or he loses and he's stuck with his old M-1; no
>>swimming with the fishies or good-bye kisses at funerals. All that's at
>>stake is a piece of hardware. No one with any power really gives a
>>rodent's behind whether he wins or loses (not to say that someone might not
>>take notice, but it wouldn't manifest itself in any straightforward
>>manner).
>>
>The way you describe the event, it seems to me that the outcome is not
>that important so why waste time rolling and shooting. GM decides if yes
>or no Joe Character wins. roleplaying the whole event looks like a waste
>of time to me.
Well, it's not necessarily inconsequential, depending on the relative
avaliability and worth of quality firearms. It may very well be that in,
say, a low-economic cyberpunk-type campaign, this would me a pretty good
find. To put it in modern context: consider it as a chance for
acquisition of, say, $2500 by a middle-income American. It's hardly an
earth-shattering amount of money that would draw the envy of thousands and
the scorn of a few powerful men; however, it definitely would make a nice
difference in one's short-term lifestyle, and could even have a definite
long-term impact if properly invested.
As for whether to roleplay the whole event or just "cut to the chase," I
suppose this depends on how many players you have, how patient they are,
and whether you can time the event to occur just as the pizza arrives. :)
In any case, though, my point was that an event can have some significance
without having to be a "cement shoes" episode, and in such a case, it might
very well be that the outcome of the tournament itself is the important
factor. But also other participants in the tournament, the sponsors, and so
on must be taken into account as well--to them, there may be some
significance attached--so the whole thing should be treated with a bit more
than "oh, I guess you win; sure."
--Kid Kibbitz
Reimer Behrends
: In article <2seav3$s...@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE>
: behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de (Reimer Behrends) writes:
[...]
: >Btw, I'm not that much in love with the idea; I just
: >thought it deserved to be mentioned. I'm of course aware that it requires
: >more thought then just setting up the odds for a dice roll.
: Fair enough.
: But then, the question become obvious: Is it *in any way* superior
: to a die roll? I suppose this question requires a definition of
: "superiority," but.... So be it.
Disregarding the discussion of strategic games as an action resolution
tool (which was highly theoretical, anyway), let me return to why I'd
like to see a different resolution mechanism than dice; in fact, the
diceless methods have been criticized so often during the past weeks
that there is no reason why diced systems shouldn't get their share,
too ;-).
One of my main problems with dice is that their use introduces 'gaps'
in a role-playing session that sometimes even make it hard to stay in
character. Rolling the dice requires that I suspend gaming for a second
or so while I compute the outcome. And what's worse, dice aren't
particularly good judges. I don't know of a single dicing method that
gets probabilities halfway right, i.e. most would introduce lots of
this-can't-happen-situations. This is complemented by the overkill of
percentile dice systems where a probability of success of 48% is more
or less indistinguishable from 50%.
So I think that it would indeed be worthwhile to search for a method
that can be done in character and is more compatible with how human minds
work than dice. Especially if said method explained why and how I
succeeded or failed instead of leaving it as vague as dice do.
Reimer Behrends
John H Kim
both sides of a debate. The issue was diceless resolution of a target-
shooting tournament.
David Berkman's answer was that playing diceless, simulating the
chances of success was a non-issue - he just "roleplays" through them.
I think that is silly... just because you are roleplaying doesn't negate
the issue. Targetshooting is a good example, IMO, because there is not a
question of how well one role-plays the scene. It is purely a question
of character skill and luck.
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>Antoon Pardon <apa...@rc1.vub.ac.be> wrote:
>: How do you roleplay the fact that you aim and shoot at the target. How
>: does the GM roleplay all of the NPCs or how does he decide what score NPC
>: will get. Let me inform you that in this session the individual matches
>: were not the important part of the scenario. But depending on the outcome
>: various intrigues might come into play to help ensure various side-kickers
>: to win there bet.
Hmmm. I do think that this can be handled diceless, but I agree
that it is not a trivial solution of "just roleplaying". The GM must
_decide_ who wins, and how he decides has a small but significant effect
on the game. How to decide while keeping the feeling of realism, a
sense of fairness, and satisfying pacing is not a simple matter.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>The important thing is the pressure on the character, the game interaction,
>and the roleplay. Here's two possible scenarios:
>
>The first is that the PC has the match in the bag, but must not win. It
>has been highly suggested that this guy throw the fight, y'know what I
>mean. [...] He's in a bad situation. How is he going to handle it?
...
>The plot dictates how to handle such situations. Only without a plot do we
>need to worry about probabilities of winning, where the dice fill in what
>would otherwise be boring.
I'd have to agree with Kid Kibbitz here that David's examples
sound cheesy and melodramatic to me. What's more, they avoid the question
of resolving the action by making the outcome fixed: in the first example,
the character has the match "in the bag" - he is pretty much guaranteed
success; in the second, the character is "not good enough to win" - it
is clear to him that he doesn't really have a chance.
The point of Antoon's suggestion was a match where the expected
outcome is *not* clear. Further, it is not the center of the plot, but
rather a sideline. I don't think that the plot dictates the results in
general - I think the majority of action resolutions have potential for
an interesting plot whichever way it resolves.
>
>This is why dice are dangerous. They allow the GM to stop thinking,
>ignore his/her plot, and roll instead.
How so? I thought Antoon's original suggestion sounded
potentially more interesting as a subplot than these two examples were
as central plots. A bigger, more plot-central example doesn't make
it better. I think a sideline tournament with some intrigue over
the results could easily make a nice subplot. OTOH, I have a hard
time picturing something non-cheesy coming from either of the other
examples.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Whatever else is true, you - trust your little finger.
jh...@columbia.edu | Just a single little finger can... change the world."
Columbia University | - Stephen Sondheim, _Assassins_
Andrew Finch
believe my answer holds true. Even in a small plot, such as that over the
very nice expensive new gun, you go through the same process.
It is not a matter of skill. Plot decides Success or Failure, skill only
decides how that success or failure will look. In this case the gun is
the pivot. What will the character get from such a gun. Does it have a +1
bonus to his skill for its excellent scope and accuracy. What's the
characters dramtic need here. If there is no dramtic necessity, then just
choose and go on. It doesn't really matter. If it matters at all, then
focus on that. In this subplot, even if the chance is 50/50, and the
winnings not great, then choose that which will open up the most
possibilities for later.
If the character has worked for this gun, getting up to this point in the
subplot, then let him win. He's already done the hard work, the gun is
merely the reward. Maybe you should concentrate on the disappointment of
his opponent. This could start a rivalry, which would open up another
subplot. Every scene has meaning. Some meaning. If there is no meaning,
then brush over it.
If the character has not worked for this gun, then make him. Have the
opponent win. Grind it in a little bit. Let him feel the dissapointment
of losing, the loss of the crowds applause to someone else. Later, when
this character has a chance at this gun again, when you've worked the
subplot some more, and the character has properly paid for the
opportunity, then let him win. Now it will mean something.
No matter how small, it's always a question of character and plot. Skill
is merely a pivot around which the plot may turn. We use skill like most
people use dice.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Kid Kibbitz
>: I'm sorry but your answer didn't satify me. Lets make it a targetshooting
>: tournament. How do you roleplay the fact that you aim and shoot at the
>: target.
>Why roleplay aiming and shooting? It seems we have aplot going here. The
>important thing is the pressure on the character, the game interaction,
>and the roleplay. Here's two possible scenarios.
>
>The first is that the PC has the match in the bag, but must not win. It
>has been highly suggested that this guy throw the fight, y'know what I
>mean. Lest he be found trying to swim with the fishies the next day.
>[snip]
>The second scenario. The PC is not good enough to win, but someone
>powerful has been convinced he is. In fact, he'll either win, or he'll be
>saying goodbye to his girlfriend, at the funeral.
Egads, I knew Theatrix was based on drama, but I didn't realize it relied
so heavily on MELO-drama. Can't a cigar sometimes be just a cigar? What
if the character just wants to pick up some extra target practice, and
maybe gain some cash along the way (using, if necessary, one of your "plot
points")? Either he wins, and can afford that brand-spankin'-new dead-on
accurate sniper rifle, or he loses and he's stuck with his old M-1; no
swimming with the fishies or good-bye kisses at funerals. All that's at
stake is a piece of hardware. No one with any power really gives a
rodent's behind whether he wins or loses (not to say that someone might not
take notice, but it wouldn't manifest itself in any straightforward
manner).
Does Theatrix always have to be so heavy-handed? I guess I'll answer that
question in my upcoming review.....
--Kid Kibbitz
Andrew Finch
dependent upon the characters. Plot, as we define it, is a function of
the character's dramattic necessity, ie. what each character needs or
wishes to achieve. Plots occure and are driven by this dramatic
necessity. Without it, plots are a farcical framework withour drive or
motivation. A plot is a character doing something. Basic types of plots
as defined by the Greeks follow this, eg. man against man, man vs.
nature, man vs. himself. We define plot more cinematically, but still the
basic ingredient is character > direction > action > conclusion.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
John H Kim
to be explicit about what I was commenting on, but the nature of threads
often blend things together.
Kid Kibbitz <kidk...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
>Diceless advocates seem to be saying (despite someone denying it way back
>a ways) that everything depends on The Plot.
Hold it just a moment. David Berkman says that everything
depends on The Plot. However, plot-driven games can be diced or diceless,
and diceless games need not be purely plot-driven.
I have not run any diceless campaigns, but I would consider
doing so for certain genres - Amber, for example. I hate the Phage
Press _Amber_ RPG, but I do think that I would run an Amber campaign
diceless, and it would certainly not depend wholely on The Plot.
The discussion over Plot-driven resolution does seem to be going
in circles, I'd agree, but don't think that it is all there is to the
diced-vs-diceless discussion. There are a variety of other issues -
such as player vs. character skill; interpretation of diced results;
and secrecy of method.
For example, one of the reasons I would run Amber diceless is
because I _don't_ want to give the players the feeling of randomnness
in the world. Given the wierd powers, scheming, and paranoia of Amber -
I want to always have the players in doubt as to whether something
was blind chance, or a calculated setup (with the default assumption
being that it was a calculated setup, of course).
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>Others of us (myself and, if I'm not mistaken, James J Davis included)
>would rather have everything depend on the CHARACTERS. The world exists;
>the characters do what they want, and the world reacts, and the world
>does what it wants, and the characters react.
Count me in this group as well. I certainly put a lot of thought
into setting up dramatic situations, but I never plot out how things will
resolve or the endings. I usually find that trying to second-guess my
players results in failure, given the situations I make.
Part of the problem here is that I tend to make complicated
solutions with no clear right or wrong. For example, the starship
arrives to deal with a primitive warrior who has captured a manned
station. They could try a raid with various possible results, or they
could rely on negotiation. The story could end up a tragic lesson in
conflict with many hostages and all the natives dead, or it could end
a heroic rescue, or it could be a lesson in communication - with
insights gained on both sides of the negotiation table.
None of these is inherently a better story. If I were a writer,
I would choose one, and then focus on the details and atmosphere to
fill out that story. However, if I am a GM, then I can't make that
choice by myself.
A Lapalme
Oh, I agree that the tournament could be important to NPCs. Obviously,
you then need to play it and, "oh I guess you win" is not very satisfying.
However, a dice resolution could be as boring. All participants roll
once, highest modified roll wins the contest. End of story and boring.
To make it more interesting, each participant is given 10 shots, (ie 10
rolls) and the GM does it round by round, just to add a bit of suspense.
Now, that's a bit more interesting. Or, each participant is given 10
shots, each round is played, no dice are rolled and the GM makes success
failure decision for each shot. Again this could be suspense if the
timing in handled well.
My point? I don't think it really makes any difference whether it's
diceless or not for that example: it can be boring or exciting either way.
Alain
--
A Lapalme
The Quest for the Holy Grail!!! The perfect diceless system.
I agree wholeheartedly with what you say about dice and the effect they
have on gaming. Theyey do take away from the game. My dream has always
been something akin to DREAM Park. Players play, GM play NPCs and the
computer takes care of the probobablities.. The trick there is to find a
good probability method which yeilds logical results. Anyone has ideas?
Alain
--
A Lapalme
In a previous article, kidk...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Kid Kibbitz) says:
>In article <2sj9il$c...@crl.crl.com> bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) writes:
>>O.K. Don't be so melodramatic. It doesn't matter how small the plot is. I
>>believe my answer holds true. Even in a small plot, such as that over the
>>very nice expensive new gun, you go through the same process.
>>
>>It is not a matter of skill. Plot decides Success or Failure, skill only
>>decides how that success or failure will look.
>
>Ugh, here we go again....
>I begin to feel the futility mount in what can only be called a vicious
>difference in opinion in what constitutes "role-playing." Diceless
>advocates seem to be saying (despite someone denying it way back a ways)
>that everything depends on The Plot. Others of us (myself and, if I'm not
>mistaken, James J Davis included) would rather have everything depend on
>the CHARACTERS. The world exists; the characters do what they want, and
>the world reacts, and the world does what it wants, and the characters
>react.
>
>Given this big split in what role-playing is, it seems meaningless to keep
>bantering about whether diceless can or cannot do this, since diceless
>advocates invariably answer to their own definition, while we diced
>advocates invariably answer to our own.
>
>--Kid Kibbitz
>
And, to muddle the waters even more....
I agree and disagree. Yes, I think there is a basic difference in how one
defines roleplaying. David and his fans (I don't think there are many out
there) claim that the plot rules or that potential for new plots rules.
Others, like you Kid, would prefer... well anyways, you said it above so I
won't bother repeating it.
However, I don't think it's that clear cut. Most people (at least me,
anyways) use a mixture of methods: results ruled by the plot (dice or not,
any GM can set up the dice roll to make sure the PCs win or fail), results
ruled by random events, results ruled by characters, results ruled by the
world. I personally find dice annoying: too many players use them as a
crutch. However, I don't believe in fate either so I don't like the
deterministic approach that a diceless system will tend (and I say tend
here) to foster.
I am currently using Theatrix. I like a lot of things about it but I am
still at odds with several concepts promoted in the game. My goal over
the next few weeks is to see if the system can work if the importance of
the plot decreases.
As I said in another post, this is my quest for the Holy Grail of RPG.
Alain
--
John H Kim
see if I can explain anything here.
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>Aha! And here we can seal the differences (maybe). The Plot is always
>dependent upon the characters. Plot, as we define it, is a function of
>the character's dramatic necessity, ie. what each character needs or
>wishes to achieve.
Um, no, I don't think the difference has been sealed. You are
addressing the words as opposed to the concept. Again, we seem hung
up on semantics.
The style which you advocate can perhaps best be described as
"drama-based" resolution. The GM has a particular story in mind, and
resolves situations based on advancing that story. The events are not
fixed, certainly, but the players are guided forward through the
given story.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
The style which I and Kid Kibbitz are talking about could
perhaps be described as "world-based" resolution. The GM resolves
situations based on what makes sense in terms of the game-world. This
does not mean that he does not pay attention to drama. Rather, drama
is arrived at more indirectly.
First: the world, the NPC's, and the situations are set up to be
inherently dramatic. By having conflicting goals, interrelated characters,
mysteries, and so forth, the stage is set for a variety of interesting
stories.
Second: the GM has control over _pacing_. If the preparations
the players are planning would take two weeks, that needn't slow the
game down. The GM can just hand-wave, and inform the players that they
are now prepared and ready to go. If a good climax for the adventure is
a given meeting, then he can go for detail in that meeting - and then
talk through the later problems and deals.
Third: the player characters are made with complex motivations,
and are interested in confronting their obstacles and overcoming them.
The players have this in mind, and are interested in achieving their
goals in a satisfying manner.
Why do it this way? For one, the more real the world seems, the
more engaging it is. Dramatic events are heightened if there is more
of a feeling of a real world around them. Take, for example, the difference
between _Halloween_ and _Psycho_.
_Halloween_ follows dramatic neccessity, taking the established
heroine into conflict with the force that threatens her. It is a well-
written and successful film that follows the established laws of cinema.
_Psycho_, on the other hand, is a broken film. It establishes a story,
only to kill off its protagonist halfway through with something completely
unrelated. However, at the end of _Halloween_, you know that the heroine
is not going to get killed, because the drama makes it clear. The shower
scene in _Psycho_, however, was completely unanticipated and unneccessary.
_Psycho_ is a more powerful film for that choice.
In addition, there are reasons to play besides the drama of the
end product. While I enjoy movies, I enjoy many other activities. In
a world-driven game, there is the intellectual challenge of making plans
that would realistically work. There is also the satisfaction of playing
a more life-like character who develops in a seemingly real environment.
John H Kim
problems with diced systems.
Reimer Behrends <behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>One of my main problems with dice is that their use introduces 'gaps'
>in a role-playing session that sometimes even make it hard to stay in
>character. Rolling the dice requires that I suspend gaming for a second
>or so while I compute the outcome.
I certainly agree that player computation should be minimized.
I generally try to keep to 1 digit addition. Gaps in play for resolution
of results is to some degree neccessary - tricky situations will take
some time for the GM to resolve.
>
>And what's worse, dice aren't particularly good judges. I don't know of
>a single dicing method that gets probabilities halfway right, i.e. most
>would introduce lots of this-can't-happen-situations.
Well, in part I think that the reason for this-can't-happen
results lies in the rules surroundng the dice rolls. Nearly any
distribution can be adjusted to another distribution by a table to
compute results, for example (using percentile dice to roll 3d6, for
example).
The real problem lies in rules which try to be overly specific.
The system will be unable to account for many situational variables,
and thus should try not to determine results beyond what they can
simulate. Rather, the system should account for system-based stats,
and then turn over to the GM to account for situational bits.
A good example of an interpretational mechanic, IMO, is the
Hero system Mind Control mechanic: which give descriptive levels
depending on the roll minus defenses ("Target does actions he would
not mind doing"). It relies on the GM or player understanding of the
character's personality (which the system does not handle), but does
concretely take into account the power of the Mind Control and Mental
Defense, plus the willpower (EGO) stat of the character. Doing this
in a purely descriptive framework makes it difficult to handle
different levels of Mind Control and Psionic Defenses.
OTOH, there are mechanics like GURPS' Fright Checks, which
give specific character reactions to horrifying events - without
taking into account the nature of the horror or the personality of
the character.
>
>This is complemented by the overkill of percentile dice systems where a
>probability of success of 48% is more or less indistinguishable from 50%.
Agreed. I generally think the best a system can do is determine
to within a factor of 1.5 or so. Anything more exact is just a waste.
Andrew Finch
skipping over dull time with a wave, focusing in on more 'dramatic'
moments, is exactly what I've been talking about. There is no difference
between 'plot' based, and 'world' based games. Every world based games
resolves itself into plots. Many entangled plots, that are character
driven time wise. Which is exactly what we suggest in Theatrix with our
'plot' determined outcomes. Nothing you've said contradicts what I've
been saying.
By the way, Halloween is a rotten film, from both esthetic and plot
standpoints. It is highly forced, and the outcome is obvious. Plot is a
function of character. Plot is based on the main characters' dramatic
necessity. Halloween is based on a stupid murder spree. Psycho on the
other hand is quite well plotted. It breaks down into the Theatrix plot
structure very nicely. Well plotted, and tightly plotted, do not mean
obvious and forced. They mean well structured, with twists in the proper
places, character motivated, and organically structured for a natural feel
and flexibility. That's what we do in Theatrix, and we have a concrete
method for developing that style.
The only thing that keeps us from agreeing is not symantecs. I'll admit
that I like many diced games. I like a world emphasis. These are not
inconsistent with non-diced, plot oriented goals. They are improved by it.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Antoon Pardon
: O.K. Don't be so melodramatic. It doesn't matter how small the plot is. I
: very nice expensive new gun, you go through the same process.
: It is not a matter of skill. Plot decides Success or Failure, skill only
: decides how that success or failure will look. In this case the gun is
Well I think I'll part company here.
: the pivot. What will the character get from such a gun. Does it have a +1
: bonus to his skill for its excellent scope and accuracy. What's the
What does it matter it only changes the way in which he fails or succeeds.
: characters dramtic need here. If there is no dramtic necessity, then just
: choose and go on. It doesn't really matter. If it matters at all, then
: focus on that. In this subplot, even if the chance is 50/50, and the
: winnings not great, then choose that which will open up the most
: possibilities for later.
And how do you decide that. I find it more rewarding to see what happens
and use that in creating later situations.
: If the character has worked for this gun, getting up to this point in the
: subplot, then let him win. He's already done the hard work, the gun is
: merely the reward.
Again how do you decide wheter he has worked hard enough for it?
: Maybe you should concentrate on the disappointment of
: his opponent. This could start a rivalry, which would open up another
: subplot. Every scene has meaning. Some meaning. If there is no meaning,
: then brush over it.
: If the character has not worked for this gun, then make him. Have the
: opponent win. Grind it in a little bit. Let him feel the dissapointment
: of losing, the loss of the crowds applause to someone else. Later, when
: this character has a chance at this gun again, when you've worked the
: subplot some more, and the character has properly paid for the
: opportunity, then let him win. Now it will mean something.
What do you mean the character has properly paid for it. It looks more
that you want the player to somehow properly play for what his character
wins or not. And maybe the player/character will not be disappointed at
all. What will mean somthing to a player/character is his choice not
that of the G.M.
: No matter how small, it's always a question of character and plot. Skill
: is merely a pivot around which the plot may turn. We use skill like most
: people use dice.
Who's skill? You start with saying that:
"Plot decides Success or Failure, skill only decides how that success
or failure will look"
In summary this looks more and more like an improvisation class in which
the G.M. judges the players and those whose rating was high enough those
characters get the lucky breaks and the other characters? tough!
A Lapalme
In a previous article, kidk...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Kid Kibbitz) says:
>In article <2shkrb$b...@crl.crl.com> bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) writes:
>>: I'm sorry but your answer didn't satify me. Lets make it a targetshooting
>>: tournament. How do you roleplay the fact that you aim and shoot at the
>>: target.
>
>>Why roleplay aiming and shooting? It seems we have aplot going here. The
>>important thing is the pressure on the character, the game interaction,
>>and the roleplay. Here's two possible scenarios.
>>
>>The first is that the PC has the match in the bag, but must not win. It
>>has been highly suggested that this guy throw the fight, y'know what I
>>mean. Lest he be found trying to swim with the fishies the next day.
>>[snip]
>>The second scenario. The PC is not good enough to win, but someone
>>powerful has been convinced he is. In fact, he'll either win, or he'll be
>>saying goodbye to his girlfriend, at the funeral.
>
>Egads, I knew Theatrix was based on drama, but I didn't realize it relied
>so heavily on MELO-drama. Can't a cigar sometimes be just a cigar? What
>if the character just wants to pick up some extra target practice, and
>maybe gain some cash along the way (using, if necessary, one of your "plot
>points")? Either he wins, and can afford that brand-spankin'-new dead-on
>accurate sniper rifle, or he loses and he's stuck with his old M-1; no
>swimming with the fishies or good-bye kisses at funerals. All that's at
>stake is a piece of hardware. No one with any power really gives a
>rodent's behind whether he wins or loses (not to say that someone might not
>take notice, but it wouldn't manifest itself in any straightforward
>manner).
>
>Does Theatrix always have to be so heavy-handed? I guess I'll answer that
>question in my upcoming review.....
>
>--Kid Kibbitz
>
The way you describe the event, it seems to me that the outcome is not
that important so why waste time rolling and shooting. GM decides if yes
or no Joe Character wins. roleplaying the whole event looks like a waste
of time to me.
Alain
--
Paul Jackson
>: I'm sorry but your answer didn't satify me. Lets make it a targetshooting
>: tournament.
>important thing is the pressure on the character, the game interaction,
>and the roleplay. Here's two possible scenarios.
How about a third scenario, one which is not so plot driven but is more
character driven. Two characters (at least one of which is a PC, possibly
both are) have been having a rivalry for a long time as to which is, in
fact, the best targetshooter in the world. To make things more interesting,
they're both in love with the same person. They've decided that whichever
does better at the Olympics gets to pursue the romance and their career, the
other retires from both. Success here is grossly important to both
characters, both character are sufficiently honourable not to cheat, what
happens?
Note, there are no overriding plot concerns. Please don't change the
scenario to introduce them. Regardless of who wins, the character will
resume his career as the Superhero "shooter", regardless of who wins the
loved person will be kidnapped from an alien from the 9th dimension.
Your answer (I believe) is to have the GM decide arbitrarily what happens.
My answer would be to have the GM decide arbitrarily if there were good meta
game reasons for it (eg, the player really wants to lose, or the player is
going to be VERY upset if the his character loses) but otherwise to let the
dice decide and to go with the result. At the least, using dice, the player
would be satisfied that they won or lost fair and square.
--
Paul Jackson
Kid Kibbitz
>Aha! And here we can seal the differences (maybe). The Plot is always
>dependent upon the characters. Plot, as we define it, is a function of
>the character's dramattic necessity, ie. what each character needs or
>wishes to achieve.
Sorry, no sealing going on here. :-/
Perhaps I was a bit too simplistic or vague with my statement that "the
game is character-dependent," mostly because I've given my expanded opinion
several times. However, I guess it can't hurt to do it once more... :)
My job as a GM, as I see it, is fairly simple (not easy, but simple): my
job is to (a) create an active and interesting world, and (b) mediate
characters' interactions with that world. That's it. [Well, sometimes it
involves making sure that pizza gets ordered and paid for, too, but that's
largely secondary.....]
My job as I see it is NOT to decide which of the characters' actions has
"merit;" which actions are "out of line" or "fulfilling a purpose." I may
occasionally remind *players* that they have strayed from our mutual
understanding of their character; this, however, is part of "mediating
characters' interactions with the world."
From this viewpoint, a character has no "dramatic necessity"; a character
just *is*. Characters need not have any higher purpose. In my
current campaign setting [sort of a supers/cyberpunk/bio-holocaust
deal], the individual characters have widely divergent goals. Some want to
fight for one side of the war going on; some want to fight for another
side; some just want to keep their butts safe in the corner of a
shelled-out university they call home; and one just wants to wreak havoc on
every establishment there is for putting him through the hell in the first
place. Each of these is a good character motivation, and each character is
free to pursue his/her own motivation as s/he sees fit. I do NOT decide
"against" characters (or their proposed actions) based on my idea of what
would be "best for the Plot" or any such; I decide based on how the world
would react to their actions.
Anyway, I ramble on, and I'm not even sure I've gotten at what I'm really
trying to get at, but such is the nature of these things... My point is
that "Plot," in my game, is about as useful a term as "moral" or "genre"
or "theme." Sometimes you can point to one after-the-fact, but I make it
a point that none of these guides the game. If you want to talk about
literary analysis, I think it was best said about 2500 years ago by [if
memory serves] Aristophanes: "A man's character is his fate." Not the
other way around.....
--Kid Kibbitz
Andrew Finch
is so horrible a thought. What do you judge it on? SUccess on a die roll,
and character advancement on how much the PC's can kill? I'd rather not.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Paul Jackson
When you say character, do you actually mean character or do you in fact
mean player? If the former, how do you handle the case where a characters
desires/goals/needs/etc are widely divergent from the players
desires/goals/needs/etc?
--
Paul Jackson
Travis S Casey
: and character advancement on how much the PC's can kill? I'd rather not.
: David Berkman
Some dice-based RPG's do experience this way, but not all. Champions,
Shadowrun, and GURPS all award experience based on roleplaying and
achievement of the adventure's goal, which can be, and usually is,
interpreted as advancement of the plot--something you should have no
problems with.
To me, however, this whole diceless/diced debate is silly. They are
two different styles, and neither is intrinsically superior to the
other; it depends on your tastes. I, for example, prefer using dice,
for this reason: When I run a game, I want to be entertained and
challenged as well. In a diceless game, I get to make all the
decisions about whether players succeed or fail (barring a game
mechanic like your plot points), and the only surprises come from
players coming up with ways to do things I didn't think of. In
a game with dice, it sometimes happens that the dice do strange
things and the characters manage to do something I didn't think
they would be able to. This makes the game more interesting for
me, since I am less able to predict what's going to happen and
am made to exercise my creativity in dealing with these events.
Now, this works for me because I create very loose plots; I know
that the characters need to get from point A to point B, but I
don't really care _how_ they get there. Indeed, sometimes the
plot changes in mid-stream if the players begin going after
something that might be as interesting as or more interesting
than my original plot idea.
One last note: someone on one of the diceless threads mentioned
that in a diceless game, one can cover actions in detail or in
rough, as one mentions. The example was of a fight with a group
of guards who the players would certainly defeat and which was
not important to the plot. I would like to point out that the
same thing can be done in a game using dice: all the GM has
to do is say "You defeat the guards handily," if he/she does
not wish to spend time on it. I have done this quite often in
the past when playing with limited time or if I just didn't feel
like gaming the fight out, and I've never had any players complain
about it. The point is that you don't have to use the dice if
you don't want to! I've run AD&D games, including combat, for
months without ever using dice; I've done the same with Marvel
Superheroes, and many other games, all of which are supposedly
"diced" games. If your players and you prefer diceless, play
diceless. If you prefer diced, play diced. It's that simple.
--
Travis S. Casey <ca...@cs.fsu.edu>
FAQ maintainer for rec.games.design and alt.vampyres (interim)
No one agrees with me. Not even me.
Andrew Finch
help improve poor roleplayers, and make them better roleplayers. We see
this as another one of the GM's responsibilities as well (so much on one
man's/woman's shoulders). We built Theatrix with lots of advice to help
starting or poorer roleplayers, and the system encourages their growth.
Ultimately the desparity in advancement for better roleplay built into
the system is not large enough to be depressing, but still large enough
to act as a nice incentive and congratulations for improvement.
David Berkman
Backstage press
Andrew Finch
drama given in the Theatrix Plotline chapter. It jumps around a lot in
there, mostly for humor's sake. However, you are free to do the same in a
game, for the same reasons.
There are also many times that you make decisions in a drama based game,
just as you would in a world based game, it is merely where you place the
emphasis, and the order in which you develop things. I believe that the
drama based emphasis and order leads to better games, and that even if
you don't use it, there is a lot to be learned from it. It can improve
your normal dice based, world based game. Just look at it with an open
eye. I've done the world based thing for a long time, and I've said
before that I'm advocating here, not dismissing the good diced games out
there.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
David H. Thornley
>I don't think that judging character advancement and success on roleplay
>is so horrible a thought. What do you judge it on? SUccess on a die roll,
>and character advancement on how much the PC's can kill? I'd rather not.
>
play in bad D&D games.
I think that giving game success to good role-players is a bad idea, since
it leads to penalizing players for bad role-playing, and means that things
go relatively well in the game for good role-players.
Now, who is getting the most out of the game in the first place? Who
will be having as much fun out of losing as winning? In general, the
good role-players. The bad role-players are not going to be enjoying
the game as much, and are going to be more discouraged when things
go bad for their character, and therefore they are not going to be
having fun.
Admitted, this can be effective in driving off the bad role-players,
if that's your intention, but this isn't exactly a universal goal.
Die rolls are fair, in some sense, and also give a player a sense of
doing something. These are often good things to have.
DHT
Kid Kibbitz
>believe my answer holds true. Even in a small plot, such as that over the
>very nice expensive new gun, you go through the same process.
>
>It is not a matter of skill. Plot decides Success or Failure, skill only
>decides how that success or failure will look.
Ugh, here we go again....
Antoon Pardon
: I don't think that judging character advancement and success on roleplay
: and character advancement on how much the PC's can kill? I'd rather not.
You switched subject. You are now talking about advancing the character.
I was talking about basing the results of individual actions on
roleplaying. And yes the latter I'd rather do on a die roll because
1) It abstracts all the unkown factors.
2) which means it interfers less with the gaps of knowledge both
in the player and the G.M.
3) It lets the players make decisions solely based on there skills
and there evaluation of the situation.
The way you expressed yourself I cannot help getting the feeling that
during this kind of games considerations like the following wil creep into
the decision making of the players:
It seems logical to do this. But it sounds more dramatic to do that.
It seems logical to do this. But I can better roleplay that.
It seems logical to do this. But the G.M. probably appreciates that more.
: David Berkman
: Backstage Press
Magnus Lie Hetland
> Andrew Finch (bcks...@crl.com) wrote:
> : Antoon Pardon (apa...@rc1.vub.ac.be) wrote:
>
> : : Well how about a tournament. Two competitors are matched against each other
> : : The loser drops out and the winner continues to the next round. With a big
> : : prize for the winner and some smaller prizes for second, third and forth.
> : : Now how do you resolve this without dice if the competitors are closely matched?
> : : (Say each competitor has at least a chance of 1/3 to win against any other)
> : : You just can't say that someone wins half of his matches (Although that might
> : : be the most probable outcome with the dice) because the order in witch things
> : : happen is important.
>
> : This is an interesting problem in statistics, but hardly a roleplaying
> : problem. In a diceless game, we would actually roleplay through the
> : important parts of such a tournament. In fact, I think most diced systems
> : would recomend the same. Or, your players could watch you determine the
> : entire outcome of the tournament with dice, without reference to them at
> : all, but using only your keen sense of probabilistic curves and your
> : handy random number generators. I bet they can hardly wait to discover
> : what's happened to them.
>
> : No, diceless systems are incapable of producing statistical problems for
> : the GM, that is true. We just roleplay.
>
> I'm sorry but your answer didn't satify me. Lets make it a targetshooting
> what score N.P.C. will get. Let me inform you that in this session the
> individual matches were not the important part of the scenario. But
> depending on the outcome various intrigues might come into play to help
> outcome of N.P.C. vs N.P.C. matches which where in this case the most
> occuring. You can hardly let the G.M. roleplay them all out.
>
> ========================================================================
> Antoon Pardon <apa...@vub.ac.be>
> Brussels Free University Computing Centre 02/650.37.16
> ========================================================================
If you insist on having totally random decisions in your campaign, that's ok. But
it has nothing to do with, for instance, genre.
--
Either the next statement is true, or this signature is a Paradox.
The previous statement is false and this signature is a Paradox.
Magnus
Lie
Hetland
John Reiher
> As for what genres Theatrix is and is not capable of, all those who have
> not read it will not know. Which is fine. Just don't be certain until
> you've taken the opportunity to read it. So far, I have not been
> contridicted by anyone who has had the chance to actually see the game.
> And hopefully we'll have some reviews on the net soon, and we'll see.
>
> David Berkman
> Backstage Press
>
David, not to be a downer, but it sounds like Theatrix is just another
"Most Revolutionary RPG Sytem". Take it from someone who has been in the
business for several years, it's not the rules that people buy, it's the
world behind the rules. Heck, a game like Vampire could have been done
with the rule set from TWERPS and people would have bought it.
If all Theatrix provides is a basic set of rules with no world or genre
pack to go with it, it won't sell very many copies.
Second, hyperbole aside, have done one or more blind playtests with the
Theatrix rules? That is, found perfect, or nearly perfect strangers to
play the rules, *without* your or other Backstage Press staff present to
answer questions about the rules? There is a good reason to do this, as
if you playtest with people you know and who know your gaming style, they
will have knowledge of how to play the game, that a person off the street
will not have. Two, your friends will come to with questions about the
rules, that you will answer out of hand, not thinking about why they asked
those questions in the first place.
Example: I was playtesting a game for another company, and me and my
fellow playtesters found a serious flaw in the combat rules. I reported
it to the game desinger, only to be told that the rules were set in stone
and that he only wanted us to playtest the world setting that was part of
the game. Our comment on the world was "It's verry nice." We kept pointing
out that the combat rules favored a Woody Allen body type over an Arnold
Schwarcheneger (sp?) type. The rules were set in stone as they worked just
fine for his other playtest groups, (i.e. his friends at his local gaming
club).
What can we glean from this example?
One, don't fall in love with your rules.
Two, you can't playtest a setting, other than for logical consistencies.
Three, when your blind playtest group finds an error in the rules, listen
to them.
So David, I'm willing to give your system a chance, but I would hope that
you have had your rules raked over the coals by a good playtest group,
because if you haven't, the people who buy Theatrix will. And they will
find every loophole and rule problem that you never saw.
John
----
a-j...@microsoft.com
trita...@aol.com
These are mine, not yours or yours or yours, and espicially not my
company's opinions.
Raymond Charles Parks
>I don't think that judging character advancement and success on roleplay
>is so horrible a thought. What do you judge it on? SUccess on a die roll,
>and character advancement on how much the PC's can kill? I'd rather not.
I disagree with your confusion of player with character.
They are two separate entities, one real and one virtual.
The ability to roleplay and the level of success at
roleplaying in any particular adventure are *player*
attributes. The ability to attempt virtual tasks using
virtual skills are *character* attributes. When I GM, I
reward the *character* for attempting *character* related
tasks and skills, even if this involves how much the PC's
have killed. I refuse to either reward *player* assets by
advancing *characters* or penalize *player* defects by
retarding *characters*.
Let's examine some hypothetical situations of *player*
versus *character*. Would one reward a player who happens
to have professional knowledge of a plot element/device,
enabling him to help his *character* succeed based on that
outside knowledge? Would one reward a player who plays his
Testosterone Tank as far more intelligent than specified?
Would one reward a player who happens to be rich enough to
always buy the pizza? Of course not, none of these *player*
attributes should be rewarded by advancing a *character*.
Would one penalize a player who causes his character to
blunder when the *character* should know better? Would one
penalize a player who cannot communicate effectively due to
a handicap? Again, none of these *player* attributes should
be penalized by hindering a *character*. So why advance the
*character* of a *player* who roleplays well and retard the
*character* of a *player* who roleplays poorly? Reward the
good role-player with praise and other social benefits.
Help the poor role-player with advice and examples.
My problem with your statement qouted above is not just
the confusion about the difference between the *player* and
the *character*. This confusion seems to betray a desire to
limit RPGs to an elitist group of "true role-players".
Mind, I do not think anyone will have much success at that
activity, since their only weapons are pompous ridicule and
arrogant declarations in forums such as this one. No matter
how much they try to back-pedal and put a good spin on
statements like the above, their prejudices keep slipping
past their guard. The alert posters and lurkers will always
catch the elitists in the process of trying to promote the
OTP of "role-playing". In the long run, it is the players
who could never be part of such an exclusive group who are
the primary customers of the gaming industry. They spend
the money which supports even the evil ones (T$R :-).
I suspect that, like myself, your opponents' problem is not
as much with the message of diceless gaming as with manner
of its presentation.
--
Raymond C. Parks, CCP
Disclaimer: I speak for no-one - not even myself, some of the time.
Ray Trent
>justified. If roleplay is not a valid basis for character advancement,
>then what is? And if advancement is not a proper venue for a GM's
>judgement, then you're in disagreement with Theatrix, Vampire, Hero, Ars
Hmmm. I guess this depends much on how much your disbelief is
suspended. In some logical sense, character development should be
based on what the character does, not what the player does. If you
maintain the veil between the game world and the play world,
advancement based on role play makes sense. If you really suspend
disbelief and judge based on what should happen in the game world, it
doesn't really make much sense.
Of course, the role play will determine what the character does, in
most cases. This is more of a semantic quibble than anything else.
With what I've heard of your mechanism for rewarding players, though
(the plot points thing...a great idea), it doesn't sound like
character advancement is really the goal. I'm not necessarily against
that, though I can see it making for some difficulties in long
campaigns.
I guess my biggest complaint with what I've heard of the Theatrix
system is that it sounds like too much work for the GM. I typically
play with around 8 people at a time, and even with the simplifications
that diced resolution brings (no need to think about whether the
characters "should" succeed...they just do or not), we still drown if
everyone decides they want to take an active role in the action
simultaneously (most of the time, at least a couple people are off
arguing about physics, napping, putting on a CD, etc., and at least a
few characters are "offstage"). I can't conceive of having to really
think through the ramifications of everything the PCs do and decide if
they fit some kind of pre-conceived plot and whether or not I think
the characters should be capable of the action (which presumably would
depend on their proficiency in some way, necessitating discovery of
this skill level). I get swamped enough just saying something like
"everyone make a climbing roll and tell me if you do really badly" (by
which I mean "they'll probably succeed at this, but it might be an
interesting plot twist if the off chance of a failure comes to
pass...who knows...").
Maybe this would help me resolve some of my questions: in a particular
combat, do you as the GM tend to decide beforehand what the result
is going to be and then work to achieve that result, or do you tend to
be curious as to what the results are going to be and play them out to
determine this?
I tend to prefer the latter kind of "sense of mystery", if that helps
you understand what I'm saying...
--
"When you're down, it's a long way up
When you're up, it's a long way down
It's all the same thing
And it's no new tale to tell" ../ray\..
John H Kim
thanks. I certainly don't feel qualified to give a review at this time,
but I have read through it and may drop comments about it in the
discussion.
This article continues to discuss the differences (and similarities)
of 'drama'-based vs. 'world'-based games, as I see it.
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>Everything you said about characters, world, character based motivations,
>skipping over dull time with a wave, focusing in on more 'dramatic'
>moments, is exactly what I've been talking about. There is no difference
>between 'plot' based, and 'world' based games. Every world based games
>resolves itself into plots.
The difference comes in resolution of actions, I think.
A 'world'-based game determines success and failure based on what
is reasonable in terms of the game world - results depend on skill, tactics,
situation, and random chance. The GM sets up a scenario by preparing an
initial situation: characters, setting, and so forth. He does not have a
specific plot in mind - just a framework around which various plots could
run.
Now as I said, this does not mean that you abandon having drama in
your games - but rather, you arrive at it more indirectly - for example,
by controlling pacing and making inherent conflicts to the situation.
_Theatrix_, as a 'drama'-based game, determines success mainly by
plot requirements and player description. The GM judges the player's
description of the action he is attempting, based on creativity, humor,
appropriateness to the genre, and how well it enhances the plot. The GM
sets up a scenario by planning a story - developing how the characters
will get from the start to the expected conclusion.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>By the way, Halloween is a rotten film, from both esthetic and plot
>standpoints. It is highly forced, and the outcome is obvious.
Hmmm. Remember that _Halloween_ was the original of its kind.
Many points seem cliched, but that is mainly because its remarkable
success spawned tons of imitators. Certainly it is blatant in its
manipulations, but they work for its intended audience.
>
>Psycho on the other hand is quite well plotted. It breaks down into the
>Theatrix plot structure very nicely. Well plotted, and tightly plotted,
>do not mean obvious and forced. They mean well structured, with twists
>in the proper places, character motivated, and organically structured for
>a natural feel and flexibility. That's what we do in Theatrix, and we have
>a concrete method for developing that style.
In short - no, it doesn't. There are plenty of good and great
films which follow this sort of structure, but _Psycho_ is not one of
them. It kills off its central character halfway through, then restarts
with poorly established characters. Compare it to films like _The 39
Steps_ or _North By Northwest_ (pushing Hitchcock here a little).
In comedies, you can compare _Monty Python and The Holy Grail_
with _A Fish Called Wanda_. The Holy Grail is poorly plotted, and
often jumps about randomly - but it is the unexpected nature of the
gags which makes them often so hilarious. Fish is a better plotted
film, but it is not clearly superior.
Robbie Westmoreland
>
>One player (who posted a reply to the review) considers that the fact that
>the players are asked to contribute to the plot actaully deters from
>roleplaying. This is because the player has to think in terms of player
>instead of character when making PLOT changes. In a sense, the player is
>no longer in character when actively affecting the campaign.
>
>I see his point and tend to agree. And, yes this is probably a question of
>how one defines roleplay. I'm sure a whole thread could be devoted to that.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh, let's do! :)
I haven't seen Theatrix yet (although I should soon, I hope). But I have
tried to use some of the rules people have suggested to allow the players
some influence on the plot or direction in which an adventure flows.
Influence besides that which would normally be available by playing in
character that is.
The mechanics I've seen that I recall off hand are Whimsy Cards and the
cards in TORG. We've used Whimsy Cards a couple of times, and they've
been generally unhelpful, but I'm not sure about why. The complaint
that you mention above (the player has to think in terms of player
instead of character) might be a big part of the problem, and indeed
might be a good arguement against such mechanics. On the other hand, I
can see where some people might really enjoy being able to "co-GM" by
introducing new elements into the plot.
Have people successfully used plot-influence mechanics like Storypath
cards in gaming? Does it just take some getting used to in order to
make it flow well?
--
Robbie Westmoreland, Dilettante rob...@inviso.com
"Today history is no more than a thin thread of the remembered stretching over
an ocean of the forgotten..." Milan Kundera, _The Joke_
v1.0.1 GSS/O d++ -p+ c++ l u e- m* s n- h+ f+ g+ w+ t- r++ y+
A Lapalme
I've playtested the rules for two sessions now. I'm pretty close to a
blind test(except that I did ask David a couple of questions via e-mail).
My conclusion is as follows:
1- if you have roleplayed before, Theatrix rules as explained will trip
you continuously because of the semantic problems assiciated with the use
of plot points(ie how players can directly affect the plot) and all the
bagage we carry from previous RPG experience.
2- if you have never roleplayed, you are better off. In our group, there
are 4 players. One has never played before and he is having the least
difficulty adapting. The rest of us are having problems.
Do I like the rules: I don't know yet. All I know is that last night, the
players were still getting frustrated with STATEMENTS and Plot points so I
told them to forget the fact that this was diceless. Just play as you
normally would. That helped quite a bit.
I am finding that the only place the diceless aspect makes a difference is
during combat. There are a lot of things happening and trying to decide
on success and failure, explaining it all and keep the pace fast is a tall
order. On the other hand the mechanics are a breeze.
One player (who posted a reply to the review) considers that the fact that
the players are asked to contribute to the plot actaully deters from
roleplaying. This is because the player has to think in terms of player
instead of character when making PLOT changes. In a sense, the player is
no longer in character when actively affecting the campaign.
I see his point and tend to agree. And, yes this is probably a question of
how one defines roleplay. I'm sure a whole thread could be devoted to that.
This game is not for a newbie GM. It asks a lot from the GM.
We'll keep on working with the system though. I guess we're stubborn.
However, I intend to downplay the player ability to affect plot. I think
it will make our lives easier.
Alain
--
A Lapalme
In a previous article, r...@clement.erg.sri.com (Ray Trent) says:
[snip]
I've only done one combat with Theatrix. The plot I currently have
running called for an encounter with the parties quarry. they found a way
to meet it and combat ensued. I had pretty much decided ahead of time
that the quarry would escape unless a player did something reallly really
cool. Anyways, no one did and the quarry escaped.
The fight was a bit strange. I knew from the startthat they were going to
loose. All I had to do was sett them up to fail. Sure, I gave them
false hope, a couple of good swings but I knew the outcome. It was fun
but I'm not sure if I want to run a long caompaign that way. Time will
tlell I guess.
Alain
--
Andrew Finch
: loose. All I had to do was sett them up to fail. Sure, I gave them
: false hope, a couple of good swings but I knew the outcome. It was fun
: but I'm not sure if I want to run a long caompaign that way. Time will
: tlell I guess.
: Alain
Was this fight as predictable to your players as it was to you? And how
did they enjoy the fight? Were they disappointed with the use of GM fiat?
David Berkman
Backstage Press
PS - Thanks for all the effort you're putting into the playtest. If the
improvisation rules are getting in the way, cut them back for a while.
For people coming from traditional roleplaying they can take some getting
used to. Introduce them slowly. Start giving small rewards for
improvisations, or negative responses when asked for information that
could have been supplied by an improvisation. Keep it to a pace your
players are comfortable with, definitely. But see how far you can
ultimately take it. You may surprised by what haapens to your games.
Hopefully, pleasantly surprised.
Andrew Finch
: referring to by that "character advancement" crack, and this is what I
: found:
Hey, 'pal', talk about judgemental and insulting. That was not a 'crack'
and I never quoted anybody. It was a response to the suggestion that
roleplay is not a valid basis on which to judge character advancement.
And if you're worried about people putting words into other peoples
mouths, why don't you look at the article you're defending. Did I ever
say in the article previos to it, that the GM should make a character pay
for advancement the player did not even care about? No, I did not. Those
words were put in my mouth. Obviously, you make a character pay for those
advancements the player actually wishes to have. And roleplay is the
proper coin for this payment. My statement about D&D advancement is
justified. If roleplay is not a valid basis for character advancement,
then what is? And if advancement is not a proper venue for a GM's
judgement, then you're in disagreement with Theatrix, Vampire, Hero, Ars
Magica, and a ton of other games. So what is left? The D&D alternative?
If you find this insulting then you're being overly sensistive. I don't
feel insulted by having words shoved in my mouth by the article previous
to mine. This is supposed to be a forum for open and frank discussion. We
are clarifying, not fighting. So grow up.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Reimer Behrends
: This is about some agreements and some counterpoints regarding
: problems with diced systems.
Hmm, unfortunately I can only provide disagreement.
: Reimer Behrends <behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
: >One of my main problems with dice is that their use introduces 'gaps'
: >in a role-playing session that sometimes even make it hard to stay in
: >character. Rolling the dice requires that I suspend gaming for a second
: >or so while I compute the outcome.
: I certainly agree that player computation should be minimized.
: I generally try to keep to 1 digit addition. Gaps in play for resolution
: of results is to some degree neccessary - tricky situations will take
: some time for the GM to resolve.
Hmm, I do not quite agree here. While I concede that rolling a single die
and adding/comparing it to a number can be done quickly, it has another
undesirable effect: the range of results usually being reduced to that
of success or failure. No shades in between. If you want them, you usually
need more dice and more complex calculations.
Combat is even worse, just because it's _thick_ with die rolls. According
to the one die roll + simple arithmetics rule, AD&D should give you the best
role-playing during combat ;-). Seriously, even with the best GM, combat
tends to deteriorate to a series of die rolls with some pieces of role-
playing in between.
: >And what's worse, dice aren't particularly good judges. I don't know of
: >a single dicing method that gets probabilities halfway right, i.e. most
: >would introduce lots of this-can't-happen-situations.
: Well, in part I think that the reason for this-can't-happen
: results lies in the rules surroundng the dice rolls. Nearly any
: distribution can be adjusted to another distribution by a table to
: compute results, for example (using percentile dice to roll 3d6, for
: example).
: The real problem lies in rules which try to be overly specific.
: The system will be unable to account for many situational variables,
: and thus should try not to determine results beyond what they can
: simulate. Rather, the system should account for system-based stats,
: and then turn over to the GM to account for situational bits.
Hmm, apparently you misunderstood me (or I expressed myself poorly). I
talk of things like 5% chances for a critical success/failure, modifiers
that don't work, only allowing success or failure with nothing in
between, highly skilled fighters that fail to hit each other until the
first critical hit kills one of them off, damage that isn't related to
how well you hit, probability distributions with a variance that is much
too high, etc.
Reimer Behrends
Andrew Finch
: They are two separate entities, one real and one virtual.
Yeah, so?
: The ability to roleplay and the level of success at
: roleplaying in any particular adventure are *player*
: attributes. The ability to attempt virtual tasks using
: virtual skills are *character* attributes.
Yeah, so?
: When I GM, I
: reward the *character* for attempting *character* related
: tasks and skills, even if this involves how much the PC's
: have killed.
How do you reward the character?
: I refuse to either reward *player* assets by
: advancing *characters* or penalize *player* defects by
: retarding *characters*.
: Let's examine some hypothetical situations of *player*
: versus *character*.
Yes, lets.
: Would one reward a player who happens
: to have professional knowledge of a plot element/device,
: enabling him to help his *character* succeed based on that
: outside knowledge?
No, poor roleplay.
: Would one reward a player who plays his
: Testosterone Tank as far more intelligent than specified?
No, poor roleplay.
: Would one reward a player who happens to be rich enough to
: always buy the pizza?
No, where's the roleplay.
: Of course not, none of these *player*
: attributes should be rewarded by advancing a *character*.
So, now you're making my point.
: Would one penalize a player who causes his character to
: blunder when the *character* should know better?
No, but you may reward him for good roleplay.
: Would one
: penalize a player who cannot communicate effectively due to
: a handicap?
We haven't penalized you yet, have we? (Sorry, that was not called for,
but really, where is your point?).
: Again, none of these *player* attributes should
: be penalized by hindering a *character*.
No, of course not.
: So why advance the
: *character* of a *player* who roleplays well and retard the
: *character* of a *player* who roleplays poorly?
What is the point of experience points? If we roleplay merely to build a
simulation, then as a group, we've done a lousy job. If the point of
roleplay has some emotional, pyschological, spiritual, learning, or
social value, then shouldn't we give some incentive to get better at it?
And shouldn't that incentive be positive, like experience points?
Although, if someone is not doing well, then don't just let them sit
there, help them. And reward them as they get better.
Even if roleplay is merely an exercise in fun, and if better roleplaying
makes the game more fun, then all of the above still holds.
: My problem with your statement qouted above is not just
: the confusion about the difference between the *player* and
: the *character*.
What confusion?
: This confusion seems to betray a desire to
: limit RPGs to an elitist group of "true role-players".
Yes, like Wimbeldon is limited to an elitist group of tennis players, and
the Supreme Court is limited to an elitis group of judges, and ... well,
you get the idea. I would like every roleplayer out there to enjoy the
game to the greatest extent possible, and to make their time enjoyable
for others. I would like everyone to roleplay like a drama pro, and to
have fun creating these communal fantasies we seem to enjoy so much.
: Mind, I do not think anyone will have much success at that
: activity, since their only weapons are pompous ridicule and
: arrogant declarations in forums such as this one.
No, we have a few other weapons in the arsenal.
: No matter
: how much they try to back-pedal and put a good spin on
: statements like the above, their prejudices keep slipping
: past their guard. The alert posters and lurkers will always
: catch the elitists in the process of trying to promote the
: OTP of "role-playing".
Well, darn. You're just too smart for me. You caught me red-handed. What
an act I've been perpatrating.
: In the long run, it is the players
: who could never be part of such an exclusive group who are
: the primary customers of the gaming industry. They spend
: the money which supports even the evil ones (T$R :-).
Huh? So I can't fool them, but Satan can? Are these primary industry
customers good guys or bad guys? I'm getting confused.
: I suspect that, like myself, your opponents' problem is not
: as much with the message of diceless gaming as with manner
: of its presentation.
Aaaaah, I see. There's the point. Sorry, I'll try better next time.
: --
: Raymond C. Parks, CCP
: Disclaimer: I speak for no-one - not even myself, some of the time.
David Berkman
Andrew Finch
It does demand a twofold awarenes, but usually only during times when
such awareness is necessary, as in action scenes. In these scenes you're
generally trying to think of what you should do next, and what your
character would be doing anyhow, which is a duality. During many scenes
you can just play right through the character. The advantage comes in the
ability to improvise your character's own memories, skills, and and
knowledge, right on the spot. You can be your character, rather than
constantly having to reference some external agency (dice or GM).
Imagine you're a playing a surgeon aboard a Starfleet vessel. The crew has
come down with some mysterious illness. Another character, the Captain,
asks you what's going on. In most games, what do you do? You look up at
the GM and say 'I want to roll my medical skilll on ...' Complete break.
In Theatrix anyway, you just turn to the guy playing the Captain and say
'It's Rigelian flu Jim. I haven't heard of more than a half dozen cases in
the last 15 years. The virus is highly active and very deadly. Were all
going to need help very soon. The only problem is, there's only one known
effective treatment for Rigelian flu, and you're not going to like it
...'. Boom, change in plot. And for that moment, you get to be your
character. You get to possess all the skill and experience your character
posseses. And if you really want, you even get to be right.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
A Lapalme
In a previous article, rob...@inviso.com (Robbie Westmoreland) says:
>ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme) dicit:
>>
>>One player (who posted a reply to the review) considers that the fact that
>>the players are asked to contribute to the plot actaully deters from
>>roleplaying. This is because the player has to think in terms of player
>>instead of character when making PLOT changes. In a sense, the player is
>>no longer in character when actively affecting the campaign.
>>
>>I see his point and tend to agree. And, yes this is probably a question of
>>how one defines roleplay. I'm sure a whole thread could be devoted to that.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Oh, let's do! :)
>I haven't seen Theatrix yet (although I should soon, I hope). But I have
>tried to use some of the rules people have suggested to allow the players
>some influence on the plot or direction in which an adventure flows.
>Influence besides that which would normally be available by playing in
>character that is.
If it is totally in character then there is not much of a problem. The
player would come to it relatively naturally. The problem comes when
players are expected to think up plot twists which might complicate the
storyline or worse, complicate the player's character's life. While this
might be fun, it is a metagame action, not roleplay, IMNSHO, of course.
>
>The mechanics I've seen that I recall off hand are Whimsy Cards and the
>cards in TORG. We've used Whimsy Cards a couple of times, and they've
>been generally unhelpful, but I'm not sure about why. The complaint
>that you mention above (the player has to think in terms of player
>instead of character) might be a big part of the problem, and indeed
>might be a good arguement against such mechanics. On the other hand, I
>can see where some people might really enjoy being able to "co-GM" by
>introducing new elements into the plot.
>
The co-GM style is what Theatrix is driving at. Eventually a group of
players would start to find it hard to say exactly who the GM is. An
interesting goal by itself but it does have profound effects on the RPG
experience.
>Have people successfully used plot-influence mechanics like Storypath
>cards in gaming? Does it just take some getting used to in order to
>make it flow well?
I haven't but it is probably difficult, at first to make it flow well.
The whole concept of troupe GMing is akin to the storytelling technique (I
don't know its name) of having a group of people tell a story without any
plot to follow (this works this way: person A says the first sentence of a
story, person B, takes it from there and adds another sentence; and so
on). The effect is very interesting, fun but not conducive to a well
structured whole.
I see troupe GMing the same way. Even if each player handles his/her own
subplot, the whole (the larger context) probably suffers: the setting is
not consistent. To me, that's a strike against the approach.
Alain
--
Antoon Pardon
: In article <2sfh73$4...@rc1.vub.ac.be>, apa...@rc1.vub.ac.be (Antoon Pardon) writes:
: >
: > I'm sorry but your answer didn't satify me. Lets make it a targetshooting
: > tournament. How do you roleplay the fact that you aim and shoot at the
: > target. How does the G.M. roleplay all of the N.P.C. or how does he decide
: > what score N.P.C. will get. Let me inform you that in this session the
: > individual matches were not the important part of the scenario. But
: > depending on the outcome various intrigues might come into play to help
: > ensure various side-kickers to win there bet. So how do you decide the
: > outcome of N.P.C. vs N.P.C. matches which where in this case the most
: > occuring. You can hardly let the G.M. roleplay them all out.
: >
: > ========================================================================
: > Antoon Pardon <apa...@vub.ac.be>
: > Brussels Free University Computing Centre 02/650.37.16
: > ========================================================================
: If you insist on having totally random decisions in your campaign, that's ok. But
: it has nothing to do with, for instance, genre.
What do you mean with totaly random? If I decide that when
A meets B, A has a 65% chance in beating B and I roll each
time they meet in my campaign, Then I think this is less
random than to have the G.M. just decide what the outcome
will be in each event.
: --
Ken & Jo Walton
> Imagine you're a playing a surgeon aboard a Starfleet vessel. The crew has
> come down with some mysterious illness. Another character, the Captain,
> asks you what's going on. In most games, what do you do? You look up at
> the GM and say 'I want to roll my medical skilll on ...' Complete break.
> In Theatrix anyway, you just turn to the guy playing the Captain and say
> 'It's Rigelian flu Jim. I haven't heard of more than a half dozen cases in
> the last 15 years. The virus is highly active and very deadly. Were all
> going to need help very soon. The only problem is, there's only one known
> effective treatment for Rigelian flu, and you're not going to like it
> ...'. Boom, change in plot. And for that moment, you get to be your
> character. You get to possess all the skill and experience your character
> posseses. And if you really want, you even get to be right.
>
> David Berkman
> Backstage Press
>
>
At this point, the GM grinds his teeth tears up a whole week's painstaking work
on the development and symptoms of Arturan Mega-Measles and the desperate chase
situation caused as the crew start dying one by one, all that work, ruined...
Seriously, though, does the system *have* or *need* a GM? If reality changes at
the whim of the PCs, what's left for the GM to do, apart from adjudicate on
rules questions?
Ken
--
|====== The Honourable and Worshipful Company of Adventurers =======|
|=================== Trading into Magellanica ======================|
| Opinions expressed *are* those of the company. |
+---------------> Hold fast to that which is good <-----------------|
Andrew Finch
: How about, "the basis for character advancement is the actions and events
: which would bring about said advancement"? For example: go to law school,
: learn the law. Go to flight school, learn how to fly a plane. Spend a month
: camping, learn (a few things about) how to survive in the wild. Or, (working
: from a broader concept of advancement): run a business well, get rich. Work
: out at the gym, get stronger.
That is essentially how Theatrix works.
: "Advancement" as generally understood in rpg's means "improvement of a
: character's power or ability to do things." To a certain extent, I
: think the use of this term is unfortunate, because it unduly emphasizes
: a small part of the much broader issue of "development" and makes
: advancement (especially "improvement of skills") into a special case.
I agree, which is why in Theatrix, 'advancement' means improving skills,
gaining new powers, gaining new positions of influence, acquiring helpful
artifacts or monetary resources, winning greater fame, etc. Whatever the
growth path of the character is, as decided upon by the player.
: Nevertheless, as long as we're focusing on this narrow issue of
: improvement, ...
We're not.
: --Elliot Wilen
: (*) I think that a good system would be one in which everyone gets a
: certain number of "plot points" for each session. Then the players
: would decide by vote or consensus which player should get a 10% bonus
: for doing an especially good job of roleplaying; and finally the GM
: would give another 10% award to someone else if he or she felt that
: person deserved it. (This would let the GM redress a common imbalance
: in roleplaying awards, namely that people who play extroverted and/or
: amusing characters tend to get noticed more than those who play quiet
: characters.)
This is close to the Theatrix system, except that everyone gets the same
number of Plot Points for the Main Episode, and then more for every
Subplot they complete. And anyone may engage in as many Subplots as they
and the GM wish to handle at one time.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: The whole concept of troupe GMing is akin to the storytelling technique (I
: don't know its name) of having a group of people tell a story without any
: plot to follow (this works this way: person A says the first sentence of a
: story, person B, takes it from there and adds another sentence; and so
: on). The effect is very interesting, fun but not conducive to a well
: structured whole.
: I see troupe GMing the same way. Even if each player handles his/her own
: subplot, the whole (the larger context) probably suffers: the setting is
: not consistent. To me, that's a strike against the approach.
: Alain
I have to disagree Alain. We were playing Ars Magica (which also suggests
this approach) and Hero system this way, long before we made Theatrix,
and never had a problem with it. We had a long running Ars Magica
campaign where everybody at the table GM'ed. There were 8 of us. It was
the most convoluted, intruiging, and unified game I've ever played. The
trick is to have a solid world background, and well thought out plots.
And of course to have respect for everybody elses work in the game, and
what they are claiming sole rights to at the moment in order to run their
plot. Since then, we haven't run any game in the same way. Players always
contribute at least subplots. We love it.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: on the development and symptoms of Arturan Mega-Measles and the
: desperate chase
: situation caused as the crew start dying one by one, all that work, ruined...
No, not at all. The GM simply changes Arturan Mega-Measles to Rigelian
Flu, respecting the roleplay of the doctor. The doctor has respected the
GM's game by suggesting a method of curing the sickness, but not an easy
one. This gets added to the GM's plot, probably making it even a little
more complex, and worth a greater number of Plot Points for completion. So
what's the problem?
: Seriously, though, does the system *have* or *need* a GM? If reality
: changes at
: the whim of the PCs, what's left for the GM to do, apart from adjudicate on
: rules questions?
: Ken
Try GM'ing the game and see. It requires more from a GM than anything
else I know of. You have to have a solid plot, yet be very flexible. You
have to keep the whole thing on some sort of course. And if you can, it's
the best kind of roleplay I know of.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
MPR Associates Inc
>Obviously, you make a character pay for those
>advancements the player actually wishes to have. And roleplay is the
>proper coin for this payment. My statement about D&D advancement is
>justified. If roleplay is not a valid basis for character advancement,
>then what is?
How about, "the basis for character advancement is the actions and events
which would bring about said advancement"? For example: go to law school,
learn the law. Go to flight school, learn how to fly a plane. Spend a month
camping, learn (a few things about) how to survive in the wild. Or, (working
from a broader concept of advancement): run a business well, get rich. Work
out at the gym, get stronger.
Which isn't to say I don't think there should be any reward for good
roleplaying; however, "roleplay is the proper coin [to pay for advancement]"
is wrong unless it's qualified by a "sometimes" and an "IMO". Personally,
I think that quality of roleplaying is a metagame issue which is best
dealt with in metagame ways: by praising good players and inviting them
back. "Plot points", "fudge points", "suspension of disbelief points",
"fate points"--all of these are also metagame tools which IMO make perfect
rewards for good roleplaying. Obviously a character doesn't think in terms
of expending plot points to achieve a favorable result; this is something
the player decides on his or her character's behalf. Giving an especially
good roleplayer extra plot points as a reward is fine, although I also
feel that a GM should be careful not to create a reward structure which
will discourage less talented but well meaning roleplayers.(*)
"Advancement" as generally understood in rpg's means "improvement of a
character's power or ability to do things." To a certain extent, I
think the use of this term is unfortunate, because it unduly emphasizes
a small part of the much broader issue of "development" and makes
advancement (especially "improvement of skills") into a special case.
Nevertheless, as long as we're focusing on this narrow issue of
improvement, I think it's much more appropriate to determine
improvement based on "experience" and "accomplishing a goal" (even
though failure is often as good a teacher as success) than on how
convincingly a player "got into character".
A Lapalme
I think it would help to define "long running": I suggest hours of play.
A campaign can be 10 years old but if only one scenario a year is in it,
it is not really that old. [extreme example, I know. I just illustrating
a point]
To return to your example, how old is the campaign. That would provide
some common ground.
I know, I know, common ground! In advocacy! :)
Alain
--
Reimer Behrends
: >So I think that it would indeed be worthwhile to search for a method
: >that can be done in character and is more compatible with how human minds
: >work than dice. Especially if said method explained why and how I
: >succeeded or failed instead of leaving it as vague as dice do.
: >
: > Reimer Behrends
: The Quest for the Holy Grail!!! The perfect diceless system.
: I agree wholeheartedly with what you say about dice and the effect they
: have on gaming. Theyey do take away from the game. My dream has always
: been something akin to DREAM Park. Players play, GM play NPCs and the
: computer takes care of the probobablities.. The trick there is to find a
: good probability method which yeilds logical results. Anyone has ideas?
Hmmm. I guess I should know better than to do what I'm about to do. Anyway.
Everybody please get their flamethrowers ready and my apologies to Steffan
O'Sullivan for using his game as my guinea pig. Here comes Diceless FUDGE.
It was designed in about three hours (ok, I _did_ have some ideas on how
to handle certain problems before) has never been playtested, much less
proofread by other people. Read, enjoy and flame away. ;-)
Reimer Behrends
Alternate Chapter 4, "Action Resolution" for FUDGE.
===================================================
Note: This text implements diceless action resolution for FUDGE. It
is incompatible with section 2.36, "Fudge Points", which should be
disregarded if you use the mechanism below. In fact, what is used
here is a rather elaborate version of the same basic concept.
Table of Contents
=================
4 Action Resolution
4.1 Action Resolution Terms
4.2 Unopposed Actions
4.3 Modifiers
4.31 Situational Modifiers
4.32 Artificial Modifiers and Luck Points
4.4 Non-Player Characters
4.5 Opposed Actions
4.6 Combat
4.61 Damage
4.62 Healing
4 Action Resolution
====================
This chapter covers how to determine whether or not a character
succeeds at an attempted action. In the previous chapters, traits
were defined in terms of levels: Superb, Great, Good, etc. This
chapter explains how those levels affect a character's chances of
success at an action, whether fighting a giant or tracking down a
clue. Sometimes a Fair result is sufficient to complete a task, and
sometimes a Good - or better! - result is needed.
4.1 Action Resolution Terms
----------------------------
Unopposed Action: some actions are *Unopposed*. This means the
character is trying to perform an action which isn't influenced
by anyone else. Examples include jumping a wide chasm, climbing
a cliff, performing a chemistry experiment, etc.
Effective Degree: this refers to how well you did at a particular
task. If you are Good at Climbing in general, but modifiers gave
you a +1 bonus on a particular attempt, then your effective
degree in this case is Great.
Difficulty Level: the GM will set a Difficulty Level when you try an
Unopposed Action. Usually it will be Fair, but some tasks are
easier or harder. Example: climbing an average vertical cliff
face, even one with lots of handholds, is a fairly difficult
obstacle (Fair Difficulty Level). For a very hard cliff, the GM
may set the Difficulty Level at Great. This means the player
must make an effective degree of Great or higher to climb the
cliff successfully.
Opposed Action: actions are *Opposed* when other people (or animals,
etc.) may have an effect on the outcome of the action. In this
case, each contestant's skill is matched against that of the
other one to determine the outcome. Examples include combat,
seduction attempts, haggling, tug-of-war, etc.
4.2 Unopposed Actions
----------------------
Basically, the decision procedure to determine success for an Unopposed
Action is simple. The GM sets the Difficulty Level (Fair for tasks of
average difficulty, more if the task is more difficult, less if it is
easier), and compares it against the appropriate trait of the character
attempting the feat. If the Trait Level is greater than or equal to the
Difficulty Level, the task succeeds, otherwise it fails. The higher the
difference, the more extreme is the result.
Example: Toby the Bard tries to please the king with a song. The king is
a somewhat critical audience, so the Difficulty Level is set to Good by
the GM. Fortunately, Toby's singing skill is Great, so his efforts are
really appreciated. Had it been Fair, they would have been received
unfavourably. And a Terrible or Poor singer might even get thrown out of
court (depending on the king's temper).
It should be remembered that the default value of skills (if untrained)
is Poor in most cases. However, if the character has a high attribute
that is related to the skill (like with climbing and a dexterity
attribute), this can result in a Mediocre default value for an untrained
skill (but never for a *trained* skill). On the other hand, if a related
attribute is exceedingly bad, this can lower the default to Terrible.
4.3 Action Modifiers
---------------------
While the decision procedure described above is quite simple, it would
also get quite boring after a time due the results being too predictable.
On the other hand, how one fares at a given skill more often than not is
predictable, so this should be retained when adding variety.
The trick is to have players try to modify their characters' situation
favourably while the GM will throw a wrench in the works every now and
then.
4.31 Situational Modifiers
---------------------------
The cheapest way to succeed at a task that would normally be impossible
is to modify circumstances to be more suitable. As an extreme example,
getting the right key makes it unnecessary to employ ones lockpicking
skills. But even if you have to rely on your skill, there are ways to
improve things a bit. Getting a scope for your gun will make it easier
to hit distant targets, etc. On the other hand, the GM will usually
insist on modifiers that are less favourable. For instance, your
lockpicking skill will be greatly hampered by having to operate with a
wire instead of his usual set of lockpicks. Being hurt will not exactly
improve your reactions, etc.
Situational modifiers are a quest for ingenuity, in a manner of speaking.
Instead of hoping for a die roll to succeed, you have to set out to fix
the situation actively.
Modifiers are usually in the range -4..+4, with the following meanings:
Modifier Interpretation
----------------------------
0 No modifier
+/-1 Situation gets somewhat better/worse
+/-2 Situation gets considerably better/worse
+/-3 Situation gets extremely better/worse
+/-4 That's about the maximum modification that can be achieved.
Different modifiers will add up, of course.
Example: After Toby's performance above, Ralph is in difficulties. His
singing skill is Fair, and it's unlikely that he can satisfy the king.
On the other hand, he's got a magical harp which improves his musical
abilities by +1 (although, of course, the character doesn't know the
number and maybe not even his player). Thus his effective degree is Good
and he earns a slight smile instead of indifference.
4.32 Artificial Modifiers and Luck Points
------------------------------------------
Besides the rather common method of having situational modifiers, we
need some unpredictability as well. The following method tries to
achieve that.
Each character (both PCs and NPCs) has a certain amount of Luck Points.
They start at 0 and can usually range from -10 to +10. Players can
modify circumstances favourably by spending a positive amount of Luck
Points, the GM on the other hand can try to get the characters into
problems by giving them some of their Luck points back. However, the
upper and lower bounds of +10 and -10 can never be exceeded. I.e., if
the Luck Point score is at -10, a character has no way to spend more
Luck Points, while with the score being at +10, there is no way for
the GM to influence situations unfavourably. Note also that the players
can never spend negative amounts to get Luck Points back, nor can the
GM force players to expend Luck Points of they don't want to. Of course,
negative Artificial Modifiers by the GM can also be used to increase the
Difficulty Level if desired (it amounts to the same technically but might
result in a better explanation in game world terms).
Costs are different depending on whether the action is atomic (i.e.
cannot reasonably divided into less complex actions) or complex (i.e.
lumping several complex actions together). As a rule of thumb, atomic
actions are those that last only a short while. It is up to the GM to
decide whether an action is atomic or complex.
Costs for modifiers are as follows:
Modifier Cost for Cost for
Atomic Actions Complex Actions
----------------------------------------------
+/-1 +/-1 +/-3
+/-2 +/-3 +/-6
+/-3 +/-6 +/-10
+/-4 +/-10 +/-15
It is probably advisable to agree on certain keywords to denote the
numeric modifiers. So instead of just saying "I'll go for a +2 modifier
for that lock." the player should rather announce "I'll spend
considerable time to find out how the lock works before actually trying
to open it." Here "considerable" is the keyword that is used to describe
a +2 modifier. Suggestions are "somewhat" for +1, "considerable" for +2,
"extreme" for +3. "whatever is possible" for +4. The GM should demand
a game world explanation of what happened and may refuse to apply the
modifier if none is given.
To ensure fairness, the GM should decide whether to apply Artificial
Modifiers before the players announce what they do. That does not mean
that the GM can't be malicious. Indeed, having a serious problem every
now and then will probably keep the players on their feet, and thus
doing this from time to time is encouraged as long as the GM doesn't
kill any player characters *directly*. A good strategy is also to just
copy any evil ideas the players have.
For ease of use, the GM may opt for not keeping down the Luck Point score
in writing during gaming sessions but instead use counters (one per
character) that get placed on a scale numbered from -10 to +10 and are
moved whenever Luck Points are spent or regained. The GM may even decide
to keep the current score secret from the players, adding an element of
uncertainty. In this case, if a player decides to spent more Luck Points
than are available to his character, they just get reduced to the next
lowest possible value.
Example: The GM decides that the king is getting a bit bored by all that
singing. So when Leon is next to try his Luck, he'll get an Artificial
Modifier of -1, increasing the Difficulty Level to Great (of course, the
GM could have decided that Leon is nervous and added the -1 modifier to
his skill level). Now Leon is a Good singer, but he desperately wants to
impress the king (there is this beautiful princess...) and therefore
buys a +2 modifier, resulting in an Effective Degree of Superb. His player
remarks that Leon has spent considerable time writing this particular song
for the stakes involved. The GM rules that the king is pleasantly surprised.
As this is a complex action, the GM rules that the -1 modifier gained him
+3 Luck Points, while the cost for the +2 modifier were -6 Luck Points,
leaving him 3 points lower than before.
4.4 Non-Player Characters
--------------------------
NPCs of course have Luck Points as well. The GM is responsible for
spending them. This of course, requires judicious use of his powers
as he is also responsible for spending negative amounts of Luck Points.
The GM may also decide that NPCs start life with a non-zero Luck Point
score if he thinks there is a reason for this.
4.5 Opposed Actions
--------------------
Opposed Actions are only slightly different from Unopposed Actions. The
Difficulty Level of each contestant is the Effective Degree of his opponent.
I.e. whoever has the higher Effective Degree, wins the action. If both
contestants are evenly matched, it is a tie. Situational and Artificial
Modifiers apply as for Unopposed Actions.
If there is an Opposed Action PC vs. NPC, the GM as for Unopposed Actions
decides on any Artificial Modifiers (negative or positive for the NPC,
negative for the PC) before the player announces what his character does.
If there is an Opposed Action PC vs. PC, it may be necessary to use secret
communication with the GM (by means of pencil and paper) to announce any
Artificial Modifiers (or an empty sheet to pretend using them). If this
is too slow, another solution would be to allow each player to change his
modifier after the other player announced his.
Ties in Opposed Actions are usually just that: A standoff, neither party
wins. It is, however, sometimes necessary to resolve ties as they can't
really happen (although such situations are rare). In this case, breaking
down a complex action into less complex ones (like an entire duel into
separate combat maneuvers) often breaks the tie. If not, the GM can begin
to hand out negative modifiers (starting with the character with the lower
Luck Point score). Then of course other traits come into play. Long combat
is fatiguing, so somebody will tire earlier, etc. If even this doesn't
resolve the tie, it probably really is a tie and should be regarded as one
(the seconds call off the duel, neither singer is considered better as the
other one, etc.)
4.6 Combat, Damage & Healing
-----------------------------
There is no real necessity to describe rules for combat separately. Combat
is just a series of Opposed and Unopposed Actions (Melee Combat usually
has Opposed Actions, Ranged Combat usually has Unopposed Actions). Players
just describe what their characters do and the GM keeps track of the timing
so that everybody gets his share of the action.
Of course, most players (not to mention most GMs) don't have actual combat
experience. Therefore the GM should not demand technical details on how
a particular action is performed. Rather general descriptions should do,
like "I assume a defensive stance, trying to estimate her fencing skill."
or "I feint to the left to distract her attention, then I'll go for a hit
in her swordarm." Needless to say, the latter maneuver is not trivial,
carrying a hefty Situational Modifier.
4.61 Damage
------------
Damage is simply derived from what happened. If you were shot in the
back with a crossbow, you've got a crossbow bolt protuding from there
(and you'll probably need medical care). Again, the player and the GM
can spend positive or negative amounts of Luck Points to modify the
seriousness of the wound. To do this, the GM first estimates how serious
the wound is on the usual Terrible...Fair...Superb scale (or even beyond
Superb if it is deadly enough), possibly adds a negative Artificial
Modifier ("Yes, you were only hit in the arm, but apparently that opened
an artery.") and then leaves it to the player (without announcing how
serious the wound is) to decide whether he is willing to spend Luck
Points.
How to estimate the damage done? In combat it is usually based on the
quality of the hitand the deadliness of the weapon involved. In other
situations (falling from great heights, being poisoned, drowning) it
is advisable to just use common sense. If in doubt, favour the PCs when
defining the seriousness (which doesn't prevent you from adding in
large Artificial Modifiers). Still, the GM shouldn't kill player
characters outright.
4.62 Healing
-------------
Healing is exactly as slow or as fast as the GM defines it. He might
even require medical care lest the character risks losing an arm or
a leg because of an infection. Of course, magic may be used to heal
characters if it is available. And don't forget that wounds usually
hamper a character. Situational Modifiers reflect this (and some
wounds may make certain actions impossible).
Andrew Finch
: To return to your example, how old is the campaign. That would provide
: some common ground.
The Ars Magica campaign ran for a year and a half, once a week, for about
5 to 6 hours a session. This is about as long as any campaign has lasted
around here, troupe run or otherwise. However, as a side-note, we recently
re-started that campaign a month ago, after a year hiatus. We are also
running Vampire in Theatrix (we translated the character's over), and that
game is going into its second year. All this with Plot Points, troupe
style play, and an open advancement system. As long as the group knows
what they want to do, it's not a problem.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Raymond Charles Parks
>: I disagree with your confusion of player with character.
>: They are two separate entities, one real and one virtual.
>
>Yeah, so?
So they should be treated differently by the GM. Your
original snide remark -
In article <2sl1rc$n...@crl2.crl.com>, Andrew Finch <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>I don't think that judging character advancement and success on roleplay
>is so horrible a thought. What do you judge it on? SUccess on a die roll,
>and character advancement on how much the PC's can kill? I'd rather not.
- implies that you judge character advancement on roleplay.
My point is that in doing so you treat the character and the
player as one.
>How do you reward the character?
Obviously, I reward the character by "judging character
advancement" which affects "success".
>: Would one reward a player who happens to be rich enough to
>: always buy the pizza?
>
>No, where's the roleplay.
You missed the point - one doesn't advance the character
of a player based on the *player's* actions. Whether the
*player* buys the pizza to please the GM, or takes advantage
of a natural acting ability to "roleplay" to please the GM,
the *character's* advancement or success should not be
affected.
>So, now you're making my point.
No, you're missing my point.
>: Would one penalize a player who causes his character to
>: blunder when the *character* should know better?
>
>No, but you may reward him for good roleplay.
Aside: I meant the situation where the player doesn't
realize that the character should know better - some fact is
in-character knowledge but unknown to the player. A good GM
tells the player - "Hold on, you wouldn't do that because
you know better. Here's what your character would know that
you don't...".
>: Would one
>: penalize a player who cannot communicate effectively due to
>: a handicap?
>
>...where is your point?
You've never had a player who is deaf, dumb, blind,
wheel-chair bound or learning-disabled and therefore at a
disadvantage when acting out a role? I realize that our
games are mostly verbal - the GM tells the players what
their characters see, hear, smell, etc. and the players
vocalize their characters' actions. But jumping up and
acting out what your character does is more effective
role-playing. I have had players who were at a disadvantage
even if one limits play to oral statements. Deafness can
prevent the inclusion of the fine nuances of vocal
expressions we all use in communication. Aside from the
traditional "handicaps", what about people who are visually,
not orally, oriented? I'm not trying to get into the who
has more compassion for the disabled - I'm sure we're both
good people in this regard. I just have had players whose
characters would have advanced more slowly than the other
players if I made roleplaying, the *player* activity, a
major factor in judging *character* advancement.
>: So why advance the
>: *character* of a *player* who roleplays well and retard the
>: *character* of a *player* who roleplays poorly?
>
>What is the point of experience points?
To signal the growth in skills and abilities of
characters.
> If we roleplay merely to build a
>simulation, then as a group, we've done a lousy job.
What are you saying - that frp gamers have done a lousy
job of building a simulation or that building a simulation
is a lousy job of roleplaying? If the former - sounds like
a problem within your personal experience since my
experience is to the contrary. If the latter - please
explain your assertion, since it seems to me that good
roleplay *is* part of good simulation.
>If the point of
>roleplay has some emotional, pyschological, spiritual, learning, or
>social value, then shouldn't we give some incentive to get better at it?
Yes, whether roleplayinf for psycho-babble reasons or just
for fun, but the incentives should be social rewards to the
player. If you reward one character more than another based
on player attributes, you will drive away the poorer
roleplayer before you change them. I perceive that your
attitude seems to be one of rewarding the good roleplayer in
game terms, so that the poor roleplayer's character advances
slower and attains less success. If that is your policy, in
effect, you advocate a policy of excluding poor roleplayers
by driving them away.
>And shouldn't that incentive be positive, like experience points?
Yes, it should be positive - but no, character advancement
by whatever means should not be used. Character advancement
should be judged according to character actions.
Even your Plot Points concept, which is actually a player
reward rather than a character reward, would tend to be a
dis-incentive to poor roleplayers in the long run. Theatrix
apparently suggests that Plot Points be awarded based on
roleplaying quality of the players. Given that every player
improves their roleplaying approximately equally, the poor
roleplayers will quickly realize that their share of the
interactive story-telling will always be lower than the
others. Ergo, the poor roleplayer will drop out in the
search for some game in which their lack of ability will not
penalize their enjoyment of character success and personal
participation.
>Yes, like Wimbeldon is limited to an elitist group of tennis players, and
>the Supreme Court is limited to an elitis group of judges, and ... well,
>you get the idea. I would like every roleplayer out there to enjoy the
>game to the greatest extent possible, and to make their time enjoyable
>for others. I would like everyone to roleplay like a drama pro, and to
>have fun creating these communal fantasies we seem to enjoy so much.
You contradict yourself in the above paragraph - not all
tennis players are good enough to play at Wimbledon nor will
all judges sit on the Supreme Court. No matter how good the
poorest tennis players get - only an elite few will go to
Wimbledon. The quality of the best will remain
distinguishably above the quality of the worst. Yet despite
agreeing that you would like rpgs to be limited to the best
roleplayers, you claim to want every player to be the best.
It cannot happen. Some will always be better than others.
So it will always be unfair to reward the players who are
better through in-game rewards to either character or
player.
>: In the long run, it is the players
>: who could never be part of such an exclusive group who are
>: the primary customers of the gaming industry. They spend
>: the money which supports even the evil ones (T$R :-).
>
>Huh? So I can't fool them, but Satan can? Are these primary industry
>customers good guys or bad guys? I'm getting confused.
Sorry for your confusion - what I am saying is that the
poor roleplayers and the inexperienced players who would not
be welcome in the exclusive club of "good", one-true-path
roleplayers drive the gaming industry. There are far more
of the former than the latter. They are the ones who buy
the xD&D systems and other games which you implicitly
criticized in your posting. I think they have as valid a
form of gaming as yours - therefore they are not deserving
of your contempt but your rather your tolerance.
So, stop already with the snide remarks - you must have
gotten enough flames over it by now :-).
John H Kim
reply to Reimer Behrends. The issue at hand is how diced resolution
interferes with the flow of play - in that rolling and calculating the
results is long and complicated.
It is important to remember that using dice can be just as
free-form as running a game diceless. For example, the GM could just
estimate a difficulty which you roll against, and then interprets
the results. No skill numbers, no calculation. Obviously this is an
extreme case, but I think it is an important consideration.
Reimer Behrends <behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>John H Kim (jh...@namaste.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>: I certainly agree that player computation should be minimized.
>: I generally try to keep to 1 digit addition. Gaps in play for resolution
>: of results are to some degree neccessary - tricky situations will take
>: some time for the GM to resolve.
>
>Hmm, I do not quite agree here. While I concede that rolling a single die
>and adding/comparing it to a number can be done quickly, it has another
>undesirable effect: the range of results usually being reduced to that
>of success or failure. No shades in between. If you want them, you usually
>need more dice and more complex calculations.
Why?!? My thought is that if your result is far above the
difficulty, that is a very good success. If your result is equal
to the difficulty, that is a marginal success. If your result is
far less than the difficulty, that is a dismal failure.
Introducing complex mechanics into this picture doesn't introduce
more variation - it just complicates things. For example, a complex set
of rules may say that if you succeed by 9, it is a "normal" success -
but if you succeed by 10, it is a "critical" success. This is a fairly
arbitrary distinction, IMO, which just serves to increase game mechanics.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>Combat is even worse, just because it's _thick_ with die rolls. According
>to the one die roll + simple arithmetics rule, AD&D should give you the best
>role-playing during combat ;-). Seriously, even with the best GM, combat
>tends to deteriorate to a series of die rolls with some pieces of role-
>playing in between.
Well, no. I said that I think that 1 die roll and simple
arithmetic help role-playing in combat. I didn't say that they were
the _only_ factor. First of all, your only choices in AD&D combat are
what weapon to use, and what opponent to attack. Further, there is a
problem in representation: hit points, for example, have no clear
meaning in real-world terms - neither does Armor Class.
The last combat I ran was a prizefight between two massive
non-human combatants in a ring. Since it would take a while, and it
only involved one player, I ran through it by asking the player what
sort of tactics he was taking - and then he would roll his appropriate
skill and compare to his opponent's. Then I described the results,
averaging damage in my head. After hearing how things were going, he
described when he would try to change tactics - and then we compared
another set of rolls, etc.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>: >And what's worse, dice aren't particularly good judges. I don't know of
>: >a single dicing method that gets probabilities halfway right, i.e. most
>: >would introduce lots of this-can't-happen-situations.
>
>I talk of things like 5% chances for a critical success/failure, modifiers
>that don't work, only allowing success or failure with nothing in
>between, highly skilled fighters that fail to hit each other until the
>first critical hit kills one of them off, damage that isn't related to
>how well you hit, probability distributions with a variance that is much
>too high, etc.
I would certainly agree with you that the above are problems in
many systems out there. And I'd agree that dice are poor judges by
themselves. That doesn't mean that dice can't be useful in resolving
situations. A system could assume or even require GM interpretation
of the results (for example, the FUDGE subjective damage system).
That is, I don't see it as a problem with dice. For example, the
distinction of critical and normal results is not inherent to dice-rolling
- and in my mind the binary distinction is just silly. Similarly, the
separate hit and damage rolls is not inherent to dice-rolling.
Reimer Behrends
: It is important to remember that using dice can be just as
: free-form as running a game diceless. For example, the GM could just
: estimate a difficulty which you roll against, and then interprets
: the results. No skill numbers, no calculation. Obviously this is an
: extreme case, but I think it is an important consideration.
Well, this is exactly what I don't want. This introduces exactly the
problem of too much GM fiat. I like it if players can reconstruct
the connection between their action and the result. For this some
amount of quantification is important. In particular, in most cases
players should arrive at the same conclusion as the GM did and for
this you need a common base. That doesn't mean that everything has
to be quantified, but the important parts should be supported by
some amount of reproducibility.
: Reimer Behrends <behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
: >John H Kim (jh...@namaste.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
: >Hmm, I do not quite agree here. While I concede that rolling a single die
: >and adding/comparing it to a number can be done quickly, it has another
: >undesirable effect: the range of results usually being reduced to that
: >of success or failure. No shades in between. If you want them, you usually
: >need more dice and more complex calculations.
: Why?!? My thought is that if your result is far above the
: difficulty, that is a very good success. If your result is equal
: to the difficulty, that is a marginal success. If your result is
: far less than the difficulty, that is a dismal failure.
But that still divides possible outcomes into successes or failures
(albeit of differing quality). It usually leads to a gap of differing
size in between. A good example is GURPS. While it certainly encourages
in several places the kind of interpretation you suggest, for NPC
reactions a different system is needed. And it would be quite hard to
accurately estimate the quality of a work of art produced by a more
or less skilled character depending on the die roll. This is also one
of the reasons why FUDGE is my favourite system (though I prefer the
old method for rolling dice ;-) ).
: Introducing complex mechanics into this picture doesn't introduce
: more variation - it just complicates things. For example, a complex set
: of rules may say that if you succeed by 9, it is a "normal" success -
: but if you succeed by 10, it is a "critical" success. This is a fairly
: arbitrary distinction, IMO, which just serves to increase game mechanics.
By more complex mechanics I mean those that don't produce linear
distributions (I prefer distributions that deemphasize extreme
results). True, you can translate a percentile roll to almost
everything, but then modifiers don't work out correctly anymore.
: >Combat is even worse, just because it's _thick_ with die rolls. According
: >to the one die roll + simple arithmetics rule, AD&D should give you the best
: >role-playing during combat ;-). Seriously, even with the best GM, combat
: >tends to deteriorate to a series of die rolls with some pieces of role-
: >playing in between.
: Well, no. I said that I think that 1 die roll and simple
: arithmetic help role-playing in combat. I didn't say that they were
: the _only_ factor. First of all, your only choices in AD&D combat are
: what weapon to use, and what opponent to attack. Further, there is a
: problem in representation: hit points, for example, have no clear
: meaning in real-world terms - neither does Armor Class.
I fully agree. That's why there's a smiley above. ;-) Yet, the other
extreme, something like GURPS combat is too complicated to be run
smoothly (IMHO, of course).
: The last combat I ran was a prizefight between two massive
: non-human combatants in a ring. Since it would take a while, and it
: only involved one player, I ran through it by asking the player what
: sort of tactics he was taking - and then he would roll his appropriate
: skill and compare to his opponent's. Then I described the results,
: averaging damage in my head. After hearing how things were going, he
: described when he would try to change tactics - and then we compared
: another set of rolls, etc.
That example (which sounds like the FUDGE Subjective Combat section, btw)
is not exactly typical because the possiblity of death seems to be more
or less excluded. Personally, if one of my characters were to die in
Combat, I'd like to know why - meaning that a single die roll would be
insufficient to satisfy my curiosity. It would have the feeling of
Russian Roulette. Besides, the above mechanism doesn't seem more
conducive to good roleplay than the more common ones.
: >: >And what's worse, dice aren't particularly good judges. I don't know of
: >: >a single dicing method that gets probabilities halfway right, i.e. most
: >: >would introduce lots of this-can't-happen-situations.
: >
: >I talk of things like 5% chances for a critical success/failure, modifiers
: >that don't work, only allowing success or failure with nothing in
: >between, highly skilled fighters that fail to hit each other until the
: >first critical hit kills one of them off, damage that isn't related to
: >how well you hit, probability distributions with a variance that is much
: >too high, etc.
: I would certainly agree with you that the above are problems in
: many systems out there. And I'd agree that dice are poor judges by
: themselves. That doesn't mean that dice can't be useful in resolving
: situations. A system could assume or even require GM interpretation
: of the results (for example, the FUDGE subjective damage system).
I do agree that dice can be useful. However, I still have to find a
mechanism that both produces desirable results and is unobtrusive
enough.
: That is, I don't see it as a problem with dice. For example, the
: distinction of critical and normal results is not inherent to dice-rolling
: - and in my mind the binary distinction is just silly. Similarly, the
: separate hit and damage rolls is not inherent to dice-rolling.
Again, my personal opinion is different. IMO the critical success is
derived from the idea of 'lucky rolls', their much too high probability
from the use of D20s ;-). The binary distinction seems to have its
origin in the method of rolling a die against a target number, making
that number appear _the_ boundary. And I do not quite see how a diceless
method should derive the primary variation in the lethality of weapons
from anything else but other contributing factors, like difference in
skill. On the other hand, with dice it is easy to get some variance
from just adding in another roll.
Let me conclude this with a problem that is very particular to diced
mechanisms (using FUDGE mechanics). One character is trying to hide
from another group. He's quite good at that, so the GM requires a
Great result to find him. However, even if all the searching characters
have only Fair perception (or whatever attribute/skill you use) and
everybody is allowed a roll, the character's chance to remain undiscovered
shrinks dramatically. If, on the other hand, the GM decides that the
die roll is to account for random factors that are more or less equal
for everybody, then it will be always the better characters to make
discoveries. So the GM has to come up with a more or less complicated
mechanism to handle the skewed probabilities.
Hmm. In retrospective, what I wrote has the feeling of a give-and-take-
no-quarter response. I'd like to say that this is not my intention.
Rather, by overemphasizing some points I wanted to make my arguments
stand out clearer. I hope this is acceptable.
Reimer Behrends