John's FAQ

John H Kim

unread,

Aug 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/23/96

to

The rec.games.frp.advocacy FAQ
==============================
PART I: The Purpose of the Group and actual FAQ's

0) What's this fack thing?
1) What is "on topic" for this newsgroup?
2) What's with all the acronyms?
3) What is diceless role-playing?
4) What do you mean by "plot" and "plotting"?
5) What about all these other terms?
6) What are these "narrative stances" that people refer to?
7) What are the campaign "axes"?
8) What is the point of all this abstract discussion?

(Part II of this FAQ will deal with "plot", and Part III will deal
with "diceless roleplaying")

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
0) What's this fack thing?

"FAQ" stands for "Frequently Asked Questions". This is a
regularly posted document intended to introduce newcomers to
common

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
1) What is "on topic" for this newsgroup?

This newsgroup is about comparative discussion of various
role-playing systems and styles -- their merits and flaws, how well
they work in different situations, etc.
Thus, GURPS versus HERO would technically be on-topic. However,
most of what has gone on is more detailed discussion of differing
styles and features of games. For example: "Do you prefer to have
rules and traits which govern a character's personality?" or
"What are the consequences of timelining a plot in advance?"

You should try to avoid asking or stating that a game or
technique is generically "better" or "worse". The one thing which
is strikingly clear from discussion here is that different people
prefer different things in their games. Try to keep this in mind.
The other thing is to be careful about is misunderstood
generalizations. Someone might say that "plotted" games are
restrictive, and you respond that he is wrong -- they are inherently
more flexible. Most likely, he is referring to a different type
of game when he says "plotted" than you think of when you say
"plotted".

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
2) What's with all the acronyms?

POV: "Point of View"
IC: "In-Character Stance", i.e. the state of thinking from your
character's POV
OOC: "Out Of Character"
SOD: "Suspension of Disbelief"
d-b: "Description-Based", i.e. using qualitative verbal description
rather than game mechanics
DIP: "Develop-In-Play", referring to players who only have a rough
character sketch which is only filled out during the campaign
DAS: "Develop-At-Start", i.e. players who write a detailed character
background/personality by the time the campaign begins

plus more general ones like-

CF: "Castle Falkenstein", a card-using Victorian fantasy game
OTE: "Over the Edge", a dice-using freeform conspiracy game
RM: "Rolemaster"
PC: "Player Character" - usually handled by a player
NPC: "Non-Player Character" - usually handled by the GM
YMMV: "your mileage may vary"
IMHO: "in my humble opinion"

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
3) What is diceless role-playing?

Technically, diceless role-playing is simply any RPG which
does not use numerical randomizers like dice, numbered cards, etc.
Currently, there are only two commercial diceless RPG's: _Amber_
(by Phage Press) and _Theatrix_ (by Backstage Press). However, you
should *not* assume that all diceless is like it is described in
these games.
"Diceless" encompasses a wide variety of playing styles, ranging
from interactive storytelling to competitive simulation-style games.
There are several means of dealing with the

For more information on this, see part III of this FAQ.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
4) What do you mean by "plot" and "plotting"?

We don't. @-) By that, I mean that there are many different
meanings of the term "plot" floating around. You should *not*
assume that when someone says they are "plotting" that they
prepare a linear sequence of events which the PC's must go through.
While various people have their own consistent (or inconsistent)
uses for the terms "plot" and "plotting", I don't think that there
is a general consensus on an exact definition.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
5) What about all these other terms?

"mechanic": A formal method of resolution, which need not be numerical
(i.e. Plot Points and Drama Deck cards are mechanics) but must be
specific. A statement like "low roll good, lower roll better" is
not considered a mechanic unless it is spelled out just how low
is good. On the other hand, a statement like "a 02 or less is a
critical" is a mechanic.

"mechanics-light, mechanicless": Games which have very few to no
mechanics (sometimes known as "freeform", but this term is less
clear). _Over the Edge_ is mechanics-light, and

"metagame": dealing with concerns of the players and GM, as opposed
to the characters in the gameworld. Examples of metagame
concerns could include "spotlight time", plot scripting, and
who brought the munchies.

"intra-game": dealing solely with matters within the gameworld - a
character's plans and actions, or the environment.

"simulationist": A game in which effort is made to not let meta-game
concerns during play affect in-game resolution.

"spotlight time": The amount of time a player/PC is the center of
attention in the group.

"group contract": The set of conventions the players and GM agree
on -- including rule system, but also issues like "The GM will
fudge things so PCs won't die pointless deaths", or "Pulp
genre conventions take precedence over common sense", or even
"Don't let the cat in while we play -- she bites legs."

"assumption clash": When the GM's understanding of how the game-world
works conflicts with a player's assumptions. For example, as a
player you might think that your tough fighter can kill a
charging boar with his sword with little fear of injury, while
your GM thinks that a boar can easily ignore any sword swing
and will break both his legs. You say "I crouch and prepare
to meet its rush" and get severely mauled.
It doesn't matter who is *right* in this case -- the
problem is that their understanding differs. The player are not
privy to information her character would know, and thus she made
decisions which simply didn't make sense in the game world.

"interactive literature": a term for various forms of Live Action
Role-playing Games (LARP's), which involve the interactive
creation of a story. Not everything the characters do is
neccessarily acted out, but they share some qualities: There
are almost never NPC's, so both protagonists and antagonists
are run by players. The players generally wander around a
large area -- a Judge/GM is not always on hand, and bulky rule
books are rarely carried. Thus, the resolution mechanics must
be minimal.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
6) What are these "narrative stances" that people refer to?

This was first formulated by Kevin Hardwick and Sarah Kahn, and was
so useful that it immediately became part of the jargon of the group.

This section was written by Sarah Kahn.

[A] Actor Stance
The position from which the game is viewed when the player makes
a meta-game decision to further his portrayal of his character by
consciously attempting to mimic the character's actions, tonal quality,
facial expressions, gestures, or other physical manifestations of
character. This is an important aspect of LARP, but even in table-top
gaming it often manifests: when, for example, a player stands up in a
sedentary table-top game, it is often an indication that he has
momentarily adopted the stance of Actor.
The Actor Stance is the one in which the player contemplates what
he can do to portray his character more effectively to the other
participants in the game. It is therefore by nature a meta-game stance,
removed from the internal reality of the game.

[B] Audience Stance
The position from which the player observes, enjoys, and evaluates
the game or aspects of it as himself, rather than as his character.
This is also a meta-game stance, as it refers to the *player's* viewing
and interpretation of the game, which may be very different from the
character's. This stance is the stance from which things like dramatic
irony or historical accuracy are judged. It is also the stance adopted
whenever the player witnesses an in-game event of which his character
is utterly unaware.

[C] Author Stance
The position from which the player evaluates the game with an eye
towards changing it or affecting its development. This is the stance
which must be adopted for any world-building to take place. It is also
the stance from which a GM might introduce plot elements to the game.
The entire process of character creation requires the adoption of the
stance of Author, as do the vast majority of meta-game decisions.
"What system shall we use?," "What is the reason for all these
characters to travel together?," and "What in-character reason can we
come up with for Bob's character to leave the game, now that Bob is
moving to Alaska?" are all questions which can only be answered through
the adoption of the Authorial stance.
Like the previous three stances, the Author Stance exists outside
of the in-game reality. It is an external position from which the
game is viewed for the purpose of making decisions about its progress
and its play.

[D] In-Character Stance
The view of the game from within the inside of the game world and
its reality, usually from within the mind of a character living within
that reality. This is the stance of the *character,* not the player,
and it encompasses only those things seen from the character's point
of view. It is the stance commonly associated with "play itself,"
as opposed to the meta-game, and is the position which the player
adopts in order to play his character believably and satisfyingly.

In any RPG, the participants will leap back and forth between
these four stances so quickly and intuitively that they are likely to be
unaware that they are doing so at all. The player who omits description
of his character's trip to the bathroom, to use a well-worn example, must
by necessity have adopted the stance of Author momentarily in order to
make this decision. The decision having been made, he is then likely to
jump back into the IC Stance. In many cases, these jumps in perspective
are made so instinctively and rapidly that they go unnoticed on any
conscious level. In other cases, the jumps from one stance to another
may be quite obvious, as when players are forced to spend a long period
of time in the Audience stance when they would far rather be spending
more time viewing the game from the IC position.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
7) What are the campaign "Axes"? (as submitted by Rodney Payne)

This is a concept for "campaign classification" developed initially
by Leon von Stauber. He had created a large number of axes on which
campaigns could be classified -- Plot, World, Drama, Realism,
Romanticism, Conflict, Authorship, Direction, Mechanism. His
original article is on the web at:
http://cordelia.fnal.gov/~jhkim/rpg/styles/plot_axes.html

However, two of these "axes" have apparently stuck more strongly than
the others, and are worth going into more detail...

-> DRAMA/SIMULATION

The *dramatic* GM deliberately includes, within the setting, people,
places, and events which are particularly relevant to the backgrounds
and motivations of the player characters. In the strongest form, she
might fudge things so that they fit better with the PC's -- varying
down to the weak form where she simply focusses creative efforts on
those things she thinks will engage the PC's.

The *simulationist* GM designs the setting independently of the PC's
and their motivations. The strongest form of this would be a GM who
creates a very detailed, fleshed out setting prior to even meeting
the players or character creation. After this, he simply develops
how things change...

-> DIRECTED/NATURAL

A *directed* GM is one who makes a conscious effort during game play
to guide the campaign development. This doesn't mean that she has a
fixed plot which she is sticking to, however. There is also purely
off-the-cuff directing: guiding the campaign towards higher drama
on the spur of the moment, or perhaps just keeping the action moving.

A *natural* GM is one who simply responds to players actions in a
manner most consistent with his conception of the world, and perhaps
his understanding of the group contract. He leaves dealing with
meta-game issues like drama or pacing up to the group, rather than
taking a leadership role.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
8) What is the point of all this abstract discussion?

Many times the discussion in .advocacy seems purely academic,
unrelated to any practical issues of actually running or playing in
a game. However, some of us feel that by some analysis of the techniques
and styles which occur in RPG's, we can help improve actual game play.
Some possibilities:

-> Creating tools - like the questionaire in Part II of the FAQ -
to help GM's and player's figure out their style differences
and reach a compromise (or simply avoid playing together if
their styles are too different)
-> Give GM's and player's new ideas for methods and style of
play, which may help them to stretch out to different and
interesting variations.
-> Analyze what techniques work best with what styles -- i.e.
pro's and con's based on classification. (i.e. If you have
Develop-In-Play players, then explicitly announced campaign
themes might not be that useful).
-> Allow for easier discussion when different GM's or players
are comparing notes, by creating a common vocabulary of how
to refer to certain features
-> Keep up interest level in games

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

John H Kim

unread,

Aug 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/23/96

to

The rec.games.frp.advocacy FAQ
==============================
PART III: Diceless Roleplaying

1) What is Diceless role-playing?
2) Does it work?
3) How does the GM make decisions?
4) Is it fair to the players?
5) Can it simulate "realistic" randomness?
6) What difference does it make in practice?

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
1) What is Diceless role-playing?

Technically, diceless gaming would simply be a game that doesn't
use dice (for example, _Castle Falkenstein_ uses cards).

In terms of this FAQ, however, "diceless" role-playing refers
to generally minimalist systems where the GM decides on the results
of actions without the help of randomizers, tables, or explicit
quantified mechanics. There are currently two published diceless
RPG "systems": the _Amber_ role-playing game, by Phage Press -
and _Theatrix_, by Backstage Press. Also, FUDGE by Grey Ghost
Games has notes on how to run the game in a diceless fashion.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
2) Does it work?

Yes. There are plenty of people who have been playing without
dice even long before the above systems were published. At least for
these people, it can be just as exciting as diced gaming, and at least
competitive in realism with many diced games. It generally results in
much more emphasis on player and GM descriptions, and much less emphasis
on rules.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
3) How does the GM make decisions?

That varies with the system, the GM, the group contract, and
so forth. In general, action resolution can be based on a great variety
of input factors. What follows is an outline of some of the factors which
can go into action resolution -

[A] Reality/Genre: This is just the GM's judgement of what is the most
reasonable outcome given the understood "reality" of the situation -
including genre and setting-specific laws (like magic). This is actually
the most common form of resolution in any game - if a character tries
to walk through the woods, the GM just says it happens.

[B] Mechanics: This is game-mechanical constructs (which may represent the
genre-reality, but which are more than just a general understanding).
Note that this does *not* have to involve dice. CORPS and _Vampire_
both use some diceless, mechanical action resolution. Spending Plot
Points (or Hero Points, Willpower, etc.) is also a mechanic.

[C] Description: In this case, _how_ the player describes his character's
action has a big effect on the outcome. This involves the player
heavily in the action -- but it also tends to emphasize player skill
rather than character skill (i.e. if a given player is very good at
describing combat tactics, then his character is better at combat).

[D] Plot: As _Theatrix_ describes it, "Does the plot require a given
outcome?" The GM sets up a plot beforehand, and if a given result is
required for the plot to work, he chooses that result. This is the
factor most often associated with "railroading".

[E] Drama: This is a free-wheeling sense of drama or comedy/fun, as
mediated by the GM. For example, a chandelier swing in a swashbuckling
game may naturally succeed because it is dramatically appropriate. It
has nothing to do with the written plot, but it fits.

[F] Meta-game: This is a catch-all category for concerns of the GM and
players. A gamble may succeed because it is getting late in the
evening and people want to go home. Certain issues may be avoided
because some players find them offensive. A PC may disappear
because the player can't show Etcetera.

[G] Group Consensus (from Sarah Kahn): This is a sort of combination
of Reality and Description resolution, in which the entire group
combines efforts to determine what the "expert swordsman's" best
strategy really would BE when the player of the swordsman knows
nothing of combat. It is often use to counteract the problems of
"description" resolution. It often takes the form of "he who knows
the subject best is empowered to define the reality."

[H] Dice: Technically dice will not be used in a "diceless" game, but
I included them to be completist, and to show how they are just one
among a large number of factors. Dice can be used as additional
input into any number of resolutions. Mechanics often call for die
rolls, but a mechanicless game can also use dice to represent random
factors (The rule being, say, "High good, low bad").

Besides the variety of input, action resolution can be different in
method or style of handling -- like how the results are presented. For
example, even if two GM's use the same mechanics and die rolls: one might
describe to players using only descriptive terms, and he keeps the
character sheet and die rolls to himself.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
4) Is this fair to the players?

Well, that depends. The advantage of diceless role-playing
on this front is that it encourages greater feedback and communication
with the GM. Yes, technically, a diceless can shoot down whatever
player plans he doesn't like by ruling that they fail. However, the
idea is that it will be very clear to the players that he is doing
this -- since the GM decides everything, he also takes all the blame.

Diceless play requires a large amount of trust in the GM -- but
the theory is that it also makes it more clear when the GM has broken
that trust.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
5) Can it simulate "realistic" randomness?

Well, that depends on the GM and the situation. Theoretically,
a die-roll can certainly provide a more statistically random sequence
than GM whim. However, within the context of the game, there are
very few runs of statistically-analyzable events.

The GM can take into account a wide variety of in-game factors
for each individual decision which will differentiate them. Of course,
unless he is a skilled expert in that field, common sense only carries
you so far -- some of the choices will either be arbitrary, or be based
on meta-game factors like Drama...

As an example: the PC's fire a volley of arrows at a distant
enemy. The GM has to decide if they hit any vital spots, taking out
some of the enemy. With this sort of micro-decision,
A diced system is better able to simulate the randomness that
often occurs in real world. However, the mechanics are only able to
take into account a few of the relevant variables. The GM can take
into account far more of the actual (i.e. game-world) situation.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
6) What difference does it make?

Well, I'll defer at this point to Alain Lapalme, who described
in an article what he considered to be the diceless "paradigm shift"
for him...

> It is clear to me that I don't understand the dice/diceless
> paradigm shift (I used tothink I did, but I'm no longer so sure).
> To summarize my views on the diceless shift:
> 1) explicit trust in the GM
> 2) can't hide behind bad/good rolls
> 3) forces players to take responsability for their actions
> 4) changes the player/gm communication style from mechanistic
> to more descriptive
> 5) increases subjectivity
> 6) changes the whole nature of combat

But of course this is different for every person...

John H Kim

unread,

Aug 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/23/96

to

The rec.games.frp.advocacy FAQ
==============================
PART II: Plotting Distinctions

1) What kinds of questions come up in deciding on plotting style?
( by Mary Kuhner <mkku...@genetics.washington.edu> )
2) How do interesting things which engage the motivations of the
PC's become a part of the setting? (by John Kim <jh...@columbia.edu>)
3) What techniques do GM's actually use in preparing for games?
(by John Kim <jh...@columbia.edu>)

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
1) What kinds of questions come up in deciding on plotting style?
( by Mary Kuhner <mkku...@genetics.washington.edu> )

The following questionnaire is an aid in helping the GM communicate
to his/her players what type of game will be played.

1. When you are setting up a campaign or scenario, do you attempt to
provide a plot for the PCs to follow?
(a) Will you design elements of the background to fit with this
plot?
***I need an organization on about the same power level as the
PCs to act as a recurring antagonist, so let's design one and
place it in the setting.***

(b) Will you change the world background in play to keep the plot on
track?
***The PCs unwittingly destroyed the clue in location A, so I
will provide a similar clue in location B.***

(c) Will you adjucate the results of PC actions in such a way as to
further the plot?
***If a PC doesn't notice this clue the group will go off in a
totally nonproductive direction, so I will insure that he does
notice it, rather than leaving it up to chance/dice/probability.***

2. Do you deliberately attempt to engage the motivations and inner
conflicts of the PCs?
(a) Will you design elements of the world background to do so?

***This PC needs recurring threats to protect the common folk
from in order to develop her view of herself as heroine, so I'd
better provide them in my world design.***

(b) Will you change the world background in play to do so?

***This character would react much more strongly to the situation
if the attackers were of his own religion, not (as I originally
thought) a different one.***

(c) Will you adjucate the results of player actions in such a way as
to further engagement of PC motivations?

***If the PC doesn't manage to save this NPC's life she won't be
as emotionally engaged with the situation, so I will arrange for
her to succeed.***

3. Do the PCs have special advantages, or disadvantages, relative to
NPCs of the same ability?
(a) Do you design the world background to specifically advantage
(disadvantage) the PCs?
***I'd better set up some challenges which these PCs are
specifically able to tackle, such as ones slanted at their
particular powers.***

(b) Will you change the world background in play to do so?
***With the kinds of abilities these PCs have they'll have trouble
escaping from captivity, so I'd better add a traitor among the
enemy to make it possible.***

(c) Will you adjucate the results of PC actions to do so?
***An NPC who took that damage would be killed, but for a PC
we'll allow medical intervention to save her life.***

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

2) How do interesting things which engage the motivations of the
PC's become a part of the setting? (by John Kim <jh...@columbia.edu>)

A) "GM Hooks": The players create their characters, and then the GM
comes up with a limited number of interesting "plot hooks" which
the PC's may or may not choose to commit to.

B) "Connected PC's": The GM builds various interesting things to do
into his setting, and the players then create characters who are
motivated towards and around those interesting things.

C) "Conflicted PC's": The players build their characters so that
they create interesting things to do -- either by conflict within
and between themselves, or by their very nature.

Let me give three contrasting examples:

A) A pulp action campaign -- the players create various daredevils who
are generically interested in fighting crime. The GM comes up with
a semi-scripted introductory adventure designed to pull them together
into a team. He them creates various villians with schemes for
world domination -- and each week drops out various clues for these
schemes which the PC's then follow up on.

B) A fantasy game, where the GM already has a detailed world designed
which includes (among various other things) an evil empire ruled over
by a sorceror-king. The players look over the source material and
tell the GM -- "Hey, why don't we play rebels in the capital city
who are trying to overthrow the king?" The GM and the players
work up more details on the capital and the palace defenses, etc.
Each week, the PC's outline for the GM their upcoming plans -- and
the GM dutifully fills in details on where they plan to strike next.

C) A modern-world game where the PC's are the majority of a handful
of people who simultaneously and inexplicably gain godlike paranormal
powers. Now their rivalries, aspirations, and other conflict are
what draw out the game. For example, one character is a communist
sympathizer who tries out various political machinations which the
others become concerned about. (Hi, Craig!)

Like in a fractious _Amber_ game, the PC's are by and large their
own enemies. Naturally, one of the obvious themes is their slide
from a "mortal" POV to a "god" POV. Absolute power corrupts
absolutely and all that.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
3) What techniques do GM's actually use in preparing for games?
( by John Kim <jh...@columbia.edu> )

As I see it, the most common elements of GM planning might be something
like: Locations/NPC's , Timetables, Contingent Scenes/Events, and
Consequence sequences or flowcharts.

I) *Preparation of Locations and NPC's* -- which is fairly universal
regardless of planning/plotting style. However, there are some
distinctions of *why* that gets detailed:

A] The group has agreed that certain things will be important
(as in my Champions game where they are fighting a conspiracy
known as "The Enclave", which was agreed upon in a group
discussion at the start of the campaign)
B] The players predict, based on their knowledge, that things will
be important and inform the GM (Ex. "We plan on going to
Botswana tomorrow." -- and the GM prepares stuff on Botswana)
C] The GM predicts, based on his knowledge, that the PC's will
run into certain things.
D] The GM thinks that certain locations/characters would be
interesting if the players ran into them, and details them
for possible inclusion if the opportunity presents itself.
E] The GM thinks that certain locations/characters are interesting
in-and-of themselves and works them out regardless of how
they intersect with the PC's.
F] The GM has certain locations/characters detailed which he will
direct the PC's towards (Ex. A _Feng Shui_ GM who prepares
a cool site for a fight scene, and then manipulates the PC's
to get there).

II) *Locational Time-table* of things which will happen due to
interactions which do not involve the PC's.

The classic example of this is a literal time-table of NPC
interactions like the Duke's Grand Ball -- where you work out in
advance what the NPC's will do if the PC's don't interfere.
Similarly, this would include working out an enemy's plan assuming
only In-Character knowledge for the enemy NPC.

This may be "unplotted" (i.e. the GM isn't planning on an
expected sequence of events), but it can also be "plotted" if the
GM arranges the events of the timetable with the PC's in mind.

III) *Contingent Events* are things which are intentionally left
indeterminate in space, time, or agent so that they can be made to
intersect better with the PC's.

For example, the GM might decide that at some point along their
travel, an Ogre is summoned by a curse in the middle of a group of
nearby soldiers. The summoning of the Ogre is contingent on the
PC's passing by -- whenever they pass by that spot, that is when
the ogre appears.

"Schroedinger's NPC" would also fall into this category --
i.e. the PC's run into someone with a piece of information for them:
If they leave by the city's West Gate, then a beggar comes up to them.
If they leave by another way, then they run into a wandering juggler
on the road who tells them the same thing.

This is "plotted" almost by definition. It is often used to
set up pivotal "plot hooks" -- but can also be used for just some
atmospheric touches or such (i.e. whenever the players pass by the
rear of the church, they will see a huge raven flutter away from a
particular grave).

IV) *Consequence sequences* (or flowcharts) are planned results of
certain actions if the PC's try them -- this is a short-cut to working
out logical consequences during the game (in case they are complicated).

For example, let's say that there is an NPC book-seller who the
GM thinks might be hired to find certain rare books. Rather than
working it out on the spot, the GM decides in advance *if* he is hired
to find certain books how long he will take and what steps he will go
through to do so.

In the above case, this is a fairly "non-plotted" (in that the
sequence is not particularly geared to engage the PC's). However,
like Locational Time-tabling, these consequences can be tailored to
fit with an intended plot.

Kevin Munoz

unread,

Aug 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/24/96

to

I liked your Part III...very agreeable! ;) Persona is an example of
mechanics-based resolution (based on skill Levels).

--
Kevin Munoz
President
Tesarta Industries, Incorporated
Makers of the Persona RPG

Kevin Munoz

unread,

Aug 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/24/96

to

In article <4vkrib$5...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,

jh...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) wrote:
>3) What is diceless role-playing?
>
> Technically, diceless role-playing is simply any RPG which
> does not use numerical randomizers like dice, numbered cards, etc.
> Currently, there are only two commercial diceless RPG's: _Amber_
> (by Phage Press) and _Theatrix_ (by Backstage Press). However, you
> should *not* assume that all diceless is like it is described in
> these games.

You may wish to amend the above: there are now three commercial
diceless RPG's: Amber, Theatrix and Persona. The latter came out in May.

Keith Kornelsen

unread,

Aug 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/25/96

to

Tes...@aol.com (Kevin Munoz) wrote:
>In article <4vkrib$5...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
>jh...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) wrote:

>>3) What is diceless role-playing?
>> Technically, diceless role-playing is simply any RPG which
>> does not use numerical randomizers like dice, numbered cards, etc.
>> Currently, there are only two commercial diceless RPG's: _Amber_
>> (by Phage Press) and _Theatrix_ (by Backstage Press). However, you
>> should *not* assume that all diceless is like it is described in
>> these games.

>You may wish to amend the above: there are now three commercial
>diceless RPG's: Amber, Theatrix and Persona. The latter came out in May.

Everway. Numbers, yes. Randomizer, yes. But the randomizer
is not numerical, it's symbolic.

--Intrepid

Kevin R. Hardwick

unread,

Aug 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/25/96

to

FUDGE is also diceless (it contains rules both for diced and diceless
play), and I recently saw a copy for sale at my local game store, so I
think you have to include it also as a "commercial" game.

Best,
Kevin

On Sat, 24 Aug 1996, Kevin Munoz wrote:

> In article <4vkrib$5...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
> jh...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) wrote:

> >3) What is diceless role-playing?
> >
> > Technically, diceless role-playing is simply any RPG which
> > does not use numerical randomizers like dice, numbered cards, etc.
> > Currently, there are only two commercial diceless RPG's: _Amber_
> > (by Phage Press) and _Theatrix_ (by Backstage Press). However, you
> > should *not* assume that all diceless is like it is described in
> > these games.
>

> You may wish to amend the above: there are now three commercial
> diceless RPG's: Amber, Theatrix and Persona. The latter came out in May.
>

Bruce Baugh

unread,

Aug 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/25/96

to

Holy toledo, John. Mighty good work.

--
Bruce Baugh <*> br...@kenosis.com <*> http://www.kenosis.com/bruce
See my Web pages for...
Daedalus Entertainment, makers of Feng Shui and Shadowfist
Christlib, the mailing list of Christian & libertarian ideas
New sf by S.M. Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at $50/hr, min $100

A Lapalme

unread,

Aug 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/25/96

to

"Kevin R. Hardwick" (krhr...@wam.umd.edu) writes:
> FUDGE is also diceless (it contains rules both for diced and diceless
> play), and I recently saw a copy for sale at my local game store, so I
> think you have to include it also as a "commercial" game.
>

[Also answering Intrepid's post, re Everway being diceless]

Fudge was built around using dice. Diceless is an option, but you could
say that of any game. Everway still uses a randomizer, the Fortune deck.
In my mind, neither are diceless in the sense that John defined diceless
in his FAQ (ie no randomizer). And, more importantly, neither really
address the diceless paradigm. Directing someone to Fudge or Everway to get
a first go at diceless would be unkind.

Let's try to keep things relatively simple, shall we?

Alain (the purist)

Kevin R. Hardwick

unread,

Aug 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/26/96

to

On 25 Aug 1996, A Lapalme wrote:

> Fudge was built around using dice. Diceless is an option, but you could
> say that of any game. Everway still uses a randomizer, the Fortune deck.
> In my mind, neither are diceless in the sense that John defined diceless
> in his FAQ (ie no randomizer). And, more importantly, neither really
> address the diceless paradigm. Directing someone to Fudge or Everway to get
> a first go at diceless would be unkind.

I must most respectfully disagree. Two points:

First, FUDGE--or at least the version that I have--offers two forms of
action resolution: diced and diceless. While the authors give equal
weight to both, they make it reasonably clear, I thought anyway, that
diceless was their preferred choice. The sections describing diceless
resolution (which they call "subjective") are *excellent*, full, and
complete. Subjective resolution, using FUDGE, does not require a
randomizer. So I would reverse your first sentence above--FUDGE was built
around diceless, although of course you could go diced too, if you wanted.
But then again, you can say that of any game :)

[Grin. Someone better informed than I will no doubt weight in and tell me
that FUDGE was originally designed for dice, and that the diceless system
was an add-on. No matter--it is still entirely viable. And it is very
easy to understand and use, IME.]

Second, FUDGE was the first diceless resolution system that I used, it is
by far the simplest of the diceless systems I have looked at, and in
general, I think the advice that they give is excellent. Off hand, were I
considering going diceless, this is where I would start (with aplogies to
THEATRIX :). FUDGE is an *excellent* place for a beginning diceless GM to
go to get a simple but usable system.

My best,
Kevin

Magnus Lie Hetland

unread,

Aug 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/27/96

to

Kevin R. Hardwick wrote:
>
> On 25 Aug 1996, A Lapalme wrote:
>
> > Fudge was built around using dice. Diceless is an option, but you could
> > say that of any game. Everway still uses a randomizer, the Fortune deck.
> > In my mind, neither are diceless in the sense that John defined diceless
> > in his FAQ (ie no randomizer). And, more importantly, neither really
> > address the diceless paradigm. Directing someone to Fudge or Everway to get
> > a first go at diceless would be unkind.
>
> I must most respectfully disagree. Two points:
>
> First, FUDGE--or at least the version that I have--offers two forms of
> action resolution: diced and diceless.

That is probably the newest version.

> While the authors give equal
> weight to both,

I think you will find that this is not quite correct. The author of
FUDGE is Steffan
O'Sullivan, who has not included anything about diceless resolution in
the game. The
diceless section is part of the addendum, which is not an "official"
part of FUDGE.
(Maybe there is a newer version in which this is changed...) And it is
not written
by Mr. O'Sullivan. (I cannot remember the name of the author at this
moment...)

> they make it reasonably clear, I thought anyway, that
> diceless was their preferred choice.

Hm. The preferred choice of the author of the diceless section, maybe,
but then again,
in the addenda there are also rules for, e.g. percentage dice, by people
who prefer _that_
to the FUDGE dice.

> The sections describing diceless
> resolution (which they call "subjective")

This is new to me. (Maybe I _do_ have an old version - I'll be sure to
check. It is from late 1995... The hardcopy sold in stores...) They have
subjective character creation, but that is
far from diceless.

> are *excellent*, full, and
> complete. Subjective resolution, using FUDGE, does not require a
> randomizer.

Sure. I agree.

> So I would reverse your first sentence above--FUDGE was built
> around diceless, although of course you could go diced too, if you wanted.
> But then again, you can say that of any game :)
>
> [Grin. Someone better informed than I will no doubt weight in and tell me
> that FUDGE was originally designed for dice,

It was. And is.

> and that the diceless system
> was an add-on.

I guess that is what I just said...

> No matter--it is still entirely viable. And it is very
> easy to understand and use, IME.]
>
> Second, FUDGE was the first diceless resolution system that I used, it is
> by far the simplest of the diceless systems I have looked at, and in
> general, I think the advice that they give is excellent. Off hand, were I
> considering going diceless, this is where I would start (with aplogies to
> THEATRIX :). FUDGE is an *excellent* place for a beginning diceless GM to
> go to get a simple but usable system.
>

I completely agree.

> My best,
> Kevin

--

Magnus
Lie
Hetland

m...@lise.unit.no :)*

Magnus Lie Hetland

unread,

Aug 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/27/96

to

Kevin Munoz wrote:
>
> In article <4vkrib$5...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
> jh...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) wrote:

> >3) What is diceless role-playing?
> >
> > Technically, diceless role-playing is simply any RPG which
> > does not use numerical randomizers like dice, numbered cards, etc.
> > Currently, there are only two commercial diceless RPG's: _Amber_
> > (by Phage Press) and _Theatrix_ (by Backstage Press). However, you
> > should *not* assume that all diceless is like it is described in
> > these games.
>

> You may wish to amend the above: there are now three commercial
> diceless RPG's: Amber, Theatrix and Persona. The latter came out in May.
>

You might want to include Epiphany (though it has some randomization...)
Keeping a list of all diceless games will soon be impossible. I think
there are several on the net and new ones are appearing in the stores
all the time (or so it seems to me...).

> --
> Kevin Munoz
> President
> Tesarta Industries, Incorporated
> Makers of the Persona RPG

--

Alain Lapalme

unread,

Aug 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/27/96

to

"Kevin R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>
>
>On 25 Aug 1996, A Lapalme wrote:
>
>> Fudge was built around using dice. Diceless is an option, but you could
>> say that of any game. Everway still uses a randomizer, the Fortune deck.
>> In my mind, neither are diceless in the sense that John defined diceless
>> in his FAQ (ie no randomizer). And, more importantly, neither really
>> address the diceless paradigm. Directing someone to Fudge or Everway to get
>> a first go at diceless would be unkind.
>
>I must most respectfully disagree. Two points:

Hey, I think this is the first time we clearly disagree. Does that mean
we'll start flaming each other? ;)

>
>First, FUDGE--or at least the version that I have--offers two forms of

>action resolution: diced and diceless. While the authors give equal
>weight to both, they make it reasonably clear, I thought anyway, that
>diceless was their preferred choice. The sections describing diceless
>resolution (which they call "subjective") are *excellent*, full, and

>complete. Subjective resolution, using FUDGE, does not require a

>randomizer. So I would reverse your first sentence above--FUDGE was built

>around diceless, although of course you could go diced too, if you wanted.

Hmm...I don't want to argue this point endlessly, but, when I got FUDGE,
two years ago, there were no diceless option. This was added later on by
Reimer Behrend. However, I'm not that knowledgeable about FUDGE history
so, if I'm wrong, so be it.

However, my point was that, the rules were presented as diced rules the
same way that Theatrix rules are presented as a diceless rules. Both
offer the option of going the other way but... I hope you see my point.

>But then again, you can say that of any game :)
>
>[Grin. Someone better informed than I will no doubt weight in and tell me

>that FUDGE was originally designed for dice, and that the diceless system
>was an add-on. No matter--it is still entirely viable. And it is very

>easy to understand and use, IME.]

Oh, absolutely true. However, I'm not sure that someone who was raised on
AD&D(to take an example) could make the switch to diceless FUDGE that
easily. I don't find that much information in the rule set to make the
paradigm that easily.

>
>Second, FUDGE was the first diceless resolution system that I used, it is
>by far the simplest of the diceless systems I have looked at, and in
>general, I think the advice that they give is excellent. Off hand, were I
>considering going diceless, this is where I would start (with aplogies to
>THEATRIX :). FUDGE is an *excellent* place for a beginning diceless GM to
>go to get a simple but usable system.

Usable yes. Simple, yes. I completely agree. My shift to diceless was
via FUDGE so I'd be silly to argue the opposite. However, FUDGE alone was
far from sufficient. Basically, I think my shift to diceless was a
combination of reading Theatrix [and realizing that I didn't understand
most of it :( ] and reading and participating in the diceless debates here
on rgfa.

*********************************

I really don't want to get into a debate about whether or not FUDGE (or
EVERWAY) is or isn't a diceless system. My only reason for my previous
post was that I would prefer we keep the diceless systems as, well,
diceless. The whole diceless issue is so prone to confusion that anything
which muddies the waters just makes it that much harder to get the message
across. I'm usually not a purist but, in the present case, I find myself
having to be one.

--
Alain

Kevin R. Hardwick

unread,

Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96

to

On Tue, 27 Aug 1996, Magnus Lie Hetland wrote:

> > I must most respectfully disagree. Two points:
> >

> > First, FUDGE--or at least the version that I have--offers two forms of
> > action resolution: diced and diceless.
>

> That is probably the newest version.

No, its the 1993 version. But no matter--when I went back to actually
look at it, I found to my embarassment that you and Alain are entirely
correct. As it happens, the subjective resolution section most definetely
*does* require use of dice--it adapts very well to diceless (and the
advice that I remember--under "subjective damage" or some such
title--provides an excellent paradigm for general diceless adjudication).
But that isn't the same thing as being written for diceless, as Alain
quite rightly pointed out in his original post.

So--at least on this issue I've been writing from ignorance (or
forgetfulness anyway, its younger brother :) We obviously adapted it to
diceless right away, and never looked back . . .

Apologies to everyone.

My best,
Kevin

A Lapalme

unread,

Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96

to

"Kevin R. Hardwick" (krhr...@wam.umd.edu) writes:

Nancy M. Sauer <*> "Then you will come to think of things in
Disciple of Bread Do: a wide sense and, taking the dough as the
The Way of the Way, you will see the Way is dough.
Flour Warrior In the dough there is virtue, and no evil."

Kevin Munoz

unread,

Sep 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/2/96

to

In article <50f0n1$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, bt...@aol.com (BTRC) wrote:

>[blatant plug]
>If anyone is interested in a new resolution system for a diceless game,
>which is also extremely adaptable to most types of live action games, go
>your store and check out Epiphany, by BTRC.

Can you describe Epiphany a bit? I'm always interested to learn about my,
um, competition... ;)

Kevin Munoz

unread,

Sep 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/2/96

to

In article <322965...@inetnebr.com>, lad...@inetnebr.com wrote:

>A quick question, I own a copy of amber, and have downloaded fudge,
>where is theatrix... is it real :) or just not distributed in the
>state of nebraska

They exist...they're based, I believe, in Ohio, but I've seen them out here
in California. So you should be able to find it; it's just not as widespread
as TSR... ;)

A Lapalme

unread,

Sep 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/2/96

to

THE DICELESS PARADIGM SHIFT

I`ve been asked to explain what I meant by the diceless
paradigm shift. This is not an easy task so I ended up being
more verbose than usual. This is a long post. You have been
warned.

As is often the case, when one is asked to explain ones
comment, what felt simple and obvious in a careless moment,
becomes much more complex upon closer analysis. I‘ve been
trying to pin this paradigm shift down and am finding that it
is not that easy. However, since I‘m not one to decline a
challenge of this sort, I‘m still going to take a stab at it.

I should provide a bit of background. I came to diceless play
through a process which lasted over a year. Specifically,
during that period, I went from using a highly mechanical
approach to character generation and in-game action resolution
to a low-mechanical diced approach (FUDGE) to a diceless,
nearly mechanicless final solution. Since this process
involved much more than getting rid of the dice, I think that,
to some extent, what I consider part of the diceless paradigm
may actually be part of the mechanicless paradigm. As I am
aware of this and, because this is suppose to be an article on
the diceless paradigm, I will try to limit my scope to
diceless.

I should also note that, really, I haven`t reached a final
solution. My GMing style is continuously changing so, what
works today, may not work next year.

**************************

Before plunging into the matter proper, I should first define
what I mean by diceless. Technically speaking, it means “no
dice used”. However, I extend this definition to something
more general: “no randomizer used”. What this means is that no
randomizer is used to determine the outcome of any action or to
assist the GM or player in making a decision. By this
definition, Castle Falkenstein(CF), which uses a standard 54
card deck as randomizer, is not diceless; EVERWAY(EW) is also
not diceless because it uses the Fortune Deck as a randomizer.

For better or for worse, this is the definition I use. I know
from experience that some of posters to rgfa have a looser
definition than I do. So be it. I prefer mine, naturally :),
and it has the additional advantage of not contradicting John
Kim`s FAQ definition.

Speaking of John`s FAQ, I am taking the liberty of using some
of my text he quoted. [I figure I can plagiarize myself). I`m
also using some of the other points he brought up.

I`m also using the FUDGE gender convention: the GM is a she;
the player is a he. Nothing magical or significant about this.
I just like it because it`s clear who I`m referring to.

OK. Enough introduction. Let`s get down to it and quote the
text John quoted:

The diceless paradigm shift:

1) explicit trust in the GM
2) can`t hide behind bad/good rolls

3) forces players to take responsibility for their actions
4) changes the player/GM communication style from mechanistic

to more descriptive
5) increases subjectivity
6) changes the whole nature of combat

This is what I wrote a long time ago (probably over a year ago
if not more). The interesting thing about the 6 points is that
I had prefaced them with the following:

“It is clear to me that I don`t understand the dice/diceless
paradigm shift (I used to think I did, but I`m no longer so
sure).”

I wish I could remember the context of that comment. I would
really help me explain it and would also help in putting in
context the 6 points quoted. However, since memory fails, I`ll
have to guess as to what I was thinking about and then move on
from there.

That comment was probably written during one of the dice wars
rgfa has become famous (or infamous) for. As is often the case
in these debates, each point is over analyzed, sometimes to the
point that the issue is made to become meaningless. It gets
even worse when several of the diceless posters, who came to
diceless using different routes, contradict every belief you
might hold about diced roleplaying. So, my guess is that was
written in a moment of confusion and, probably, exasperation.

The reason I`m taking a tangent on this is to try to avert the
usual “but my diced games are just like that so you can`t claim
that diceless games have exclusive rights to [insert whatever
issue the poster is taking issue with]”. What I`m relating
here is my own personal experience not the ultimate truth.

Shift #1: Explicit trust in the GM

Well, I would think that is would be obvious but I elaborate
anyways. In a diceless game, the final authority is the GM.
There is absolutely no third party involved. The players and
the GM have agreed that the GM is the FINAL arbitrator. The GM
might have the option of asking a player to make the decision
but it is still the GM who decides who makes the decision and
will also tend to reserve a veto.

Many will say that the players should trust their GM anyways,
dice or no dice. True enough. I have no argument with that.
However, in a diced game, even if the players trust the GM,
there is no escaping the fact that there is a third party
involved: the randomizer. This third party is not
controllable, per se, and can and does provide, to some people,
an added security. In other words, this third party can help
the players trust their GM.

You will note that I said “explicit trust in the GM”. I used
the word “explicit” quite deliberately. Many detractors of
diceless play have claimed that they could not play in a game
where all the decisions are made by GM fiat. They prefer a
diced game where the dice and (usually) associated mechanical
rules provided by a third party (the game publisher) help keep
the GM “honest”. My contention, and experience, on this is that
the dice (and associated mechanics) only provide an illusion of
protection. Any GM worth her salt can make things happen her
way. It`s easy when she holds all the cards. Granted that, for
many, the illusion is enough. However, many believe the
illusion to be real.

I`ve always tended to prefer truth to illusion and explicit
versus implicit agreement. Therefore, I consider it a “good
thing” that GM trust, in a diceless game, is an inescapable
issue. There is no way a diceless GM can blame the dice, the
rules, the cards or the phase of the moon. The GM is where the
buck stops and this is clear the moment a player walks in the
room. It is inescapable.

The paradigm shift is that both players and GM have to face
this issue and come to terms with it. The GM must ask herself
if she is willing to take all responsibilities for her
decisions; the player must decide if he can accept that the GM
will be making all the decisions. For many people, this is not
easy to accept. A diced system provides a way for these people
to avoid the issue; a diceless system does not.

2) can`t hide behind bad/good rolls

This somewhat relates to having explicit trust in the GM. In
this case, though, I`m talking more specifically about making a
decision based on a die roll. a decision difficult to justify
in any other way. For example, something “bad” happens to a
character because of a poor die roll. Well, the GM can say
that: “Hey, look at what you rolled! No wonder Joe the
GoblinSlayer couldn`t stand up to two little goblins!” In
reality, while the die rolls were bad, the situation was put
there by the GM, the goblins actions were determined by the GM
and the character actions were determined by the player. There
were a lot of non-diced decisions made to arrive to this diced
outcome. However, often the dice get the full blame for the
result when, in reality, the GM and/or the player should
shoulder a large part of the blame.

3) forces players to take responsibility for their actions

This is related to hiding behind die rolls. “It`s not my fault
my character died. I just couldn`t roll well!” Lame excuse, I
know, but I`ve heard it too often. While there may be other
ways to deal with this problem in a diced game, in a diceless
game, the player only has two choices: blame himself or blame
the GM. In either case, the responsibility falls upon the
shoulder of a real life participant.

I hope it is clear that I`m not saying that in diced games, all
players hide behind die rolls. What I am saying is that in a
diceless game, it is not possible to do so. Again, a player
must face this issue early on, upon joining the group, and must
come to terms with it.

4) changes the player/gm communication style from mechanistic
to more descriptive

I should explain what I mean here. In diced (mechanistic)
games, a lot of meta-game talk is centered around the dice
mechanics used. Things like hit points, roll modifier, etc, are
what I mean. While necessary for the system to work, these
things tend to reduce the amount of description a player will
provide about his character. In other words, a numbered
modifier will often take the place of a description of the
action.

In a diceless game, the dice talk obviously disappears. In
turn, this puts pressure on both Gm and player to find another
way to communicate the situation. In other words, the
participants have to be much more descriptive in communicating
their actions.

This type of play requires a much different viewpoint. A
player must try to visualize a scene much more accurately; a GM
must also describe a scene much more accurately. If they
don`t, the danger of miscommunicating increases which will lead
to major assumption clashes.

Whether or not this is a good thing is a matter of taste and is
really irrelevant to the issue. What is relevant is that it
does require a paradigm shift from both GM and player to make
this work. A group who relied only on diced game mechanics to
handle, say, combat maneuvers and outcomes, will quickly find
itself in a very difficult situation when trying to communicate
and absorb all this information in a non diced environment.

Obviously, this assumes that the diced game relies on some form
of mechanistic action resolution system. Diced games which
fall under the “low roll is good, high roll is bad“ approach
(or the reverse) will have already have a more descriptive
style of communication.

5) increases subjectivity

Hmm...not too sure what I meant by this. Age and memory...bad
combination :( I`ll still take a stab at it though.

Obviously, if the GM is not using a randomizer, her decision
will be more subjective than if she was. Whether or not this
is a good is not relevant.. What is relevant is that this
requires a shift in how one views the game. It is no longer an
exercise in applying the results of die roll. Instead, it must
become an exercise in making decisions based on whatever
information she finds relevant and useful to the situation.
This means, that in many ways, the GM must search deeper to
justify the decision and must also face the fact that an
involved participant cannot be 100% impartial.

Note that this is also a factor in a diced game. The
difference is that, in a diced game, the factor can be avoided;
in a diceless game, it cannot.

6) changes the whole nature of combat

It is no longer, “roll to hit”, “assess damage”, “record the
wound level” and “move on to the next round”. Combat, in a
diceless system, tends to become more fluid, less structured,
and also, harder to manage. Players and GM are thrown in a
situation where they must describe their characters action in
much greater detail than before. Instead of saying: “I swing
my sword”, the player now has to describe what he is doing
while swinging the sword and the GM must then take into account
all these descriptions to resolve the action. Add to this the
complication of describing something a person may not be
familiar with and you can see that the demands on the
participants are quite different than in a diced game.

Nearly every combat becomes unique. The security of knowing
that your character will get his turn every 1, 10 or 60 seconds
(or whatever unit used by the system) of game time disappears.
Actions become fluid and natural breaks do not appear in
discrete time interval. Imagine running a combat encounter
with 5 participants aside and you can see that the demands on
the players and GM alike are quite different.

There are ways to get around these problems but they do
require, again, a paradigm shift. A player might need to spend
more time trying to visualize and vocalize his character`s
action. The GM might need to atomize combat to a move by move
approach for one situation or to a general descriptive approach
for another situation.

*****************
Well, that covers my original 6 points. I do have a few more I
want to discuss.

7) forces decision to be made with respect to the situation -
not in spite of it.

Assuming the group has decided to use dice and that roll X
means Y, it can sometimes happen that Y does not make sense for
the given situation. The GM is either forced to create an
explanation for the situation, to rig the system to accommodate
a more “logical” result or just to gloss over the whole thing
and say: “it just happens that way”.

In a diceless game, the GM must “know” why result Y occurs
simply because the GM chose result Y. If the GM knows why,
then the result must make sense at some level (meta-game or in-
game). Therefore, the GM is forced to justify every result, at
least to herself. While this may not appear to be a big deal,
this is not an easy thing to do on a continuous basis. We all
make decisions we don`t understand. In a diceless game, the GM
is thrown into a situation where she _must_ understand the
reason because there are players sitting around the room who
will, at one point or another, ask: “Why?”.

8) forces the GM to use other factors to determine outcome

WARNING: This is probably the least transferrable effect of
diceless play. As a diced GM, I have this bad habit of putting
too much weight on the result of the randomizer and no enough
on other factors. In other words, I tend to overly rely on the
die rolls.

One of the major impact diceless play had on my thinking was
that I suddenly had to find different ways to make
decisions.While I did not have any problems doing that, I
realized later, when playing a “diced” game (Everway) that the
moment I started using a randomizer, the randomizer took over
in terms of determining outcome. The problem is that, in a
freeform diced system, my decisions appeared very binary and
arbitrary. When I stopped using the randomizer, I was suddenly
free to consider other factors: the situation, the drama, group
consensus, plot, the meta-game, reality, genre, etc..

I`m not saying that these factors were ignored in diced games;
just that they tended to become much less important. By
dropping the dice, they acquired increased importance and,
therefore, required more of my attention (ie if I`m going to
use genre as a factor in decision making, I better make sure I
have a clear understand of the genre and that I have
communicated this to the players).

*******************

A paradigm shift is basically changing one`s belief system
concerning a certain topic or concerning a preferred way of
doing things. I hope that I wrote here does help others
understand what paradigm shifts are involved in playing a
diceless game.

As I said earlier, what I wrote is heavily coloured by my
experience. It is certain that I do not hold the key to the
truth about diceless roleplay. As has been said by others and
myself, there is a wide range of play style out there and I
have found, to my surprise, that many apparently incompatible
play style can actually work well together as long as the whole
group wants to make it work. So, what was a paradigm shift to
me might be glaringly obvious to some or totally pointless to
others.

I am more than willing to respond to any comments. All flames,
though, will be given the treatment they deserve: I`ll ignore
them. ;)

Steve Gilham

unread,

Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96

to

AAAAARRRRGGHHH! It's back! The debate they just couldn't kill!

ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA wrote:
[snip]

> 4) changes the player/gm communication style from mechanistic
> to more descriptive

> I should explain what I mean here. In diced (mechanistic)

Diceless != mechanicless.

While most folk who go diceless also jettison mechanics along the
way, the two are not, as has been repeatedly argued here, necessarily
correlated.

The only mechanicless game I've played used dice (roll a d20, the
higher roll, the more effective, but the result is at the GM's whim);
and I could imagine something highly mechanical yet diceless (say
CP2020 with each D10 result set to 6 - somewhat like the Ars Magica
"fast combat system" stands to the full blown one).

> games, a lot of meta-game talk is centered around the dice
> mechanics used. Things like hit points, roll modifier, etc, are

Hitpoints, modifiers, would all still be there in the diceless example
above.

[snip]

> Obviously, this assumes that the diced game relies on some form
> of mechanistic action resolution system. Diced games which
> fall under the "low roll is good, high roll is bad" approach
> (or the reverse) will have already have a more descriptive
> style of communication.

Precisely - you make my argument for me, that this point is really
about the mechanicless (description based, I think the jargon here is)
paradigm, not the diceless one.

> 6) changes the whole nature of combat

This is *mechanicless* combat you discuss here. There's nothing
stopping a diceless sytem having a tightly controlled action point
system, combat rounds, hit points, the whole nine yards.

Indeed at one time I tinkered with the idea of a combat system where
each character had a certain (stat+skill dependent) number of action
points to spend each round, to allocate to attack, movement and
defense, and the results would be dependent on who allocated more into
which area - if your attack outbid the opponent's defense, you'd make
a solid hit. As this was 15 years or so ago, I would have still
rolled dice for damage, but it would be possible to replace that
mechanic by determining damage based on weapon and margin of success.

While awesomely cumbersome, and needing a lot of playtest to balance,
this system would be strictly diceless and completely at odds to your
assertions here.

> 7) forces decision to be made with respect to the situation -
> not in spite of it.

> Assuming the group has decided to use dice and that roll X
> means Y, it can sometimes happen that Y does not make sense for

Either this is a very restrictive table driven system giving a limited
set of canned responses (and I can't think of such a system off hand),
or what you are saying is that there is a problem if you are
confronted by an an unexpected major success or major failure. This
way to the railroad, methinks.

> the given situation. The GM is either forced to create an
> explanation for the situation, to rig the system to accommodate

> a more ÒlogicalÓ result or just to gloss over the whole thing
> and say: Òit just happens that wayÓ.

Or say "hey that's neat. I'd never have thought of that in a million
years. So that must mean..."

> 8) forces the GM to use other factors to determine outcome

That's what all those tables of modifiers are for in the dice-free
high-mechanics system as mooted above :) Of course you can use them
in diced situations too!

> One of the major impact diceless play had on my thinking was
> that I suddenly had to find different ways to make
> decisions.While I did not have any problems doing that, I

> realized later, when playing a ÒdicedÓ game (Everway) that the

> moment I started using a randomizer, the randomizer took over
> in terms of determining outcome. The problem is that, in a
> freeform diced system, my decisions appeared very binary and

The problem seems therefore to be more one of having jettisoned the
mechanics than having retained the dice.

Tim Isakson

unread,

Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96

to

BTRC (bt...@aol.com) wrote:
>[blatant plug]
>If anyone is interested in a new resolution system for a diceless game,
>which is also extremely adaptable to most types of live action games, go
>your store and check out Epiphany, by BTRC.
>

I'll 2nd Greg's plug - Epiphany has a pretty interesting diceless
system, and a few other interesting ideas as well. It's worth
you while to check out, and it isn't very expensive either (I don't
remember the actual price, but it's under $10, IIRC).

--
=========================================================================
Tim Isakson loi...@io.com | Television, the drug of the nation,
Dallas, TX, USA | Breeding ignorance and feeding radiation.
http://www.io.com/~loiosh/ | -The Disposable Heroes of Hiphopresy

Johnzo

unread,

Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96

to

A preamble:

I tend towards the extreme of the diced vs. diceless spectrum; I want
either pure diceless or pure mechanics. If mechanics are introduced
in a game, they must be useful mechanics that are internally
consistent. Half-way compromises like Everway, Castle Falkenstein,
and the Storyteller stuff do nothing for me .. they add the complications
of a mechanical system without the benefits of a solid foundation for
game play.

With this in mind, I'm considering how I can adapt Alain's diceless
paradigm shift into my own diced game. Alain's approach has real
strengths .. I can attest to them firsthand. So how can I learn from
them?

Alain wrote, quoting from another John:

> The diceless paradigm shift:
> 1) explicit trust in the GM
> 2) can`t hide behind bad/good rolls
> 3) forces players to take responsibility for their actions
> 4) changes the player/GM communication style from mechanistic
to more descriptive
> 5) increases subjectivity
> 6) changes the whole nature of combat

Let me address these one at a time:

> 1) explicit trust in the GM

I would think rather than "explicit trust in the GM" we should have
"total responsibility on the part of the GM."

I believe that in any good game, this explicit trust should already exist.
In every game I've played in, trust is so much a given that it's a
non-issue. However, I've been fortunate in that I've had very few
disappointments while role-playing, and i've been blessed with great
people as players and GM's.

Now that I think about it, though, the only time I really had a problem
trusting a GM was during Alain's stint with Everway, simply because I
couldn't fathom how the mechanics worked. This is one of the main
points in my contention that a good half-way compromise between
freeform and diced gaming, if possible, has yet to be invented.

<note, the above should not be construed as non-confidence in Alain's
GMing ability; I think we were both struggling with something new.>

> 2) can`t hide behind bad/good rolls
> 3) forces players to take responsibility for their actions

I think that these are pretty much the same thing; the "crutch" of
the dice has been removed as a factor from success or failure.

There's always the chance of the dice boning you .. such is the
way of the damn things. Since the interesting thing is not success
or failure, but how the characters deal with success or failure, the
issue of "dice whining" is an important one. Unfortunately, short
of going freeform, I can't see any way of controlling it.

> 4) changes the player/gm communication style from mechanistic
> to more descriptive

This is the single biggest bonus I can find to diceless play: the
game system simply doesn't get in the way.

In my upcoming supers game, I'm going to completely scrap the dice
except in stressful situations .. fights and the like. More on this
below.

> 5) increases subjectivity

Let me add to this that the GM doesn't have the concern of ensuring that
the mechanics will adequately model the world he's trying to create.
I toyed with the idea of running my supers game freeform, but I
wanted a mechanical base to answer questions I couldn't fathom .. like
if Muscle Dude can lift an Abrams tank, can he punch through the hull
of the U.S.S. New Jersey? Once the diced vs freeform decision is made,
it because necessary to find a rule system that would meet the
following criteria:

o non-intrusive, simple mechanics.
o solid, consistent foundation that scales well from mundane to
superheroic actions.
o mechanics provide results consistent with my conception of a
comic-book cinematic game world.

So, what game system?

GURPS fails on the last two .. the mechanics are relatively simple,
but don't scale well to superheroic stuff, and aren't cinematic at all.

Champions? Hits last two nicely, but too many damn dice, and combat
crawls.

Marvel Superheroes? Middle criteria is lacking .. it's hard to look
at the foundation of the game (the feeble-through-Monstrous scale)
and figure out exactly what it means. It's also set up to simulate
something with a little less grit than I want.

DC Heroes? Good game, but a tiny bit too much number crunching and
table referencing. Someday I will write an HP calculator program to run
the math; until then, DC Heroes stays on the shelf.

V&V? See Marvel Superheroes.

After considering all this, I wound up with TORG. TORG has a nicely
flexible action resolution mechanism, a solid foundation in the real
world, a hero point / plot point concept, and a great way of resolving
extra-effort actions.

Now, with this solid mechanical base, why do we need randomizers? Why
not simply assess the chances and make a diceless decision? I'm not
sure why I'm not comfortable with this notion. Though I'm primarily
a dramatist, the simulationist in me demands an impartial result.
The approach I've honed over the years is to let the mechanics set the
tone for the metaphysics of the world, with, of course, corrections from
the GM in the inevitable cases where the mechanics aren't up to snuff.
I guess I can't change my stripes all at once .. Alain and Sarah will
have to wait to fit me for my black robe. :v>

> 6) changes the whole nature of combat

> Nearly every combat becomes unique. The security of knowing
> that your character will get his turn every 1, 10 or 60 seconds
> (or whatever unit used by the system) of game time disappears.
> Actions become fluid and natural breaks do not appear in
> discrete time interval

This is a real plus; Alain's fights, though rare, always have a
desperate winner-wins-the-right-to-walk-away feel to them.

To bring this out of my own game, I'm going to scrap any kind of
mechanical initiative system. Notwithstanding the right superpowers,
characters will generally get to act once per cycle, in an order that
will be determined by circumstance.

Each action will require one d20 roll (with possible additional
re-rolls on 10's and 20's.) High roll is good. The player will
simply report the number of the die roll to me, and I'll interpret
things from there. Action bonuses will not be reported to players.
(i.e. "you've got a +3 to hit this guy this round" becomes
"you've got a solid advantage .. your opponent is reeling, and his
guard has fallen way off.")

Now, I see one big problem with this approach, and one possible pitfall:

The big problem: can I handle this number crunching and still narrate
the game? Hopefully. We'll see. I'm pretty decent with small-digit
arithmetic (played wayy too much Illuminati during university) so math
isn't a problem, and if things slow down too much, one of the action
resolution tasks can be offloaded to the players.

The potential pitfall: with this approach comes the risk that the
characters will not understand the mechanics, as I didn't when I
played Everway. This will be complicated with the fact that the
players have full access to the randomizer.

I guess we'll see how it turns out.

Johnzo.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]

Andrew Finch

unread,

Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96

to

Tim Isakson (loi...@io.com) wrote:

: I'll 2nd Greg's plug - Epiphany has a pretty interesting diceless

: system, and a few other interesting ideas as well.

O.K. You got my attention.

Which is, and such as?

David

Andrew Finch

unread,

Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96

to

Kevin Munoz (Tes...@aol.com) wrote:

: Can you describe Epiphany a bit? I'm always interested to learn about my,
: um, competition... ;)

Hey, if your the competition, would you mind describing your product some
as well. I'm always interested to learn about my competition... :)

David

John H Kim

unread,

Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96

to

Hmmm. This is in reply to Alain's discussion of his own
Diceless Paradigm Shift. While I've experienced many of his points,
I wouldn't call any of it a "paradigm shift". My real paradigm
shift was when I went to college, and shifted from creating hooks
and adventures to drag PC's through to designing worlds with more
open wandering.

I guess I'll talk about the elements of the shift, and how
I experienced them...

A Lapalme <ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>Shift #1: Explicit trust in the GM

[...]
>In a diced game, even if the players trust the GM, there is no

>escaping the fact that there is a third party involved: the
>randomizer. This third party is not controllable, per se, and can
>and does provide, to some people, an added security. In other
>words, this third party can help the players trust their GM.

But this does not imply a lack -- just because the players
use dice doesn't mean that they don't trust their GM. My estimation
has been that this trust was there from fairly early on in my games...
certainly I didn't feel any sort of a shift when I went to diceless.

I think this is more of a mechanics issue. The symptom of
lack of trust is rules arguments -- i.e. a player doesn't accept a
GM call and tries to change it. In a mechanicless game with dice,
the player doesn't have any higher authority she can appeal to.
If she rolls well but fails anyhow, it's just as inescapable as
if she has a good plan which fails in a diceless game.

-*-*-*-

>
>My contention, and experience, on this is that the dice (and
>associated mechanics) only provide an illusion of protection.
>Any GM worth her salt can make things happen her way.

[...]
>I consider it a _good thing_ that GM trust, in a diceless game, is

>an inescapable issue. There is no way a diceless GM can blame the
>dice, the rules, the cards or the phase of the moon.

Hmmm. I certainly consider GM trust to be a good thing.
However, I've experienced lack of trust in a diceless game. That
is, I didn't trust the _Amber_ GM to make fair decisions, but I
stayed in the game because the other players made it interesting.
(The campaign collapsed not too long after that.)

Personally, I consider implicit trust just as good a thing
as explicit trust. If trust is agreed upon by the players, that is
just as good as being forced by the system, IMO. Given my experience
with _Amber_, I'm not certain that forcing such trust on groups which
wouldn't reach it otherwise is a good thing.

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

>
>2) can`t hide behind bad/good rolls
>

>For example, something _bad_ happens to a character because of a poor

>die roll. Well, the GM can say that: `Hey, look at what you rolled!
>No wonder Joe the GoblinSlayer couldn`t stand up to two little goblins!'

>In reality, [...] there were a lot of non-diced decisions made to

>arrive to this diced outcome. However, often the dice get the full
>blame for the result when, in reality, the GM and/or the player
>should shoulder a large part of the blame.

Obviously, "hiding" behind die rolls doesn't sound good.
However, I like something of a "Shit Happens" attitude in my games.
Good plans will sometimes go awry, and accidents will happen. I would
prefer that neither the GM nor the players be blamed for this. This
doesn't require dice -- it can be accepted by the group that these
sorts of things will happen, and the GM is simply living up to the
group contract by throwing in curves of this sort.

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

>
>3) forces players to take responsibility for their actions
>
>This is related to hiding behind die rolls. "It`s not my fault
>my character died. I just couldn`t roll well!" Lame excuse, I
>know, but I`ve heard it too often.

This is a shift I would prefer to do without. My experience
with diceless, description-based play was that it placed undue
responsibility on the player for the success of their actions.
At the same time, I have had players who focussed unduly on
out-of-game factors like the dice -- I think this relates to how
immersed they are in the games. As an example, suppose a PC
takes a bowshot, and a gust of wind takes his arrow off course.
Imagine how various players take it:

Player #1: "Oh, well. I knew it was a chancy shot."

Player #2: (Dice-using)
"Damn! If only I had rolled better, I would have succeeded."

Player #3: (Diceless)
"Damn! I need a cooler plan to get the GM to let me succeed."

In my preferred style, PC's will at times fail through no
fault of the players. I found in some diceless games that it
became more pressured and less fun for the players to always be
responsible. When a PC takes a bow shot, for example, whether he
hits or not does not

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

>
>4) changes the player/gm communication style from mechanistic
>to more descriptive
>

>In diced (mechanistic) games, a lot of meta-game talk is centered
>around the dice mechanics used. Things like hit points, roll
>modifier, etc, are what I mean.

[...]

>Obviously, this assumes that the diced game relies on some form of
>mechanistic action resolution system. Diced games which fall under
>the "low roll is good, high roll is bad" approach (or the reverse)
>will have already have a more descriptive style of communication.

True. One of the strong attractions of diceless and LARP
games, for me, is the reduction of meta-game distractions. Still,
I would note that you can have meta-game talk in a diceless game
("I spend a Plot Point to activate my Descriptor"), as well as a
lack of meta-game talk in mechanical, dice-using games (say when
the GM is handling all the rolls and mechanics). I've been in
several games where the players never see their character sheets
or die rolls.

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

>
>6) changes the whole nature of combat

[...]

>Instead of saying: "I swing my sword", the player now has to describe
>what he is doing while swinging the sword and the GM must then take
>into account all these descriptions to resolve the action.

[...]

>Imagine running a combat encounter with 5 participants aside and you can
>see that the demands on the players and GM alike are quite different.

Yes -- well, this is one of the down sides, by my view.
In the martial arts game, we would frequently run 5+ combatants per
side, each of which had different weapons, a different style of kung
fu, and distinct wounds/fatigue -- all in complex tangles of jumping
about (Jackie-Chan-esque choreography). In practice, this meant that
the GM's brain often looked like it was on the verge of exploding.
He sometimes could not remember, say, the strengths/weaknesses of a
particular style in a situation, and so forth.

Were I to do this again, I would want some more mechanics
simply as a short-hand to keep track of everything in such situations.

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

>
>7) forces decision to be made with respect to the situation -
>not in spite of it.
>
>Assuming the group has decided to use dice and that roll X
>means Y, it can sometimes happen that Y does not make sense for
>the given situation.

[...]

>In a diceless game, the GM is thrown into a situation where she
>_must_ understand the reason because there are players sitting

>around the room who will, at one point or another, ask: *Why?*.

Fair enough. Note that this is a mechanics and game-contract
issue. If there are no mechanics for dice-use, then you have the
same situation. Further, you can have a group contract which
demands that the players as "Why?" anyhow. I got into the habit
of explaining results a while ago, to the point that players will
routinely ask "Why?" even for results delineated by mechanics.
("I missed? Why?" ... "He ducked to the other side of the pillar")

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

>
>8) forces the GM to use other factors to determine outcome
>

>WARNING: This is probably the least transferable effect of diceless

>play. As a diced GM, I have this bad habit of putting too much
>weight on the result of the randomizer and no enough on other
>factors. In other words, I tend to overly rely on the die rolls.

True. This is often my biggest complaint about dice-using
games under other GM's -- they tend to pay a lot of attention to the
randomizer. One of the factors reinforcing this is that tendency for
games to call for binary results (i.e. Success versus Failure)...
A high result is automatically a success, a low result is automatically
a failure. The GM only considers other factors if the roll is
middling.

I think I have it more or less under control in my games,
especially when using my own systems, which tend to emphasize skill
and circumstance over the random factor. However, it is a fact of
life for many dice-using games, it seems.

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

A Lapalme

unread,

Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96

to

Johnzo (joh...@cyberus.ca) writes:
> Now, with this solid mechanical base, why do we need randomizers? Why
> not simply assess the chances and make a diceless decision? I'm not
> sure why I'm not comfortable with this notion. Though I'm primarily
> a dramatist, the simulationist in me demands an impartial result.
> The approach I've honed over the years is to let the mechanics set the
> tone for the metaphysics of the world, with, of course, corrections from
> the GM in the inevitable cases where the mechanics aren't up to snuff.
> I guess I can't change my stripes all at once .. Alain and Sarah will
> have to wait to fit me for my black robe. :v>

I guess I should stop holding my breath then. I might just choke. ;)

> To bring this out of my own game, I'm going to scrap any kind of
> mechanical initiative system. Notwithstanding the right superpowers,
> characters will generally get to act once per cycle, in an order that
> will be determined by circumstance.
>
> Each action will require one d20 roll (with possible additional
> re-rolls on 10's and 20's.) High roll is good. The player will
> simply report the number of the die roll to me, and I'll interpret
> things from there. Action bonuses will not be reported to players.
> (i.e. "you've got a +3 to hit this guy this round" becomes
> "you've got a solid advantage .. your opponent is reeling, and his
> guard has fallen way off.")
>
> Now, I see one big problem with this approach, and one possible pitfall:
>
> The big problem: can I handle this number crunching and still narrate
> the game? Hopefully. We'll see. I'm pretty decent with small-digit
> arithmetic (played wayy too much Illuminati during university) so math
> isn't a problem, and if things slow down too much, one of the action
> resolution tasks can be offloaded to the players.

>
> The potential pitfall: with this approach comes the risk that the
> characters will not understand the mechanics, as I didn't when I
> played Everway. This will be complicated with the fact that the
> players have full access to the randomizer.
>

Well, that probably is a very personal feel. The key problem with
Everway, as I recall, was that notwithstanding the character's action, the
outcome seemed more affected by the Fortune deck than anything else. In
other words it might have felt arbitrary.

The key, I think is how one handles the mechanics and then try to make
them transparent to the players. My one attempt at that, years ago using
RM, was, mostly a failure. The players didn't rebel but they felt naked
rolling a die and having no mechanics to understand the roll.

In a certain way, I've very much like John on the freeform vs mechanics
thing. I can't seem to handle the middle ground very well. Either give
me a well thought out set of mechanics or forget them totally. The
problem I often feel with minimilist diced system is that the die roll
seems to have so much impact and is difficult to evaluate (as opposed to a
mechanistic system where the meaning of the roll is clearly defined).

I know that some people here do use a high good, low bad (or the reverse)
approach in their freeform "diced" game. The Ennead group does (even
though I get the feeling that the number of times the die is rolled is so
low that the feeling of die arbitrariness(sp) may not appear). HOwever, I
know that Kevin Hardwick has a die roll use (I think it is per scene or
something). Then, there is Lea Crowe's approach (are you still around Lea??).

Any of you people have insights on this?

Alain

BTRC

unread,

Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96

to

Epiphany relies on a couple simple mechanics:

1. Attributes and Abilities are unrated. You either have them or you
don't, and any attribute that is visible or detectable in casual
encounters, is. So, if you have Strength or Physique, people can see it.
If you have Will or Intelligence, people pick it up when they talk to you.
It sounds a bit granular, but it works.

2. Anything that helps you in a Challenge is an Advantage, and can be used
for Offense or Defense. Attributes, Abilities and equipment give
Advantages. So, a sword could be used *defensively* to keep an opponent at
baym or armor could be used *offensively* to let you get up close and
personal.

3. Resolution is handled by a modified "rock,scissors,paper" system, where
you secretly assign offense and defense Advantages to each hand and then
simultaneously reveal them. If your offense exceeds their defense, you do
damage, and vice versa. You can have ties, one, both or neither person
doing damage.

4. There are other mechanics and a "diced" way for those who want to, but
that is basically it. You can see how this would work for live action. You
can just resolve any physical challenge by knowing your Advantage total
and playing it out, and since physical attributes are obvious, your name
badge would list the things that people can see:

Grond:
Strength, Physique, Armor, Sword

And you could handle the mental and spiritual attributes in a similar
fashion.

Greg

Tim Isakson

unread,

Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96

to

Greg handled the fundemental questions, but there are a couple of other
things I liked as well:

Resources - rather than dealing with "100 gold pieces" and bloated
price lists that never cover every option you want, Epiphany handles
resources by levels, and when you want to buy something, you just check
if that item is available at or below your resource level. Higher
levels require a check against your resources, so you MAY be able to
buy more "expensive" items, but you may not as well.

The background is interesting (Atlantis, Lemuria and Mu before they
had there little climatic problems), but left open enough that GMs
should be able to expand to their hearts content. The book also
explicitly asks for submissions via the Internet, which while not
precisly novel is a good idea, IMHO.

Other than that, I think, the simple character description and action
resolution systems that Greg described are pretty neat - I haven't
had time to get much further than reading the book (I'm in the midst
of running a FUDGE Phoenix Guards game, which is taking a lot of my
free time) but a lot of the ideas from Epiphany struck me as interesting
and fun.

Bryan J. Jonker

unread,

Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96

to

Johnzo (joh...@cyberus.ca) wrote:
:
: Let me address these one at a time:

:
: > 1) explicit trust in the GM
:
: I would think rather than "explicit trust in the GM" we should have
: "total responsibility on the part of the GM."
:
: I believe that in any good game, this explicit trust should already exist.

Ah, now that's implicit trust :-). Seriously, one of the few times I
was thinking, "Is the GM screwing with me," was in a diceless campaign.
I think the trust issue needs to be more in the open with diceless,
just because the GM can't say "Oh, the dice made me do it." Even
when the GM fudged the roll.

: > 2) can`t hide behind bad/good rolls

: > 3) forces players to take responsibility for their actions

:
: There's always the chance of the dice boning you .. such is the

: way of the damn things. Since the interesting thing is not success
: or failure, but how the characters deal with success or failure, the
: issue of "dice whining" is an important one. Unfortunately, short
: of going freeform, I can't see any way of controlling it.

I see this a totally different way...for me, the dice often make the
game for me. Example: I was in a campaign where the climax was to stab
a demon with an enchanted knife. Not a big deal. The character rolled
a 19 on 2d10, or something ridiculous (sp?) like that, where low was
a hit. The next minute of game time was incredibly exciting for all
involved. In that case, the dice dictated the game.

A suggested revision:
2 & 3) forces players to deal with consequences of actions,
including unlikely (yet possible) consequences.

One possible suggestion...use dice, but don't let the players use them.
Make all rolls in secret and make the translation from dice to what
really happened. All game mechanics are GM-eyes only, and the players
have a written description of their character, including descriptions of
skills and abilities. This needs that trust thing you mentioned in rule 1,
in spades, and it helps if you have a co-GM keeping track of the books
and handling the NPCs, but it gives the GM a chance to be impartial and
let dice dictate what ultimately happens. And the GM's descriptions
let the game have that diceless feel, because it removes the crutch of
"You lost 5 hit points."

Anyway, good luck.

<---------------Bryan Jonker-------...@prairienet.org------------->
"Let us toast the fools; but for them the rest of us could not succeed."
-Mark Twain

Mary K. Kuhner

unread,

Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96

to

It seems to me that whether the diced/mechanicless forms (someone rolls
a die, high/low is good, but there are no explicit interpretive rules)
work for a group or not depends on why they want dice in the first
place. These systems have some of the advantages of each parent, and
some of the disadvantages.

If you want to be able to clearly quantify character
capabilities and the difficulty of various tasks, in order to avoid
assumption clash, diced/mechanicless systems are useless. There is
no information to help out the confused player or GM who isn't sure, for
example, just how good character X really is with a rapier.

If you want to provide some sense of things happening that are not
caused by the GM or players, d/m can help, especially if interpretation
conventions are pretty well understood. I believe this is how Kevin
uses dice.

If you want to defuse interpersonal conflicts, diced/mechanicless may or
may not work, depending on the personalities involved. The degree of
interpretation is so large that d/m may actually focus attention on
the role of GM choice in Bad Things Happening. On the other hand, the
dice do at least more or less insure that Bad Things *will* happen now
and again, without raising issues of whether the GM wanted them to
happen.

The _Radiant_ campaign uses a very sketchy system--not d/m, but verging
on it. When we've experimented with d/m, it's been the first issue--
the ability to avoid assumption clash by quantification--that stopped
us. In particular, one character, Markus, is in the process of working
out what his psychic powers can do. Player and GM have had some
difficulty matching their expectations on this topic, especially as the
player (for enjoyment purposes) does not want to spend too much time
setting down hard limits on exactly what Markus can or cannot do.
As a character, he cannot be trusted to limit his actions to things he
can do--he likes to try unreasonable things--so it's important for the
GM to clearly grasp what his limits are. The game went much better
after we broke down the very general "psychic combat" skill into five
subskills--now it's clear to the GM roughly what Markus can and
cannot do, and how good he is. And as a player I feel more comfortable
with those numbers to keep the GM from allowing Markus to do things he
shouldn't--I don't have to continually police the character and say
to the GM "No, I know he acts like he can do that, but he can't."

Without the dice I find it very difficult to stick to numbers--I don't
know if the GM's impression of "four points in Subsumption" is
anything like mine. We'd have to use verbal descriptions instead,
and it hasn't worked as well for us. The overhead for the GM in keeping
track of 6 PCs is rather high.

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

Kevin Munoz

unread,

Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96

to

Actually, we're not much in the way of competition (yet). Persona is a universal
diceless system, skill-based, more like GURPS than Storyteller (if that
makes any
sense) in that it's fairly mechanical. Resolution of complex things like
combat is
based primarily on a persona's scores rather than descriptions.

I'm reminded of the Marvel Super Heroes system, which could be easily diceless
and is fairly abstract in its resolution, as compared to something more
simulationist. We're on the simulationist end of the spectrum.

For now, we're just in a Limited Edition, preparing a First Edition as I
write this.

My primary influences were GURPS and HERO; I had not even seen a diceless
system before I began working on Persona, so the influence is along that bent.

The skill system is wholly undefined, in that there is no skill list.
Rather, skills
are developed in dialogue between the Director and the players during persona
creation. That way there are no intrinsic skill limitations. (My biggest gripe
with skill-based systems is the inherent limitation of a finite number of
skills and the fact that people have a *tendency* to play with a pre-defined
skill set as if the characters should eventually get all those skills.)

If you've ever seen the Mythus system by Gygax, you might notice some
incredibly accidental similarities (I've never even read Dangerous Journeys;
it has been described to me, though), in that we have four main foci:
Physical, Emotional, Mental, Spiritual, under which are five attributes
and then the skills. Skill Levels are sums of Focus+Attribute+Skill; these
Levels are the meat and potatoes of the system.

Finally, there's the powers chapter, which uses a Benefit/Detriment system
to create magic, psionics, super powers, etc. from a generic list of 100+
possible Benefits. For example, a fireball would be created out of
"Create Fire", "Move energy 1 meter" and "Cause damage", with an
equivalent amount of detriment (activation time, extra cost, etc.) associated
with it.

We are actually also working on what we call DirectorBooks, which will be
rules-free books about various topics gamers might find useful, such as
medieval trade, clothing, food, architecture, religion, etc. All the
research is done for the reader and put together in a way that is uniquely
gamer-oriented.

Enough of me running off at the mouth...

Kevin Munoz

unread,

Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96

to

In article <50fq8j$1...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme) wrote:

>4) changes the player/gm communication style from mechanistic
>to more descriptive
>
>I should explain what I mean here. In diced (mechanistic)
>games, a lot of meta-game talk is centered around the dice
>mechanics used. Things like hit points, roll modifier, etc, are
>what I mean. While necessary for the system to work, these
>things tend to reduce the amount of description a player will
>provide about his character. In other words, a numbered
>modifier will often take the place of a description of the
>action.
>

This is something we discovered during playtest, much to our surprise. It
was like something out of the Twilight Zone: suddenly all these dice
players were playing Persona trying really hard to learn how to *describe*
what they were doing. Most of them were old AD&D pros who were used to the
"I hit" "I miss" paradigm.

Toward the middle the Director (admittedly, me) got evil and started
really hurting the personas because the players refused to get out of that
diced mode. Once they started explaining in better ways what they were
doing (specifically, in combat situations), everything got much happier
for everying.

All this to say that I think this is probably the most important aspect of
diceless gaming. It was something I patently refused to admit at first (I
was hoping, in a way, to be able to retain the description-free aspects of
diced gaming), but then realized was so much more interesting. Now,
granted, diced gaming can use description to modify rolls and such, but it
isn't the kind of thing that's inherently part of the system.

Kevin Munoz

unread,

Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96

to

In article <8417697...@dejanews.com>, joh...@cyberus.ca (Johnzo) wrote:

>A preamble:
>
>I tend towards the extreme of the diced vs. diceless spectrum; I want
>either pure diceless or pure mechanics. If mechanics are introduced
>in a game, they must be useful mechanics that are internally
>consistent. Half-way compromises like Everway, Castle Falkenstein,
>and the Storyteller stuff do nothing for me .. they add the complications
>of a mechanical system without the benefits of a solid foundation for
>game play.

Is it not possible to have pure diceless and pure mechanics at the same
time? IMHO,
it has been done. What exactly do you want to put into Storyteller to give
it a "solid foundation for game play"?

>Once the diced vs freeform decision is made,
>it because necessary to find a rule system that would meet the
>following criteria:
>
>o non-intrusive, simple mechanics.
>o solid, consistent foundation that scales well from mundane to
> superheroic actions.
>o mechanics provide results consistent with my conception of a
> comic-book cinematic game world.
>
>So, what game system?
>
>GURPS fails on the last two .. the mechanics are relatively simple,
>but don't scale well to superheroic stuff, and aren't cinematic at all.
>

Agreed.

>Champions? Hits last two nicely, but too many damn dice, and combat
>crawls.

Actually, I don't think Champions really hits the second criterion well at
all. It scales really well at the upper end, but down near the normal
spectrum it makes absolutely no sense! Human beings are just not that
resilient...

>
>Marvel Superheroes? Middle criteria is lacking .. it's hard to look
>at the foundation of the game (the feeble-through-Monstrous scale)
>and figure out exactly what it means. It's also set up to simulate
>something with a little less grit than I want.

Agreed.

>> 6) changes the whole nature of combat
>> Nearly every combat becomes unique. The security of knowing
>> that your character will get his turn every 1, 10 or 60 seconds
>> (or whatever unit used by the system) of game time disappears.
>> Actions become fluid and natural breaks do not appear in
>> discrete time interval
>
>This is a real plus;

Unfortunately, it doesn't make for universal truth. It may apply in one or
the other diceless combat system, but it's 100% purely *not* a side-effect
of dicelessness.

Actually, now that I think about it, I have certain problems with Alain's
conception of the paradigm shift. For one thing, it assumes far too much
of a connection between dicelessness and the aspects mentioned. Take the
above for example: the uniqueness of combat has nothing to do with the
lack of dice but rather with the way in which players adapt to
dicelessness. Now, that might be said to be the "paradigm shift," but I
don't think it's universal enough; it's not a required result of
dicelessness.

Part of this problem comes from the assumption of the diceless connection
to non-mechanicality. This is *not* to say that dicelessness is
disconnected from description (I have already noted I agree that there is
a connection), but rather that you can't assume the lack of dice removes
mechanics. I can run AD&D or GURPS or HERO without dice and retain the
mechanics.

Kevin Munoz

unread,

Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96

to

In article <50i6ak$p...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme) wrote:

>The key, I think is how one handles the mechanics and then try to make
>them transparent to the players. My one attempt at that, years ago using
>RM, was, mostly a failure. The players didn't rebel but they felt naked
>rolling a die and having no mechanics to understand the roll.

You actually TRIED this? Wow, you have balls...I'm impressed. I always saw
RM as an exercise in mechanics from the standpoint of someone who wants to
truly immerse himself in the mechanism.

>I know that some people here do use a high good, low bad (or the reverse)
>approach in their freeform "diced" game. The Ennead group does (even
>though I get the feeling that the number of times the die is rolled is so
>low that the feeling of die arbitrariness(sp) may not appear). HOwever, I
>know that Kevin Hardwick has a die roll use (I think it is per scene or
>something). Then, there is Lea Crowe's approach (are you still around Lea??).

Kevin's die roll is something I brought to the gaming table during an AD&D
game in which I was playing, hoping to get the DM (who happens to work for
me but doesn't feel all warm and fuzzy about diceless gaming) to slowly
move toward a no-dice system. He balked at the idea of taking out the dice
but brought a Luck score into the game as a result (totally backfiring my
idea, of course).

If I were to use dice in my games, I'd go that route (taking Serendipity
from Persona and attaching it to dice, for use as a kind of Luck roll).
Therefore, the dice are rolled by the players when they feel they need the
boost and are willing to take the chance at bad luck. Therefore the
"arbitrariness" you mentioned is in the hands of the player, not the
GM/DM/Director/guru/God/Storyteller/bunnyrabbit. Hm...I just thought of
that...not bad...

Kevin Munoz

unread,

Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96

to

In article <50kksj$p...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,

mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:

>Without the dice I find it very difficult to stick to numbers--I don't
>know if the GM's impression of "four points in Subsumption" is
>anything like mine. We'd have to use verbal descriptions instead,
>and it hasn't worked as well for us. The overhead for the GM in keeping
>track of 6 PCs is rather high.

Interesting that the impression of points would be different. I found this
to be primarily the case in open-ended number systems (1 is base and there
is no ceiling), but not so much of a problem when using a scale of 1-10,
1-20, etc, where you can think in percentages or quarters or what have
you.

Andrew Finch

unread,

Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96

to

BTRC (bt...@aol.com) wrote:

: 3. Resolution is handled by a modified "rock,scissors,paper" system, where

: you secretly assign offense and defense Advantages to each hand and then
: simultaneously reveal them. If your offense exceeds their defense, you do
: damage, and vice versa. You can have ties, one, both or neither person
: doing damage.

This seems to me to be a 'diced' system. It's an objective system in any
case. An intriguing one, but still not 'randomizer-less'. Or is it? Is it
simply the choice of advantages, or is there more?

David

Kevin Munoz

unread,

Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96

to

In article <50k50g$a...@anarchy.io.com>, loi...@io.com (Tim Isakson) wrote:

>Other than that, I think, the simple character description and action
>resolution systems that Greg described are pretty neat - I haven't
>had time to get much further than reading the book (I'm in the midst
>of running a FUDGE Phoenix Guards game, which is taking a lot of my
>free time) but a lot of the ideas from Epiphany struck me as interesting
>and fun.

So, simple character generation and resolution is a benefit for you? I always
found simple resolution a difficulty for diceless gaming (and by this I mean
non-random gaming, therefore excluding RPS-type resolutions).

Kevin Munoz

unread,

Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96

to

In article <50jt1p$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, bt...@aol.com (BTRC) wrote:

>Epiphany relies on a couple simple mechanics:
>
>1. Attributes and Abilities are unrated. You either have them or you
>don't, and any attribute that is visible or detectable in casual
>encounters, is. So, if you have Strength or Physique, people can see it.
>If you have Will or Intelligence, people pick it up when they talk to you.
>It sounds a bit granular, but it works.
>
>2. Anything that helps you in a Challenge is an Advantage, and can be used
>for Offense or Defense. Attributes, Abilities and equipment give
>Advantages. So, a sword could be used *defensively* to keep an opponent at
>baym or armor could be used *offensively* to let you get up close and
>personal.
>

Very interesting. I'm intrigued by abstract systems (in a good way).
My philosophy has been fairly multipersonalitied and changes from
day to day. On some days I want simplicity, on others I want incredible
detail. Today I want simplicity, so I liked reading the above!

Something I didn't mention in my previous post about Persona, and maybe should
mention because it came up elsewhere. Combat resolution works by Offense Ratings
and Defense Ratings. Generally speaking, higher wins. One might think that this
therefore never changes, but there are modifiers and the OR and DR are also
based on what one is doing at the time (OR and DR are skill+tactic, the tactic
being a number based on one of your attributes; the choice of attributes comes
from your current action, so for example if you're trying to use your longsword
in a new way to undercut your opponent's shield, you would use
Physical:Dexterity
rather than, say, Physical:Frame).

Actually, I'm fairly curious about how combat is resolved in other
diceless systems. One of the annoying gremlins of Persona was keeping the
repetition down. Success in this was cause for a scary amount of
celebration (don't get out much, do we?) a couple years back.

Curious...all this happy interaction among game designers...I wonder if we
could get TSR in here to share some of its secrets...? Heh. ;)

A Lapalme

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

I will not deny that I do tend to link dicelessness and descriptive play.
That's how I got there. And, I did mention it at the beginning of my
article. We all have our biases ;)

I can even believe that one could run AD&D without dice and still retain
the mechanics. I know of some people who have done it. However, the
question remains: how well does it work? is it worth to effort to retain
mechanics which were built for dice use?

I confess that I have a hard time imagining a diceless game running well
with mechanics. What I mean is that, while I can see the mechanics in
character description, I'm a lot more confused on how one could use these
mechanics during action resolution. I mean, how does the GM decide who
hits in a fight were one figher has a THAC0 of 16 and the other of 18?
The way I would do is take into account that one fighter is slightly
better than the other one and use the descriptive approach from there.

Alain

A Lapalme

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

Bryan J. Jonker (jon...@prairienet.org) writes:
>
> One possible suggestion...use dice, but don't let the players use them.
> Make all rolls in secret and make the translation from dice to what
> really happened. All game mechanics are GM-eyes only, and the players
> have a written description of their character, including descriptions of
> skills and abilities. This needs that trust thing you mentioned in rule 1,
> in spades, and it helps if you have a co-GM keeping track of the books
> and handling the NPCs, but it gives the GM a chance to be impartial and
> let dice dictate what ultimately happens. And the GM's descriptions
> let the game have that diceless feel, because it removes the crutch of
> "You lost 5 hit points."
>

That would definitely work for me when I'm playing.

Alain

A Lapalme

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

Mary K. Kuhner (mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu) writes:
> Without the dice I find it very difficult to stick to numbers--I don't
> know if the GM's impression of "four points in Subsumption" is
> anything like mine. We'd have to use verbal descriptions instead,
> and it hasn't worked as well for us. The overhead for the GM in keeping
> track of 6 PCs is rather high.
>

I also found that using discrete numbers without dice is not very useful.
when I first went diceless, I was using the FUDGE quantifiers, as
quantifiers. That had its problems so I slowly drifted to using the
quantifiers as qualifiers.

I know it sounds like I'm splitting hair here
but, there is a difference. What the qualifiers do is provide me a rough
scale. Within our group, we all know that FAIR, is average for the skill,
that someone who's GOOD is, well, good at that skill; someone who's
TERRIBLE is terrible.

I had a similar problem with CF. While each skill was graded similarly to
FUDGE, each skill level had a score attached to it. Then you added the
value of the card played and ended up with a number which, in a lot of
ways had little bearing on the initial skill quantifier. It always felt
like the card had more impact than the skill quantifier.

OTOH, I've played diceless heavy mechanics war-games which seemed to work
OK. However, the one I'm thinking of was extremely open to min-maxing.
So, I don't know. I'm still waiting to see the diceless mechanics game
which works well...

Alain

A Lapalme

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

Kevin Munoz (Tes...@aol.com) writes:
> In article <50i6ak$p...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme) wrote:
>
>>The key, I think is how one handles the mechanics and then try to make
>>them transparent to the players. My one attempt at that, years ago using
>>RM, was, mostly a failure. The players didn't rebel but they felt naked
>>rolling a die and having no mechanics to understand the roll.
>
> You actually TRIED this? Wow, you have balls...I'm impressed. I always saw
> RM as an exercise in mechanics from the standpoint of someone who wants to
> truly immerse himself in the mechanism.

Or I was a fool ;( In truth, I like RM. (I'm talking the basic rules
hear). I was elegant in the sense that it was internally consistent. I
never had trouble extrapolating from the system. My only real problem
with it was the time it took to resolve anything.

>
> Kevin's die roll is something I brought to the gaming table during an AD&D
> game in which I was playing, hoping to get the DM (who happens to work for
> me but doesn't feel all warm and fuzzy about diceless gaming) to slowly
> move toward a no-dice system. He balked at the idea of taking out the dice
> but brought a Luck score into the game as a result (totally backfiring my
> idea, of course).

some people are simply unenlightened ;)

>
> If I were to use dice in my games, I'd go that route (taking Serendipity
> from Persona and attaching it to dice, for use as a kind of Luck roll).
> Therefore, the dice are rolled by the players when they feel they need the
> boost and are willing to take the chance at bad luck. Therefore the
> "arbitrariness" you mentioned is in the hands of the player, not the
> GM/DM/Director/guru/God/Storyteller/bunnyrabbit. Hm...I just thought of
> that...not bad...
>

hey, I like it too.

Alain

A Lapalme

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

People

You know, just because I posted my version of the paradigm shift, doesn't
mean no one else can post there's. I would be really curious to see how
others have experienced this.

Alain (who, again, ends up in a diceless thread - I guess it beats set
theory discussions)

A Lapalme

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

Kevin Munoz (Tes...@aol.com) writes:
> Actually, I'm fairly curious about how combat is resolved in other
> diceless systems. One of the annoying gremlins of Persona was keeping the
> repetition down.

What do you mean by repetition?

> Curious...all this happy interaction among game designers...I wonder if we
> could get TSR in here to share some of its secrets...? Heh. ;)
>

But, but, but, they use dice!!!!!!

Anyways, I'm not a designer, just a critic....

Alain

BTRC

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

>This seems to me to be a 'diced' system. It's an objective system in any
>case. An intriguing one, but still not 'randomizer-less'.

Depends on how you look at it. If you are deliberately choosing an amount
of offense and defense, and your opponent is doing the same, there is
nothing "random" about it. Your chance of hurting a foe may be
indeterminate until the challenge is resolved, but just because you don't
know the outcome in advance doesn't mean it is random (someone could look
behind each of your backs to see what fingers you had out, and therefore
know the results before you do).

On the other hand, the advantage system used lends itself to dice equally
well for those who want it. Red d6's=offense, black d6's=defense. Roll em
all, results of 1 equal no success, 2-5 equal 1 success and 6 equals 2
success (like Hero System body dice). Compare offense successes to foes
defense successes & vice versa.

There is more to the system than the basic mechanics, as has been pointed
out, including a similarly diceless magic system. And if you're the
competition, it's worth ten bucks to see what we're thinking...;)

Greg
BTRC games

BTRC

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

[semi-plug]
I'm surprised neither one of you has dissected CORPS in this discussion.
Uses a single d10 for everything, and has a skill system that allows for
automatic success based on skill level, totally eliminating the need for
many rolls. The GM can say "You're *how* good? Ok, you pick the lock and
bypass the alarm without any trouble." and actually have that statement be
based on game mechanics rather than hand-waving.

Greg
BTRC games

Mary K. Kuhner

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

Tes...@aol.com (Kevin Munoz) writes:
>mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:

>>Without the dice I find it very difficult to stick to numbers--I don't
>>know if the GM's impression of "four points in Subsumption" is
>>anything like mine.

>Interesting that the impression of points would be different. I found this

>to be primarily the case in open-ended number systems (1 is base and there
>is no ceiling), but not so much of a problem when using a scale of 1-10,
>1-20, etc, where you can think in percentages or quarters or what have
>you.

I'm a bit too much the statistician to think that "the scale is from 1
to 10" really tells me what I need to know: spread matters such a lot.
Real example:

The homebrew we play _Radiant_ in has stats ranging from 1 to 8 with
4 being the human average value. The PCs have only one 8 among them,
Valerie's Perception (though five or six 7s). As it turns out, the GM
was under the impression that, though 8 is human maximum, it's not
*that* big a deal--as in Shadowrun, where 6 is human maximum and
practically every PC or major NPC has several of them. This could
make sense if the scale is quite granular. On the other hand, I was
under the impression that 8 was a shocking value, something that
really made you stand out from even very talented competitors.

This game does have mechanics, though they are simple. Because of the
mechanics, there is an objective answer to 'does an 8 make you
special?' Mechanically, yes, it does. Valerie has such easy target
numbers on Perception-based tests that she routinely gets shocking
numbers of successes. The impression in play is that she is
preternaturally perceptive (which is what the player had in mind--
the character is nonhuman).

When we don't have a mechanic to resolve such a question, it tends
not to get caught until some game situation brings up the difference
between player understanding and GM understanding. Then we get
assumption clash.

There's still a problem, of course, in that the player and GM want to
have the same idea of the population distribution of 8's, and the
mechanics don't help much with that. I'm always surprised when
systems make no mention of the expected distribution--they tell you
that such-and-such is the mean and act as though that's enough
info. My husband and I once ran parallel campaigns in the same AD&D-
variant world. We were in solid agreement that the average person
was about level 3 and the absolute maximum was 18. But in play
we discovered that I thought level 9+ people were shockingly rare,
and 12+ were once-a-generation legends, whereas he thought that
any provincial champion or high priest of a decent-sized temple
was 9+. This nearly killed a campaign (my PCs concluded wrongly
from the number of high-level people in their opposition that
they had run into some huge Imperial conspiracy, and they sensibly
refused to deal with it, whereas he had thought the situation was
fairly routine).

At least in AD&D-family games you can assume that the population
in general rolls its stats on 3d6 straight. Many systems tell
you *nothing* about expected distribution--Shadowrun, for example.

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

Lise Mendel

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

Andrew Finch <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:

> BTRC (bt...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> : 3. Resolution is handled by a modified "rock,scissors,paper" system, where
> : you secretly assign offense and defense Advantages to each hand and then
> : simultaneously reveal them. If your offense exceeds their defense, you do
> : damage, and vice versa. You can have ties, one, both or neither person
> : doing damage.
>

> This seems to me to be a 'diced' system. It's an objective system in any

> case. An intriguing one, but still not 'randomizer-less'. Or is it? Is it
> simply the choice of advantages, or is there more?
>

Each side makes a tactical decision, without knowing what decision the
other one makes. Where's the random factor?
--
Lise Mendel
Mommy to Abigail (5/9/93) and Dorothy (10/19/95)
http://www.access.digex.net/~catalyst/
I reserve the right to repost e-mailed flames wherever it amuses me to

Tim Isakson

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

Kevin Munoz (Tes...@aol.com) wrote:
>In article <50k50g$a...@anarchy.io.com>, loi...@io.com (Tim Isakson) wrote:
>
>>Other than that, I think, the simple character description and action
>>resolution systems that Greg described are pretty neat - I haven't
>>had time to get much further than reading the book (I'm in the midst
>>of running a FUDGE Phoenix Guards game, which is taking a lot of my
>>free time) but a lot of the ideas from Epiphany struck me as interesting
>>and fun.
>
>So, simple character generation and resolution is a benefit for you? I always
>found simple resolution a difficulty for diceless gaming (and by this I mean
>non-random gaming, therefore excluding RPS-type resolutions).
>

I'm not sure what you mean by RPS-type resolutiosn, but yes, simple
character generation and resolution are a benefit - I'm trying
FUDGE for the first time, and FUDE is very simple in its descriptions
and resolution system (or, at least, easy to follow).

I've gradually moved away from complicated mechanics towards fairly
abstract diceless and dice-light systems, and my current favorites are
Amber, Over The Edge and FUDGE. I've played complex systems before
(GURPS and AD&D), and while they are fine, they just aren't my cup of
tea.

Keith Kornelsen

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme) wrote:
>Johnzo (joh...@cyberus.ca) writes:

>> Each action will require one d20 roll (with possible additional
>> re-rolls on 10's and 20's.) High roll is good. The player will
>> simply report the number of the die roll to me, and I'll interpret
>> things from there. Action bonuses will not be reported to players.
>> (i.e. "you've got a +3 to hit this guy this round" becomes
>> "you've got a solid advantage .. your opponent is reeling, and his
>> guard has fallen way off.")
>>

>> The big problem: can I handle this number crunching and still narrate
>> the game? Hopefully. We'll see. I'm pretty decent with small-digit
>> arithmetic (played wayy too much Illuminati during university) so math
>> isn't a problem, and if things slow down too much, one of the action
>> resolution tasks can be offloaded to the players.

I've done this a few times, though we used a regular deck of cards
rather than a d20. It didn't work so well, until I one session
started drawing the cards myself -- in the players full sight.

While they still didn't understand the mechanics behind each draw,
they also didn't feel like they needed to, like they had when they
did the draws themselves...

If your idea doesn't work well for you for similar reasons,
you may wish to try this.

>The key, I think is how one handles the mechanics and then try to make
>them transparent to the players. My one attempt at that, years ago using
>RM, was, mostly a failure. The players didn't rebel but they felt naked
>rolling a die and having no mechanics to understand the roll.

Exactly our problem too. But when I started making draws in
front of them, they felt good about being let in on the
"laws of the universe" in a fuzzy way that insured some
fairness, and required no responsibility.

>Any of you people have insights on this?

I design a different system, with new mechanics and resolution devices,
for every campaign. The mechanics evolve around the vision, and help
keep the game on the track of that vision.

But I've been designing systems for RP since I was 11...

--Intrepid

Andrew Finch

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

Kevin Munoz (Tes...@aol.com) wrote:

: Actually, I'm fairly curious about how combat is resolved in other

: diceless systems. One of the annoying gremlins of Persona was keeping the

: repetition down. Success in this was cause for a scary amount of

: celebration (don't get out much, do we?) a couple years back.

Ask, and you shall receive. Here's some Theatrix combat from a .advocacy
example a while back (this one just keeps on cropping up)...

*********************************************************************

> Can you offer a quick example of intense conflict resolution ("Combat")
> in a mechanicless system that
>
> a) Reflects differing skill/advantages
> b) Allows for the element of chance
> c) Masks the "Invisible Hand" of the GM moving the plot along
>
> I am just curious as to your response. I figure that this is a fairly
> easy exercise, but it would help clarify the argument for me.

I'll try.

***************************************************************

You're in a small hotel room, at night. It's a little downtown cheap
hotel, yellowed wallpaper, hard creaky bed, very little furniture. The
woman has the briefcase upon the bed. Her supple form is bent over the
task of opening the locks to reveal the long awaited contents (providing
a good rear view). There is a dry tenseness in the air, which is not held
in check at all by the heat. The single working bulb in the table lamp
provides mostly shadows, and very little illumination.

The woman stops short at her task and lifts up her head. One thin eyebrow
raises slightly as she looks towards the door.

"Did you just hear something?" she says quietly. The handcuff she wears
the steel case by has gone taught as she reaches with the other hand into
her overcoat, towards where a gun would be holstered (small of the back).

What are you doing?

<over>

> Wow. I wasn't expecting an _interactive_demo_, but this is even better.
> TIA! OK, let me see...

O.K. We'll be going through some minute actions, so this will take a
little while, but I'm game.

> With a silent nod, I motion the woman to into the bathroom. Quickly
> drawing my Browning(?), I stand next to the door on the hinges side, with
> my back to the wall. If anyone enters, the door will mask my position.
> Taking a deep breath, I listen carefully.

The woman now raises both eyebrows in a quizical look, then seems to
realize something, and nods. She picks up the briefcase and moves
silently towards the bathroom. The bathroom door clicks closed at about
the same time the doorknob your standing next to makes the faintest of
turns... and stops, locked. There is a pause of several heart beats...

<over>

> Please also include a brief discussion of GM thinking. I want to
> understand the system from both perspectives, if possible.

O.K. Be prepared.

> I roll to the other side of the door, next to the doorknob. Still
> standing with my back to the wall, I quickly unlatch the lock and jerk
> the door open with my free hand. Hopefully the snoop's hand will still
> be on the knob and he will be caught off balance. My gun is ready if he
> isn't...

[There are 5 or 6 armed gunmen outside, with automatic weapons, kust about
to shoot the lock of the door, the knob off the door, and possibly the
door off the frame. You might catch the one trying to open the door
off-balance, although this isn't likely with the ligh touch he was giving
that doorknob. The rest would blaze their guns at you, and you would be
full of holes. However, I don't want it to end that soon, so I'll give
you a little warning. Quick use of the Theatrix flowchats for combat.]

You reach for the door to jerk it open when the silence in the room is
broken by loud, rapid gunfire in copius quantities. Your left hand
explodes in pain, several holes appear in your trenchcoat, small bits of
wood begin to leap of the door and its frame, rapidly leaving holes
behind, you blink away the darkness from your eyes...

What are you doing?

> (over)

> OK, it seems I get a little mercy, rather than making me pay for my
> little mistake. I probably would have done the same thing in a diced or
> diceless scenario - it's no fun for a character to die in the first round...

It's not mercy. That is a diced concept which comes from the guilt of
fudging rolls, of breaking 'the rules'. The result which I gave was as
possible, and as realistic, as killing you dead. What makes these results
equally realistic is the description given them. What makes one right is
a human sense for what will make the best game. Diced rules do not
simulate, they choose, and they restrict the options and outcomes of that
choice. As independent arbitrators for a wargame, they're fine.

> Trying to stifle my gasp of pain, I dive behind the bed onto the floor.
> (Not much in the way of cover, but what else is there?)

[Maybe I'll tell you in a minute]

The door slams open as you leap over the bed. You don't manage to stifle
the gasp of pain when you dive behind the bed, and instinctively stop your
face from hitting the ground with your hands, or rather hand. The shock of
pain when your left shoulder strikes the ground is totally drowned out in
the *SHOCK* of pain in your left hand, as you take most of your weight
there, your Browining still in the right hand. There are definitely still
some nerves there.

You take a big involuntary shuddering breath, and try to crawl quickly
towards the corner of the bed, before the guys in the black trenchcoats
get too far into the room.

> Peering around
> the corner of the bed, I squeeze off a couple of rounds at the door to
> give the fellows outside something to think about before they come
> barging in. Now, I have to try to remember: does the fire escape go near
> the window of this room, or even better, a window in the bathroom?

You sequeeze off a few rounds, and there is a small spray of red blood on
one of the legs facing you, a yell, 'Jezuz Fuckin' ...rrrrr!', as a man
hits the ground. His buddies entering the room are stepping back, and
moving left and right for some cover. The guy who hit the ground looks up
from his prone position, and you are starring right at each other. Good
unobstructed view from under the bed. 'Rrrrrrrrr....', a grimace of hate
as that Uzi comes swinging around towards your exposed flank.

You haven't looked out the window in the bathroom, but the one in the
room didn't lead onto a fire escape. Of course it's only 3 stories up...

[I was thinking about the windows as well]

> I fire two more shots at the goon on the floor to give him something else
> to think about besides my "unprotected flank". The next bullet goes into
> the light bulb in the lamp. (Important Safety Tip: Next time, turn out
> the light _before_ opening the door.) Hopefully the bathroom door is
> within a quick crawl behind some sort of cover. Pound on the door:"Let
> me in!"

You've both got a clear line of fire on each other. You've got your gun
out and pointing in that direction. The first shot takes him in the top of
the head as your eyes clear of the initial shock of pain, and your aim is
less wild. I assume you go directly for the single light with your next
shot. The light goes out with a flash. A heavy body lands on the bed above
you. There is the shuffle of feet on the other side of the bed, farther
back. A body slams into a wall in the opposite corner of the room. And the
goon moving towards the corner of the bed from which you are firing,
ducking across your line of fire as you take out the light, is of
immediate concern, because he stands in the dark, about 4 feet away, with
his Uzi pointing right at you. Your painflully balanced in a prone
position, on your left shoulder, alongside the bed, with your gun too far
out of line to shoot him before he tags you.

The room's single window is to your left. The bathroom door is behind
you, just behind your feet. The door to the room is on the other side of
the bed to your right.

What are you doing besides laying there and dying?

<over>

> Hmm. Not doing too well at the player side... Not knowing the rules,
> can I spend a "Plot Point" or something to have a SWAT team show up? Or
> how about having whatsherface duck out of the bathroom and blow them all
> away? Oh, well, let's see...

Improvisation is certainly available, but you have been doing that
already. When you have asked how things are set up, or made conclusions,
I've tried to accept those, and to give you answers which embodies the
intent of the question. For instance, you could have been carrying any
sort of gun. You chose a Browning, and so a Browning it was. We are going
to avoid anything more radical, including the use of plot points, because
this is a single combat, and the intent was to show diceless resolution
and its use of 'luck' and 'randomness'.

> > You've both got a clear line of fire on each other. You've got your gun
> > out and pointing in that direction. The first shot takes him in the top of
> > the head as your eyes clear of the initial shock of pain, and your aim is
> > less wild. I assume you go directly for the single light with your next
> > shot. The light goes out with a flash. A heavy body lands on the bed above

> So far, so good...

> > you. There is the shuffle of feet on the other side of the bed, farther
> > back. A body slams into a wall in the opposite corner of the room. And the
> > goon moving towards the corner of the bed from which you are firing,
> > ducking across your line of fire as you take out the light, is of
> > immediate concern, because he stands in the dark, about 4 feet away, with
> > his Uzi pointing right at you. Your painflully balanced in a prone
> > position, on your left shoulder, alongside the bed, with your gun too far
> > out of line to shoot him before he tags you.

> Not so good anymore.

There are several guys with better weapons, and you started out by
sending away half your force, and then putting yourself in a position in
a lighted room without cover. What happens now would seriously depend on
the genre. How gritty and realistic do the players wish to play it?
What's right for the genre?

> > The room's single window is to your left. The bathroom door is behind
> > you, just behind your feet. The door to the room is on the other side of
> > the bed to your right.
> >
> > What are you doing besides laying there and dying?

> This is a possibility. So is surrender. I could make a dive for the
> window, which you have hinted at. This would require standing up
> in front of an Uzi at point-blank range and dropping thirty feet onto
> pavement. The bathroom offers another avenue, with similar
> liabilities. If we were rolling dice, I would be hoping for an
> artficiality, like an incredible initiative roll to save my butt. In
> any case, it looks like I've failed the mission. But to keep things
> interesting, how about this:
>
> With all the speed and adrenaline I can muster, I slide underneath the bed
> and keep going, headed for the open door.

Time scale is shorter than that, so lets just start and see how it goes.
You can't slide rapidly enough not to get aced. The automatic has a bead
on you. You can however roll (ouch). I assume you'll bite down on your
lip and do it (if we were face to face I would ask, but in the interest
of some efficiancy, and the few alternative options, I'll run it as though
you go for that).

You roll under the bed as hard as you can with a line of gunfire following
you. Fortunately, a matress is soft and thick, and will tend to quickly
deform the bullets which strike it. Unfortunately, these are fairly high
velocity rounds. What comes out the other end of those holes is wads of
matress stuffing, which flies into little bits as it explodes outward. As
you roll towards the outer edge of the bed (towards the door), in a fair
bit of agony now (your shoulder is just bruised, but that hand may never be
the same), you are enveloped in a cloud of matress fuzz. There are *a
lot* of bullets firing through that matress and following your path. You
finish your roll at the other side of the bed, as you are stopped by a
foot. Face up, in the dark, one of the goons has his right foot squarely
on your chest, and the business end of an Uzi about 1 foot away, square
dead on your center of mass. Amongst the matress fuzz and darkness you
can't see his face, doesn't really matter at this point anyway, but he
makes a short snort of derision. The sound of gunfire is dying away,
leaving a ringing in your ears. You can make out the back of the guy who
landed on the bed. He's standing up now, his back to you, with his gun
pointed downward at the center of the matress.

Not even time for a prayer really.

And then the goon with the foot on your chest leaps off of you, and does
a poorly acrobatic half-pirouette through the air, landing in a heap
beside the guy with the serious brain hemmorage. The whole thing looked
like a scene from a silent movie, and there just this high pitched
ringing in your ears.

So are you just gonna' lay there?

> BTW, I'm looking forward to the post-mortem so I can see how the scenario
> was set up and adapted to my actions. I'm really enjoying this: If
> nothing else, Theatrix (?) makes for a great Internet game.

Thanks. This situation is tough, but I set it up for Joseph Grace. Your
lucky I like my games just like I like my orange juice. With lots of pulp.

Catch you on the flip side.

> I should be close enough to the door that I could rise to a crouch, spin
> 180, and end up near the doorway. As I spin, I'll try a snap shot at the
> guy in the corner who tried to drill me on the other side of the bed.

You rise to a crouch and begin a spin, a little awkwardly as your a bit
more lightheaded than usual. There is a definite throbbing in your
eardrums, which exists even in the otherwise ringing silence of the room.
As you turn towards the corner for your next target, seeking him in the
darkness, and the man on the bed falls towards the ground, a few facts
sink in. The gun in the hand of the goon on the bed, whome you just
plugged in the back, is firing, and continues to fire as he falls. The
motion of his arm, and the dancing force of the Uzi, create a swirling
line of plaster puffs as they trace a line along the wall in a wide,
sweeping arc. There are 2 goons on the other side of the bed. If there
were only 5 to start with, then there they are. If there were 6, then you
have another assailant in the darkness. The 2 on the other side of the
bed are dropping to the ground in sort of a dive. That nice young lady
you left in the bathroom is framed in bathroom's doorway, by the dim
light coming in through the room's single window, and the open one in the
bathroom as well. She is holding a monster hand cannon in one hand, a
grenade in her teeth, and she's pulling the pin on the grenade with her
left hand, yes, the handcuffed one, with the big steel breifcase held
awkwardly under one arm. How she opened the bathroom door, you don't
know. She has an extremely worried look on her face.

This flashes across your field of vision as you trun towards the corner of
the room, allowing the Browning to point your way. That sweep of
machinegun fire doing the dance of death is headed around the room, about
chest high, in the opposite direction of your spin, ie. towards you.

Looks like fun.

What are you doing?

> OK. I could use some luck right about now.

You already got some. You aren't dead... yet.

> Another RPG "trick" is to tell the GM: "My character has a lot of close
> combat experience. What are my immediate instincts?" In a diced system,
> I would usually end up rolling against some stat. Since I can't do that,
> I figure that the GM would be more open to give me a clue once in a while.

And I have. Everything I tell you is a clue. I think the most immediate
representation of a characters level of skill is the perceptions they
receive. You are obviously very quick witted in combat, and not
unfamiliar with the business end of a gun. I've described details, and
broken down action for your character in a way which allows you to act
and react on a tactical level, at fair speed, in the dark, under gunfire.
I haven't frozen you in terror, and haven't pushed moments of indecision
too hard. I've noted things, people, motions, and sound, in such a way as
to provide a fair tactical picture from the stance of a combat veteran.
For example, amidst the sudden movements and gunfire, and your necessity
and concentration on other targets, you heard the bump of the guy in the
opposite corner hitting the wall in the dark. That little clue meant that
you knew he was not an immediate threat, and his approximate location.
That's not a bad detail under the circumstances. A less experienced
character might have gotten a few shuffling sounds, a guy leaping over
the bed to get them, and the fact that they are helplessly trapped in a
corner with nowhere to run. Just the detail given, and the method of
formatting that response, is a clue, and the greatest benefit of your
level of skill. It also greatly enhances the first person feeling of
being there as all information is given from each characters POV.

> > So are you just gonna' lay there?
>
> Hell no. I plug the guy with his back to me, then roll for the nearest
> cover (besides the ex-bed) while I try to figure out who's left.

You squeeze of two rounds into the standing goons back. You are under the
only cover other than the other side of one of the walls (out the window,
out the door, back under the bed maybe). Where are you rolling to, just
after squeezing off those two quick rounds into the guy's back (freeze
moment in time, because he hasn't even begun falling yet)?

> I sure hope she doesn't toss the pin and drop the grenade. Most people
> usually hold the grenade in their hand and pull the pin with their
> teeth. Unless this is her version of a "dead-man's switch".
> (Dead-woman's switch?)

GMs thoughts: She needed to open the bathroom door, fire that gun, and
pull the pin quickly, which means she needed to open the door with her
free hand, which is on a short leash (the other is holding the gun). She
would have had to fumble at the door if she had a grenade in her hand, and
she couldn't afford the time to fumble for the grenade afterwards.

> > What are you doing?
>
> I'm in another awkward position, as usual. How about a diving roll
> through the open door and around the corner? I'll be listening for the
> Uzi to stop firing and for the thud of a grenade being lobbed into the
> room. Maybe I'll also be able to hear the "ping" of a grenade arming
> handle.

You dive across the two bodies in the center of the room and roll for the
open door. That ringing silence in your ears is going to make subtle
noises difficult to hear. Besides, you realize quite plainly as you hit
the ground that this is one dive too many for that left hand. It doesn't
support your weight, so your wrist is forced to instead. There is a
shudder of pain and an agonizing 'pop' in your wrist, which is complaining
loudly about the abuse. The hand with the gun in it is forced to take your
weight, except that your holding a gun, which makes that an awkward
operation as well. Your right hand is forced into an awkward angle as the
gun refuses to balance perfectly on its top, your trigger finger is bent
painfully, and the gun discharges (you feel this more than hear it). Your
roll misses it's mark a bit and you body check the door frame with your
shoulder and back (scrape). You end up in a semi-fetal position, head out
the door, feet just in the room, and your left hand is a useless lump of
agony. A small dark object bounces off the bed and lands on the floor in
the middle of the room. The woman framed in the bathrrom doorway is
screaming something at you and motioning with her now empty gun hand for
you to come toward her, as she transfers the briefcase into a better grip.
There is a spray of gunfire that rakes across the bathroom door, and the
nice pretty woman, who no longer seems to be holding a gun, spins around
and falls backwards into the bathroom.

> Hosed - ouch! Well, there doesn't seem to be much to do except make a
> last effort to put a wall between me and that probable grenade. I'll try
> to get as far from the open doorway as I can. Too bad - I didn't even
> catch her name. Once the grenade goes off, I'll go back in to mop up.

Well, you're not broken, just hurting. You definitely can't use that hand
for anything, but you can get up using the other hand, ignore the twinges
in your back, and pull yourself around that wall. You kick youself to the
other side of the wall, and ... boy, does that hand hurt. Even trying to
move it is agony.

> OK, stand up and count five seconds for the grenade to go off, then back
> into the room to mop up. If the grenade hasn't gone off, I'll take my
> chances and go in anyway. And if the goon squad tries to retreat through
> the door in front of me, I'll plug 'em. Do I hear any noises in the room
> with my much-diminished hearing?

O.K. You push yourself into a standing position, careful to hold your
wrist as still as possible, because otherwise it HURTS. You count off 5
seconds, and that muted high pitched ringing in your ears fades out to a
high pitched buzz. You are definitely feeling a bit lightheaded, you're
still exsanguinating at a fair rate through the hole in your left hand.
Still no explosion. What are you doing?

> Well, the best defense is a good offence, so they say. Assuming I still
> have my gun, I'll lean around the doorframe, using the wall as partial
> cover, and see if I can get a snap shot at a goon or two.

Yes, you still have your gun. I would have said if you had lost it, in
most cases.

You lean around the doorframe, into the darkened room, and can't make out
a moving body. You see the two on the floor, and the dark lump that's
supposedly the grenade. The bathroom door has been closed again, and the
window has been smashed (only tatters of glass remain about the edges).

> Well, is it really a grenade? Has the pin been pulled? If it's armed,
> I'll duck out of the room and get as far away as I can.

Well, in the darkness of the room, with the light coming through the
windows, from your position at the doorway, the small, round lump on the
floor sure looks like a grenade.

> OK, I'll duck back into the hallway and wait another ten seconds, then
> lean back in again. In the meantime, I'll try to wrap a handkerchief
> around my hand.

You have to bite down on your lower lip to keep from screaming as you
wrap that handkerchief around that hand. Any movement is NOT good. You
wait ten seconds and lean back in. Same situation.

> All right, then. I jump over the bed to see if I can catch any lurkers
> unawares. If there's no one there, or if they are no threat, I'll enter
> the bathroom. My aim is to get into the bathroom as quickly as possible,
> after ensuring that the bedroom is secure.

Well, the space between the bed and the wall is a bit short for that kind
of leap, but I get the point. Here's a rough of the room. DD is the door,
= is the bathroom door, B is the bed, T is a table, C is a chair, and x
is the broken window.

_________xxxx_____
| TT |
= TT |
| BBBBBB |
| BBBBBB |
| CC|
| CC|
____________DD_____

Wince, pain (your hand). You get to the other side of the bide, gun
leading. You cross the two fallen guys with the Uzis in their cold dead
fingers, and the one you plugged in the back on the bed, automatic in his
hand as well, and there is no one else there. Out the broken window is the
brick wall of another building, and another window opposite this one, but
that window is not broken, and it's dark, and the distance is too far to
jump. There are bits of broken glass crunching softly under your feet on
the cheap rug. The bathroom door is closed, but there is light coming
from underneath the door.

> Gee, I wish I had this when we started...

Ho ho ho, now I have a machine gun too.

> I'll hoster my gun and grab a Uzi - you never know when you might need
> some extra firepower. Then I'll rap on the bathroom door. "It's me -
> the coast is clear." I'll pull back to the side of the door, just in case.

You hear both the knock on the door, and your own voice, only slightly
muted now.

The door open quickly to reveal your lady friend leaning against the door
frame, the steel case still attached to her wrist, and Desert Eagle .50
cal. in her other hand (how she wraps her hand around that you don't
know). She looks no less beautiful for being dishevled. There are several
holes in her blouse, revealing the typical blue of a flack vest
underneath. Her left shoulder wasn't so lucky, and she's bleeding from a
bullet wound there.

She coughs hard, and taps herself on the chest with the gun, smiles
weakly, and says in that odd accent (maybe israeli, maybe russian) "I
didn't wear the trauma plate. It's too uncomfortable with breasts. That
will teach me."

<pause>

"Do you still have the microfiche?"

<over>

> I pull out the microfiche in its steel can. "I assume you agree to the
> terms of the deal? Then let's make this quick. I don't think either of
> us want to be around here for longer than we have to..."

"Lets get out of here, it's no longer safe. There is obviously a leak in
one of our organizations. I have a Mercedes limousine parked outside. It
has bullet proof windows ... and a privacy screen. We can seal the deal
there."

She moves over and opens the bathroom window.

"And we should do something about your hand. All that blood could be
going to better uses." She gives you a little smile and turns, gun first,
to check outside the window.

<over>

> I nod. "Ladies first." I pocket the can and move so I can watch both her
> and the door to the room.

She climbs out the window and onto a the fire escape outside, making only
a few soft metalic sounds. SHe pauses a moment, lokking around, then
motions for you to follow.

<over>

> So there was a fire escape out the bathroom window. OK, I follow
> carefully behind, with my Uzi at the ready.

GMs thoughts: Always was, even before you mentioned it.

You move carefully out the window onto the fire escape. It's damp from a
recent rain. The back of the alley is fenced off with a high (about 10')
wooden fence, about 40' from you. The front of the alley opens onto the
street, wich is lit by spaced lamps, about 20' in front of you. You are
three stories up on a five story hotel. The broken window is behind you,
toward the back of the alley. The opposite building is about 20' feet away
across the alley. Below you, just behind the fire escape, towards the back
of the alley, is one of those large green open dumpsters, about half full
of trash. On the opposite side of the alley from it are several metal
trash cans, and the trash cans are beside a single exit door in the
opposite building. Other than these objects, and a few puddles, the alley
is empty.

The women moves on ahead of you, quietly, towards the bottom of the fire
escape, which ends one floor up from the alley, because the end ladder is
still retracted.

<over>

> I'll follow the woman down to the bottom of the fire escape, keeping
> careful watch for any sign of movement in the alley below or on the
> rooftops above. Can I figure out why the window was broken and where the
> extra goons went?

Well, there are few chices, as you move down you look at the window.
Somebody could have broken the window, stood crouched on the sill, and
made a jump for the fire escape. Hairy, but possible. That means they
could have made it to the roof. A two story climb from the window to the
roof, directly, seems impossible (good thought to look up though, very few
people think about up, and I've used that before). If someone leapt from
the window they would likely end up in the large garbage dumpster, almost
directly below ...

You've come down a flight of stairs, just behind the lady, and both of you
are cautiously looking about, when several garbage bags in the dumpster
move quickly, and noisily, revealing one of the goon squad, Uzi in hand,
while the other one pushes himself out from underneath the dumpster, Uzi
pointing upward. They were a little bit hasty. They would have had a
better shot if they had waited for you to get to the bottom ladder. What
are you doing...

<over>

> I'll drop to a croutch and spray the garbage bag guy with the Uzi. I
> assume I have minimal cover, but I'll try to get a snap assessment of the
> possibilities.

The possibilities for cover aren't particularly good. There's up, and
there's down. Your'e on the second story, so down is a two story drop onto
concrete. Up is a climb. You drop to a croutch, the woman in front of you
drops a bit and swings the hand cannon into line with a target as well,
and then the bullets fly. There is the rattling of several Uzis echoing
off the brick walls of the alley, and the loud thunderclap of the Desert
Eagle. This close to it, the shock wave is a palpable hot slap in the
face, and that ringing starts buzzing in your ears again. Crouched down on
the metal staircase, firing past a metal railing, with only the metal
stairs, and the metal slats of the second floor firescape landing for
cover, is not a real sweet position, and all the metal in the way limits
your arc of fire. You've got to sort of hang out a bit to tag these guys
who are not directly below you, but are close to it. Then again, you want
to keep the vital parts of your body behind as much metal as possible.
The whole thing is rather awkward. As you spray, and bullet holes start
punching through garbage bags around your targets feet, and pinging off
the sides of the garbage bin. A big mother impact occurs very close to the
head of the guy under the bin, and he ceases firing to scramble out of the
way and out from under the bin, and is in motion. There is a hail of
bullets around you, rapid pings and sparks all over the place, several are
too close for comfort at all. The woman beside you falls over and slumps
against you, landing painfully on your left arm. All of this happens with
2 seconds as you take your first spray across the guy in the garbage bin,
then he suddenly goes down as one of his legs just gives out from under
him and he falls backwards into the trash, still alive, and still firing.
A line of atomized brick runs up the side of the hotel, and one of the
windows shatters.

What are you doing...

> OK, switch targets. Where's the guy who was hiding under the trash bin?
> He's next...

Well, he's crawling his way out from under the trash bin and isn't in a
position to fire, the guy you just shot is still very much alive and if
you just ignore him he'll shoot again, then again he's been wounded and
the guy crawling out of the dumpster is fairly open, but the woman you're
with is just slumped against you, and you're still in a very open position
up on that fire esacape, and that hail of bullets was no fun the first time.

Your choice.

> OK, I misunderstood about the other guy - I thought he was out in the
> open.

He's covered by dumpster from the waste down, and crwaling out from
under the rest of the way, so he is partially out in the open, not able
to dodge, and a fine target. I just wanted to make sure you were clear on
the situation before making a choice of action.

> Well, as long as I have a bead on the dumpster dude, I'll keep
> firing until he is unable.

That would also be fine.

> Is she moving or making any noise?

She just fell against you in an odd way, and no, she didn't make any noise.

So now that we are both clearer on what's going on I'll have you confirm
your action for me again. Sorry, but it's a tight moment and I don't want
any misunderstandings due to the communication method.

> All right, then: I will fire at the guy IN the dumpster, who should be
> an easy target since he's flat on his back underneath me and I already
> have a bead on him. As for the other guy, if this was a more mechanical
> system, I'd suggest he was due for a morale check. But, that's not here
> nor there. If I can give the "In-the-dumpster-guy" enough to think about
> so that he won't be firing back at us, I'll switch targets to the
> "Under-the-dumpster-guy-but crawling-out".
>
> Make sense?

We'll see. No moral checks here because people do things for a reason. If
that reason becomes saving their hides, they do. If that means putting
your neck on the line because despite the odds you think you still have a
chance for the big money, then that's another thing.

In diceless play you create your opportunities.

You let hot lead fly at the guy on his back in the dumpster. He fires
back at you. Holes appear in garbage bags, several shots hit his legs, he
jerks, bullets clang off of the metal gratings of the fire escape again.
Ms. silent and unmoving is still leaning painfully on your left hand. The
guy under the dumpster pulls his legs free and rolls towards the back for
cover. Something leaps up and bites your right leg. More holes appear in
upper body areas of the guy in the dumpster. He does this jerking dance,
laying there in the dumpster and his gun goes silent. The guy who was
under the dumpster rolls to a kneeling position, putting the corner of the
dumpster between you and he. One little Indian with very hard cover left.

> BTW, here's my thinking (in case you were curious). I have to get Miss
> Mystery out of here. If we go up, we become targets on the fire escape
> and we still have to get back down again. To go down, I have to lower
> the ladder, which will be quite difficult without the use of my hand.
> Either way, as long as I have good targetting on the last of the goon
> squad, I'll take the best opportunity of it that I can.

My theory is that when under a barrage of fire *ricocheting* in
unpredictable ways (remember what started this example?), in bare cover,
under heavy fire, where I can only tag one of the guys shooting at me,
it's time to move, and move fast.

Of course I know something that you don't that would have made that
option more attractive.

> Was I smart enough to wear a bulletproof vest? Do I have any other
> weapons? Just wondering.

Nah, not this late in the game. You get to survive as you can now.

Have fun.

> > laying there in the dumpster and his gun goes silent. The guy who was
> > under the dumpster rolls to a kneeling position, putting the corner of the
> > dumpster between you and he. One little Indian with very hard cover left.
>
> Oh, fun. Well, desperate times call for desperate measures...
>
> I'll pop off a quick burst at the last Indian to convince him to keep his
> head down, and I'll hunker down in the best cover available,keeping the
> woman's vest between my vitals and the goon's Uzi. (Sorry, hon, but if we
> both want to come out alive...) I'll do a rapid pat down of the woman's
> trench coat. Does she have anything that feels like another grenade?

You pop off some rounds, which go pinging off the dumpster, and do cause
the goon back there to duck, which does give you the time to pull the
pretty woman in front of you for protection. That doesn't seem to be so
much of a shame because as you lift her off your hand, you notice the the
blood running down her chin, and the entry hole there. You also notice
the biting pain in the back of your right thight, and the blood there.
The bullet seems to have lodged in a bunch of muscle, which is better
than the large arteries and veins nearer the groin, which means you get
to move, only painfully. Well, limp quickly would probably be closer to
the truth. There's an involuntary sweat broken out upon your brow. So you
haul the woman's body up for protection and pat her down quickly for a
grenade. It's awkward because you have to use one hand for both
operations, right and left side, and by the time you locate the 2 grenades
in the inner left pocket, pretty boy behind the dumpster is unlaoding a
few more rounds. That's multiple pings and sparks, multiple ricochets,
and serveral thuds into the nice woman's body (luckily stopped by the
flak jacket, in respect for the dead).

> So close, yet so far...

> I actually considered that. The problem is that there's nowhere to go
> once in the box.

Yeah, it does sort of leave you in a guessing game with the guy outside as
to who pops over which side first. Of course, you can fire over the side
easily, but he'll have a harder time from the ground, and no bullets are
making it through that dumpster. What you could do is fire a few loud
rounds and wait for the police. You'll have a lot of explaining to do,
they'll find the microfiche, and you wouldn't get what's in briefcase #1,
but you would be alive. Ofc ourse, the police are likely to be here soon
anyway...

> > blood running down her chin, and the entry hole there. You also notice
>
> Poor lass. I didn't even get her name.

>
> I fire another burst to the guy to get his head down again. Then, I'll
> grab a grenade and toss it behind the dumpster WITHOUT pulling the pin.
> In the dark, he shouldn't notice. (Heck, I didn't) Hopefully that will
> flush him out. If not, I'll shoot the handcuff chain.

You fire a bit to keep your opponent ducked down, and toss one of the
grenades over the dumpster and behind it. Not too tough. Ptang, rattle,
rattle, rattle...

"Give it up. The grenades are not armed. Do you think the bitch wanted to
kill herself up in that little room? No, she had to wait a minute until
she came down here... She is dead, isn't she? I don't know what she
promised you, but you would never have gotten it. You be just one in a
long line of suckers. We probably saved your life by interferring."

<over>

> Well, this isn't getting any easier. OK, during his little speech I'll
> shoot the handcuff chain, grab the briefcase, and bust through the nearest
> window. The other options don't look too good.

O.K. Brrrrrap, kping, ping, ping, you shoot the handcuff chain (I hope
you appreciate these sound effects, because no expense was spared in their
creation I assure you). Now you've got a problem. Which hand does the
briefcase go in? It can't be the left, and you haven't got a holster for
the automatic. Your right leg is going to be a bit of a problem, but you
don't think it will keep you from making a jump. Also, you can jump for a
window to the side of the fire escape and hope, that's a good 10 feet, at
a poor angle, from a slippery fire escape (the rain, you knew it would
come in sometime). Or, you can climb up or down. Up one floor leads to
the room you came from, down one floor is a 1st story room, or behind you
(actually down just 1/2 flight of stairs, so close) is the corresponding
2nd story room. That one's hardly a jump at all. You can climb down a 1/2
flight and run/leap for it, or you can swing to the back of this ladder,
and hurl yourself down and away towards it (with what hand that will be
accomplished I don't know).

It's up to you (you know, I thought we were almost done, but you may
actually run through every possibility I was prepared for, rather than
just one. I'll explain this when we do finish).

> Well, I'll be hard pressed to come out of this at all, so I guess I get
> the booby prize. Maybe next time.

You get the best prize of all. You get to roleplay through it.

> Great. I hope they're on my side...

> So many choices, so little time. Oh, well.
>
> Jam something in the trigger of the Uzi and chuck it into the alleyway.
> (It's probably out of ammo by now anyway). Maybe I'll get a lucky
> riccochet. Then grab the briefcase with my right hand, go down the
> steps, and break the window with the briefcase. I go in behind the
> briefcase.

You jam a cigar into the trigger of the Uzi.

"If you give me the microfiche I will let you live."

The Uzi fires away and you chuck it into the alley, it bounces once or
twice, another window breaks, and the thing spins around in the alley
firing for a few seconds. There is a loud scream of pain from behind the
dumpster. I assume you take this opportunity to run down the stairs, bust
in the window, and climb into the 2nd story room, which is empty, with the
door standing wide open.

> Come on, _someone's_ gotta be.

Of course, you are.

> All right - a lucky break.

Lucky? It was a good idea. That's not luck.

> I'll stop briefly to bandage my leg with a
> handy towel or bedsheet, then head for the back stairs. Hopefully the
> stairwell will go down to the basement and I can find a service tunnel to
> make my escape.

5 story hotel, small rooms, cheap, there's no car garage below it. There
might be a basement, but it would be rare for that basement to have a
street exit. However, there aught to be at least one fire exit in the
building. I wonder where that goes? Maybe there's a back exit?

You wrap a hotel towel around your leg, and limp quickly out of the room.
a door smals shut up the hallway as you step out. There are two exits off
this floor, besides the other rooms along the hall, and that's the small
elevator in which you rode up, and the fire exit / stairwell which is at
the end of the hall nearest the elevator.

> Or do I have a James Bond car with waiting driver?

Errrr. Next contestant please. The closest you get is the lady's supposed
Mercedes limousine 'parked outside'.

> > Lucky? It was a good idea. That's not luck.
>
> I know, but it _seemed_ lucky. Two points for your "diceless" system.

O.K. Luck is an interpretation of events, and not a cause in and of itself.

> > 5 story hotel, small rooms, cheap, there's no car garage below it. There
> > might be a basement, but it would be rare for that basement to have a
> > street exit. However, there aught to be at least one fire exit in the
> > building. I wonder where that goes? Maybe there's a back exit?
>
> Well, a lot of these old buildings have service tunnel entrances in the
> basement for water and sewer pipes, cable and electrical, etc. They used
> to supply coal for boilers through these tunnels, so they are big enough
> to walk through. But, I'll use whatever discreet exit I can find.

Ooooh. You know something about old buildings, you could certainly
attempt to look for such an exit <evil grin>.

> I'll head for the stairwell and follow it down to the next floor. How
> quickly can I move, and how long do I think I could keep it up?

Well, the leg is in pain, but you can limp quickly with only wincing pain,
so you could probably run in agony. The problem is that you've lost a fair
amount of blood and are light headed, and could probably use some medical
attention. But hey, you're still up and moving. I'll tell you when you
fall over. You head down the stairwell, cheap and small, to the first
story, and come to the door. Behind the door is the obvious muffled sounds
of people moving and yelling, furniture being moved, etc.

> > Errrr. Next contestant please. The closest you get is the lady's supposed
> > Mercedes limousine 'parked outside'.
>
> OK, but what was my means of travel to bring the "payment" back to my
> "organization"? I hope a driver came with the limo...

You walked into the hotel on foot, not wanting to be seen by anybody, and
staying incospicuous (sorry, I need to keep you fairly stripped down, if
this were a more complete game, we would have more background, and I
could handle you being more prepared). This is New York (now we
have a place), so cabs are available, or buses, or the underground, etc.

> Hmm. Does not sound like a friendly bunch. I suppose I could try to
> bluff my way through, but I'd need to know my character's destination:
> where is he supposed to go if the deal goes sour. Does he have backup to
> extract him or the goods?

Backup? Backup. Only wimps need backup. No, you're just hanging in the
wind all by your lonesome. I didn't say this was fair. The scenario ends
when you're either dead, or you get away (get far enough away from this
building and any pursuers that we can assume you make it back to wherever
you're supposed to go). It's just a combat afetr all. The purpose it to
get the briefcase and survive.

> That's comforting. At this point, I think I need a bit more info as to
> the frame story around the scenario to figure out what the best options
> are. If the best option is to get to the limo, then I guess we can play
> that out.

You just have to live and get away. The only 'best' option is the one you
think most likely to keep you alive and with the steel briefcase in hand.
You get 2 or 3 blocks away, and you live, done.

Good luck.

> Fair enough. I didn't want my character to decide between leaving the
> relative safety of the hotel for the streets of New York at night. :^)
> I go down the stairs.

Oops, sorry. You started on floor 3 in the room with the gunfight, you
went down 1 floor on the fire escape, then went down 1 more floor on the
inside staircase. You would not have heard anything through the door
there, and if you open it, it's just a hallway like the one you entered
from (I guess the hotel uses the english numbering system, and this is
floor 1). If you go to the bottom of the stair, they end in what must be
the lobby, and behind the door you can hear the sounds of people and
movement, as described before. I gave you that result 1 floor early, sorry.

What would you like to do?

> I'm assuming then that this stairwell doesn't go to the basement. OK,
> can I open the door a crack to peek out and see what's going on?

You would assume correctly. You crack the door open, and from that angle
ou can't see a whole lot. It's the hotel lobby. You can see the closest
corner of the registration desk, and part of a wall. You hear a commanding
voice with an arabic accent say "Out of my way pig". Someone moves quickly
across your field of vision, somewhat panicked.

So...

> I'll pop another clip into my gun and listen some more, trying to get an
> idea of how many are out there.

You pop another clip into your gun, as the footsteps get closer to the
door. There is definitely a set of footsteps getting closer to the door...

<over>

> I'll draw back and hide behind the stairs. If there is no place under
> the stairs, then I'll stand so that I will be behind the door if it
> should open.

This is an access stairwell, concrete, drab, no space under that last
staircase. You stand behind the doorway. There is another pause. No
sounds. The dorr handle moves, and the door opens a little bit. A woman
screams. The door closes. There is a gunshot, followed by some yelling in
a foriegn tongue. Another pause, and the door opens a bit again...

<over>

> I'll stay in my position and wait for the person to come through the
> door. If it's a civilian, I'll try to keep him/her quiet and find out
> who's outside. If it's a kin to the fellows upstairs, I'll try to catch
> him unawares and knock him unconcious, otherwise I'll blow him away. I
> need a silencer...

The door handle moves again. The door opens a little bit... then it moves
fast, as though someone has kicked it open hard. The door bounces off you
in your position behind it, and the stairwell fills with white smoke. You
can hear the distinct sound of a fire extinguisher in operation.

What now?

> Wierd. I'll slam the door closed and head back up the steps to the next
> floor.

You slam the door closed and the and it bounces of something metalic from
the sound. The white cloud of smoke roils with the pressure difference.
There's a curse in a foriegn tongue from behind the door, a large metal
object hits the floor...

What's up?

> I'll pop a round through the door and head back up the stairs. I'm not
> sure what this guy is up to, but I don't think I want to stick around to
> find out...

Oh man. You love dropping the wasps nest to see if it'll break. There's
this thing about bullets and armed men. You rarely get just one.

You pop a round through the door, and turn to limp quickly back up the
stairs. You hit maybe the second stair (having to grope quite a bit
because the stairwell is now full of white smoke) when the ratta tat tat
of what you distinctly recognize as an uzi is punctuated by the staccato
of breaking wood from the door, and the harmony of several shrill screams
from beyond the door. I think it's only fair to warn you that if this guy
comes after you, you'll have a gunfight. The distance to the next door,
and your leg. You can't outrun him. How many seconds have you got before
he comes after you? You look up that stairwell towards your getaway, and
you know the answer.

Sorry.

> Agreed. The situation worked out much better than I had thought.

Better than I had thought also. A little comedy of errors I didn't see
coming till I thought about what was happening, and how it would probably
play out, given your opponent's intentions.

> > The door swings back shut. The white smoke drifte some more, their are
> > screams from outside dying down again. You wait, and catch your breath.
> > The outside becomes quiet as well, except for the sound of one woman
> > crying.

> OK, I'll nudge the door open with my foot and take a quick look out into
> the hallway. Are there any exits nearby? Also, do the Uzi's have slings
> for carrying?

A sling, sure. That will be helpful. You've got the case under the arm
with the bad hand (I assume that you're were carrying both it and the
gun), and you can sling the Uzi, and still carry the Browning.

You nudge the door open (O.K., you pull it a little bit open, get your
foot in there, and nudge it the rest of the way), and are looking out
into the lobby of the hotel. Men and women are cowering in various places
about the lobby. Tables and couches have been moved to clear an isle in
front of this door. Almost straight across the lobby is the entrance to
the hotel.

> OK, I'll take the bait. I'll open the door all the way, check both sides
> (left and right), and bluff my way through. "FBI! Nobody move!"

Bait? Bait!? I would never... it wouldn't have crossed my mind....

Actually, this has been here for a while now, and was apossibility when
the combat started. It became a reality the moment you went back through
the window.

You push open the door and step boldly out into the bright white lobby,
over the body of the dead man lying on the floor, next to the fire
extinguisher. To the right is the check-in counter, straight ahead is a
double glass door leading out into the street. To the left is the rest of
the lobby, with men and women, mostly older, lying down on the floor. YOu
come limping through the door looking like a walking hospital case and
screaming 'FBI! Nobody move!". Surprise. Nobody moves. One older hispanic
woman starts that wailing again from where she lies beside an overturned
table.

> > screaming 'FBI! Nobody move!". Surprise. Nobody moves. One older hispanic
> > woman starts that wailing again from where she lies beside an overturned
> > table.
>
> Good. Just the effect I wanted. Actually, at this point, I don't think
> I care too much about more than getting my rear out of here.
>
> I'll holster the gun and grab the nearest Uzi, then do my best impressive
> limp to the front door.

You already have this guys Uzi (with sling). You limp across the lobby
towards the front door. There's only slight movements and wimpers as you
cross the intervening space. The desk clerk pokes his head up from behind
the registration counter. The fluresent lights are harsh against the white
tilesof the lobby, and freedom and the cool night air are in front of you
as you reach the glass doors. The street ahead is damp, deserted, and
unevenly lit by the few working street lights.

> OK, I wasn't sure if I had picked it up or not. I'll take a quick look
> over my shoulder to make sure nobody is about to plug me, then I'll
> finally get out of this hellhole and step out onto the street.

You take a glance back at the cowering crowd, and push open the doors,
stepping out into the cool, moist air of freedom, which way do you go?

You're going to want to hurt me in just a bit, because we are very close
to done, but not quite done. But don't let that stop you. Go ahead and
walk down that street (last Scene).

David

Johnzo

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

>> = me.
> = Kevin Munoz.

>>I tend towards the extreme of the diced vs. diceless spectrum; I want
>>either pure diceless or pure mechanics. If mechanics are introduced
>>in a game, they must be useful mechanics that are internally
>>consistent. Half-way compromises like Everway, Castle Falkenstein,
>>and the Storyteller stuff do nothing for me .. they add the complications
>>of a mechanical system without the benefits of a solid foundation for
>>game play.

>Is it not possible to have pure diceless and pure mechanics at the same
>time? IMHO, it has been done.

I hope the advocacy folks will forgive me for getting my terminology
screwed up. The .advocacy glossary was a big help here; thanks to
its poster.

Here's what I should've said:

"I tend to the extremes when it comes to the games I enjoy -- I either
want a pure freeform game (read no mechanics, no dice, no nuttin' except
for me and a GM and maybe some miniatures) or a game with carefully
designed, internally consistent mechanics whose interpretations are
made clear in the rules."

My quibble is with the ill-conceived stapling of randomizers onto vague
freeform foundations. (Everway, Falkenstein.) I've never participated
in diceless mechanized roleplaying, which is receiving interesting
attention in the "Concepts of Diceless Gaming thread."

In reading your other comments, it becomes apparent that the subject of
my message should've been "Adapting *Alain's* Diceless Paradigm to
Diced Play." Ce sera sera.

> What exactly do you want to put into

> Storyteller to give it a "solid foundation for game play"?

The Storyteller rules are so badly broken that they don't
serve as any kind of foundation for a mechanized roleplaying game.
They are intrusive, extremely dice-heavy, non-scalable, granular,
broken in terms of "botches," badly edited, etc. etc.

So why even bother? Why not play pure freeform, rather than put up with
a set of crappy rules whose stated purpose is to allow you to move
closer to pure storytelling?

<I'd quote something to back this up, but I gave away my one White
Wolf book.>

thinking...

Actually, the Storyteller example doesn't really serve my purpose. I'm
railing against games that graft an ill-conceived randomizer onto a
rules-light foundation like EWay or Falk. Although STeller gives all
kinds of lip service to non-mechanized play, I'm more apt to blame
its problems on clueless designers rather than a well-meaning desire
to revolutionize gaming through ill-conceived freeform/randomized
game fusions.

</DIGRESS>

Johnzo.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]

John H Kim

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

OK -- I have a few hypothetical comments here on a
mechanics-based diceless play. I have found that mechanical
quantifiers and description-based quantifiers don't mix very
well -- but there are ways of subdividing, such that you are
using both methods without confused mixing.

First off, diceless means no randomizer... With regards to
rock-paper-scissors -- since the choice of R-P-S is arbitrary, this
is (IMO) a randomized system. OTOH, one can imagine a non-random
system where you distribute, say, 6 action points between Offense,
Defense, and Initiative. This is non-random because the choice is
non-arbitrary -- i.e. the players choose their allocation with an
intent in mind, and the result reflects their meaningful choices.

Thus, when I speak about a diceless mechanical system,
I am referring to a meaningful-choice system as opposed to
rock-paper-scissors. (From description, this sounds like what
_Persona_ is like, but I can't really say.)

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

A Lapalme <ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>I confess that I have a hard time imagining a diceless game running well
>with mechanics. What I mean is that, while I can see the mechanics in
>character description, I'm a lot more confused on how one could use these
>mechanics during action resolution. I mean, how does the GM decide who
>hits in a fight were one figher has a THAC0 of 16 and the other of 18?
>The way I would do is take into account that one fighter is slightly

>better than the other one and use the descriptive approach from there.

OK -- as I see it, there are two ways to do this.

1) Use the numbers as qualifiers to a descriptive approach (as Alain
described in this and another post). The problem I found with this,
is that the effect of the numbers is very rough -- the qualifier
could not take much detail into account.

For example, in the T'ang dynasty China game, each character
described his martial arts style by listing from 1-7 which of
seven techniques it was strongest with (i.e. 1: punches,
2: grappling, 3: leaping, etc.) This was purely qualitative -
it did not interact with any other mechanics. However, in the
thick of combat, say my PC (of 5) attacked mook #3 (of 7) after
dive-rolling over a wrestling match.

Within all the rest of what was going on, I did not get a
feeling that the GM was (or even could) take into account
those ratings of my martial arts.

-*-*-*-
2) Use the numbers to mechanically categorize the result, and then
make up details within that. For example, comparing your current
Offense versus an opponent's Defense might define a "success",
"marginal" or "failure" result. The GM would then elaborate
upon the details of this result based on the player's and her
descriptions.

This is basically the same procedure that I use in most of my
dice-using games. For example, a new player might roll and
say "I Grab him, hitting DCV 11." At this point, I as GM ask,
"How are you grabbing him?" Based on his description, he will
be able to do different things, or may have an increased or
decreased chance to hit (depending on the opponent's position).
The numbers mostly determine hit/miss, but the exact results
depend on description.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
[Re: using description with numbers in dice-using games...]

>
>What the qualifiers do is provide me a rough scale. Within our group,
>we all know that FAIR, is average for the skill, that someone who's
>GOOD is, well, good at that skill; someone who's TERRIBLE is terrible.
>
>I had a similar problem with CF. While each skill was graded similarly to
>FUDGE, each skill level had a score attached to it. Then you added the
>value of the card played and ended up with a number which, in a lot of
>ways had little bearing on the initial skill quantifier. It always felt
>like the card had more impact than the skill quantifier.

I think this is in part an artifact of the system. I don't
remember the practical skill range in _Castle Falkenstein_, but as
I recall it is less than 1-10. Thus, the card number (which is at
least 1-10) *is* a greater factor than the skill number.

By contrast, for example, _CORPS_ has a practical skill range
of perhaps 2 through 9, while the die roll gives a result from 0-5.
The skill number is roughly a greater factor than the die roll.

When I ran a modified _Ars Magica_ game in college, I came
to grips with this. What I did was *triple* the skill numbers in
the calculation, making skill more important than both the die roll
and the base attribute. Much of this flavor continues to hold true
when I run other systems -- my players are very used to bits like:
"I roll a 16 on three dice." "You succeed, but take much longer
than you think you should."

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

Kevin Munoz

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

In article <50mg1c$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, bt...@aol.com (BTRC) wrote:

>There is more to the system than the basic mechanics, as has been pointed
>out, including a similarly diceless magic system. And if you're the
>competition, it's worth ten bucks to see what we're thinking...;)

I've had to keep fairly careful about looking at diceless systems so that no one
can say I've stolen ideas (I didn't look at any of the diceless systems I knew
about until after Persona was finished). Now, I'm going on a shopping spree...

Kevin Munoz

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

In article <50mrtu$1...@anarchy.io.com>, loi...@io.com (Tim Isakson) wrote:

>I'm not sure what you mean by RPS-type resolutiosn, but yes, simple
>character generation and resolution are a benefit - I'm trying
>FUDGE for the first time, and FUDE is very simple in its descriptions
>and resolution system (or, at least, easy to follow).

RPS is rock-paper-scissors.

Kevin Munoz

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

In article <50n346$5...@crl.crl.com>, bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) wrote:

>Kevin Munoz (Tes...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: Actually, I'm fairly curious about how combat is resolved in other
>: diceless systems. One of the annoying gremlins of Persona was keeping the
>: repetition down. Success in this was cause for a scary amount of
>: celebration (don't get out much, do we?) a couple years back.
>
>Ask, and you shall receive. Here's some Theatrix combat from a .advocacy
>example a while back (this one just keeps on cropping up)...
>

It seems to me it works on a kind of developing-reality paradigm (I say, trying
to sound technical). That description and intent from both sides of the
table result in the reality presented to the players. If I'm seeing this
correctly, it's a very interesting and fairly novel way of doing things.

Kevin Munoz

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

In article <50lbrq$i...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(A Lapalme) wrote:

>Kevin Munoz (Tes...@aol.com) writes:
>> Actually, I'm fairly curious about how combat is resolved in other
>> diceless systems. One of the annoying gremlins of Persona was keeping the
>> repetition down.
>

>What do you mean by repetition?

A signal difficulty that many diced gamers have with the CONCEPT of diceless
gaming is how to avoid actions and combat becoming repetitive. You know,
if I'm good I'm always good and if you're bad you're always bad. I designed
Persona to be digestible by diced gamers at the same level as diceless, so
I had to work hard at making sure there was no repetitiveness.

Kevin Munoz

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

In article <50la4l$t...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,

ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme) wrote:
>I confess that I have a hard time imagining a diceless game running well
>with mechanics. What I mean is that, while I can see the mechanics in
>character description, I'm a lot more confused on how one could use these
>mechanics during action resolution. I mean, how does the GM decide who
>hits in a fight were one figher has a THAC0 of 16 and the other of 18?
>The way I would do is take into account that one fighter is slightly
>better than the other one and use the descriptive approach from there.

Let me provide a short combat example from the Persona manual. Everything
in brackets is taken care of by the GM/Director and doesn't interrupt the
descriptive flow. Some alteration for clarity.

DIRECTOR: You've been ambushed by 2 bandits, both wielding maces. They jump out
from behind a thick bush.

GISELLE: I back up against the bush and draw my sword.

DIRECTOR: Unfortunately, they both have the initiative [Surprise Attack
skill of 6 plus Mental:Reaction Time of 2, versus Giselle's P:RT+M:RT of
5]. What do you do?

GISELLE: Okay, I'm just going to do a basic attack and defense [P:F
attack, P:F defense].

DIRECTOR: The first bandit starts to pummel on you hard [Endurance
attack]. The second one has the jump on you [P:RT:Surprise attack, regular
P:F defense].

GISELLE: I'm going to hit the first one hard. That's the only way I can be
sure to do a lot of damage [Endurance attacks preclude defense on that
turn].

DIRECTOR: The first bandit strikes, slamming his weapon toward your armor.
You manage to deflect the blow with your sword, though [12 Offense Rating
for the bandit versus sword skill + Physical:Frame defense + parry=17].
Unfortunately, you weren't ready for his double attack, so you're hit on
his second swing for 13 points of bludgeon damage.

GISELLE: Ouch. My armor absorbs 2 points of that, so I'm down to 19 Wound
Index points.

DIRECTOR: The second bandit attacks, doing the same thing; you're down to
8 points now. Your armor has taken 4 points of damage so far.

GISELLE: Just great. One more hit and I'm dead. Okay, I'm going after the
first bandit, as I said, but I'm going to try to hit him in the head. I
know the penalty, but he won't be defending anyway. My OR is 7 [skill +
tactic - penalty].

DIRECTOR: So, you hit [any undefended OR > 0 hits]. Smack; his head's gone.

GISELLE: Okay, at this point I think I can hold the one remaining bandit
off until he gets tired. But to make sure of that, I'm going to overexert
myself [use of Serendipity to double Endurance].

I hope you get the idea. Anyway, descriptions by the players and Director
translate into mechanical results from character sheets. For example, you
get combat tactics whose numbers are based on your attributes. Depending
on how you describe your action (which is limited, of course, by what your
character is capable of doing at that moment), the Director assigns the
points into your Offense or Defense Rating. So, if someone jumps over a
desk, tumbles under it and huddles by the chair, that would be a Dexterity
defense, as opposed to merely crouching down, which would probably be a
Frame defense.

Kevin Munoz

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

In article <50ndkn$m...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,

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

> Thus, when I speak about a diceless mechanical system,
>I am referring to a meaningful-choice system as opposed to
>rock-paper-scissors. (From description, this sounds like what
>_Persona_ is like, but I can't really say.)

Yes, this is correct, similar in concept to your point allocation,
mentioned before.

Kristen & Bill Keegan

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

Bryan J. Jonker wrote:

> One possible suggestion...use dice, but don't let the players use them.
> Make all rolls in secret and make the translation from dice to what
> really happened. All game mechanics are GM-eyes only, and the players
> have a written description of their character, including descriptions of
> skills and abilities. This needs that trust thing you mentioned in rule 1,
> in spades, and it helps if you have a co-GM keeping track of the books
> and handling the NPCs, but it gives the GM a chance to be impartial and
> let dice dictate what ultimately happens. And the GM's descriptions
> let the game have that diceless feel, because it removes the crutch of
> "You lost 5 hit points."

I believe such a system has been published - it's called Morpheal or Morphial or
something like that.

I can't tell you any more about it because the characters' stats and skills are also
kept secret, and I was a player! If you like, I'll get the gamemaster to tell me the
proper spelling of the name and the publisher. But no more than that, I fear, because
he keeps saying he's going to rejuvenate that deceased campaign ...

Kris K.

--
kee...@neca.com - www.neca.com/~keegans
____________________________________
Only the phoenix arises
and does not descend.
And everything changes.

And nothing is truly lost.

-- Neil Gaiman, "Exiles"
____________________________________

Dan Eveland

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

Lise Mendel <cata...@access.digex.net> wrote in article
<1996090511...@a-ko.digex.net>...

> Andrew Finch <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>
> > BTRC (bt...@aol.com) wrote:
> >
> > : 3. Resolution is handled by a modified "rock,scissors,paper"
system, where
> > : you secretly assign offense and defense Advantages to each hand
and then
> > : simultaneously reveal them. If your offense exceeds their
defense, you do
> > : damage, and vice versa. You can have ties, one, both or neither
person
> > : doing damage.
> >
> > This seems to me to be a 'diced' system. It's an objective system
in any
> > case. An intriguing one, but still not 'randomizer-less'. Or is it?
Is it
> > simply the choice of advantages, or is there more?
> >
> Each side makes a tactical decision, without knowing what decision
the
> other one makes. Where's the random factor?

Each person is basically flipping a coin. You are either going to win,
lose or draw, with equal probabilities of each. It is more random than
a diced game. At least a diced game works with adjusted probabilities
based on the situation. With "rock, scissors, paper" you have a 33
1/3% chance to win, a 33 1/3% chance to lose, and a 33 1/3% chance to
draw.

> --
> Lise Mendel
> Mommy to Abigail (5/9/93) and Dorothy (10/19/95)
> http://www.access.digex.net/~catalyst/
> I reserve the right to repost e-mailed flames wherever it amuses me
to

--
Dan Eveland
deve...@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~develand/

John Aegard

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

<Greg's plug of CORPS deleted>

Actually, Greg, I do own CORPS, but I didn't think it was suitable
for the "flavour" of game I want to play. CORPS is a little too
bloody for simulating cinematic super action, I think.

Mind you, next time I run a modern espionage / Illuminati / horror
game, CORPS gets the call. GURPS is my normal standby for this
genre, but I want to try something different next.

Johnzo.

Mark Apolinski

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

Kevin Munoz wrote:

(example of combat in Persona snipped)

Unfortunately, I am immediately turned off of systems like this that
are heavy with math. All that adding and comparing just interrupts the
flow of the action for me (the GM). Unless I had a computer on hand to
virtually automatically handle the calculations so that all I had to do
was glance at it and start describing, I wouldn't find this a useful
system.

Mark

Mark Apolinski

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

There were two things that I found bothersome in CORPS: First that
during combat, everything slows to a HERO SYSTEM-like crawl while the
tactical aspects take over. Also, I question how much thought and
planning can really take place when a combat round is only 1 second and
it is possible to act several times per round.
Second, I would probably like the system better if the spread between
a skill that is an automatic failure (-1 or less) and one that is an
automatic success (11 or less) were smaller. But this last one is only a
personal feeling.

Mark

John Aegard

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

>> = Bryan Jonker
> = Alain

>> One possible suggestion...use dice, but don't let the players use them.
>> Make all rolls in secret and make the translation from dice to what
>> really happened. All game mechanics are GM-eyes only, and the players
>> have a written description of their character, including descriptions of
>> skills and abilities. This needs that trust thing you mentioned in rule 1,
>> in spades, and it helps if you have a co-GM keeping track of the books
>> and handling the NPCs, but it gives the GM a chance to be impartial and
>> let dice dictate what ultimately happens. And the GM's descriptions
>> let the game have that diceless feel, because it removes the crutch of
>> "You lost 5 hit points."

> That would definitely work for me when I'm playing.

I think that the extra step of me rolling the dice all of the time would
really slow things down. Dice-rolling's going to be left to the players
for now.

Sorry, Alain.

Johnzo.

Paul Andrew King

unread,

Sep 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/6/96

to

In article <50lblm$h...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme) wrote:

>People
>
>You know, just because I posted my version of the paradigm shift, doesn't
>mean no one else can post there's. I would be really curious to see how
>others have experienced this.
>

Well I didn't really get much of a shift. It was ordinary low-mechanics
play, only more work for the GM.

Paul K.

Steve Gilham

unread,

Sep 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/6/96

to

ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme) wrote:
> I confess that I have a hard time imagining a diceless game running well
> with mechanics. What I mean is that, while I can see the mechanics in
> character description, I'm a lot more confused on how one could use these
> mechanics during action resolution. I mean, how does the GM decide who
> hits in a fight were one figher has a THAC0 of 16 and the other of 18?
> The way I would do is take into account that one fighter is slightly
> better than the other one and use the descriptive approach from there.

At the risk of repeating myself - there is an obvious non-descriptive,
deliberative, mechanistic method which one can use. Simply allocate
each character some number of points based on their physical stats and
their weapon skill. Let them *bid* how much they are using to attack
(one or more targets), defend (against one or more opponents), move,
what have you - and then compare the bids. The trick is to get the
numebr of points and the metric for comparisons right.

Mary K. Kuhner

unread,

Sep 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/6/96

to

ste...@uk.gdscorp.com (Steve Gilham) writes:

>At the risk of repeating myself - there is an obvious non-descriptive,
>deliberative, mechanistic method which one can use. Simply allocate
>each character some number of points based on their physical stats and
>their weapon skill. Let them *bid* how much they are using to attack
>(one or more targets), defend (against one or more opponents), move,
>what have you - and then compare the bids. The trick is to get the
>numebr of points and the metric for comparisons right.

My problem with these is that they just cry out for a game-theory
analysis. Often it is easy to show a best strategy, or at least
one that is guarenteed to beat a weaker opponent. Often the best
strategy against an equal opponent is, in fact, to use a randomizer
so as to avoid giving him a pattern to work with. In any case,
I feel almost irresistably tempted to analyze the mechanic when
I should be playing my character, since playing in-character is
likely to have such bad results.

My siblings and I played a paperback book combat game with a 20x20
choice matrix substituting for a die: each player called out a
number and the intersection of the two numbers gave the result.
Even if you *forced* yourself not to analyze the table you
couldn't help notice that, say, 17 was always a bad choice. If
you did look at the table there was generally a minmax point
which was the best both players could do; departing from it
just hurt you if your opponent was smart. (Interestingly,
the minmax point was often *not* a tie; in other words, the
matrix was unfair to one player.) Eventually we substituted a d20.

I can roll a die and get on with roleplaying because there's generally
little decisionmaking involved, but if you ask me to allocate points
to attack and defense I *have* to make a decision, and it's one
with huge intrinsic temptations towards playing the system.

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

unread,

Sep 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/6/96

to

Is rock/paper/scissors(sp) (RPS) a "diced" appraoch.

"Dan Eveland" (deve...@earthlink.net) writes:
> Lise Mendel <cata...@access.digex.net> wrote in article

>> > This seems to me to be a 'diced' system. It's an objective system
> in any
>> > case. An intriguing one, but still not 'randomizer-less'. Or is it?
> Is it
>> > simply the choice of advantages, or is there more?
>> >
>> Each side makes a tactical decision, without knowing what decision
> the
>> other one makes. Where's the random factor?
>
> Each person is basically flipping a coin. You are either going to win,
> lose or draw, with equal probabilities of each. It is more random than
> a diced game. At least a diced game works with adjusted probabilities
> based on the situation. With "rock, scissors, paper" you have a 33
> 1/3% chance to win, a 33 1/3% chance to lose, and a 33 1/3% chance to
> draw.
>

Assuming you even use the RPS approach. The original comment referred to
an RPS type approach, not RPS per se.

Just
because you can assign a probability to something doesn't mean it is a
diced approach. If it is, then all games are diced by definition. The
interaction between GM and player is always an RPS type of interaction and
is effectively random from an outsiders point of view.

Alain

Andrew Finch

unread,

Sep 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/6/96

to

BTRC (bt...@aol.com) wrote:

: Depends on how you look at it. If you are deliberately choosing an amount
: of offense and defense, and your opponent is doing the same, there is
: nothing "random" about it.

Granted.

: On the other hand, the advantage system used lends itself to dice equally
: well for those who want it. Red d6's=offense, black d6's=defense. Roll em
: all, results of 1 equal no success, 2-5 equal 1 success and 6 equals 2
: success (like Hero System body dice). Compare offense successes to foes
: defense successes & vice versa.

Interesting. IS that in the product?

: There is more to the system than the basic mechanics, as has been pointed

: out, including a similarly diceless magic system. And if you're the
: competition, it's worth ten bucks to see what we're thinking...;)

Yeah, I guess I'll have to. I've liked the BTRC product I've seen before.

David

Andrew Finch

unread,

Sep 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/6/96

to

Kevin Munoz (Tes...@aol.com) wrote:

: It seems to me it works on a kind of developing-reality paradigm (I say, trying

: to sound technical). That description and intent from both sides of the
: table result in the reality presented to the players. If I'm seeing this
: correctly, it's a very interesting and fairly novel way of doing things.

Thanks. That's about right.

David Berkman
Backstage Press

J. McGuire

unread,

Sep 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/6/96

to

Greg, I think I'm gonna *like* Epiphany! I'm going to nag my local game
store about it this weekend. Sounds like the perfect system for my
current limited gaming -- fast, easy, and gets the mechanics out of the
way.

Everyone else, I've never seen a bad game with Greg's name on it. It's
worth the try!

unread,

Sep 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/6/96

to

In article <322F77...@ix.netcom.com>, Mark Apolinski
<mar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Unfortunately, I am immediately turned off of systems like this that
>are heavy with math. All that adding and comparing just interrupts the
>flow of the action for me (the GM). Unless I had a computer on hand to
>virtually automatically handle the calculations so that all I had to do
>was glance at it and start describing, I wouldn't find this a useful
>system.

Fair enough. Most of the addition in the example is all done at character
creation, so you don't have to worry about it during the game play, but
there is still the matter of adding in the modifiers.

Kevin Munoz

unread,

Sep 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/6/96

to

In article <50p6hu$9...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme) wrote:

>Thanks for the example.

You're welcome.

>
>What isn't clear to me is how the GM translates the character's actions
>into the concrete quantifiers. The way it first read, it seemed to be
>absolute (ie, no way to modify the numbers, so the results seem pre-ordained).
>
>Does the GM take a description and then translates it into a modifier or
>is the player given a set of pre-defined choices and picks one of them?

I guess that wasn't the best example for modifiers. Normal (non-super)
characters
have skills in the 1-20 range, with 20 being the highest. With that in mind,
a +/- 5 modifier is significant. There are some framework modifiers listed
in the text, which help the GM figure out how to do that translation. There is
no predefined set of choices.

>
>I'm reminded of the Lost World booklets (circa 1982-84). Basically, they
>worked like Aces of Aces. Each player has a book. Each player represent
>a character. The characters go at each other. Both players pick an
>action from a list, cross-reference each other's move and come to a
>result. In the next round, they go from there.
>
>Is that what you are doing or is it much more general than that?

I think it's not as restricted as that, if I'm reading your description
correctly. On Persona's basic, nondescriptive level, you chose your skill
and your tactic (from what amounts to a list of 4: frame,
endurance, dexterity, reaction time, each of which covers a wide
array of actual tactics). However, beyond this, characters
have the ability to further describe their actions and gain modifiers
from the Director, based on his/her sensibilities and how things work
in his/her game world.

Quickie examples: standing and taking a blow would be a frame
defense, no modifier. Taking the blow but shrinking down to a smaller
target area would also be a frame defense, but modified by the Director,
probably +1 or 2. Dodging to the side would be a dexterity defense,
but dodging and rolling would give at least a +2 modifier. Of course,
the modifiers are all "in the Director's opinion" and are based on
how the game world works and the Director's style of play; superhero
campaigns tend to have higher modifiers, for example.

At first I considered something like what you mentioned about Lost
Worlds, but I realized it didn't work too well from a storytelling
standpoint; too limiting and fairly crunchy, either in numbers or charting.
It reminded me too much of Rolemaster, in a sense.

Scott A. H. Ruggels

unread,

Sep 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/6/96

to

A Lapalme wrote:

>
> Bryan J. Jonker (jon...@prairienet.org) writes:
> >
> > One possible suggestion...use dice, but don't let the players use them.
> > Make all rolls in secret and make the translation from dice to what
> > really happened. All game mechanics are GM-eyes only, and the players
> > have a written description of their character, including descriptions of
> > skills and abilities. This needs that trust thing you mentioned in rule 1,
> > in spades, and it helps if you have a co-GM keeping track of the books
> > and handling the NPCs, but it gives the GM a chance to be impartial and
> > let dice dictate what ultimately happens. And the GM's descriptions
> > let the game have that diceless feel, because it removes the crutch of
> > "You lost 5 hit points."
> >
> That would definitely work for me when I'm playing.
>

> Alain

I have seen this work, and this is also how a few of the pre-computer
government sinulators worked. We tried to do this as a group for a
while, but you need more trust in the GM than we had at the time, and we
went to the dice-cup method after that.

Scott

Scott A. H. Ruggels

unread,

Sep 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/6/96

to

>
> I can even believe that one could run AD&D without dice and still retain
> the mechanics. I know of some people who have done it. However, the
> question remains: how well does it work? is it worth to effort to retain
> mechanics which were built for dice use?

>
> I confess that I have a hard time imagining a diceless game running well
> with mechanics. What I mean is that, while I can see the mechanics in
> character description, I'm a lot more confused on how one could use these
> mechanics during action resolution. I mean, how does the GM decide who
> hits in a fight were one figher has a THAC0 of 16 and the other of 18?
> The way I would do is take into account that one fighter is slightly
> better than the other one and use the descriptive approach from there.
>

> Alain

Sigh... and never the twain shall meet.

unread,

Sep 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/7/96

to

Kevin Munoz (Tes...@aol.com) writes:
> I guess that wasn't the best example for modifiers. Normal (non-super)
> characters
> have skills in the 1-20 range, with 20 being the highest. With that in mind,
> a +/- 5 modifier is significant. There are some framework modifiers listed
> in the text, which help the GM figure out how to do that translation. There is
> no predefined set of choices.

That's good, IMO.

>
>>
>>I'm reminded of the Lost World booklets (circa 1982-84). Basically, they
>>worked like Aces of Aces. Each player has a book. Each player represent
>>a character. The characters go at each other. Both players pick an
>>action from a list, cross-reference each other's move and come to a
>>result. In the next round, they go from there.
>>

> I think it's not as restricted as that, if I'm reading your description
> correctly. On Persona's basic, nondescriptive level, you chose your skill
> and your tactic (from what amounts to a list of 4: frame,
> endurance, dexterity, reaction time, each of which covers a wide
> array of actual tactics). However, beyond this, characters
> have the ability to further describe their actions and gain modifiers
> from the Director, based on his/her sensibilities and how things work
> in his/her game world.
>
> Quickie examples: standing and taking a blow would be a frame
> defense, no modifier. Taking the blow but shrinking down to a smaller
> target area would also be a frame defense, but modified by the Director,
> probably +1 or 2. Dodging to the side would be a dexterity defense,
> but dodging and rolling would give at least a +2 modifier. Of course,
> the modifiers are all "in the Director's opinion" and are based on
> how the game world works and the Director's style of play; superhero
> campaigns tend to have higher modifiers, for example.
>
> At first I considered something like what you mentioned about Lost
> Worlds, but I realized it didn't work too well from a storytelling
> standpoint; too limiting and fairly crunchy, either in numbers or charting.
> It reminded me too much of Rolemaster, in a sense.
>

OK. It does sound like a mechanics-based diceless game. My gut reaction
is usually negative to most mechanics and, from experience, I even have a
harder time trying to mix objective mechanics with subjective/descriptive
assessment during the heat of play. I'm just stating this so you know
where my biases lie.

**************

I would agree with you that an approach a la Lost World would make it feel
like RM. Lost World were kind of neat but, if memory serves, did lead to
slow combat (not as slow as RM) and would tend to get repetative soon.
And, I never saw it tried with more than one antagonist per side. I could
imangine the whole thing bogging down with any melee large than 4
participants.

The approach you have taken seems to be that you provide the players with
some mechanics so that they can get a handle on the assumptions of the
game but still ask the GM to provide the subjective impact to the situation.

Personally, while I like the concept, I'm not sure how _I_ would fare
under that kind of regime. The problem I have often seen with mechanics
is that people expect that a +X modifier means the same thing from game to
game or situation to situation. In a mechanics-diced game, this is
usually not that hard to achieve but in a mechanics diceless game, as I
understand your description, the meaning of the +2 assigned by the GM
might vary. At least it would with me.

hmm...OK, maybe I'm not being clear. Back in my RM days, the assignment
of modifiers was usually based on the situation: back flank was X, back
was Y, prone was Z, etc.. If there was any disagreement between player
and GM, it usually wasn't over the actual value of the modifier but which
situational modifier applied. The way I understand your game, the GM
provided modifiers are situational, not in an objective sense, but in a
subjective sense.

I know I sound picky. I've found that loose mechanics are more annoying
than helpful. If I have to use mechanics, I'd rather use something which
provides a solid handle.

Or, to put it another way: with loose mechanics, I have to contend with
my interpretation of the mechanics, and each player's interpretation of the
mechanics, and my interpretation of the non-mechanics part. If I omit the
mechanics, then the whole group main job is then coming to terms with GM's
interpretation. I guess I'm saying that the dangers of assumption clashes
increase under a loose mechanics approach. (even though, many people will
say the exact opposite :( )

Alain

A Lapalme

unread,

Sep 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/7/96

to

I was tempted to change the heading of the thread to Everway but decided
against it. We're still talking about diceless paradigms, I think...

Paul Andrew King (pa...@morat.demon.co.uk) writes:
>>Johnzo (joh...@cyberus.ca) writes:
>
>>> The potential pitfall: with this approach comes the risk that the
>>> characters will not understand the mechanics, as I didn't when I
>>> played Everway. This will be complicated with the fact that the
>>> players have full access to the randomizer.
>>>
>
> Johnzo, do you think that having a copy of the Guide to the Fortune deck in
> front of you would have helped you ? Would it have helped if the draw was
> kept secret ?

The draw were secret, during play. I did discuss a few after the game but
all that did was confuse the issue.

>
>>Well, that probably is a very personal feel. The key problem with
>>Everway, as I recall, was that notwithstanding the character's action, the
>>outcome seemed more affected by the Fortune deck than anything else. In
>>other words it might have felt arbitrary.
>>
> Alain, do you think that the Everway cards gave you too much detail ?
> Would an (even) vaguer system (or "system") have worked better for you ?
>

Part of the problem is my natural tendency to give the randomizer too much
weight. This became apparent to me during my diced Fudge stint two years
ago. It is also part of the reason I went diceless. At the time though,
I thought the problem was the quantitative approach which was causing the
problem (ie dice plus quantified mechanics).

After playing CF, it thought it was quantified randomizer + quantified
mechanics. Playing Everway, I realized that the problem is that the
moment I use a randomizer, I automatically use it as a quantifier and
have a difficult time to decrease the importance of that randomizer in
favour of other factors.

****************

The Everway cards were not too detailed. They just didn't provide me with
inspiration as, I think, is their intent. Funny thing, I really do like
the approach taken by Everway, specially in terms of character
development. I can run the game OK, as long as I ignore the Fortune deck.
The moment I use it, the appearance of arbitrariness(sp) rears its ugly
head which is just as bad as the real thing.

I will be running Everway at CanGames next month using the Demo pack.
I'll post my impressions.

Alain

Blatant plug for CanGames:

Cangames is celebrating its 20th anniversary. It's in Ottawa (Canada) and
will be held Oct 4-6. They have a new location (much better than in the
past) and have a really good organizing committee. Type of activities are
RPGs, wargames, card games and board games. Also, there are miniature
painting contests, auctions, seminars and a dealers area. If yuou want
more information, get in touch with:
Cangames
6930 Sunset Blvd
Greely, ON
K4P 1C5
Canada

email: cang...@iosphere.net

October can be really nice in Ottawa. The fall colours are usually in
full bloom by then. Except that, this year, we're having a heat wave in
September, so go figure.

Kevin Munoz

unread,

Sep 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/7/96

to

In article <50rp7m$6...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme) wrote:

>Or, to put it another way: with loose mechanics, I have to contend with
>my interpretation of the mechanics, and each player's interpretation of the
>mechanics, and my interpretation of the non-mechanics part. If I omit the
>mechanics, then the whole group main job is then coming to terms with GM's
>interpretation. I guess I'm saying that the dangers of assumption clashes
>increase under a loose mechanics approach. (even though, many people will
>say the exact opposite :( )

Yes, it is true that there could be trouble with interpretation of mechanics
from different angles. It seems to me, however, that most mechanical
systems, diceless or not, suffer from this problem to some degree or another.
Reality is fairly squishy; it doesn't follow strict generalist rules like
rpgs. That is, rpgs can't anticipate everything, and you can either deal with
this by providing no modifiers, too many modifiers, or some modifiers.
Each, I think, has its advantages and disadvantages; I go by the way of
some modifiers predefined and the rest up to the GM.

You're right that "the dangers of assumption clashes increase under a loose
mechanics approach" as opposed to a non-mechanical approach. I think,
however, that no matter how strictly mechanical you get, there will
always be conflicts, since designers can't anticipate every situation.
You have to go with what makes sense for you; if a group wants
to drop all pretense of mechanics, that's fine, but I think you get into
the question of "what's the point of calling it an rpg, when all it really
is is an interactive story?" at that point.

I suppose you could argue that rpgs are merely interactive stories
with guidelines, but I wouldn't sit on that side of the field, myself...rpgs,
to me, are a framework for gamers to work in a balanced system.
Purely interactive stories do end up relying purely on GM discretion,
and in my opinion that can (but doesn't imply) result in player
dissatisfaction and disillusionment.

Ramble mode off...

Jeffrey Straszheim

unread,

Sep 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/7/96

to

BTRC wrote:
>
> reply about CORPS:
> >Also, I question how much thought and
> planning can really take place when a combat round >is only 1 second and
> it is possible to act several times per round.

> As far as several actions a second go, if a schmuck like me can go down to

> the target range and hit 4 targets in 2 seconds with a pistol, or watch a
> martial arts tournament where I see 2 attacks and 2 parries per second
> when they get into the thick of it, then I think that 1 second rounds is
> the way to go. If I wasn't working for a realistic system, I *would* go
> for a longer scale, but having a "realistic" game where you can fire at 15
> separate targets or deliver 15 melee blows per 5 second turn is currently
> beyond my designing ability. ;(

As a martial artist I can tell you that the time scale just doesn't work
that way. I don't "decide" to make any parries and those flurries of
strikes just flow together. I literally am not fully aware of what
strikes I've thrown until after the fact. By the time I see and
recognize an opening it's usually gone. But if I see an opening and
strike without thinking I'll hit. This is not to say I don't make
decisions in a fight, but the decisions are of a much broader scope than
the individual moves. Also, in any fight there are lags in the action.
These are the points where the real decisions are made. The decisions
have to do with what posture (stance, aggresiveness, etc.) I'll adopt.
If I try to plan a specific move there is a good chance I'll miss any
real opening provided.

--
Jeffrey L. Straszheim | Man is born free, and
<mailto:jeff...@shadow.net> | everywhere he is in chains.
<http://www.shadow.net/~jeffreys> | (Rousseau)

Mark Apolinski

unread,

Sep 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/8/96

to

Jeffrey Straszheim wrote:
>
> As a martial artist I can tell you that the time scale just doesn't work
> that way. I don't "decide" to make any parries and those flurries of
> strikes just flow together. I literally am not fully aware of what
> strikes I've thrown until after the fact. By the time I see and
> recognize an opening it's usually gone. But if I see an opening and
> strike without thinking I'll hit. This is not to say I don't make
> decisions in a fight, but the decisions are of a much broader scope than
> the individual moves. Also, in any fight there are lags in the action.
> These are the points where the real decisions are made. The decisions
> have to do with what posture (stance, aggresiveness, etc.) I'll adopt.
> If I try to plan a specific move there is a good chance I'll miss any
> real opening provided.
>

And this is *exactly* how combat in a diceless game system works.

Mark