Diceless vs Dice: Here We Go Again
Mad Chris
somewhat violent discussion about Diceless vs Diced. I may
have been the first person foolish enough to do so (if anyone
else wants to claim this dubious honour, go ahead). Now, I
find myself dragged back in.
I find myself in the interesting position of not only having
played in diceless and diced games, and not only having GMd
diceless and diced games, but also having written diced and
diceless systems.
My experience tells me this:
1. Some genre's are inherently incapable of supporting a
diceless game. Diceless is only suited to a
certain type of game. In contrast, a diced system
CAN be applied to any setting, but in some cases
a diceless system is CONSIDERABLY superior. Amber
is a good example of this: it simply wouldn't be
the same with dice.
2. Players who go away and play diceless and then come
back to diced play have generally benefited
from the experience. Diceless teaches people
who hadn't already made the leap from playing
a role playing game, to role-playing in a role
playing game that there is more to the game
than dice. This, IMO, has got to be good.
3. Diceless roleplaying is flawed. Everyone will have
different opinions on this, but one thing I
have noticed is that Diceless works well with
a large group, because the GM doesn't need to
supervise all the players, who can interact
with each other until an arbitration is needed.
This is fine, but it also tends to leave people
sitting around doing nothing as a side product,
which is bad. That said, this is not peculiar to
diceless. My current Wednesday game has a
structure much like this (although it is diced)
and it's an effort to ensure players don't get
left out.
4. Diced roleplaying is flawed. Diced role playing
relies on rules systems which, like computer
programs, always contains bugs. This can
interfere with the flow of play, particularly
if the GM is not experienced enough to
jury rig rules.
5. Diceless will never replace diced, anymore than
diced will ever make diceless extinct.
Diceless has been around for longer than
Amber, and it'll be around for a lot
longer still. Diceless can never provide
the dizzy thrill of the lucky roll, or the
moment of tension before an all important
dice roll and conversely, no diced system
will ever have the speed or flexibility
of a diceless system.
In summary:
The recent public acceptance of diceless
role playing has widened the hobby by introducing
a second branch which complements, rather than
challenges, the original branch of role playing
games. Long may they both live.
Mad Chris,
Discordia Incorporated.
Andrew Finch
There is no genre which can not be handled by a diceless system. We've
proven that to ourselves by trying everything we could think of. In our
experience it is diced systems, by their very rules structures, that
have difficulty handling certain genres.
Diceless systems can easily match the thrill just before an important die
roll. Instead they substitute the thrill just before making an important
(possibly life or death) decision.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Travis S Casey
>proven that to ourselves by trying everything we could think of. In our
>experience it is diced systems, by their very rules structures, that
>have difficulty handling certain genres.
I have to disagree. In a diced system, it is always possible to run
any aspect of the game without using dice; thus, you can have the
benefits of a diceless system when you want them.
Of course a diceless system can handle any genre: the better question
than "what genres can you do" is "what genres do diceless systems
work especially well for?"
>Diceless systems can easily match the thrill just before an important die
>roll. Instead they substitute the thrill just before making an important
>(possibly life or death) decision.
Diced systems can and do have this thrill as well.
--
Travis S. Casey <ca...@cs.fsu.edu>
FAQ maintainer for rec.games.design and alt.vampyres (interim)
No one agrees with me. Not even me.
Paul Jackson
I will assert that you cannot possibly do "Riverboat Gamblers RPG" diceless
in such a fashion as to satisy everybody (you couldn't satisfy me, for
example). I'd go further, in my opinion well less than half the people
playing rpgs would be happy to play "Riverboat Gamblers" diceless.
Note, by diceless I mean "without randomization devices". Please don't tell
me it would be wonderful with cards.
--
Paul Jackson
christopher charles bickford
>In article <2rpkrq$o...@crl.crl.com>, Andrew Finch <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>>I agree with what you've said, except that:
>>
>>There is no genre which can not be handled by a diceless system. We've
>>proven that to ourselves by trying everything we could think of. In our
>>experience it is diced systems, by their very rules structures, that
>>have difficulty handling certain genres.
>>
>>Diceless systems can easily match the thrill just before an important die
>>roll. Instead they substitute the thrill just before making an important
>>(possibly life or death) decision.
>
>I will assert that you cannot possibly do "Riverboat Gamblers RPG" diceless
>in such a fashion as to satisy everybody (you couldn't satisfy me, for
>example). I'd go further, in my opinion well less than half the people
>playing rpgs would be happy to play "Riverboat Gamblers" diceless.
If you can find an idea that would satisfy half of the gaming
market, I'm sure you'd be rich as soon as you could get it marketed :) I
can think of ways to run riverboat gamblers diceless that would be quite
fun. Of course they'd emphasize the various aspects of getting on board
the riverboats, finding the mark and deemphasize the card playing
aspect.
I mean look at the gaming market. T$R, that gaming monolith has
25% of the market, last I checked. Of course, the data is skewed with
M:tG and all, but nevertheless. Also, T$R sells more than 1
game/supplement/book, but I think you see my point.
Question: What genres do you find suitable for diceless? Are
there any?
>Note, by diceless I mean "without randomization devices". Please don't tell
>me it would be wonderful with cards.
>--
>
>Paul Jackson
--
Chris Bickford | Ghiloni's Axiom:
Cbic...@ucs.indiana.edu | People are stupid and annoying.
Kid Kibbitz
> Question: What genres do you find suitable for diceless? Are
>there any?
As one of the original (in this thread, anyway) advocates of diced gaming,
I'd have to say that the genres I'd find MOST suitable for diceless are
high society (any era), any sort of infiltration-style espionage, some sort
of high-ball politics type thing (again, from any era), or
anything else where the emphasis is on one's social/personal interactions
with others and where task resolution (be it combat or lockpicking or
whatever) is of secondary importance. I'd even prefer diceless
for such a campaign. In addition, I think diceless will at least be
competitive with, if not superior to, diced systems for "hopeless" style
games--Cthulu, for example, where I played for a full semester without
rolling dice (other than for san checks, which can easily be glossed over).
Where I start to dislike diceless is where any complex task resolution is
involved; in these cases, too much is dependent on relatively arbitrary
decisions, and I'd rather have those arbitrary decisions made by impartial
and statistically well-curved dice than by my (or someone else's) whim. If
you were running the campaign in a plot-oriented fashion, then "serving the
plot" is a good no-dice indicator of success/failure; however, I personally
don't care for plot-driven RPG's, and so this is not of significance to me
personally. (If I *were* interested in plot-driven RPG's, they would also
be on the list of those genres well-suited for diceless play.)
Just MHO,
--Kid Kibbitz
Loren Miller
>in such a fashion as to satisy everybody (you couldn't satisfy me, for
>example). I'd go further, in my opinion well less than half the people
>playing rpgs would be happy to play "Riverboat Gamblers" diceless.
Duh!
I bet you could do a great game diceless, and without any randomization at
all, if the storyline were exciting enough. I don't think you could do a
campaign though. But this is completely different from other campaigns. The
whole point of a gambling story is to gamble, right? And gambling always
involves random results, so random results are essential to the story. I do
not think they are essential to most other genres.
Still, I think you'd have more fun using roulette wheels and cards for a
riverboat gambler campaign than using dice (except for the craps table).
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller LO...@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu
Into the flood again, same old trip it was back when
Andrew Finch
part fun. Possibly even more fun than with dice.
I wasn't taking a hit on diced gaming, I was only stating that diceless
games are capable of doing any genre you might imagine. Which ones are
they best at? All of them. A good diceless system has no specialties, and
may handle almost any genre with ease and flexibility. Note that Amber is
only one implementation of a diceless system. Amber is good for a
particular type of game. Theatrix on the other hand, by its very nature,
is totally universal.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
David Kennard
> You can think of ways to run Riverboat Gamblers diceless that you'd find fun.
> You can probably even find ways of running it that I'd find fun. What you
> couldn't do is find a way of running it that I'd find as much fun as if you
> ran it with at least some dice. Without dice, you CANNOT generate the
> tension of a high stakes poker game in a way that would satisfy me.
For me, this is like saying "without swords or other weapons
you can not generate the tension of a combat scene." It's just
not true. A "riverboat gambling RPG" is not about actually
gambling any more than an RPG is about actually fighting, summoning
demons, or climbing a cliff. What you're saying is that dice (or
cards, roulette wheels, etc.) are necessary for a *live-action* RPG,
or that gambling implements are necessary for gambling. I like props
in gaming, but I keep in mind that props are all they are. In the
case of gambling in RPGs it is only coincidence that the implements
resemble a common RPG task and scene resolution tool.
hmmm... maybe *that's* the answer to this discussion of diced
vs. diceless gaming: get rid of the dice and hand the players
pistols. (the GM gets bulletproof glass, of course)
A task comes up and the GM sets up a target at an appropriate
"difficulty distance".
Party conflict can get a little messy...
and there's always a chance for a "fumble"...
maybe more experienced characters entitle one to use autofire.
or explosives.
:) :)
Dave Kennard
da...@unh.edu
Paul Jackson
christopher charles bickford <cbic...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>In article <1994May23.1...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> pa...@turing.toronto.edu (Paul Jackson) writes:
>>In article <2rpkrq$o...@crl.crl.com>, Andrew Finch <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>>>There is no genre which can not be handled by a diceless system. We've
>>>proven that to ourselves by trying everything we could think of. In our
>>>experience it is diced systems, by their very rules structures, that
>>>have difficulty handling certain genres.
>>>
>>>Diceless systems can easily match the thrill just before an important die
>>>roll. Instead they substitute the thrill just before making an important
>>>(possibly life or death) decision.
>>
>>I will assert that you cannot possibly do "Riverboat Gamblers RPG" diceless
>>in such a fashion as to satisy everybody (you couldn't satisfy me, for
>>example). I'd go further, in my opinion well less than half the people
>>playing rpgs would be happy to play "Riverboat Gamblers" diceless.
>
> If you can find an idea that would satisfy half of the gaming
>market, I'm sure you'd be rich as soon as you could get it marketed :) I
>can think of ways to run riverboat gamblers diceless that would be quite
>fun. Of course they'd emphasize the various aspects of getting on board
>the riverboats, finding the mark and deemphasize the card playing
>aspect.
You can think of ways to run Riverboat Gamblers diceless that you'd find fun.
You can probably even find ways of running it that I'd find fun. What you
couldn't do is find a way of running it that I'd find as much fun as if you
ran it with at least some dice. Without dice, you CANNOT generate the
tension of a high stakes poker game in a way that would satisfy me.
> I mean look at the gaming market. T$R, that gaming monolith has
>25% of the market, last I checked. Of course, the data is skewed with
>M:tG and all, but nevertheless. Also, T$R sells more than 1
>game/supplement/book, but I think you see my point.
Ok, I should have said "in my opinion over half those people who would be
willing to play RiverBoat Gamblers would have a better time if it was run
with at least some diced resolution as opposed to purely diceless.
> Question: What genres do you find suitable for diceless? Are
>there any?
I do prefer low dice games to completely diceless games. However, a genre
like Amber is quite suitable for diceless play as the dice are really only
useful (in my opinion) infrequently. Mind you, I don't think that the
systemless Amber "system" is very good but thats a differernt argument.
--
Paul Jackson
christopher charles bickford
>In article <Cq9nz...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
>christopher charles bickford <cbic...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>In article <1994May23.1...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> pa...@turing.toronto.edu (Paul Jackson) writes:
>>>I will assert that you cannot possibly do "Riverboat Gamblers RPG" diceless
>>>in such a fashion as to satisy everybody (you couldn't satisfy me, for
>>>example). I'd go further, in my opinion well less than half the people
>>>playing rpgs would be happy to play "Riverboat Gamblers" diceless.
>>
>> If you can find an idea that would satisfy half of the gaming
>>market, I'm sure you'd be rich as soon as you could get it marketed :) I
>>can think of ways to run riverboat gamblers diceless that would be quite
>>fun. Of course they'd emphasize the various aspects of getting on board
>>the riverboats, finding the mark and deemphasize the card playing
>>aspect.
>
>You can think of ways to run Riverboat Gamblers diceless that you'd find fun.
>You can probably even find ways of running it that I'd find fun. What you
>couldn't do is find a way of running it that I'd find as much fun as if you
>ran it with at least some dice. Without dice, you CANNOT generate the
>tension of a high stakes poker game in a way that would satisfy me.
Sure. I can't argue with that. Of course, the statement is so
narrow it doesn't really mean that much. I mean you won't find a way to
run a high-stakes poker game that would interest me. Diced or diceless.
Although I agree (sigh, on .advocacy no less) that gambling without dice
would not be the same. Had I a choice, I'd use the dice for that
aspect.
>Ok, I should have said "in my opinion over half those people who would be
>willing to play RiverBoat Gamblers would have a better time if it was run
>with at least some diced resolution as opposed to purely diceless.
I'll buy that, subject to the caveat that the gambling would be
central to the game. Although there is a lot to be said for that epic
facedown, I suspect they are rather rare. Of course, I'm not interested
in RBG, but I see where dice are useful (SAN checks or their equivalent
being a prime example).
In short, I agree with your point, though I don't really care
for the type of game where the dice are central. Before someone else
says this, I know that I could do horror without dice. It wouldn't be
the same though, and I prefer to keep the dice for horror checks, and
various other purposes. JMO.
>> Question: What genres do you find suitable for diceless? Are
>>there any?
>
>I do prefer low dice games to completely diceless games. However, a genre
>like Amber is quite suitable for diceless play as the dice are really only
>useful (in my opinion) infrequently. Mind you, I don't think that the
>systemless Amber "system" is very good but thats a differernt argument.
The system itself is not that good. What makes Amber survive as
a game is the legions of slavering Amber fanatics. I count myself among
them, just so no feathers get ruffled.
Sandy Wible
> I will assert that you cannot possibly do "Riverboat Gamblers RPG" diceless
>
> Note, by diceless I mean "without randomization devices". Please don't tell
> me it would be wonderful with cards.
Now, this is a totally different situation. Without even touching on the
merits of dice/diceless systems, what you're talking about is a prop, not a
game mechanic, not a plot device. It's a playing aid.
Sandy (Will)
wo...@genie.geis.com
Sandy Wible
> Where I start to dislike diceless is where any complex task resolution is
> involved; in these cases, too much is dependent on relatively arbitrary
> decisions, and I'd rather have those arbitrary decisions made by impartial
> and statistically well-curved dice than by my (or someone else's) whim. If
Considering task resolution mechanics, in diced systems what you have is a
table lookup, possibly with modifiers based on situational variables, such as
skill of the person in case, current weather, whatever. When the results are
biased in one direction or another (toward success or failure), the dice are
obviated and in fact are liabilities. They are then used as crutches for the
imagination of those involved. Why roll a die..."Oh, success, let's see,"
roll, "you hit his left arm, and it fractures with an audible ::snap!::" when
you can do it yourself? It's like looking at pictures of your cousin white
water rafting instead of boating down the Colorado River in person. You miss
out on the thrill of doing it yourself, you don't hone certain skills sitting
on your butt looking at photos, and most of all, it's more fun!! Sure, there's
something to be said for being "fair", but life isn't fair. Anybody who tells
you different is selling something.
Now, we have left the case for a task to be resolved that is in doubt. It's
either in doubt because genuinely the pros and cons are very closely weighted,
or else because the variables are too complex for us gamers to compute. Like
astrophysics. *I* sure don't know how to compute a hyperspace jump. You?
The thing is, if it's really that close, then all you're doing with dice is
giving away your freedom of choice. Passing on the judgement to God, if you
will. Giving away the freedom, and the responsibility as well.
The last paragraph is just so against the grain for me, and my personal
philosophy of life, that I refuse to submit meekly to any such from the
government. Why should I back off my principles for a _game_? :)
Now, don't get me wrong, I love playing Axis & Allies as much as the next
guy. <grin> I call that wargaming. I call Amber role-playing. You can
combine the two if you want, but I prefer to get my doses in concentrated form.
Sandy (Will)
wo...@genie.geis.com
Nicholas Charles Argall
: >There is no genre which can not be handled by a diceless system. We've
: >experience it is diced systems, by their very rules structures, that
: >have difficulty handling certain genres.
: I have to disagree. In a diced system, it is always possible to run
: any aspect of the game without using dice; thus, you can have the
: benefits of a diceless system when you want them.
Yes, but that wasn't his point. Can you please give an example of a
situation which can't be handled by a diceless system?
: Of course a diceless system can handle any genre: the better question
: than "what genres can you do" is "what genres do diceless systems
: work especially well for?"
Well?
Andrew Finch
It's the system that matters. Amber as a system works well for a limited
number of things. It also happens to be diceless. Hero works well for a
larger, but still limited number of things. It's diced. Theatrix works
well anywhere (biased opinion), and has the great merit of being diceless
(for those of us who see merit in that).
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Taki Kogoma
rec.games.frp.advocacy:
>Diceless roleplay works especially well for all genres. End of story.
Remember what I said about sweeping generalizations?
>David Berkman
>Backstage Press
And *please* get the 'Andrew Finch'/'David Berkman' confusion cleared
up.
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) kog...@unm.edu
I'll get a life when someone demonstrates it would be superior to
what I have now.
George Harris
>I agree with what you've said, except that:
>
>There is no genre which can not be handled by a diceless system. We've
>proven that to ourselves by trying everything we could think of. In our
>experience it is diced systems, by their very rules structures, that
>have difficulty handling certain genres.
Whoops, arrogance rears its ugly head. What you've proven is
"There is nothing we can think of that cannot be handled with a diceless
system." Since you are an unapologetic advocate of diceless play the
meaningfulness of this result is suspect.
Try "Diceless systems, by their very deterministic nature, lack the
unexpected and uncontrived spontaneity needed by certain genres."
>Diceless systems can easily match the thrill just before an important die
>roll. Instead they substitute the thrill just before making an important
>(possibly life or death) decision.
Diced systems can easily match the intricate plotting and character
development of diceless systems, if the GMs aren't so sloppy to create
plots so fragile they could be destroyed by a single unexpected occurance.
>David Berkman
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George...@bbs.oit.unc.edu or, preferably gha...@jade.tufts.edu
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ The above does not represent OIT, UNC-CH, laUNChpad, or its other users. /
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hans M Dykstra
A Lapalme <ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>
>In a previous article, a-j...@microsoft.com (John Reiher) says:
>
>>
>>Any situation that exceeds the GM's knowledge or experience. Do you know
>>how to do a triple bypass operation on a person's heart?
>>
>I'm sorry but I don't see how. Please explain this because all I see is
>that with a dice system, the GM decides the odds of succeeding while in a
>diceless system, the GM decides success or failure. In either cases, the
>GM can be totally ignorant of how it can be really done.
In a diced system, the system itself provides a guide (and note, no more
than a guide) for how the character's skill interacts with the difficulty
of the task, in a way that is easily encoded on a single line on the
character sheet, and understood by both player and GM:
Surgery: 100%
[This would tell me that my character is able to breeze through routine
surgery like tonsillectomy, but when it comes to difficult things like
a triple bypass, he's probably not the guy to do it.]
In a diceless system, you could do the same thing, but it requires three
or more lines on the sheet for each skill, or excessive reliance on
stereotypes and/or archetypes. (IMO, of course.) It also can put a lot
of emphasis on bull-shitting the GM into allowing you a success; this is
the diceless equivalent of a rules-lawyer.
In short, I think you *can* do anything diceless, short of simulating
genuinely random events; I just wouldn't want to.
***
hmd
John Reiher
> In <Cq9q0...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> kidk...@expert.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>
> > Where I start to dislike diceless is where any complex task resolution is
> > involved; in these cases, too much is dependent on relatively arbitrary
> > decisions, and I'd rather have those arbitrary decisions made by impartial
> > and statistically well-curved dice than by my (or someone else's) whim. If
>
> you can do it yourself? It's like looking at pictures of your cousin white
> water rafting instead of boating down the Colorado River in person. You miss
> out on the thrill of doing it yourself, you don't hone certain skills sitting
> on your butt looking at photos, and most of all, it's more fun!! Sure, there's
> something to be said for being "fair", but life isn't fair. Anybody who tells
> you different is selling something.
But in a "diceless" RPG you are not "doing it yourself". The GM is listening to
your description of your character's actions, then deciding whether or not the
character succeeds in doing them. Using your analogy of white water rafting,
it's akin to listening to your cousin talk about his white water rafting and
answering your questions about it.
> Now, we have left the case for a task to be resolved that is in doubt. It's
> either in doubt because genuinely the pros and cons are very closely weighted,
> or else because the variables are too complex for us gamers to compute. Like
> astrophysics. *I* sure don't know how to compute a hyperspace jump. You?
> The thing is, if it's really that close, then all you're doing with dice is
> giving away your freedom of choice. Passing on the judgement to God, if you
> will. Giving away the freedom, and the responsibility as well.
No, you are letting the game mechanics adjucate the situation. Do you know how
to build a car engine? Nope...but your character does, and has a certain
profeciency in doing so. So how do you adjucate him rebuilding a V8 engine?
You either let the GM flip a mental coin in his head or you roll the dice.
Dice are not God, they are simply tools to speed up play. I've played in
"diceless" games where the action drags because the GM had to work out all
the possibilities of our actions, where in a "diced" game, a few simple rolls
of the dice would have sped up play. (Of course there are times where the
rolling of dice slow down what happens, and a diceless version may be
faster.)
> Sandy (Will)
> wo...@genie.geis.com
-----
John
-----
This mine, not yours or yours or yours, and especially not my company's
opinion.
John Reiher
> Travis S Casey (ca...@pi.cs.fsu.edu) wrote:
> : >experience it is diced systems, by their very rules structures, that
> : >have difficulty handling certain genres.
>
> : I have to disagree. In a diced system, it is always possible to run
> : any aspect of the game without using dice; thus, you can have the
> : benefits of a diceless system when you want them.
>
Any situation that exceeds the GM's knowledge or experience. Do you know
how to do a triple bypass operation on a person's heart? I sure don't, I'm
not even sure of what would be required before, during, or after the
operation to insure its success. But my character does. Dice allow your
character to do things that you don't know how to do.
>
> : Of course a diceless system can handle any genre: the better question
> : than "what genres can you do" is "what genres do diceless systems
> : work especially well for?"
>
> Well?
>
Pulp adventure, where, if the conventions of the genre are adhered to,
would be perfect for a diceless game. The characters are always better
than their foes in fighting, thinking, and everything else, that the
story is more important than the action.
Political intrigue is another genre that is suited for diceless rpgs.
John
----
These are mine, not yours or yours or yours, and especially not my company's
opinions.
christopher charles bickford
>In article <2rrni8...@edna.cc.swin.edu.au> 943...@edna.swin.edu.au wrote:
>> Yes, but that wasn't his point. Can you please give an example of a
>> situation which can't be handled by a diceless system?
>
>Any situation that exceeds the GM's knowledge or experience. Do you know
>how to do a triple bypass operation on a person's heart? I sure don't, I'm
>not even sure of what would be required before, during, or after the
>operation to insure its success. But my character does. Dice allow your
>character to do things that you don't know how to do.
Triple bypass surgery in diceless system:
"What's your medical skill? {It works, It doesn't work}"
In diced system:
"What's you medical skill? Roll. {It works, It doesn't work}"
Note that these simple descriptions can be expanded for dramatic
potential in either type of system.
Alexander Williams
>competitive with, if not superior to, diced systems for "hopeless" style
>games--Cthulu, for example, where I played for a full semester without
>rolling dice (other than for san checks, which can easily be glossed over).
>
>Where I start to dislike diceless is where any complex task resolution is
>involved; in these cases, too much is dependent on relatively arbitrary
>decisions, and I'd rather have those arbitrary decisions made by impartial
>and statistically well-curved dice than by my (or someone else's) whim. If
This is just the reason why I require dice for my Cthulhu/Dark
Conspiracy/Kult gaming... I refuse to take all the rap for the innumerable
horrible things that happen to the characters. :)
--
tha...@runic.via.mind.org (Alexander Williams) | PGP 2.x keya avail
Email is the right of the masses. So do it. | DF 22 16 CE CA 7F
Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be the Whole of the | 98 47 13 EE 8E EC
Law. Love is the Law, Love Under Will. -oOo- | 9C 2D 9B 9B
===================================================================
"Democracy isn't just the best form of government; its the only one
even remotely worth a damn. Only democracy guarantees people get
what they deserve."
-- Zeno Marley (Early 21st Century Mercenary-Philosopher)
[Dark Conspiracy RPG, pg 29]
Andrew Finch
: In a diced system, the system itself provides a guide (and note, no more
: than a guide) for how the character's skill interacts with the difficulty
: of the task, in a way that is easily encoded on a single line on the
: character sheet, and understood by both player and GM:
: Surgery: 100%
: [This would tell me that my character is able to breeze through routine
: surgery like tonsillectomy, but when it comes to difficult things like
: a triple bypass, he's probably not the guy to do it.]
: In a diceless system, you could do the same thing, but it requires three
: or more lines on the sheet for each skill, or excessive reliance on
: stereotypes and/or archetypes.
In Theatrix, a diceless game, the system provides a guide, (note, no more
than a guide) for how a character's skill interacts with the difficulty
of the task. All this in a way that can be encoded on a single line in a
character sheet (although you may take more if you wish). This is a rules
question that has absolutely nothing to do with the use of dice (or not).
By the way, the above skill in Theatrix would be encoded as:
[10.0] Surgery.
So many lines to read.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
A Lapalme
In a previous article, a-j...@microsoft.com (John Reiher) says:
>
>Any situation that exceeds the GM's knowledge or experience. Do you know
>how to do a triple bypass operation on a person's heart? I sure don't, I'm
>not even sure of what would be required before, during, or after the
>operation to insure its success. But my character does. Dice allow your
>character to do things that you don't know how to do.
>
I'm sorry but I don't see how. Please explain this because all I see is
that with a dice system, the GM decides the odds of succeeding while in a
diceless system, the GM decides success or failure. In either cases, the
GM can be totally ignorant of how it can be really done.
Alain
--
David H. Thornley
>In <Cq9q0...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> kidk...@expert.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>
>> Where I start to dislike diceless is where any complex task resolution is
>> involved; in these cases, too much is dependent on relatively arbitrary
>> decisions, and I'd rather have those arbitrary decisions made by impartial
>> and statistically well-curved dice than by my (or someone else's) whim. If
>
> Considering task resolution mechanics, in diced systems what you have is a
>table lookup, possibly with modifiers based on situational variables, such as
>skill of the person in case, current weather, whatever. When the results are
>biased in one direction or another (toward success or failure), the dice are
>obviated and in fact are liabilities.
If what you mean is that it's clear that a task will succeed or fail (i.e.,
lifting a physics textbook or lifting a battleship) then it's not necessary
to roll, well, I know of no GM who will require such a roll in any diced
game.
If you mean that dice are a liability when it is merely likely that an
action will or will not fail, I strongly disagree. If I can do something
10% of the time, then I have a right to expect that I'll succeed about
10% of the time. Humans are notoriously poor at simulating random events.
For an example, suppose I'm thinking of breaking into a small encampment
to rescue a friend. I am tough, and can in general easily defeat any guard.
On the other hand, I will eventually be worn down, and I don't know
exactly how many guards I'm likely to encounter, or how easy it will be
to raise an alarm.
In a diced system, the GM can determine these things randomly, and need not
make any big decision about whether I succeed or not. The GM can assign
certain chances based on how he or she visualizes the situation, and can
roll the appropriate dice. The one thing the GM has to do is to be prepared
for both success and failure on my part.
In a diceless system, the GM usually needs to determine whether the attempt
should succeed or not. This is a far more major decision. The GM can
try to be guided by how well I describe what I'm doing, but that's not
fair since it rewards the good speakers and will make me reluctant to try
something I personally don't know much about. In the meantime, the
suspense is partially gone since the GM will have to decide whether I
succeed or fail, and this can happen at any time.
In deciding whether to do this thing or not, it seems to me that the
considerations are different depending on whether the GM is using dice
or not, and it is perfectly reasonable to prefer diced gaming to diceless
for this sort of thing.
>They are then used as crutches for the
>imagination of those involved. Why roll a die..."Oh, success, let's see,"
>roll, "you hit his left arm, and it fractures with an audible ::snap!::" when
>you can do it yourself?
No way! I broke an elbow a little over a year ago, and I'm not doing it
to anybody else in a social setting. What I want to happen is for the
GM to say what goes on at an appropriate level of detail, and it doesn't
seem to me to be that much different whether the GM rolls a few dice first
or not.
> Now, we have left the case for a task to be resolved that is in doubt. It's
>either in doubt because genuinely the pros and cons are very closely weighted,
>or else because the variables are too complex for us gamers to compute. Like
>astrophysics. *I* sure don't know how to compute a hyperspace jump. You?
> The thing is, if it's really that close, then all you're doing with dice is
>giving away your freedom of choice. Passing on the judgement to God, if you
>will. Giving away the freedom, and the responsibility as well.
>
I'm an agnostic, so I'll have to disagree with the concept of surrendering
my judgment to God. I don't know that that's possible.
> The last paragraph is just so against the grain for me, and my personal
>philosophy of life, that I refuse to submit meekly to any such from the
>government. Why should I back off my principles for a _game_? :)
No reason. Why would you impose them on anybody else? If you want to
say that you prefer diceless gaming, that's cool. If you want to say it's
superior to diced gaming, drop the personal philosophy and religion and
give some actual reasons.
Nor have you established that giving up the GM's freedom of choice is a
bad thing. Suppose I'm in a campaign where it is reasonable to expect
some sort of PC casualties, and the party embarks on a risky operation.
My character is killed, and this may make me unhappy. In a diced game,
it's the luck of the dice, and that's the way things go. I knew there
was a chance of this happening, and there's a certain fitness to it.
In a diceless game, it's the GM's decision that my character died, as
opposed to somebody else's, and that fact is likely to have repercussions.
Perhaps I won't feel comfortable about starting another character,
possibly I'll worry about my role-playing technique, maybe I'll play
more recklessly with my next character because the GM won't kill my
character twice in rapid succession.
Therefore, I think there are games that call for diced and games that
call for diceless systems. The sort that I prefer to play usually call
for dice. You may prefer the sort that call for diceless.
DHT
Ray Trent
>character sheet (although you may take more if you wish). This is a rules
>question that has absolutely nothing to do with the use of dice (or not).
>
>By the way, the above skill in Theatrix would be encoded as:
>[10.0] Surgery.
Hope that's enough for context.
I'm a bit too lazy (and admittedly jaded about "revolutionary" gaming
systems to be the first on my block to go check this out, so perhaps
you can answer this question:
If, in Theatrix, there is some abstraction of skill level so as to
relieve the players from having to actually role play something they
may know nothing about, how does the GM decide a specific (pardon the
loaded phrasing) dicey instance?
What does the GM do with a situation s/he thinks has a ~50/50 chance
of having the attempted outcome?
I posit that "mentally flipping a coin" is a poor substitute for the
real thing.
But suppose you choose the outcome that is "better for the story". Why
do you need the skill level at all?
Is it just that "good stories" don't have people blow things they
should be good at without a good reason?
Does "player is taking advantage of that knowledge" count as a "good
reason"?
--
"When you're down, it's a long way up
When you're up, it's a long way down
It's all the same thing
And it's no new tale to tell" ../ray\..
George Harris
>
>> Where I start to dislike diceless is where any complex task resolution is
>> involved; in these cases, too much is dependent on relatively arbitrary
>> decisions, and I'd rather have those arbitrary decisions made by impartial
>> and statistically well-curved dice than by my (or someone else's) whim. If
>
> Considering task resolution mechanics, in diced systems what you have is a
>table lookup, possibly with modifiers based on situational variables, such as
>skill of the person in case, current weather, whatever. When the results are
>biased in one direction or another (toward success or failure), the dice are
>obviated and in fact are liabilities.
We're (allof us, I'm not the person to whom you replied) talking
about two different things here. Kidkibitz is talking about the execution
of a model of a subset of reality. You're talking about the creation of the
model.
In *any* game there is going to be some model created of actions
that take place in the game world. The model might be a table on which
a die-roll is checked against the appropriate column, or merely a roll
against a number, below or above (or right on), or comparison of two
characters' ability scores, or the GM's evaluation of the situation and
consequent decision. Now, in whichever way the model is represented,
it could be biased in one direction or the other. That is a property
of a model in and of itself, and not of its representation.
So, when we're talking about modeling (subsets of) reality, what
we want to do is get as accurate a model as we can. That's the first
step, before we decide how we want to implement the model (there are other
concerns, of course, since if your model involves Fourier transforms and
simultaneous solution of partial differential equations in seven variables,
it won't be very convenient for a game). Usually, a model will give a
range of possible outcomes, with their attendant probabilities. In some
instances, only one outcome will have any significant probability, but
generally that will be the exception.
Then, we want to represent the model. Since what we have is a
range of possible outcomes and attendant probabilities, using some
mehcanical probabilistic device seems appropriate, whether it be dice,
a spinner, cards or what have you. Human beings are notoriously bad
probabilistic devices (unless used in unorthodox ways [drop him from
the Goodyear blimp; face up, you win; face down, you lose]). So, if
you represent your model, once developed, by a human being making decisions
and trying to balance the outcomes over time, *in addition* to whatever
flaws your model might have, you have introduced the additional problem
of a poor(in a probabilistic sense) decision maker.
Of course, if you aren't interested in a campaign where events are
consistent as much as in one where you get good drama (or, as is more
likely the case, melodrama), then abandoning mechanical probabilistic
devices may be the way to go. But the preference of what *type* of game
you prefer doesn't make the best way to play *another* type of a game a
crutch, or indeed flawed in any way.
>They are then used as crutches for the
>imagination of those involved. Why roll a die..."Oh, success, let's see,"
>roll, "you hit his left arm, and it fractures with an audible ::snap!::" when
>you can do it yourself? It's like looking at pictures of your cousin white
>water rafting instead of boating down the Colorado River in person. You miss
>out on the thrill of doing it yourself, you don't hone certain skills sitting
>on your butt looking at photos, and most of all, it's more fun!! Sure, there's
>something to be said for being "fair", but life isn't fair. Anybody who tells
>you different is selling something.
Let's see if I've got this straight. You'd rather experience it
your self. So, instead of the GM telling you that, say, your opponent hit
your right leg with a polearm, giving you a multiple compound fracture of
the femur and a severed femoral artery, you'd rather he *actually* hit you
in the right leg with a pole-arm, giving you a compound fracture of your
femur and severing your femoral artery? I've heard of live-action gaming,
but isn't that a little extreme?
> Now, we have left the case for a task to be resolved that is in doubt. It's
>either in doubt because genuinely the pros and cons are very closely weighted,
>or else because the variables are too complex for us gamers to compute. Like
>astrophysics. *I* sure don't know how to compute a hyperspace jump. You?
Nope. When things are uncertain, there's no telling which way
things are going to go. You have no control over that.
> The thing is, if it's really that close, then all you're doing with dice is
>giving away your freedom of choice. Passing on the judgement to God, if you
>will. Giving away the freedom, and the responsibility as well.
Freedom of choice? What choice? If I drop my buttered toast on the
carpet, I doon't *choose* which side it lands on. It just happens. It's
not my choice, although dropping it may be my responsibility.
> The last paragraph is just so against the grain for me, and my personal
>philosophy of life, that I refuse to submit meekly to any such from the
>government. Why should I back off my principles for a _game_? :)
How about because the game is supposed to model some analog of
the universe, and with the universe you don't have a choice about most of
the things that happen. UNless, of course, you can choose to ignore
gravity and make all the lights turn green.
> Now, don't get me wrong, I love playing Axis & Allies as much as the next
>guy. <grin> I call that wargaming. I call Amber role-playing. You can
>combine the two if you want, but I prefer to get my doses in concentrated form.
Amber is no more concentrated role-playing than GURPS, RQ or Hero.
It just happens to be a style you prefer, and which many others find
abhorrent. Now, if you need to use that difference to make yourself feel
special, well, don't expect anyone else to buy into your personal fantasy.
>Sandy (Will)
>wo...@genie.geis.com
George Harris
>Diceless roleplay works especially well for all genres. End of story.
Bullshit. End of story.
Gee, isn't stating personal preference as statement of absolute
fact without any support fun?
>It's the system that matters. Amber as a system works well for a limited
>number of things. It also happens to be diceless. Hero works well for a
>larger, but still limited number of things. It's diced. Theatrix works
>well anywhere (biased opinion), and has the great merit of being diceless
>(for those of us who see merit in that).
Theatrix does not work at all well in any genre where there are
events that occur repeatedly that are meant to have unpredictable outcomes
that follow a particular probability distribution, because without a
mechanical aid, human beings are very very bad at simulating probability
distributions.
End of story.
>David Berkman
Jose Garcia
John Reiher <a-j...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>In article <2rrni8...@edna.cc.swin.edu.au> 943...@edna.swin.edu.au wrote:
>> Yes, but that wasn't his point. Can you please give an example of a
>> situation which can't be handled by a diceless system?
>
>Any situation that exceeds the GM's knowledge or experience. Do you know
>how to do a triple bypass operation on a person's heart? I sure don't, I'm
>not even sure of what would be required before, during, or after the
>operation to insure its success. But my character does. Dice allow your
>character to do things that you don't know how to do.
>
It seems to me that this would be possible in any game with a "surgeon"
skill.
--
Jose Garcia
Andrew Finch
don't mind taking responsibility for doing all those terrible things to
the players. In fact, I enjoy the diceless version for its shear
hopelessness. Cthulu players are there for the H.P. Lovecraft experience,
and so far they don't seem to mind getting it, in abundance.
As for what genres Theatrix is and is not capable of, all those who have
not read it will not know. Which is fine. Just don't be certain until
you've taken the opportunity to read it. So far, I have not been
contridicted by anyone who has had the chance to actually see the game.
And hopefully we'll have some reviews on the net soon, and we'll see.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Nicholas Charles Argall
: In article <2rpkrq$o...@crl.crl.com> bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) writes:
: >I agree with what you've said, except that:
: >
: >There is no genre which can not be handled by a diceless system. We've
: >proven that to ourselves by trying everything we could think of. In our
: >experience it is diced systems, by their very rules structures, that
: >have difficulty handling certain genres.
: Whoops, arrogance rears its ugly head. What you've proven is
: "There is nothing we can think of that cannot be handled with a diceless
: system." Since you are an unapologetic advocate of diceless play the
: meaningfulness of this result is suspect.
If we can imagine it, we can resolve it diceless. If we can't imagine it,
what's the point of bringing it up?
: Try "Diceless systems, by their very deterministic nature, lack the
: unexpected and uncontrived spontaneity needed by certain genres."
Arrogance to you too!
: >Diceless systems can easily match the thrill just before an important die
: >roll. Instead they substitute the thrill just before making an important
: >(possibly life or death) decision.
: Diced systems can easily match the intricate plotting and character
: development of diceless systems, if the GMs aren't so sloppy to create
: plots so fragile they could be destroyed by a single unexpected occurance.
ARROGANCE!!!
Diceful randomness is useful to add spontaneity. Diceless might well be
good, although I didn't like Amber 'cause it left me in the cold. (Might
like Theatrix, can't find it down in Australia...)
: Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
Nick
Mad Chris
>: I have to disagree. In a diced system, it is always possible to run
>: any aspect of the game without using dice; thus, you can have the
>: benefits of a diceless system when you want them.
>Yes, but that wasn't his point. Can you please give an example of a
>situation which can't be handled by a diceless system?
This really isn't the issue. Yes, any situation can be dealt with
using a diceless system. Any situation can be dealt with using
a diced system as well. Any situation can be resolved by slicing
a watermelon as well.
And who's to say that one solution is
better than the other? You? God? Eris?
Why can't you people accept that there is no one answer here.
Diceless gaming isn't some superbreed of role playing that
invalidates diced gaming any more than it is some sickly
runt cousin to diced.
And you want one thing that diceless can't do?
It can't provide the kind of effect on many people that diced
resolution does. It can resolve the situation in other
ways but it can't Be diced. If you don't enjoy the heady thrill
of diced resolution from time to time, don't claim that you
are somehow superior to those that do.
I may be flaming a little too hard here, but I am responding
to the Tone of your post, not necessarily your opinions. I
don't know entirely what they are, beyond the content of your
post.
Mad Chris.
Magnus Lie Hetland
##
Try "Diceless systems, by their very deterministic nature, lack the
unexpected and uncontrived spontaneity needed by certain genres."
Come on! do you think human behaviour (in the form of GM-Player
interaction) is any more deterministic than dice? Not much. And do you feel that
there are genres that are unfit for non-interactive fiction (like literature,
films, drama etc.) simply because these forms of fiction are completely
deterministic? I think you'll find that what it boils down to (whether you're
playing with or without dice, system etc.) is whether or not the GROUP can handle
the genre with their current tools.
--
Either the next statement is true, or this signature is a Paradox.
The previous statement is false and this signature is a Paradox.
Magnus
Lie
Hetland
Magnus Lie Hetland
> In article <2rsdlt$g...@crl.crl.com> bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) writes:
> >Diceless roleplay works especially well for all genres. End of story.
>
> Bullshit. End of story.
>
> Gee, isn't stating personal preference as statement of absolute
> fact without any support fun?
>
> >It's the system that matters. Amber as a system works well for a limited
> >number of things. It also happens to be diceless. Hero works well for a
> >larger, but still limited number of things. It's diced. Theatrix works
> >well anywhere (biased opinion), and has the great merit of being diceless
> >(for those of us who see merit in that).
>
> Theatrix does not work at all well in any genre where there are
> events that occur repeatedly that are meant to have unpredictable outcomes
> that follow a particular probability distribution, because without a
I wonder; what genres are you talking about? "The Raid of the Normal
Distribution".. I Don't really know. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with
roleplaying or storytelling with me. It seems to have even less to do with the
notion of genre.
> mechanical aid, human beings are very very bad at simulating probability
> distributions.
>
"PDRPG - The Probability Distribution RolePlaying Game" - Sounds really
GREAT!!! ;) (I wonder who would want to play a probability-distribution anyway.
If this is important to you then...well...Fair enough.)
> End of story.
>
> >David Berkman
> --
> Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
>
> George...@bbs.oit.unc.edu or, preferably gha...@jade.tufts.edu
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> \ The above does not represent OIT, UNC-CH, laUNChpad, or its other users. /
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Antoon Pardon
: In article <2s6gm8$1...@samba.oit.unc.edu>, George...@launchpad.unc.edu (George Harris) writes:
: > In article <2rsdlt$g...@crl.crl.com> bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) writes:
: > >Diceless roleplay works especially well for all genres. End of story.
: >
: > Bullshit. End of story.
: >
: > Gee, isn't stating personal preference as statement of absolute
: > fact without any support fun?
: >
: > >It's the system that matters. Amber as a system works well for a limited
: > >number of things. It also happens to be diceless. Hero works well for a
: > >larger, but still limited number of things. It's diced. Theatrix works
: > >well anywhere (biased opinion), and has the great merit of being diceless
: > >(for those of us who see merit in that).
: >
: > Theatrix does not work at all well in any genre where there are
: > events that occur repeatedly that are meant to have unpredictable outcomes
: > that follow a particular probability distribution, because without a
: I wonder; what genres are you talking about? "The Raid of the Normal
: Distribution".. I Don't really know. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with
: roleplaying or storytelling with me. It seems to have even less to do with the
: notion of genre.
Well how about a tournament. Two competitors are matched against each other
The loser drops out and the winner continues to the next round. With a big
prize for the winner and some smaller prizes for second, third and forth.
Now how do you resolve this without dice if the competitors are closely matched?
(Say each competitor has at least a chance of 1/3 to win against any other)
You just can't say that someone wins half of his matches (Although that might
be the most probable outcome with the dice) because the order in witch things
happen is important.
========================================================================
Antoon Pardon <apa...@vub.ac.be>
Brussels Free University Computing Centre 02/650.37.16
========================================================================
Andrew Finch
: Well how about a tournament. Two competitors are matched against each other
: The loser drops out and the winner continues to the next round. With a big
: prize for the winner and some smaller prizes for second, third and forth.
: Now how do you resolve this without dice if the competitors are closely matched?
: (Say each competitor has at least a chance of 1/3 to win against any other)
: You just can't say that someone wins half of his matches (Although that might
: be the most probable outcome with the dice) because the order in witch things
: happen is important.
This is an interesting problem in statistics, but hardly a roleplaying
problem. In a diceless game, we would actually roleplay through the
important parts of such a tournament. In fact, I think most diced systems
would recomend the same. Or, your players could watch you determine the
entire outcome of the tournament with dice, without reference to them at
all, but using only your keen sense of probabilistic curves and your
handy random number generators. I bet they can hardly wait to discover
what's happened to them.
No, diceless systems are incapable of producing statistical problems for
the GM, that is true. We just roleplay.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
A Lapalme
Yeah, yeah. I know a hint when I see one. The review is written but I
still need to organize a bit. Maybe tomorrow.
BTW, I doubt any review will cut downt he amount of name calling in this
thread. This is advocacy, after all.
Alain
--
Reimer Behrends
[...]
: Theatrix does not work at all well in any genre where there are
: that follow a particular probability distribution, because without a
: mechanical aid, human beings are very very bad at simulating probability
: distributions.
This is more than offset by the fact that humans are also very very bad
at recognizing flawed probability distributions. Otherwise nobody would
play diced games :-). Seriously, I don't know about a single role-playing
game that simulates probabilities with the accuracy you apparently claim
is an inherent advantage of diced systems. And while dice are only a tool
and I, having never played diceless, probably expect too much of diceless
systems, my main complaint about dice is that they more often than not
have the feeling of a bike with rectangular wheels if you get my drift
(all IMHO, of course and consider the above to be liberally sprinkled
with smileys).
I also don't think that the equation diceless = GM fiat necessarily holds.
One could (theoretically, but not in practice) introduce action resolution
by playing a game of chess, with less skilled characters having less game
pieces to start with. Of course this isn't exactly practicable and the
character of a good chess player would have a definite advantage, but I
think it should be possible to merge such a concept satisfactorily into
a role-playing system, especially for complex actions llike combat. The
main advantage would be reproducible cause-and-effect chains, I think.
Reimer Behrends
Kid Kibbitz
behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de (Reimer Behrends) writes:
>I also don't think that the equation diceless = GM fiat necessarily holds.
>One could (theoretically, but not in practice) introduce action resolution
>by playing a game of chess, with less skilled characters having less game
>pieces to start with. Of course this isn't exactly practicable and the
>character of a good chess player would have a definite advantage, but I
>think it should be possible to merge such a concept satisfactorily into
>a role-playing system, especially for complex actions llike combat. The
>main advantage would be reproducible cause-and-effect chains, I think.
This (or anything like it) would be awful (IMHO, of course).
First of all, I can beat most any non-serious chessplayer with queen odds
or worse; does this mean my character can do almost anything in the game
world? I think any such action resolution system one enacts is going to
have a similar problem--if I am skilled at whatever resolution system you
devise, I will likely wind up with an overwhelming advantage. I suppose
you would have to build up something like Piers Anthony's gaming grid from
the Apprentice Adept series, but even then, navigating the grid itself is a
definite skill.
More serious, however, is how blantantly and recklessly such a system
obliterates the separation between character ability and player ability.
Several other people have objected to diceless play along the same lines,
arguing that resolution strictly by accurate/believable roleplay gives
tremendous disadvantage to those who simply aren't teriffic iprov actors or
who aren't familiar with the character's setting. This task resolution is
just more of the same; regardless of what my character is supposed to be,
s/he is going to be inhibited (or bolstered) by MY ability to play chess or
tiddly-winks or throw darts or whatever.
--Kid Kibbitz
George Harris
>
>As for what genres Theatrix is and is not capable of, all those who have
>not read it will not know. Which is fine. Just don't be certain until
>you've taken the opportunity to read it. So far, I have not been
>contridicted by anyone who has had the chance to actually see the game.
Probably because those who realize a diceless game is inadequate
for their needs are sensible enough not to purchase it. This data point
isn't particular meaningful either. Your full of those, aren't you?
Reimer Behrends
: In article <2se3rn$p...@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE>
: behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de (Reimer Behrends) writes:
: >I also don't think that the equation diceless = GM fiat necessarily holds.
: >One could (theoretically, but not in practice) introduce action resolution
: >by playing a game of chess, with less skilled characters having less game
: >pieces to start with. Of course this isn't exactly practicable and the
: >character of a good chess player would have a definite advantage, but I
: >think it should be possible to merge such a concept satisfactorily into
: >a role-playing system, especially for complex actions llike combat. The
: >main advantage would be reproducible cause-and-effect chains, I think.
: This (or anything like it) would be awful (IMHO, of course).
Isn't this a bit strong? Diced games aren't exactly the best thing
since sliced bread, either, but I wouldn't call the mechanism awful.
All task resolution mechanisms have advantages and disadvantages (I
could name quite a few disadvantages of rolling dice, btw.) and they
should be weighed against each other before passing judgment in such
a decisive fashion.
: First of all, I can beat most any non-serious chessplayer with queen odds
: or worse; does this mean my character can do almost anything in the game
: world? I think any such action resolution system one enacts is going to
: have a similar problem--if I am skilled at whatever resolution system you
: devise, I will likely wind up with an overwhelming advantage. I suppose
: you would have to build up something like Piers Anthony's gaming grid from
: the Apprentice Adept series, but even then, navigating the grid itself is a
: definite skill.
Two points. First, you will notice by carefully rereading what I wrote
that I admitted the existence of the problem myself. Second, I don't
think the problem is unsurmountable. After all, GURPS character creation
(or character creation in any point-based system) is a definite skill,
yet good role-players usually can resist abusing it.
: More serious, however, is how blantantly and recklessly such a system
: obliterates the separation between character ability and player ability.
: Several other people have objected to diceless play along the same lines,
: arguing that resolution strictly by accurate/believable roleplay gives
: tremendous disadvantage to those who simply aren't teriffic iprov actors or
: who aren't familiar with the character's setting. This task resolution is
: just more of the same; regardless of what my character is supposed to be,
: s/he is going to be inhibited (or bolstered) by MY ability to play chess or
: tiddly-winks or throw darts or whatever.
Hmm, isn't this the very same argument in a different disguise? And, after
all, in a highly theoretical one this time? There'll always be players who
get more of the action, and, more important: If it is possible to even out
the odds in a game of Go fairly accurately, why shouldn't it be possible
with role-playing? Btw, I'm not that much in love with the idea; I just
thought it deserved to be mentioned. I'm of course aware that it requires
more thought then just setting up the odds for a dice roll.
(Hmm, I hope I didn't pour too much fuel into the fire.)
Reimer Behrends
Andrew Finch
: Probably because those who realize a diceless game is inadequate
: for their needs are sensible enough not to purchase it. This data point
: isn't particular meaningful either. Your full of those, aren't you?
Actually George, the game has been read by people who have started out
with very skeptical positions. And how would you know whether the game
was inadequate for your needs. Hell, you've been so vocal I offered you a
free copy to read, and to post whatever you thought on the net, good or
bad. And you didn't want to take the opportunity. So exactly what position
besides ignorance are you talking from? If you wish to post what you
think without even reading the game, then the least you could do is to be
civil. Or, you could take the offer and put your brain where your mouth is.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Antoon Pardon
: Antoon Pardon (apa...@rc1.vub.ac.be) wrote:
I'm sorry but your answer didn't satify me. Lets make it a targetshooting
tournament. How do you roleplay the fact that you aim and shoot at the
target. How does the G.M. roleplay all of the N.P.C. or how does he decide
what score N.P.C. will get. Let me inform you that in this session the
individual matches were not the important part of the scenario. But
depending on the outcome various intrigues might come into play to help
ensure various side-kickers to win there bet. So how do you decide the
outcome of N.P.C. vs N.P.C. matches which where in this case the most
occuring. You can hardly let the G.M. roleplay them all out.
Kid Kibbitz
>Kid Kibbitz (kidk...@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
>: In article <2se3rn$p...@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE>
>: behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de (Reimer Behrends) writes:
>
>: >I also don't think that the equation diceless = GM fiat necessarily holds.
>: >One could (theoretically, but not in practice) introduce action resolution
>: >by playing a game of chess, with less skilled characters having less game
>: >pieces to start with. Of course this isn't exactly practicable and the
>: >character of a good chess player would have a definite advantage, but I
>: >think it should be possible to merge such a concept satisfactorily into
>: >a role-playing system, especially for complex actions llike combat. The
>: >main advantage would be reproducible cause-and-effect chains, I think.
>
>: This (or anything like it) would be awful (IMHO, of course).
>
>Isn't this a bit strong? Diced games aren't exactly the best thing
>since sliced bread, either, but I wouldn't call the mechanism awful.
>All task resolution mechanisms have advantages and disadvantages (I
>could name quite a few disadvantages of rolling dice, btw.) and they
>should be weighed against each other before passing judgment in such
>a decisive fashion.
I'm not sure what you're asking here--is my opinion strong, or is my
opinion expressed in a strong manner? Yes and no, respectively. To me,
one of the premiere features (and, in fact, *defining* features) of a
role-playing game is the ability to--you guessed it--adopt a variety of
roles. Indeed, one measure of both a role-player and a role-playing
system, by my opinion, is how well s/he or it can represent a wide variety
of characters within the appropriate genre. In this respect, dice are
quite neutral; they have no effect on the width or bredth of characters one
can adopt or successfully play. Your mechanism, OTOH, is NOT neutral, as
discussed below.
I probably should have included this definitional stuff in my original
post; might've saved some interpretational difficulties.... Live 'n' learn,
I guess. :-/
>: First of all, I can beat most any non-serious chessplayer with queen odds
>: or worse; does this mean my character can do almost anything in the game
>: world? I think any such action resolution system one enacts is going to
>: have a similar problem--if I am skilled at whatever resolution system you
>: devise, I will likely wind up with an overwhelming advantage. I suppose
>: you would have to build up something like Piers Anthony's gaming grid from
>: the Apprentice Adept series, but even then, navigating the grid itself is a
>: definite skill.
>
>Two points. First, you will notice by carefully rereading what I wrote
>that I admitted the existence of the problem myself.
Ah, that's not how I read your above; I thought your concern was for the
impracticality of chess as an arbitrater in terms of duration--that is, if
every time I want to perform an action, I have to play a chess game (which
can take 15 minutes to several hours or more), that will hamper role-play,
to say the least. :) This is relatively cosmetic, as a game of
tiddly-winks (for example) can pass relatively quickly--sometimes faster
than rolling and summing dice in HERO. :-)
>Second, I don't
>think the problem is unsurmountable. After all, GURPS character creation
>(or character creation in any point-based system) is a definite skill,
>yet good role-players usually can resist abusing it.
This is a little different, I think.... Obviously, you may think
differently. But you seem to be suggesting that I will throw a chessgame
given queen-odds deficit, even though I could win it, because I'm a good
roleplayer. In this case, what's the point of the mechanism? This really
fits the diceless mode well, I suppose, since I the player am really
deciding whether my character will succeed in the task based on whether I
choose to win a chess game or not. (Again, the game of chess itself is
only the analogy to whatever resolution system one might use.)
>: More serious, however, is how blantantly and recklessly such a system
>: obliterates the separation between character ability and player ability.
>: Several other people have objected to diceless play along the same lines,
>: arguing that resolution strictly by accurate/believable roleplay gives
>: tremendous disadvantage to those who simply aren't teriffic iprov actors or
>: who aren't familiar with the character's setting. This task resolution is
>: just more of the same; regardless of what my character is supposed to be,
>: s/he is going to be inhibited (or bolstered) by MY ability to play chess or
>: tiddly-winks or throw darts or whatever.
>
>Hmm, isn't this the very same argument in a different disguise?
Not quite; they are, however, related. The first was the point that the
mechanism itself is flawed in the sense that applying odds to a chessgame
doesn't necessarily affect the outcome; in fact, between poor players, the
difference between one pawn, three pawns, or even two knights or a bishop
and a rook or whatever is virtually meaningless, because poor players have
poor visibility of the game. Once again, this holds across most resolution
systems, though perhaps not as strongly as for chess; if you're an expert
marksman and I'm not, then the deficit you would have to be assessed in
order to lose to me at riflery is staggering. (If you don't believe this,
just watch a slo-mo video of a good marksman some time... They can actually
delay their heartbeat so that the pulse doesn't affect their aim!!)
The second point was that besides the inherent flaw in this mechanism of
assigning odds, the concept in general breaks the player-character
division.
> And, after
>all, in a highly theoretical one this time? There'll always be players who
>get more of the action, and, more important: If it is possible to even out
>the odds in a game of Go fairly accurately, why shouldn't it be possible
>with role-playing?
Here's the trick: one can even out the GAME; one cannot even out the
PLAYERS. And in role-playing, the PLAYERS need to be, as much as possible,
on even footing, so that the CHARACTER differences can be manifested.
Incidentally, another effect I didn't mention of your plan is that it lacks
granularity, especially among *good* competitors. For example, if you give
Karpov just a single pawn against Kasparov, I'd put my money on Karpov.
If you switch it, Kasparov gets my vote. Thus, unless you start getting
*really* bizarre and intricate in the weighting mechanism--which would
really require an expert on both chess and the players involved--you will
get have almost a determined system: any slight advantage (comparable to,
e.g., a skill 48 vs. a skill 50 on a % scale) will probably result in a
clear victory.
>Btw, I'm not that much in love with the idea; I just
>thought it deserved to be mentioned. I'm of course aware that it requires
>more thought then just setting up the odds for a dice roll.
Fair enough.
But then, the question become obvious: Is it *in any way* superior
to a die roll? I suppose this question requires a definition of
"superiority," but.... So be it.
>(Hmm, I hope I didn't pour too much fuel into the fire.)
Ditto. :)
--Kid Kibbitz