System suggestion needed
LoneRogue
smile wrote:
I like rules-light and dice-less systems like those found in Over the Edge,Diceless system??? Maybe it's lack of imagination or corruption by "traditional" roleplaying games that uses dice, but, how in Hades can you play without dice rolls?
Theatrix, Castle Falkenstein, Everway, Control, Epiphany and Amber. (I haven
’t read all of these books.) I also like some of the roleplaying concepts
found in these games. Any suggestions on any other game-system I might like?
Please explain, for you my friend have taunted my curiosity... :-)
LoneRogue
LoneRogue
Seems pretty interesting... I'd have to try it out.
I can see an advantage with this type of game, correct me if I'm wrong: it seems to
me that it would be a lot easier to play over the net than with a dice game... am I
correct?
But, doesn't it destroy the random factor? I can you reproduce the feeling of risk
that comes with rolling dice to check your actions?
Triad3204 wrote:
> > Diceless system??? Maybe it's lack of imagination or corruption by
> >"traditional" roleplaying games that uses dice, but, how in Hades can you
> >play
> >without dice rolls?
> >Please explain, for you my friend have taunted my curiosity... :-)
>
> I'll jump in here and explain using Amber -- since that's the diceless system I
> am most familiar with.
>
> In Amber you have four Attributes (Warfare, Strength, Endurance, and Psyche).
> Through a unique character process (which is, by no means, characteristic of
> diceless roleplay so I won't describe it here) you assign your character values
> in each of these attributes. There are no skills (this is an accurate
> representation of the source material and is appropriate -- other diceless
> games have skills).
>
> Warfare represents your armed combat skill and your tactical abililty.
> Strength represents your physical prowess and unarmed combat skill.
> Endurance measures how long you can do things before falling down.
> Psyche measures your intelligence and psychic capability.
> (Again, these work with the source materials -- other diceless games have more
> typical attributes you might find in "normal", diced games.)
>
> When you attempt to do something the GM looks at your attribute value and
> determines if it's high enough to accomplish what you want to do. If it is, you
> succeeded. If it isn't, you failed. Diceless games also tend to be
> story-oriented games, so this decision is usually tinted by: "Is it good for
> the story?"
>
> If you're acting against another character the system gets a little more
> complicated.
>
> If you're attribute is much higher than the other person's you easily defeat
> them.
> If you're attribute is slightly higher, you beat them, but it takes time.
> If you're attribute is equal or extremely close to yours, it depends on what
> each of you do and is going to be a long, drawn out affair.
> If you're attribute is slightly lower, they'll beat you, but it takes time.
> If you're attribute is much lower, they'll defeat you easily.
>
> Let's take combat as a typical example:
>
> You engage in a swordfight with somebody else, and they're not quite as good as
> you in Warfare -- you gain a little bit of an advantage. They realize they're
> outclassed in blades, but they think they might be stronger (have a higher
> Strength), so they beat your sword aside and close in to grapple with you. They
> are slightly stronger than you, but not strong enough to finish you off
> quickly. Unfortunately they have a much lower Endurance than you do, and you
> wear them out. If they thought to use Psyche they need to be in physical
> contact, and that might have shifted things in their favor. If you had, in
> fact, been vastly outclassed in Strength you probably would try to break away
> and renew the swordfight -- or use your own ability in Psyche.
>
> The game provides a much fuller detail of how to run the system.
>
> The system is *very* descriptive, and really only works on that level. A style
> of play along the lines of: "I hit him with my sword." "You did, he's dead." is
> going to be very boring in this system. You need to have: "I dive under the
> table, roll to my feet, bash his blade out of the way, and plunge my own sword
> into his chest." to make this system any fun.
>
> I refer you to my review of the game on http://www.rpg.net for a more in-depth
> look at the Amber game as a whole. You might also want to dash over to
> r.g.f.advocacy and ask around there -- there are several diceless-advocates
> there who would be happy to explain other systems (such as Theatrix) to you.
>
> Of course, this pertains only to "truly diceless" systems -- where there is no
> random element. Everway, for example, relies on cards to provide the same
> function as dice. As does Deadlands, I believe.
>
> Justin Bacon
> tr...@prairie.lakes.com
smile
Triad3204
Triad3204
>Seems pretty interesting... I'd have to try it out.
>I can see an advantage with this type of game, correct me if I'm wrong: it
>seems to
>me that it would be a lot easier to play over the net than with a dice
>game... am I
>correct?
It has certainly been my experience -- at least with story-oriented games. Dice
rolling tends to get in the way, particularly with PBeMs. IRC and WebRPG,
however, can be run fairly normally.
I, personally, am finding diceless RPGs to be the easiest to run, period. I
like description -- and they certainly encourage it (since tactics and *how*
you do something becomes as important as how *well* you do something).
>But, doesn't it destroy the random factor? I can you reproduce the feeling of
>risk
>that comes with rolling dice to check your actions?
Yes and no. These types of systems generally work *extremely* well in groups
which have implicit trust and background with each other, or those groups which
are willing to give themselves entirely into the hands of the GM. The GM needs
to be good if not excellent to make the system work.
There is no random factor (which is why I feel it works better for
story-oriented games, because you don't necessarily need a random factor, per
se, for those). If you trust the GM enough not to kill you when there isn't a
need, and the GM trusts you enough not to throw a hissy-fit if he kills your
character, there can still be a sense of risk -- although usually not when
fighting the Nameless Bad Guys (which isn't entirely a bad thing -- many diced
systems, like Feng Shui, try to garner this effect anyway). You know for
example, that the chances against Luke Skywalker getting axed are pretty slim
-- but until you've finished watching the movie there's always a chance he
might die if it would improve the story. Ditto with this type of play --
unlikely the PCs will be killed, but, hey, if it's dramatically appropriate, it
just might happen.
But you need that trust there first. I am always nervous when playing diceless
for the first time with a new group of players about killing their characters
-- unlike a diced system it is most definitely *my fault* in their eyes.
I would suggest picking up a copy of Amber. Even if you have no interest in
playing the setting, the book contains some very nice explanations and
explorations of the diceless style. Steal their system, rename the attributes
to something appropriate to whatever you want to play (although they'll still
need to be suitably) broad and give it a run. Four color heroes and the like
would probably adapt very easily.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Tim Dedeaux
Wow. I think you've just about nailed it. Hrm. I can't think of any
others off the bat (Corps is - no, that's like GURPS with 50% less
headaches, never mind). I think you may have most of the games for now.
Chaosium games have relatively light mechanics, mostly, especially Call of
Cthulhu (Did you know there was an alt.sex.cthulu? There is not enough
money in the world to get me to subscribe to a group with a name like
that! - disclaimer: I don't subscribe to any of the alt.sex groups, but
I did immediately go to Deja News to confirm whether or not this group
existed when I heard about it. No kidding - it does. Scary, huh?)
Other than that, I'm stumped.
Timothy
Dedeaux T H I S S P A C E F O R R E N T
tdedeaux
@mc.edu
Tim Dedeaux
LoneRogue <lone...@geocities.com> wrote:
> Seems pretty interesting... I'd have to try it out.
> I can see an advantage with this type of game, correct me if I'm wrong: it seems to
> me that it would be a lot easier to play over the net than with a dice game... am I
> correct?
> But, doesn't it destroy the random factor? I can you reproduce the feeling of risk
> that comes with rolling dice to check your actions?
You don't. That's part of the point. If you feel you need or really,
really want that random feeling, then diceless gaming is probably not for
you. You can still surprise people (but it's more in-character) because
much information is kept secret - while the GM knows the PC's stats, the
Players don't know the NPCs' stats (and in Amber they often have only a
rough idea of their own - they know their starting stats and what
direction they took in advancement, but not how much XP was awarded, so
they don't know exactly how much they advanced).
Surprises also come when the Players come up with strange plans and
tricks, which are more necessary in Amber (and most diceless games) than
in diced games (and are more supported by the system than in most diceless
games - does anybody remember Rolemaster's suggestion that PC's develop
skill levels in "thrown sand" so they could use the normal attack tables
when they threw sand in an opponent's eyes? I kid you not).
Let me say, though, that if this randomness is not essential to your
enjoyment of the game, then diceless RPG's work really well. I have
really enjoyed diceless games. Note that while Amber has some problems
(its "good stuff" and "Bad stuff" seems tacked on and jars with the
setting/novels upon which it is base, as well as being far too important
to the story, IMHO).
I, for one, found diceless the way to go for the story-heavy RPG's I
usually run. I'd recommend rec.games.frp.advocacy, too. The regulars
there can give you a thorough pros and cons argument.
LoneRogue
Hmm... this system sounds intriguing to say the least... I am beginnig to seriously
consider buying Amber to see exactly how it works... please do tell me more about the
campaign setting of Amber and typical plots so that I may have a better idea of the
game...
LoneRogue
LoneRogue
woodelf
In article <893208932.137681@nn1>, "smile" <sm...@swipnet.se> wrote:
> I like rules-light and dice-less systems like those found in Over the Edge,
> Theatrix, Castle Falkenstein, Everway, Control, Epiphany and Amber. (I haven
> ’t read all of these books.) I also like some of the roleplaying concepts
> found in these games. Any suggestions on any other game-system I might like?
SAGA is fairly rules-light, though a bit wonky. FUDGE can be as
rules-light as you want it, and can even be diceless. other than that,
you seem to have pretty much found them all. (well, there's a whole
'nother class of rules-light games that are nothing like those you've
mentioned: Lost Souls, Feng Shui, Star Wars, Toon, Og, d6--but i'm not
sure you'd like any of them.)
woodelf <*>
nbar...@students.wisc.edu
http://www.upl.cs.wisc.edu/~woodelf
Wouldn't it be awful if life *were* fair, and we really deserved all the
terrible things that happened to us? --Marcus Cole
Frank J. Perricone
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 21:44:00 -0400, LoneRogue <lone...@geocities.com>
wrote:
> > I like rules-light and dice-less systems like those found in Over the Edge,
> > Theatrix, Castle Falkenstein, Everway, Control, Epiphany and Amber. (I haven
> > ’t read all of these books.) I also like some of the roleplaying concepts
> > found in these games. Any suggestions on any other game-system I might like?
>
> Diceless system??? Maybe it's lack of imagination or corruption by
> "traditional" roleplaying games that uses dice, but, how in Hades can you play
> without dice rolls?
> Please explain, for you my friend have taunted my curiosity... :-)
Most of the diceless systems out there are not at all diceless, they just
use cards or other sources of randomness. The rest simply don't have an
element of chance. If two people compete, the same one will win every
time. All story developments are decided by the GM. (Many would argue
that the GM becomes the randomizer: if you walk into a shop, is the person
tending the shop, who is utterly meaningless to the story, male or female?
The GM has to 'decide' now... depending on how much the GM planned out
before and how much is relevant to the story, this can look a lot like dice
games without the dice, too.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: public key: finger hawt...@maple.sover.net, or on my web page
iQB1AwUBNT3NGsyfEemBueK1AQH0zwMAqGW7vNV8q+bJxyTVrj5Rhlc5elMppdSn
dbpls7F2Ryv9cp0xjrfh+1FgCwYjwexgPnGEjUPXUwo0QZPH5ChQ2BbcrAxtImdh
Vnh6k8jfb8nMqPJ7SSRv9bTKE12svNpT
=lHs0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
* Frank J. Perricone * hawt...@sover.net * http://www.sover.net/~hawthorn
Just because we aren't all the same doesn't mean we have nothing in common
Just because we have something in common doesn't mean we're all the same
m...@ottawa.com
LoneRogue <lone...@geocities.com> wrote in article
<353D78CE...@geocities.com>...
I would recommend Theatrix over Amber in the "pure" diceless front. It's
suited to a wider variety of settings than Amber is and gives, in my opinion,
more useful information on running diceless games. (That's assuming you can
find Theatrix anywhere....) When I first encountered the concept of diceless
gaming (from Amber), I hated it on sight and playing games only worsened my
impression. It took Ephiphany (for which c.f. below) to reverse my opinion
of the concept. Then I read Theatrix and quite enjoyed the experience.
If you want something which retains a bit more of the "surprise factor" you
cited earlier, picking up a copy of Epiphany might be a better bet. It is a
diceless game, but it has a resolution mechanism which can still cause
surprises for everyone (including the GM). There's a review of Epiphany
available at my web page (you'll have to download a ZIP file to get to it):
http://www.igs.net/~mtr/. It goes into more detail on the system and its
setting.
If you want a taste of what diceless could be like without stepping over the
edge, you might consider picking up... erm... Over the Edge. Many of the
ideas of diceless gaming permeate Over the Edge, but it does have a dice-
based resolution mechanism which you can apply as you see fit. You can play
mostly diceless with a bit of die rolling. You can trivially play completely
diceless. You can play dice-heavy.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
ed
The noble Tim Dedeaux <tded...@csc.mc.edu> spake on the day of 22 Apr
1998 04:26:09 GMT:
>smile <sm...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>> I like rules-light and dice-less systems like those found in Over the Edge,
>> Theatrix, Castle Falkenstein, Everway, Control, Epiphany and Amber. (I haven
>> ’t read all of these books.) I also like some of the roleplaying concepts
>> found in these games. Any suggestions on any other game-system I might like?
>
>Wow. I think you've just about nailed it. Hrm. I can't think of any
>others off the bat (Corps is - no, that's like GURPS with 50% less
>headaches, never mind). I think you may have most of the games for now.
>
>Chaosium games have relatively light mechanics, mostly, especially Call of
>Cthulhu (Did you know there was an alt.sex.cthulu? There is not enough
>money in the world to get me to subscribe to a group with a name like
>that! - disclaimer:
There is indeed, if subscribing you'll need a filter to separate the
signal from noise, as being on the alt.sex hierarchy it gets a
phenomenal amount of sex spam.
What you'd need is a WATCH filter to accept [POD] subject lines and to
kill everything else.
Better yet to go to alt.horrot.cthulhu
ed
--
edh...@equus.demon.co.uk _//// http://www.equus.demon.co.uk/
o_/o /// For devilbunnies, Diplomacy, RPGS,
<*> __\ ///__ Conspiring Rodents and other stuff!
Steve Mading
About randomless games (a term I prefer to diceless games, since
dice aren't the only kind of random number generator, and what
matters is the lack of randomness, not the tool that was used to
produce the randomness.), I fail to understand what the thrill
is. You *know* what's going to happen. "I am better at fighting
than my opponent, therefore there is absolutely nothing to fear
in this combat. He can't get in a lucky shot, since there is no
such thing in this game". Or, "I am worse at fighting than my
opponent, therefore I have a 0% chance of winning a fight."
--
Steve Mading: mad...@execpc.com http://www.execpc.com/~madings
GMSkarka
Steve Mading wrote:
>About randomless games (a term I prefer to diceless games, since
>dice aren't the only kind of random number generator, and what
>matters is the lack of randomness, not the tool that was used to
>produce the randomness.), I fail to understand what the thrill
>is. You *know* what's going to happen. "I am better at fighting
>than my opponent, therefore there is absolutely nothing to fear
>in this combat. He can't get in a lucky shot, since there is no
>such thing in this game". Or, "I am worse at fighting than my
>opponent, therefore I have a 0% chance of winning a fight."
This is true, if taken on it's basic level. But, if the players can think of a
way to change the situation, the paradigm shifts. I'll use an example from
AMBER--One character has the highest Warfare, one has the highest Strength.
The character with the highest Warfare will ALWAYS WIN--but only in a
straight-up fight. If the High-Strength player can figure out a way to cancel
out his opponents ability--to level the playing field, if you will, then that's
a different story alltogether.
This style of play definately makes the players think about what they're doing
alot more than standard randomized systems.
But hey--it's a matter of taste.
Gareth-Michael Skarka
Jack-of-all-Trades, Master of Some.
GMSk...@aol.com
Kirby Krueger
In article <6hl9im$3...@newsops.execpc.com>,
Steve Mading <mad...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
>
>About randomless games (a term I prefer to diceless games, since
>dice aren't the only kind of random number generator, and what
>matters is the lack of randomness, not the tool that was used to
>produce the randomness.), I fail to understand what the thrill
>is. You *know* what's going to happen. "I am better at fighting
>than my opponent, therefore there is absolutely nothing to fear
>in this combat. He can't get in a lucky shot, since there is no
>such thing in this game". Or, "I am worse at fighting than my
>opponent, therefore I have a 0% chance of winning a fight."
Well, yeah, I could see how that would be dull. In my experience,
randomless games are never run quite like this.
Usually, for one, the games aren't combat-centric. You don't need a
lot of random numbers to play out the interaction with the mayor - you
need to talk to the GM. Now, the whole question of player social skills
overshadowing the charactes is valid, but the lack of randomness isn't
that important.
When a traditionally dice-heavy event, such as a fight, does break out,
randomless games tend to take the situation much more into account than
a diced game. So Mr. T's coming at you, and you're playing Webster. Okay,
you can't win. But, you can throw dirt in his eyes and try and run away.
You can scramble up to the top of the train quicker than he can. You
can beg for mercy.
And, often, even if there are numbers, the player doesn't know them. I
may be Inigo Montoya, great swordsman. When Zorro comes upon us, can I
beat him? Maybe. It's probably close numbers-wise, so as the GM, I'd
have the strength of the player's descriptions of the combat be the
deciding factor. And even if the GM knows that Zorro will win from the
start, it can be a fun swordfight, full of narrative goodness, and the
player will learn that next time, they'll need to be more clever to beat
him.
The trick, really, is to get away from the ideas that 'this is a game', and
get more in the head of the characters. When faced with a situation that
you can't win, what do you do? A typical 'gamer' solution would be to
roll the dice and hope you are lucky. In a randomless situation, you have
to make your own luck - you can win, but not head-on. You have to be
smarter, and better.
Randomless games really have to be played differently, and they aren't
going to fulfill all the various reasons people play games. They _are_
good for puzzle-solving, deep in character roleplay, and narrative heavy
resolution. They aren't good for powergaming (which is a fine reason to
game, if your group isn't opposed to it), 'epic' feel, inexperienced GMs,
combat-heavy games, social gaming (gaming as purely a social activity),
and various other things. The lack of randomness does _not_ take out
the suspense - most of the time, you don't know if you'll succeed or not,
and the GM doesn't know if you'll come up with a way to succeed either.
It does make you think more before getting into a fight - if you go up
against a better opponent, you can't rely on the dice to get you out.
--
Kirby Krueger O- kir...@best.com
<*> "Most .sigs this small can't open their own jump gate."
LoneRogue
Kirby Krueger wrote:
--
Kirby Krueger O- kir...@best.com
<*> "Most .sigs this small can't open their own jump gate."
I'm all fine with that, but your explanation sounds like the only dice system around is AD&D or other systemes like it.Take Ars Magica for example. While still a dice game, you don't go into a fight lightly... and you don't rely on luck to succeed because it's way too risky, the game being very lethal. So I think that, while your argumant may be very true for diceless games, it is the level of danger (like "Can you be killed by an arrow or would it just reduce your HP by a tenth?") rather than the fact that there is no randomness that encourages thinked strategies and rationnalization before a battle.
Brian Wong
Alot of discussion of Amber it seems.
I'd also recommend 'Theatrix' for the 'Generic Universal RPG' of the diceless
crowd.
They published one setting book as well; but it's for an NC-17
fantasy setting licensed from the comic book, "Ironwood". It does however
have some useful add ons for handling magic which could be well adopted out.
Theatrix had a very neat system of task resolution that dealt
with examining the needs of the plot, the effort put in, and how much the GM
wanted things to progress at a particular point.
Tasks where resolved using a flowchart that took this factors into
account along with one's rating in the situation (a 1 to 10 value).
I haven't actually done any diceless RPGing myself save for in PBeM
format. It takes the right set of players and GM. Something I may or may not
have in my current group.
As for diceless in a diced game, I run a Champions game wherin I go
very rules light and skip most of the dice rolling out of combat. Players
have yet to seem to care.
Paul Andrew King
In article <893208932.137681@nn1>,
"smile" <sm...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>
>I like rules-light and dice-less systems like those found in Over the Edge,
>Theatrix, Castle Falkenstein, Everway, Control, Epiphany and Amber. (I haven
>’t read all of these books.) I also like some of the roleplaying concepts
>found in these games. Any suggestions on any other game-system I might like?
>
Nexus : The Infinite City (if you can find a copy)
The Whispering Vault
Possibly Talislanta, although I haven't read the latest edition.
--
"Hullo clouds, hullo sky, hullo pile of severed human heads," said Major
Basil Fotherington-Thomas.
(Eugene Byrne & Kim Newman "Teddy-Bear's Picnic")
Replace "nospam" with "morat" to reply
Paul K.
Paul Andrew King
In article <199804220246...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
tria...@aol.com (Triad3204) wrote:
>Of course, this pertains only to "truly diceless" systems -- where there is no
>random element. Everway, for example, relies on cards to provide the same
>function as dice. As does Deadlands, I believe.
They are very different. In Everway the cards are pseudo-Tarot cards, and
the GM draws a card and interprets it - there are no numbers, so the effect
is qualitative rather than quantitative. It is up to the GM whether to use
the cards or diceless resolution.
In Castle Falkenstein each player has a hand - of ordinary playing cards -
and chooses which card to play. The card has a numeric value depending on
suit and face value. (IIRC Saga is similar, but has it's own deck and
allows the GM to do an Everway-like interpretation instead of using the
card value.)
Deadlands also uses dice, and (again IIRC) when it does use cards the
player is attempting to draw a good poker hand which produces a
quantitative result.
For my own purposes, I find that Everway's Fortune Deck combines the best
aspects of a "regular" diced game and of diceless games.
Triad3204
>About randomless games (a term I prefer to diceless games, since
>dice aren't the only kind of random number generator, and what
>matters is the lack of randomness, not the tool that was used to
>produce the randomness.), I fail to understand what the thrill
>is. You *know* what's going to happen. "I am better at fighting
>than my opponent, therefore there is absolutely nothing to fear
>in this combat. He can't get in a lucky shot, since there is no
>such thing in this game". Or, "I am worse at fighting than my
>opponent, therefore I have a 0% chance of winning a fight."
Go back. Read my message. Then reply. You'll have a smaller chance of putting
your foot in your mouth that way.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Triad3204
>I'm all fine with that, but your explanation sounds like the only dice system
>around is AD&D or other systemes like it.Take Ars Magica for example. While
>still a dice game, you don't go into a fight lightly... and you don't rely on
>luck to succeed because it's way too risky, the game being very lethal. So I
>think that, while your argumant may be very true for diceless games, it is
>the
>level of danger (like "Can you be killed by an arrow or would it just reduce
>your HP by a tenth?") rather than the fact that there is no randomness that
>encourages thinked strategies and rationnalization before a battle.
That may be true for diced games. For randomless/diceless games the reason you
have to think things through is because you don't have the potential crutch of
the dice -- if you're the type that relies on the dice to tell you what's going
on, then you aren't going to be happy in a randomless game (and, therefore,
won't be playing it).
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
LoneRogue
BUT, I do realise that not all players are like this. So, I think Amber and the other systmes can be used to teach the "real" meaning (IMO, of course) of roleplaying, which is essential. After that, I think dice or diceless is just a matter of taste...
Triad3204 wrote:
>I'm all fine with that, but your explanation sounds like the only dice system
>around is AD&D or other systemes like it.Take Ars Magica for example. While
>still a dice game, you don't go into a fight lightly... and you don't rely on
>luck to succeed because it's way too risky, the game being very lethal. So I
>think that, while your argumant may be very true for diceless games, it is
>the
>level of danger (like "Can you be killed by an arrow or would it just reduce
>your HP by a tenth?") rather than the fact that there is no randomness that
>encourages thinked strategies and rationnalization before a battle.
That may be true for diced games. For randomless/diceless games the reason you
Thomas N. Bagwell
Tim Dedeaux wrote in message <6hjrh1$st0$1...@ox.mc.edu>...
>smile <sm...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>> I like rules-light and dice-less systems like those found in Over the
Edge,
>> Theatrix, Castle Falkenstein, Everway, Control, Epiphany and Amber. (I
haven
>> ’t read all of these books.) I also like some of the roleplaying concepts
>> found in these games. Any suggestions on any other game-system I might
like?
You might check out Darkurthe: Legends if you can find a copy. It's
currently out of print, but there are occasional copies lurking about local
gaming stores. It's not as rules-lite as Epiphany or Amber, but many things
that other systems devote chapters to nailing down mechanics for are left to
GM discretion. There are rules/mechanics where they are helpful and
suggestions otherwise.
>Wow. I think you've just about nailed it. Hrm. I can't think of any
>others off the bat (Corps is - no, that's like GURPS with 50% less
>headaches, never mind). I think you may have most of the games for now.
CORPS is worth checking out, certainly. Dice are often not needed, and the
rules
are very well thought out. I feel it qualifies as "rules-lite" if only
because the entire system
is in one 132 page rulebook that has a complete Table of Contents AND an
Index. Plus, it manages to cover concepts and situations that other books
have entire supplements for.
Tom Bagwell
Scott and Maureen Lesher
smile wrote in message <893208932.137681@nn1>...
>I like rules-light and dice-less systems like those found in Over the Edge,
>Theatrix, Castle Falkenstein, Everway, Control, Epiphany and Amber. (I
haven
>’t read all of these books.) I also like some of the roleplaying concepts
>found in these games. Any suggestions on any other game-system I might
like?
>
I'm very partial to GURPS. While it initially appears to be very complex,
the basics of the system are simple, but comprehensive and effective. If
you like your rules REALLY light, Steve Jackson Games is about to come out
with a book based on some of Terry Pratchett's (?) books that will include a
stripped down version of the GURPS rules (referred to as GURPS Lite). You
may want to check it out.
Disruptor
smile wrote:
>
> I like rules-light and dice-less systems like those found in Over the Edge,
> Theatrix, Castle Falkenstein, Everway, Control, Epiphany and Amber. (I haven
> ’t read all of these books.) I also like some of the roleplaying concepts
> found in these games. Any suggestions on any other game-system I might like?
T$R(it is one of their better ones). When I got it it was $5 book and
uses the old paper, scicors(sp?), stone game to resolve conflcit.
On that note: Has anyone other than me ever played the game
Aristotle@Threshold
>> Diceless system??? Maybe it's lack of imagination or corruption by
>>"traditional" roleplaying games that uses dice, but, how in Hades can you
>>play without dice rolls?
>>Please explain, for you my friend have taunted my curiosity... :-)
Well, you focus on the story and the explanations of what is going on. Also,
people might have various skills and the gamemaster decides if your skill,
stat, etc. is good enough to be successful at what you are trying. You get
bonus points for how well you can describe what you are doing, as well as for
the circumstances.
-Aristotle@Threshold
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
VISIT THRESHOLD ONLINE! High Fantasy Role Playing Game!
Player run clans, guilds, businesses, legal system, nobility, missile
combat, detailed religions, rich, detailed roleplaying environment.
http://www.threshold.counseltech.com
telnet://threshold.counseltech.com:23
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Triad3204
>The more I look at it, and the more I realise how much teaching potential has
>the
>diceless system. I think the reason why I didn't see what's so great about
>diceless
>systems is that all that it encourages, I already do first, before even
>thinking
>about the existence of dices.
>BUT, I do realise that not all players are like this. So, I think Amber and
>the
>other systmes can be used to teach the "real" meaning (IMO, of course) of
>roleplaying, which is essential. After that, I think dice or diceless is just
>a
>matter of taste...
Oh yeah. Definitely in my experience there reaches a point the system in
question becomes increasingly intransient in how the game is actually played. I
tend to use a diceless system in situations where I want numbers to be almost
completely out of the game (if not entirely -- I am planning to run an Amber
campaign where, after initial creation, the statistics of the characters will
be hidden even from their players, who will develop an intuitive sense for how
good they are in the world -- the structure is still there, but hidden).
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Tim Dedeaux
Disruptor <math...@gte.net> wrote:
> smile wrote:
(Snip TSR's DARKSWORD game)
> On that note: Has anyone other than me ever played the game
Oh, my! I don't believe it! I loved that game! My first really longterm
game was in that (I played D&D a little and had a few Marvel games, but
that was a good game). I even played it with my *parents,* would ya
believe (small town, few kids, so I had my Marvel group and my Darksword
group :). It was also one of my first experiments with "real roleplaying
(tm)" I will keep that game until it or I fall apart. :)
Timothy Isn't it good to have friends, if only for a little while?
Dedeaux Londo Mollari
tdedeaux J. Michael Straczynski's "Babylon 5"
@mc.edu "Acts of Sacrifice"
Tim Dedeaux
Steve Mading <mad...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
> About randomless games (a term I prefer to diceless games, since
> dice aren't the only kind of random number generator, and what
> matters is the lack of randomness, not the tool that was used to
> produce the randomness.),
> I fail to understand what the thrill
> is. You *know* what's going to happen. "I am better at fighting
> than my opponent, therefore there is absolutely nothing to fear
> in this combat.
First - that's one of the big things about diceless games - you *Do Not*
let the players know how powerful the NPC's are! So, if the game is done
right, there's no way to know for sure "I am better at fighting than my
opponent." Even if you fought before, you don't know for sure. "I won
last time, but maybe he was toying with me, or maybe he was sick, or
wounded. Has he gotten well since then? Learned combat better? Does he
have magic backing him up? Magical items? Kevlar? Uh - oh."
Besides, many of the same dirty tricks used by inferior opponents against
superior opponents in the real world are still available. One NPC holds
you off while the other gets you with a taser/gun/wand of whatever/ash and
ground pepper to the face (*THAT's* what I loved about Palladium - it had
rules for medieval pepper spray ;)
> He can't get in a lucky shot, since there is no
> such thing in this game".
There can be. Getting a "lucky shot" can be handled more ways that
rolling dice (the laws of physics handle it nicely in our world
/mode=annoying smartaleck/). Actually, though, the lucky die roll thing
is mostly out. That doesn't mean there are no surprises, though.
Concealed weapons, dirty tricks, setups, traps, poison, magic . . . all
these things can come in at the last moment, turning the tide of battle.
> Or, "I am worse at fighting than my
> opponent, therefore I have a 0% chance of winning a fight."
I've had players tell me the diceless games I've GMed had a significantly
larger thrill factor than the diced ones (and I for one agreed) due to the
fast pace not having to monkey with dice and mechanics allowed and due to
the complete lack of knowledge of how powerful the bad guys were (we just
became vampires this week - can we take out those hunters? There are
three of us, and we're armed: can we take out that older vamp? <blam
blam blam blam> nope, better run).
Diceless gaming is not for everybody or every campaign (story-based and
cinematic campaigns work well, while simulationist games can be a bit of a
struggle, to put it mildly), but I can assure you a high thrill factor is
possible. Description and pacing are the key elements - don't let the
players *breathe* much less think while they're fighting (basically do it
real time, or as close as you can without trampling them) - that will keep
them going.
If you *really* want to get their attention, kill off someone (even a PC)
early on (early enough the player can get back into the game with a new PC
quickly, if you off a PC). In the last big diceless game we ran, after a
lot of work and well-done horror (that's what my players told me) getting
to the top of a condemned (in more ways than one) building, the PC's got
to the roof just in time to see their mentor shot down by his progeny's
thralls (Morgana, largely based on Divia from "Forever Knight"). (note:
Glock 19's with incendiary rounds were used, full auto; 33 round clips).
They *just* managed to get away with their lives, having to jump many
stories to the ground below.
This was fairly early on in the adventure, just long enough for them to
really miss the guy that got killed. They never once looked at stats (I
made sure they didn't have anything to look at, aiming for total
immersion) and said "well, our stats are between this thrall's and that
vampire's, so we can do this, this, and this, but not that." It didn't
happen. I used enough description and breakneck pacing to prevent it.
I have been repeatedly told that the game went well, and that the thrill
factor was not a problem.
Diceless roleplaying doesn't suit every campaign or every person. Still,
it does not suffer from many of the weaknesses ascribed to it by some of
the people on this newsgroup. It does have its problems, but the thrill
factor hasn't been one of them, in my experience. Your mileage may vary.
Good luck, whatever style you play.
Red
Brian Wong wrote:
> As for diceless in a diced game, I run a Champions game wherin I go
> very rules light and skip most of the dice rolling out of combat. Players
> have yet to seem to care.
I have noticed that too - I struggled to convince one group of player to
try diceless gameing, and they eventually agreed to give it a go. Once
the action started, they soon forgot that there wer no dice to fondle
and just got stuck in. Really, it had no impact on them at all, and I
do think it helped them retain immersion as they did not have to drop
out of character to do calcualtions or anything. I also found that
diceless play lets you be fairly free with the round structure and hence
iniiative, movement rates, cyclic rate of weapons, etc - I found it
prompted me to think more tactically than mechanically.
Red
Disruptor wrote:
>
> On that note: Has anyone other than me ever played the game
I had a copy, but unfortunately lost it. I thought it was a very
interesting idea, and forshadowed M:tA in some ways. Thought the system
was a strange of contrast of mechanical complexity and mechanical
simplicity, but it certainly had a lot of intersting ideas and fresh
approaches.
sim...@msi-uk.com
In article <353D7938...@geocities.com>,
lone...@geocities.com wrote:
>
> Hmm... this system sounds intriguing to say the least... I am beginnig to
seriously
> consider buying Amber to see exactly how it works... please do tell me more
about the
> campaign setting of Amber and typical plots so that I may have a better idea
of the
> game...
Amber is set in the worlds described in Roger Zelazny's Amber novels.
The Amber universe consists of two opposing powers, Pattern and the Logrus,
which personify the forces of order and chaos. The interactions of pattern and
logrus create the infinite worlds of shadow - entire universes with their own
worlds, physical and magical laws, and inhabitants. The kingdom of Amber is
located at one end of the universe, close to the primal pattern, and the
courts of chaos are located at the other. The courts of chaos and amber
compete to rule the cosmos, using the powers of pattern and logrus to bend the
realities of shadow to their will.
The Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game works in this environment largely because
characters in Amber are overblown and heroic. The atmosphere is very
shakesperian in some ways - dramatic and tragic. It is unlikely that two
character will be evenly matched in any one way - Strength, Psyche, Warfare or
Endurance, and their magical talents could be totaly different - shape
shifting, conjuring, sorcery, pattern imprint, logrus mastery, trump (the
magic of images and communication). Victory and defeat in any given conflict
will depend on how well the characters use their own advantages, and exploit
their opponent's weaknesses. Mere chance has little to do with it.
Simon Hibbs
sim...@msi-uk.com
Steve Mading
Triad3204 (tria...@aol.com) wrote:
: >About randomless games (a term I prefer to diceless games, since
: >dice aren't the only kind of random number generator, and what
: >matters is the lack of randomness, not the tool that was used to
: >produce the randomness.), I fail to understand what the thrill
: >is. You *know* what's going to happen. "I am better at fighting
: >than my opponent, therefore there is absolutely nothing to fear
: >such thing in this game". Or, "I am worse at fighting than my
: >opponent, therefore I have a 0% chance of winning a fight."
: Go back. Read my message. Then reply. You'll have a smaller chance of putting
: your foot in your mouth that way.
I did read it. That's whay prompted me to write the above.
I just don't see the difference between randomless systems and
ruleless systems. Once you say that it's pretty much up to the
GM to compare the stats and make a judgement call, then what the
hell are the rules there for? It isn't any different than just
throwing away all the rules altogether. "Compare PC's stat X to
NPC's stat Y. Bigger stat wins, unless you don't want it to because
you liked the PC's description, or hated it." You might as well
just say, "Whatever the GM wants to have happen will happen" and
leave it at that.
Steve Mading
GMSkarka (gmsk...@aol.com) wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
: >About randomless games (a term I prefer to diceless games, since
: >dice aren't the only kind of random number generator, and what
: >matters is the lack of randomness, not the tool that was used to
: >produce the randomness.), I fail to understand what the thrill
: >is. You *know* what's going to happen. "I am better at fighting
: >than my opponent, therefore there is absolutely nothing to fear
: >in this combat. He can't get in a lucky shot, since there is no
: >such thing in this game". Or, "I am worse at fighting than my
: >opponent, therefore I have a 0% chance of winning a fight."
: This is true, if taken on it's basic level. But, if the players can think of a
: way to change the situation, the paradigm shifts. I'll use an example from
: AMBER--One character has the highest Warfare, one has the highest Strength.
: The character with the highest Warfare will ALWAYS WIN--but only in a
: straight-up fight. If the High-Strength player can figure out a way to cancel
: out his opponents ability--to level the playing field, if you will, then that's
: a different story alltogether.
: This style of play definately makes the players think about what they're doing
: alot more than standard randomized systems.
: But hey--it's a matter of taste.
But this is an effect of the fact that there are different elements
to the combat system, and you can be good at some and bad at others.
Randomless systems hardly have a monopoly on that sort of thing.
In a randomless system, if two characters with certain stats fight
in a certain way, the outcome is deterministic, (not taking into
account GM fudging, which I admit is a major factor in these
games). If character A does action X, then character B does action
Y, then character A does action Z, etc... the result is totally
deterministic and predictable. The only way to not make it so is
to have GM fudging.
Yes, its true that if you take different actions, the result is
different, but it's still deterministic given a particular choice
of actions on both sides. With a well designed randoimized system,
it wouldn't be *certain* who would win, but it could be a situation
where it is *likely* that one person will win with, oh say 90%
certainty. With a poorly designed randomized system, yes it only
comes down to one die roll, but guess what, I don't like those
games. Just because it's random doesn't mean you can't have
things that skew the probabilities for different kinds of offenses
and defenses.
And the fact that the information is hidden from the players doesn't
change the fundamental fact that the system is determanistic.
Brett Slocum
The Illuminated Masters let "smile" <sm...@swipnet.se> write:
>I like rules-light and dice-less systems like those found in Over the Edge,
>Theatrix, Castle Falkenstein, Everway, Control, Epiphany and Amber. (I haven
>’t read all of these books.) I also like some of the roleplaying concepts
>found in these games. Any suggestions on any other game-system I might like?
Four rules-light games I'd recommend (and all for free on the net),
though not all entirely diceless:
CORPS (Complete Omniversal Role-Playing System) from Greg Porter and BTRC
CORPS in a Nutshell is available free online:
http://members.aol.com/btrc/html/archive/freemain.html
And three from the master of rules-light roleplaying, Steffan O'Sullivan:
FUDGE (Freeform Universal Do-it-yourself Gaming Engine)
(published by Grey Ghost Games and also available online):
http://www.io.com/~sos/fudge.html
Sherpa (published by Two Tigers Games) - playable while hiking!
An early working version available online at:
http://www.io.com/~sos/rpg/s2.html
SLUG (Simple, Laid-back Universal Game) - 1 page of rules! :
ftp://oz.plymouth.edu/pub/fudge/slug.txt
---
Brett Slocum, slocum AT io DOT com, unSPAM address to reply
http://www.io.com/~slocum/
Tekumel Home Page: www.io.com/~slocum/tekumel.html
GURPS Home Page: www.io.com/~slocum/gurps.html
sim...@msi-uk.com
In article <6ho6uu$j...@newsops.execpc.com>,
mad...@earth.execpc.com (Steve Mading) wrote:
> I did read it. That's whay prompted me to write the above.
> I just don't see the difference between randomless systems and
> ruleless systems. Once you say that it's pretty much up to the
> GM to compare the stats and make a judgement call, then what the
> hell are the rules there for? It isn't any different than just
> throwing away all the rules altogether. "Compare PC's stat X to
> NPC's stat Y. Bigger stat wins, unless you don't want it to because
> you liked the PC's description, or hated it." You might as well
> just say, "Whatever the GM wants to have happen will happen" and
> leave it at that.
> --
> Steve Mading: mad...@execpc.com http://www.execpc.com/~madings
If you don't trust your GM, why are you playing her game?
The argument you make applies just as much to diced games, after all the ref
can give the NPCs whatever stats, magic, skills, level, hit points, etc he or
she likes.
Diceless gaming suits some genres and campaign styles better than others
though. In Zelazny's Amber novels, nothing happens due to random chance. Every
seemingly impossible plot twist or turn of fate has a reason, because that's
how the world works. The game system evokes the same atmosphere perfectly.
If I want to play Star Wars though, I'll use the SW game system, dice and
all, because the game system again captures the atmosphere of the films
perfectly. Likewise with Feng Shui, or Call of Cthulhu.
However, having played diceless (or randomless games) has given me a
perspective on how to roleplay that I find invaluable whatever game I'm
playing, or especialy running as a GM. I'd recommend it to anyone.
Simon Hibbs
sim...@msi-uk.com
In article <353D5F2F...@geocities.com>,
lone...@geocities.com wrote:
> But, doesn't it destroy the random factor? I can you reproduce the feeling
of risk
> that comes with rolling dice to check your actions?
You never know just how skilled, or strong, or resilient your opponent is, or
what tactics or tricks they might use. Thta's just in combat - diceless
systems work best where the main motivating theme of the game is the plot and
interaction with other players and NPCs. Once you've played games like this,
the thrill of seeing whether you hit with your battleaxe on a roll of the dice
suddenly seems rather shallow.
My opinion, anyway. I still play diced games, but the plot is where the action
is.
sim...@msi-uk.com
In article <6hl9im$3...@newsops.execpc.com>,
mad...@earth.execpc.com (Steve Mading) wrote:
>
>
> About randomless games (a term I prefer to diceless games, since
> dice aren't the only kind of random number generator, and what
> matters is the lack of randomness, not the tool that was used to
> produce the randomness.), I fail to understand what the thrill
> is. You *know* what's going to happen. "I am better at fighting
> than my opponent, therefore there is absolutely nothing to fear
> in this combat. He can't get in a lucky shot, since there is no
> such thing in this game". Or, "I am worse at fighting than my
> opponent, therefore I have a 0% chance of winning a fight."
The don't finght fair. perhaps he's got a better sword skill than you, but is
he stronger - perhaps you could try and close in and grapple him? Is he more
agile? Does he have a higher endurance - perhaps you can prolong the fight and
go defensive long enough to wear him out? What about using the terrain around
you to your advantage? Perhaps you can try to bluff him, or just distract him
for long enough to give you time to escape?
Diceless games force the players to capitalise on their advantages and exploit
their opponents weaknesses. The thrill of rolling dice is a poor substitute.
Phillip Hartzog
> Steve Mading wrote:
>
> >About randomless games (a term I prefer to diceless games, since
> >dice aren't the only kind of random number generator, and what
> >matters is the lack of randomness, not the tool that was used to
> >produce the randomness.), I fail to understand what the thrill
> >is. You *know* what's going to happen. "I am better at fighting
> >than my opponent, therefore there is absolutely nothing to fear
> >in this combat. He can't get in a lucky shot, since there is no
> >such thing in this game". Or, "I am worse at fighting than my
> >opponent, therefore I have a 0% chance of winning a fight."
actually you don't know what is going to happen. you may know how you
stack up against your family, but you don't know how you might stack up
against an unknown. and even with your family you will never know what
dirty tricks, gadgets or surprises they might have in store for you.
there is also what works out as a luck stat. if you have it in the
positive and your opponent in the negative, then things are likely to go
your way.
what i found was that my players were alot more cautious cause they
simply didn't know. they didn't know things like i have a 50% to hit, and
if i get hit there is maybe a 5% chance i'll actually take any damage.
when you have dice you can calculate odds. in Amber if you start losing a
fight you have to wonder how much better than me is he? is he just
holding back [you have to wonder this even if you are winning]? can i
outlast him by going defensive? does he have some other trick i should be
more worried about? bluff and fient become part of the game. it is hard
to bluff dice. if you failed and you rolled low, then you say its the
dice and attack again. if you fail in Amber you can't be sure why and you
take a much more realistic view.
to put Amber Ranks in perspective:
have you ever played chess against someone better than you. how often did
you win? say they are ten times better than you - should you win 16%,
10%, 5%, 1% of the time? odds are if you did win it was because the other
person was distracted, sick, wounded, or you had improved or found some
trick he didn't know. dice lets these outside effects determine the out
come, while Amber relys on the GM to shift the odds based on them. this
means the player has to try and shift the odds in his favor instead of
counted on the luck of dice [though i seen some count on their luck
stat].
btw the reason i used 10 times better above is because thats what the
difference in ranks in Amber represents, or some other noticable
difference in the level of ability. if two people of the same rank
contested then you would expect to see them swap victories back and forth
as if they were determined by random dice rolls. in fact the majority of
dice games represent people within the same Amber rank of skill, maybe up
or down one rank. for example three ranks are used to represent 'normal'
people - shadow/normal, chaos/olympic, amber/legendary. so almost all PCs
would be considered shadow rank with maybe one speciality being chaos.
what do you think your chances are to out spar a black belt?, the guy who
invented the martial art? these are what the differences in rank means in
Amber. sure you can do it, if they are really sick or you sucker punch
them or pull out a gun and shoot them.
Phillip
Tim Dedeaux
Steve Mading <mad...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
> Triad3204 (tria...@aol.com) wrote:
> I did read it. That's whay prompted me to write the above.
> I just don't see the difference between randomless systems and
> ruleless systems.
There's not much of one. Diceless games usually are a sort of easing into
the systemless gaming thing (one of the last chapters in Amber talks about
moving away from the published rules and going totally freeform as the
ultimate goal of the game). Diceless games with numerical stats do,
however, allow for a comparison of capabilities that's more precise than
those without, and so are very useful in some situations.
The main thing about most diceless RPG's is that they give extensive hints
about diceless *play,* which is a lot more important than diceless
*systems* (ever played D&D or Palladium diceless? I did once - it was
easy, because we knew the system well enough to know everybody's
capabilities).
> It isn't any different than just
> throwing away all the rules altogether. "Compare PC's stat X to
> NPC's stat Y. Bigger stat wins, unless you don't want it to because
> you liked the PC's description, or hated it." You might as well
> just say, "Whatever the GM wants to have happen will happen" and
> leave it at that.
Now that's an unfair generalization.
Timothy
Dedeaux "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king"
tdedeaux - Gerard Erasmus
@mc.edu
Bryant Berggren (Vox Ludator)
On 23 Apr 1998 06:41:05 GMT, Tim Dedeaux <tded...@csc.mc.edu> wrote:
>First - that's one of the big things about diceless games - you *Do Not*
>let the players know how powerful the NPC's are!
Frankly, you shouldn't being doing this in a game with dice, either,
at least not without good reason. Knowing what to keep confidential is
just A Good Thing for GMs across the board.
>There can be. Getting a "lucky shot" can be handled more ways that
>rolling dice (the laws of physics handle it nicely in our world
>/mode=annoying smartaleck/).
Which is why people use dice, since they function by those
aforementioned laws of physics. :/
>is mostly out. That doesn't mean there are no surprises, though.
>Concealed weapons, dirty tricks, setups, traps, poison, magic . . . all
>these things can come in at the last moment, turning the tide of battle.
True, but there will be /less/ surprises, since all of the above fall
into the massive realm of "stuff available regardless of gaming style"
-- so traditional gaming has all those surprises, /plus/ the
occasional lucky break.
>I've had players tell me the diceless games I've GMed had a significantly
>larger thrill factor than the diced ones (and I for one agreed) due to the
>fast pace not having to monkey with dice and mechanics allowed and due to
>the complete lack of knowledge of how powerful the bad guys were (we just
>became vampires this week - can we take out those hunters? There are
>three of us, and we're armed: can we take out that older vamp? <blam
>blam blam blam> nope, better run).
Obviously, this is just my opinion, but ... any "thrill factor" for me
would be killed by the loss of "virtuality". Part of the reason I game
is to put myself in the position of a fictional hero and experience
the adventure of my favorite genres without the intermediary of artist
and medium -- in effect, "conversational virtual reality". Ergo, I'm
not into "storytelling" in gaming -- the characters try to do what
they want, the GM referees it, the rules tell players and GM alike
whether "try = do", and the "story" /tells itself/.
In standard gaming, I consider GM fiat a necessary evil. Diceless
gaming puts the GM in the way, as an author instead of a arbiter.
Everything that happens in the game happens because the GM wants it
to, either explicitly (the GM says it happens) or implicitly (the GM
chooses not to negate it) -- that's the ultimate consequence of
fiat being the only engine powering the mechanics. The question I
ask myself in a diceless game isn't "is this guy more powerful than
me?", since it's a moot point. The proper question to ask is "Does the
GM really want me to succeed at this task, and if not, can I change
his mind?"
>If you *really* want to get their attention, kill off someone (even a PC)
>early on (early enough the player can get back into the game with a new PC
>quickly, if you off a PC).
Same kind of problem. To me, a GM should never be certain that he'll
be ABLE to kill off someone. A GM who kills a PC /by fiat/ has earned
a black mark against respectability.
>to the roof just in time to see their mentor shot down by his progeny's
>thralls (Morgana, largely based on Divia from "Forever Knight"). (note:
Wow, a Divia fan. :] Thought I was the only one.
--
Tim Dedeaux
Bryant Berggren (Vox Ludator) <vo...@theramp.net> wrote:
> On 23 Apr 1998 06:41:05 GMT, Tim Dedeaux <tded...@csc.mc.edu> wrote:
> Obviously, this is just my opinion, but ... any "thrill factor" for me
> would be killed by the loss of "virtuality". Part of the reason I game
> is to put myself in the position of a fictional hero and experience
> the adventure of my favorite genres without the intermediary of artist
> and medium -- in effect, "conversational virtual reality". Ergo, I'm
> not into "storytelling" in gaming -- the characters try to do what
> they want, the GM referees it, the rules tell players and GM alike
> whether "try = do", and the "story" /tells itself/.
Okay, we've just run into "simulationist" vs. "dramatist" style
differences. Diceless works best for dramatist and worst for
simulationist styles . . . this should be enough to kill this thread (a
sort of rec.games.frp.* version of Godwin's law). I don't recommend
diceless for simulationist play.
Short form definitions for anyone who doesn't know:
Dramatist: interested in telling a story; reality is 2nd place
Simulationist: interested in virtuality, verisimilitude, modelling
reality; story takes 2nd place.
There's nothing wrong with either, but they don't work well together.
That said, this line of reasoning can go one of two ways:
1) it can die, having said all it needs to say
2) it can drag out longer and mutate into *another* simulationist vs.
dramatist debate.
I vote for #1.
That said, I recommend clearly stating which type you are whenever you
start to play to avoid nasty assumption clashes.
> Wow, a Divia fan. :] Thought I was the only one.
There's a DiviantS homepage somewhere (Forever Knight faction) with
everything we know about her. Let me pull up Netscrape . . .
www.primenet.com/~mefein/divia.html
It's a nice page.
Happy hunting.
Steve Mading
sim...@msi-uk.com wrote:
: The don't finght fair. perhaps he's got a better sword skill than you, but is
: he stronger - perhaps you could try and close in and grapple him? Is he more
: agile? Does he have a higher endurance - perhaps you can prolong the fight and
: go defensive long enough to wear him out? What about using the terrain around
: you to your advantage? Perhaps you can try to bluff him, or just distract him
: for long enough to give you time to escape?
: Diceless games force the players to capitalise on their advantages and exploit
: their opponents weaknesses. The thrill of rolling dice is a poor substitute.
As I stated in a previous post, this has nothing whatsoever to do with
the fact that it is randomless, and everything to do with the fact that
the rules have different combat areas where you can be strong or weak
in. die-roll games can (and do) have this feature also. (i.e.
Champions).
Steve Mading
Phillip Hartzog (phi...@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
: have you ever played chess against someone better than you. how often did
: you win? say they are ten times better than you - should you win 16%,
: 10%, 5%, 1% of the time? odds are if you did win it was because the other
: person was distracted, sick, wounded, or you had improved or found some
: trick he didn't know. dice lets these outside effects determine the out
: come, while Amber relys on the GM to shift the odds based on them. this
: means the player has to try and shift the odds in his favor instead of
WHAT ODDS? How can you talk about "odds" with a randomless system?
: counted on the luck of dice [though i seen some count on their luck
: stat].
Steve Mading
Tim Dedeaux (tded...@csc.mc.edu) wrote:
: Short form definitions for anyone who doesn't know:
: Dramatist: interested in telling a story; reality is 2nd place
: Simulationist: interested in virtuality, verisimilitude, modelling
: reality; story takes 2nd place.
: There's nothing wrong with either, but they don't work well together.
The exception I take with this is that there are people (myself
included) who think that if a story is nonsensical, it isn't
interesting. And therefore a departure from modelling reality
in and of itself is damaging to the story. Therefore "less
believable" causes "less fun" in my head. This tends to break
the groupings you chose above. Reality and Story are not things
you have to comprimise between. They prop each other up, one
helps the other.
sba...@rsc.anu.edu
Triad3204 <tria...@aol.com> wrote:
>I would suggest picking up a copy of Amber. Even if you have no interest in
>playing the setting, the book contains some very nice explanations and
>explorations of the diceless style. Steal their system, rename the attributes
>to something appropriate to whatever you want to play (although they'll still
>need to be suitably) broad and give it a run. Four color heroes and the like
>would probably adapt very easily.
I have to say I consider this to be good advice, but then it is my
favourite diceless system. Of the two I've seen, Theatrix being the
other. :)
As someone who is currently in the process of adapting the Amber system to
a setting of my own, I'm curious as to whether anybody else has had any
success with doing this. People have mentioned that the Amber system
works well within the background material provided, which it does, but
what I'm curious about is how well the system stands up on its own,
without the Zelazny stuff.
My own setting is a modern-day immortals type of thing. I'd looked at
some of the other stuff that was available, and decided that what I wanted
was more an Amber style of game as opposed to something like In Nomine or
Storyteller stuff, both of which I'm quite fond of. I also wanted the
flexibility to be able to include a larger range of possible immortals and
supernaturals as characters, player or otherwise.
Naturally one of the first things I did was tone down the power level, as
restricting characters of Amber power level to one universe is cruel and
unusual punishment. :) I've also drawn on some White Wolf sources for a
vague but hopefully serviceable magic system, as the Amber system is
extremely background specific. If anybody is interested, I can mail them
the first iteration of the rules that I've nutted out. Of course, the
whole thing is assembled around my current group of players and may not
make complete sense outside of that context, but I don't think we're so
weird that it'll make no sense at all. :)
Anyway,
Stu.
---
You'll need to add '.au' to the end of my e-mail address to reply.
Sorry, but you know my reasons. :)
Tim Dedeaux
> Triad3204 <tria...@aol.com> wrote:
> I have to say I consider this to be good advice, but then it is my
> favourite diceless system. Of the two I've seen, Theatrix being the
> other. :)
> As someone who is currently in the process of adapting the Amber system to
> a setting of my own, I'm curious as to whether anybody else has had any
> success with doing this. People have mentioned that the Amber system
> works well within the background material provided, which it does, but
> what I'm curious about is how well the system stands up on its own,
> without the Zelazny stuff.
It needs a good bit of work. I used it for a series of vampire games,
inspired a lot more by Forever Knight, Highlander (the handling of
immortals and what they do with their lives), and Vampire Hunter D than
V:tM or Anne Rice. Very adventure-based. PCs were immortals (Dampyr -
half vampire, half mortal or the kids of two Dampyr) or vampires, with
differing goals. It was larger than life, with lots of modern day
swordfighting and longterm feuds.
My changes were these:
First, replace all the powers with the ones I want in the game (duh)
Some of these included Hypnosis (5 pts), Psychic Resistance (5),
Dominate other vampire (10), Blood Slaves (10), etc. Basic
Vampire stuff.
Second, start "Human" rank as 10 points, Chaos as 25, Amber as 35, etc.
This allowed a lot more range (without getting into -23 as a stat
number - aack) and "re-centered" the game around the power levels
I wanted. Endurance determined regeneration, of course.
Third, I ditched the "auction" (something I usually did in Amber) and
just went with 100 points.
Fourth, I separated Good Stuff, Bad Stuff, and saved experience points.
A person could have both Good and Bad stuff - meaning rapid
extremes of luck - or none. Good stuff points could not be
"Spent" on new powers or whatever, and experience points you
were "saving" up didn't make you lucky.
Fifth, I made people pay one or two points for an ability with a skill.
This was loosely done and pretty basic; it was just designed to
show that not *everybody* was a computer expert (being an
expert cost more, of course), and that with today's setting
being Immortal wasn't enough to know everything, because much
of what there is to know was discovered recently.
> My own setting is a modern-day immortals type of thing. I'd looked at
> some of the other stuff that was available, and decided that what I wanted
> was more an Amber style of game as opposed to something like In Nomine or
> Storyteller stuff, both of which I'm quite fond of. I also wanted the
> flexibility to be able to include a larger range of possible immortals and
> supernaturals as characters, player or otherwise.
Well, I can tell you that it worked when I did it. Separate folks out by
whatever "races" you want (if any), make a couple of (admittedly big)
changes, and run with it.
I would like to see your additions (my email's in the .sig :)
Timothy
Dedeaux In the kingdom of the mad, the half-sane man is king.
tdedeaux
@mc.edu
Lance
Triad3204 wrote:
> Oh yeah. Definitely in my experience there reaches a point the system in
> question becomes increasingly intransient in how the game is actually played. I
> tend to use a diceless system in situations where I want numbers to be almost
> completely out of the game (if not entirely -- I am planning to run an Amber
> campaign where, after initial creation, the statistics of the characters will
> be hidden even from their players, who will develop an intuitive sense for how
> good they are in the world -- the structure is still there, but hidden).
>
I have played in non diceless games that were run this way, including an aftermath
campaign in which we _never_ saw our characters, had never read the rules, and
were banned from doing so until the campaign was over. Gobs of fun! Also, gobs
of work for the gm...
--
Lance Berg
http://empyre.net
Bryan Bankhead
> Steve Mading <mad...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
x
> > It isn't any different than just
> > throwing away all the rules altogether. "Compare PC's stat X to
> > NPC's stat Y. Bigger stat wins, unless you don't want it to because
> > you liked the PC's description, or hated it." You might as well
> > just say, "Whatever the GM wants to have happen will happen" and
> > leave it at that.
That in a nutshell is the whole problem with diceless games. Not only
do I not like playing in a game where everything is GM whim, but I don't
like the additonal decision load.
Tim Dedeaux
> : Short form definitions for anyone who doesn't know:
> : Dramatist: interested in telling a story; reality is 2nd place
> : Simulationist: interested in virtuality, verisimilitude, modelling
> : reality; story takes 2nd place.
> : There's nothing wrong with either, but they don't work well together.
> The exception I take with this is that there are people (myself
> included) who think that if a story is nonsensical, it isn't
> interesting.
Let me explain this *one* more time, okay?
SECOND PLACE DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN DOES NOT EXIST!
BEING SIMULATIONIST IS NOT A SIN!
NOT BEING SIMULATIONIST IS NOT A SIN!
Okay, that should sum it up.
>And therefore a departure from modelling reality
> in and of itself is damaging to the story. Therefore "less
> believable" causes "less fun" in my head.
In your head. You fall into the simulationist camp. That's fine. Do not,
however, start making snide comments about the dramatist camp. That would
*not* be fine.
> This tends to break
> the groupings you chose above.
How? Which do you put first when there is a conflict (and trust me, there
will be). If it's "realism," you're simulationist. If it's "story,"
you're dramatist (if it's "fun of game," you're gamist, but that's another
kettle of fish altogether).
> Reality and Story are not things
> you have to comprimise between.
Oh, yeah? How much time do you take roleplaying the PC's going to the
bathroom, eating breakfast, flossing, etc? If you don't, you're
sacrificing realism. If you do, you're sacrificing story.
There is always abstraction because you cannot perfectly accurately model
reality in an RPG. Trust me, my roommate is a physics major, and the
kind of math needed to perfectly accurately model reality would require a
HP server quite a bit of time to solve.
For a common RPG combat manuever (guns) Airspeed + air density + exact
precision of powder in casing + cleanliness of barrel + quality of rifling
+ recoil + weight of person + strength in the specific muscle groups +
time taken in aiming + blood pressure + stress level + trigger pulls +
etc. all go into making a gunshot work. If you have to figure all of
those up (and many are situational based, so you can't just do it all
beforehand) you're going to hurt the story with a massive amount of
equations. If not, you've sacrificed some reality for story.
Now, a good balance can be struck, but exactly what a good balance is
varies by the person involved.
That said, those who put realism first are simulationists, and those who
put story first are dramatists.
>They prop each other up, one
> helps the other.
To a degree. Taken to an extreme either can kill the experience. A line
has to be drawn, and where it's drawn determines simulationist or
dramatist.
What you are implying, whether you know it or not, is that dramatists
don't exist - they're really just simulationists who don't do a "good" job
of modelling reality. You're wrong. There is a fundamentally different
approach to gaming, and it works very well for those who enjoy using it.
Timothy
Carl Perkins
In article <6hr70b$p...@newsops.execpc.com>, mad...@earth.execpc.com (Steve Mading) writes...
}Phillip Hartzog (phi...@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
}
}: have you ever played chess against someone better than you. how often did
}: you win? say they are ten times better than you - should you win 16%,
}: 10%, 5%, 1% of the time? odds are if you did win it was because the other
}: person was distracted, sick, wounded, or you had improved or found some
}: trick he didn't know. dice lets these outside effects determine the out
}: come, while Amber relys on the GM to shift the odds based on them. this
}: means the player has to try and shift the odds in his favor instead of
}
}WHAT ODDS? How can you talk about "odds" with a randomless system?
The odds of the GM deciding in your favor? It changes from measurable odds
with dice (assuming you know everything, sometimes the GM won't tell you
what number you are aiming to roll over or under which makes it hard to tell)
to the intrinsically unmeasurable odds of whether or not you'll be able to
convince the GM that your plan should work and the outcome should be something
along the lines of what you had in mind.
--- Carl
Thomas Lindgren
mad...@earth.execpc.com (Steve Mading) writes:
> WHAT ODDS? How can you talk about "odds" with a randomless system?
Have you ever placed a bet on, say, a horse race?
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren, Uppsala University
e-mail: tho...@csd.uu.se
http://www.csd.uu.se/~thomasl/
Andy Wills
Thomas Lindgren wrote:
>
> mad...@earth.execpc.com (Steve Mading) writes:
> > WHAT ODDS? How can you talk about "odds" with a randomless system?
>
> Have you ever placed a bet on, say, a horse race?
>
> Thomas
Umm...I'd consider horse races fairly random.
-Andy
Thomas Lindgren
Well, at least they are resolved without dice or other overt randomizers.
Yet people seem to be able of putting odds on the horses anyway.
"Statistics rather than probability", perhaps.
Alan T. Haley
>mad...@earth.execpc.com (Steve Mading) writes:
>> WHAT ODDS? How can you talk about "odds" with a randomless system?
>
>Have you ever placed a bet on, say, a horse race?
>
> Thomas
Yes, but the outcome there isn't as subject to the whim of one entity (i.e. the
gamemaster). If said horse race was being run in a randomless system, one
might be faster than the other, but if the GM wanted to, he could say that the
slower was the victor because the faster had a blwel problem, or was tired, or
any host of excuses.
Alan
Steve Mading
Thomas Lindgren (tho...@harpo.csd.uu.se) wrote:
: mad...@earth.execpc.com (Steve Mading) writes:
: > WHAT ODDS? How can you talk about "odds" with a randomless system?
: Have you ever placed a bet on, say, a horse race?
No. Bad example, I think gambling is a stupid thing to do, given
that the 'house' has to keep the odds in its favor to make money.
("Introducing The State Lottery: a tax on people who are bad at math.")
Anyway, a horse race doesn't have the announcer there to 'fudge' some
of the horses to make sure that the one he wants to win will win.
--
Steve Mading
Tim Dedeaux (tded...@csc.mc.edu) wrote:
: Steve Mading <mad...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
: >And therefore a departure from modelling reality
: > in and of itself is damaging to the story. Therefore "less
: > believable" causes "less fun" in my head.
: In your head. You fall into the simulationist camp. That's fine. Do not,
: however, start making snide comments about the dramatist camp. That would
: *not* be fine.
: > This tends to break
: > the groupings you chose above.
: How?
Your post is an example. You assume that it is somehow better "drama"
to have less realism, or that just because I like realism that I must
not like drama as much. This attitude assumes that the two are at
odds with each other. And it's *that* that I disagree with. They
are not at odds with each other. You don't have to sacrifice one to
get the other, despite what Hollywood keeps telling us.
: Which do you put first when there is a conflict (and trust me, there
: will be). If it's "realism," you're simulationist. If it's "story,"
: you're dramatist (if it's "fun of game," you're gamist, but that's another
: kettle of fish altogether).
: > Reality and Story are not things
: > you have to comprimise between.
: Oh, yeah? How much time do you take roleplaying the PC's going to the
: bathroom, eating breakfast, flossing, etc? If you don't, you're
: sacrificing realism. If you do, you're sacrificing story.
Omission of reality is not the same thing as overt contradiction of
reality.
Tim Dedeaux
Steve Mading <mad...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
> Tim Dedeaux (tded...@csc.mc.edu) wrote:
> : Steve Mading <mad...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
Okay...I'm going to play by your rules for one post. We'll assume there's
no such thing as dramatists and simulationists, and that the only people
who call themselves dramatists are those who suck at simulation and don't
want to admit it.
Explain to me how a piece of plastic with numbers on it is a better
arbiter of reality than someone who's shot guns, studied martial arts,
used computers, learned a little herbalism and first aid, read up on the
(most basic) physics of and useful strategies of space combat, etc.
Will you at least do that, and not answer my posts by arguing with my
premises again?
Christopher Casey
Much as I dislike getting into this debate ...
Bryan Bankhead wrote ...
Ahh ... but not all diceless games use the "bigger is better" rule. Just
because Amber (rock-paper-scissors) and Theatrix (give the players godlike
powers to dilute the GM's godlike power) both lean that way doesn't mean
it's the only way. Personally, I think it indicates a lack of imagination on
the part of the game designer.
Consider a regular diced role-playing game. The GM has ultimate power,
tempered only by the rules, the actions of the players, and the random
factor of the dice. Take away that random factor and you take away a leg for
the game to stand on. This can indeed be burdensome to the GM, since it's
his job to keep things stable (and therefore he must become the third leg,
as it were). But give the GM and the players a mechanic which can substitute
for that "random factor" and the game returns to balance. Hero points,
automatic successes, "effort bidding" ... any of these would be faster than
rolling dice, give results at least as good (and maybe a sight more logical
and "realistic") as die rolls, and keep things moving without requiring
anyone to work unduly. By my own experience, anyway.
--C., who's homebrewed diceless RPGs for 8 years and put _way_ too much
thought into this :)
Carl Perkins
In article <3543D6...@olywa.net>, an...@olywa.net writes...
}Thomas Lindgren wrote:
}> mad...@earth.execpc.com (Steve Mading) writes:
}> > WHAT ODDS? How can you talk about "odds" with a randomless system?
}>
}> Have you ever placed a bet on, say, a horse race?
}>
}
}Umm...I'd consider horse races fairly random.
}
Didn't you know? Just before the race, the horses roll dice and the
high roller gets to win.
The entire point was that you don't need dice to be random and you don't
need dice to have odds. There is no such thing as a "randomless" system -
only systems where the randomness is entirely in the decision making of the
GM rather than some of it being in the dice.
--- Carl
Operator 7G@megazone.2.3 Scott A. Edwards
Christopher Casey wrote:
>
>
> Ahh ... but not all diceless games use the "bigger is better" rule. Just
> because Amber (rock-paper-scissors) and Theatrix (give the players godlike
> powers to dilute the GM's godlike power) both lean that way doesn't mean
> it's the only way. Personally, I think it indicates a lack of imagination on
> the part of the game designer.
What 'godlike' powers are given in Theatrix (Unless the characters are
actually RPing gods)? The characters have whatever abilities the GM
thinks fits the setting.
> Consider a regular diced role-playing game. The GM has ultimate power,
> tempered only by the rules, the actions of the players, and the random
> factor of the dice. Take away that random factor and you take away a leg for
> the game to stand on. This can indeed be burdensome to the GM, since it's
> his job to keep things stable (and therefore he must become the third leg,
> as it were). But give the GM and the players a mechanic which can substitute
> for that "random factor" and the game returns to balance. Hero points,
> automatic successes, "effort bidding" ... any of these would be faster than
> rolling dice, give results at least as good (and maybe a sight more logical
> and "realistic") as die rolls, and keep things moving without requiring
> anyone to work unduly. By my own experience, anyway.
>
And Theatrix has this. Plot Points. PCs spend this to dictate actions
that go their way. The GM smiles wisely, and deals with whatever
screwball this turn threw him.
Scott A. Edwards
Lance
Carl Perkins wrote:
If someone is making the descisions, it is not random. If you use cards, dice,
numbers off the stock market, the direction a drop of water rolls off the back
of your hand... it is random. If horse races were completely non random, you
could run the same race three times in a row and get exactly the same results.
But, just as with the back of the hand analogy in ye olde Jurassic Park, there
are so many uncontrolled factors happening during the run of a horse race that
the results are unpredictable. You can express odds, the fastest horse with
the best rider who is on the ideal drug combination (or are those drugs for the
horses?) in the best track conditions will very probably win; a horse with all
those factors stacked against him will very probably lose, but sometimes the
horse with the long odds against him wins anyway, which is where the big payoff
comes in. Even harder, successfuly guessing the Win, place and show horses all
at once, or other combinations.
A deck of cards, properly shuffled, is just as hard to predict, and close
enouugh to "random" for our purposes. A deck of cards, stacked and manipulated
by an artist, is strictly deterministic. I've used my quite amature talents in
this as a GM to feed a particular Tarot layout to a group as part of a Cthulhu
scenario, and it was interesting to see how much less attention they paid to a
setup they believed was random than they might have to one that was clearly a
GM plot device. To me, though, this is the difference betwen random and non
random: someone controlled the result.
sim...@msi-uk.com
In article <6i38ti$r...@newsops.execpc.com>,
mad...@earth.execpc.com (Steve Mading) wrote:
>
> Tim Dedeaux (tded...@csc.mc.edu) wrote:
> : Steve Mading <mad...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
>
> : > in and of itself is damaging to the story. Therefore "less
> : > believable" causes "less fun" in my head.
>
> : In your head. You fall into the simulationist camp. That's fine. Do not,
> : however, start making snide comments about the dramatist camp. That would
> : *not* be fine.
I think this is over-simplified. It depends on what you are trying to achieve
in a given game. Nobody would claim that the Star Wars game is tryign to
simulate reality. They are trying to emulate the films. On the other hand, I
have roleplayed in games set in the Vietnam war. some preople prefer a
specific leverl of 'realism' and 'fantasy'.
>> : Which do you put first when there is a conflict (and trust me, there
> : will be). If it's "realism," you're simulationist. If it's "story,"
> : you're dramatist (if it's "fun of game," you're gamist, but that's another
> : kettle of fish altogether).
>
> : > Reality and Story are not things
> : > you have to comprimise between.
I have to agree.
However, I don't play roleplaying games to simulate reality. I play them to
simulate fiction. Amber is attempting to recreate the mood, atmosphere and
setting of the Amber series of books. As such it captures the fated,
personality driven, machiavelian atmosphere of the novels perfectly. In the
AMber books, nothing happens due to chance. There are always puppet masters
pulling the strings, manipulating the characters and reality. A superficialy
deterministic, yet strongly personality driven game system suits that very
well indeed.
Perhaps it would be possible to construct a diceless game systems to run Star
Wars, but why bother? The SW game system captures the atmosphere of the films,
and has a rich set of support material. It's a case of horses for courses
(though i realy don't want to get into the horse racing argument.
Simon
sim...@msi-uk.com
In article <6i3qqm$6...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
"Christopher Casey" <mir...@ix.spamguard.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Much as I dislike getting into this debate ...
>
> Bryan Bankhead wrote ...
> >
> >> Steve Mading <mad...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
> >x
> >> > It isn't any different than just
> >> > throwing away all the rules altogether. "Compare PC's stat X to
> >> > NPC's stat Y. Bigger stat wins, unless you don't want it to because
> >> > you liked the PC's description, or hated it." You might as well
> >> > just say, "Whatever the GM wants to have happen will happen" and
> >> > leave it at that.
> >
> > That in a nutshell is the whole problem with diceless games. Not only
> >do I not like playing in a game where everything is GM whim, but I don't
> >like the additonal decision load.
These are criticsims of the GM, not of the game system. If you don't trust
your GM to be fair and impartial in a diceless game, then I don't see how
using dice is going to significantly improve the situation. I've seen GMs
quite sucessfuly bulldoze the players around in diced games often enough to
know that.
> Ahh ... but not all diceless games use the "bigger is better" rule. Just
> because Amber (rock-paper-scissors) and Theatrix (give the players godlike
> powers to dilute the GM's godlike power) both lean that way doesn't mean
> it's the only way. Personally, I think it indicates a lack of imagination on
> the part of the game designer.
Rock paper scisors? You are talking about the Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game
right? Ok, sorry, just checking.
I've never before see Eric Wujcick (sp?) described as being unimaginative.
> Consider a regular diced role-playing game. The GM has ultimate power,
> tempered only by the rules, the actions of the players, and the random
> factor of the dice. Take away that random factor and you take away a leg for
> the game to stand on. This can indeed be burdensome to the GM, since it's
> his job to keep things stable (and therefore he must become the third leg,
> as it were). But give the GM and the players a mechanic which can substitute
> for that "random factor" and the game returns to balance. Hero points,
> automatic successes, "effort bidding" ... any of these would be faster than
> rolling dice, give results at least as good (and maybe a sight more logical
> and "realistic") as die rolls, and keep things moving without requiring
> anyone to work unduly. By my own experience, anyway.
But that's what Amber does. It provides a whole range of checks and ballances
that affect the outcome of a situation. How successfull a character is depends
on the resourcefullness of the player in taking advantages of the character's
strengths and exploiting her opponent's weaknesses. It's this interaction and
creative involvement of the players and GM which is what roleplaying is all
about, IMHO.
Simon Hibbs
Steve Mading
: Okay...I'm going to play by your rules for one post. We'll assume there's
: no such thing as dramatists and simulationists, and that the only people
: who call themselves dramatists are those who suck at simulation and don't
: want to admit it.
You are assuming hostility where there was none (not until this post,
that is...). I simply disagree with your premise that realism has
to take a backseat on order to get good drama. I don't agree that
the two are contradictory.
No, I don't think that players who don't want realism are somehow
'less' or 'incompetent'. Sometimes people *want* their game to
be unrealisticly fantastical. That's fine. But it has nothing
whatsoever to do with how dramatic it is. For example, having
your character fall from the fifth floor window without a scratch
in a fight scene is not any more dramatic than having him get hurt
by the fall (more realistic).
You do not need unrealism to have good drama. If you *want*
unrealism for totally diferent reasons, like you want to do
stuff that's not possible in the real world, that's fine.
But if the only reason you go for unrealism is that you think
it causes more drama, then that's what I disagree with.
Carl Perkins
Lance <emp...@success.net> writes...
}Carl Perkins wrote:
}
}> In article <3543D6...@olywa.net>, an...@olywa.net writes...
}> }Thomas Lindgren wrote:
}> }> mad...@earth.execpc.com (Steve Mading) writes:
}> }> > WHAT ODDS? How can you talk about "odds" with a randomless system?
}> }>
}> }> Have you ever placed a bet on, say, a horse race?
}> }>
}> }> Thomas
}> }
}> }Umm...I'd consider horse races fairly random.
}> }
}> }-Andy
}>
}> Didn't you know? Just before the race, the horses roll dice and the
}> high roller gets to win.
}>
}> The entire point was that you don't need dice to be random and you don't
}> need dice to have odds. There is no such thing as a "randomless" system -
}> only systems where the randomness is entirely in the decision making of the
}> GM rather than some of it being in the dice.
}>
}> --- Carl
}
}If someone is making the descisions, it is not random. If you use cards, dice,
Yes, it is. Particularly fro the point of view of the players.
}numbers off the stock market, the direction a drop of water rolls off the back
}of your hand... it is random. If horse races were completely non random, you
}could run the same race three times in a row and get exactly the same results.
}But, just as with the back of the hand analogy in ye olde Jurassic Park, there
}are so many uncontrolled factors happening during the run of a horse race that
}the results are unpredictable. You can express odds, the fastest horse with
}the best rider who is on the ideal drug combination (or are those drugs for the
}horses?) in the best track conditions will very probably win; a horse with all
}those factors stacked against him will very probably lose, but sometimes the
}horse with the long odds against him wins anyway, which is where the big payoff
}comes in. Even harder, successfuly guessing the Win, place and show horses all
}at once, or other combinations.
And the GM has innumerable things involved in being alive. This will affect
how he decides what the outcome is of the action you just described to him
for your PC. Did he have a good day a work? Did someone cut him off when he
was driving to the game? Did his wife spill her coffee on him at dinner?
Did his cousin's dog die yesterday? Did someone post multiple inane rhetorical
questions to a newsgroup in responce to one of his posts? These factors are
uncontrolable and make the results unpredictable. It is possible to estimate
odds, if you know him reasonably well. This you can estimate, for example,
that the action you are describing has perhaps a 50% chance of working the
way you planned and another 30% chance of working closely enough that it
won't be a problem, leaving a 20% chance that you may have to think fast
to get out of a problem (and you may be able to estimate what the most likely
problem would be).
}A deck of cards, properly shuffled, is just as hard to predict, and close
}enouugh to "random" for our purposes. A deck of cards, stacked and manipulated
}by an artist, is strictly deterministic. I've used my quite amature talents in
}this as a GM to feed a particular Tarot layout to a group as part of a Cthulhu
}scenario, and it was interesting to see how much less attention they paid to a
}setup they believed was random than they might have to one that was clearly a
}GM plot device. To me, though, this is the difference betwen random and non
}random: someone controlled the result.
}--
}Lance Berg
You may have selected the cards you wanted, but how did you decide which cards
you wanted to select? If you had been asked what cards you would play a week
earlier, would they have been the same ones? If you had broken your amr
two days before the game, would it ahve gone the same or could some other
ideas have occured to you that you didn't come up with? How, exactly, could the
players know what you would pick? If there was no way for them to know, then
it was a random selection as far as they are concerned. They may have been able
to estimate what you would play based on what they know about you and the
situation, and estimate the probability of their estimation being correct -
i.e. estimate the odds of what would happen.
Even in a "randomizerless" (i.e. a game that uses no explicit randomizer such
as dice or cards) system you can have odds of what will happen. For example
a player could say to another player "I'll give you 3:2 that we'll have to
leave this town before we find the villan". The GM may have a much better idea
of the odds than the players, but even he can't always predict what the players
will do which might change the course of events which means that his plans
for the adventure were not 100% concrete, but only had a probably of
happening. Ta da! Odds on both sides of the GM screen in a game where the GM
decides what happens without the use of randomizing devices.
--- Carl
Your Name
the name game:
diceless=systems with no random chance other than that provided by the
game master or the players
diceful=systems that use random chance from outside sources.
> >There can be. Getting a "lucky shot" can be handled more ways that
> >rolling dice (the laws of physics handle it nicely in our world
> >/mode=annoying smartaleck/).
it's not as if the gm can not make a random decision. i would hope that
any gm could come up with a random number between one and ten if he
needed. the gm can have the guy with a spiked club kill the guy with the
ak-47 completely on whim if he wants but he can also have the guy with the
spiked club kill the guy with the gun based on player tactics or on the
gm's own tactics automatically without having to risk messing up a
storyline too much. i mean how much fun is it if you slave over an
incredible plot to find out that your big meany was killed by a stray shot
from an arrow because of three critical roles in a row before the players
even have a chance at exploring this world you have made them? although
there certainly is a chance (albeit very small) that this could happen in
real life, it certainly would not add to the enjoyment of the game and
probably would add to exactly the opposite. i mean what is the gm
supposed to say in this situation, 'um, well, you guys just killed the big
nasty guy before the game really started. so um, that's it; we can go
home early i guess.'?
> >is mostly out. That doesn't mean there are no surprises, though.
> >Concealed weapons, dirty tricks, setups, traps, poison, magic . . . all
> >these things can come in at the last moment, turning the tide of battle.
>
> True, but there will be /less/ surprises, since all of the above fall
> into the massive realm of "stuff available regardless of gaming style"
> -- so traditional gaming has all those surprises, /plus/ the
> occasional lucky break.
getting rid of dice makes tactics more important. this means that the
players and the gm have to think on their more often and instead of just
aiming the bow and roling the 2d4 for damage the player can say i want to
aim at the gap in his platemail right below his ankle because i heard that
his invulnerability was weaker there.
granted this means that the gm needs to work on story and details like
crazy before the session but to me this would also make the game more
interesting.
> >I've had players tell me the diceless games I've GMed had a significantly
> >larger thrill factor than the diced ones (and I for one agreed) due to the
> >fast pace not having to monkey with dice and mechanics allowed and due to
> >the complete lack of knowledge of how powerful the bad guys were (we just
> >became vampires this week - can we take out those hunters? There are
> >three of us, and we're armed: can we take out that older vamp? <blam
> >blam blam blam> nope, better run).
>
> Obviously, this is just my opinion, but ... any "thrill factor" for me
> would be killed by the loss of "virtuality". Part of the reason I game
> is to put myself in the position of a fictional hero and experience
> the adventure of my favorite genres without the intermediary of artist
> and medium -- in effect, "conversational virtual reality". Ergo, I'm
> not into "storytelling" in gaming -- the characters try to do what
> they want, the GM referees it, the rules tell players and GM alike
> whether "try = do", and the "story" /tells itself/.
it is true that the players are just as important to the gaming session as
the actual game master but the game master is still an intergral part of
the game. i fear the situation without a story that you seem to be
talking about because it presents itself as a collection of random
encounters with no real direction. if there is direction it is entirely
by the players so the gm has no chance for preperation. anyway, how does
a diceless system ruin the virtuality? it would appear to me that
diceless games actually become more real because tactics are very
important in real life. although luck did effect alexander the great's
conquest, if alexander was a crappy tactician he would not have been able
to optimize the phalanx tactics and would not have won the number of
battles he went though.
additionally, is battle the only part of role playing? inherent in the
title of the genre is the concept of taking over a role or a character if
you will. you think how the character thinks, you see what the character
sees, et cetra. it is this aspect of role playing which creates realism,
not going around beating things up. honestly, when was the last time you
saw a plausable action film? now when was the last time you saw a
plausable drama?
> In standard gaming, I consider GM fiat a necessary evil. Diceless
> gaming puts the GM in the way, as an author instead of a arbiter.
> Everything that happens in the game happens because the GM wants it
> to, either explicitly (the GM says it happens) or implicitly (the GM
> chooses not to negate it) -- that's the ultimate consequence of
> fiat being the only engine powering the mechanics. The question I
> ask myself in a diceless game isn't "is this guy more powerful than
> me?", since it's a moot point. The proper question to ask is "Does the
> GM really want me to succeed at this task, and if not, can I change
> his mind?"
this is an excellent point, but only in some situations. hopefully a gm
will not regulate the game to the extent that it becomes like another
novel with an inexorable plot. at this point the gm becomes the only
person involved in the game (if you can call it that) and the players are
unneccesary and there is no reason for them to be there.
it is true that the gm can and should regulate some situations but only
mildly (and as you say, with an open mind) to stop a situation from
unintentionally tampering too much with the game. this should be done in
any gaming situation, diceless or diceful, but is easiest in a diceless
game. this tampering can be with the story or with the game itself. if a
stray shot with a bow killing the big ugly meany (if you role three
criticals in a row) in the early game and will make the incredible game
plot go to waste the gm should step in and say 'no, you miss' in order to
make the gaming session more fun instead of risking the chance of the
three criticals. and this is a game of having fun as opposed to a game of
roling dice. if you want to role dice you should play craps. an example
of a game mechanics tampering would be for the gm to say 'no you can't
lift that thirty ton boulder' even if the player should get a one in a
hundred chance at it in a diceful system.
> >If you *really* want to get their attention, kill off someone (even a PC)
> >early on (early enough the player can get back into the game with a new PC
> >quickly, if you off a PC).
hopefully you can resort to better ways than this to create mood in a game.
> Same kind of problem. To me, a GM should never be certain that he'll
> be ABLE to kill off someone. A GM who kills a PC /by fiat/ has earned
> a black mark against respectability.
if it will make the game more fun or will make the game more realistic
then certainly the gm should be able to be certain that he can kill
someone. if a player is tied up to a chair (assume no ways out like no
loose ropes et cetra) it is fairly certain that if an evil meany wants to
he can slit the players throat. this situation would be true in real life
as it should be true in the game. the players are also granted this same
sort of certainty. if the players have an evil meany tied up to a chair
they should also be able to kill that evil meany without any chance of
escape.
first, i am certainly for diceless systems. this is not to say that i
have no experience with the opposite, diceful gaming systems. four or
five years ago i couldn't even imagine playing a diceless role playing
game, but now i do not own any more dice. giving up dice came around the
time i started designing gaming systems i think, although i don't know if
i can draw any conclusions from that.
second, i am certainly for realism in games. i have been known to through
out entire magic systems to create more realism. i have been known to set
up games that require absolutely no combat whatsoever. and i have been
known to use encumberance tables and spell components and avalability
tables (and bah to the gm who ignores these things- it's good to recognize
that plate mail not only weighs a great deal but was limited to the noble
class or to only the best leaders in a war).
third, i am certainly for role playing. i also see this as a thing that
is rare to come by in a diceful system although i, too, am unsure whether
i can draw a parallel here either.
i envite people to mail me personally on the subject (or others i guess)
if they wish to comment or critique my posting at el...@reed.edu
ta then, brian.
Thomas Lindgren
mad...@earth.execpc.com (Steve Mading) writes:
> Thomas Lindgren (tho...@harpo.csd.uu.se) wrote:
>
> : mad...@earth.execpc.com (Steve Mading) writes:
> : > WHAT ODDS? How can you talk about "odds" with a randomless system?
>
> : Have you ever placed a bet on, say, a horse race?
>
> No. Bad example, I think gambling is a stupid thing to do, given
> that the 'house' has to keep the odds in its favor to make money.
> ("Introducing The State Lottery: a tax on people who are bad at math.")
Well, that's another kettle of kobolds :-)
> Anyway, a horse race doesn't have the announcer there to 'fudge' some
> of the horses to make sure that the one he wants to win will win.
Neither has the diceless game. Why would the gamemaster 'want to win'?
("Okay guys, suddenly you all die. Hehe, I won again. Make up new
characters") The dice won't protect you if the gamemaster really wants
to win. As a GM, just throw in some more reinforcements with better
magic items if the players start to get ahead in combat. Eventually,
their luck will run out.
The problem isn't dice or their absence. It's the gamemaster. Trust
the GM or get a new one.
Thomas Lindgren
ath...@vaxa.isc.rit.edu (Alan T. Haley) writes:
> >mad...@earth.execpc.com (Steve Mading) writes:
> >> WHAT ODDS? How can you talk about "odds" with a randomless system?
> >
> >Have you ever placed a bet on, say, a horse race?
> >
> > Thomas
>
> Yes, but the outcome there isn't as subject to the whim of one entity (i.e. the
> gamemaster). If said horse race was being run in a randomless system, one
> might be faster than the other, but if the GM wanted to, he could say that the
> slower was the victor because the faster had a blwel problem, or was tired, or
> any host of excuses.
Yes indeed, and a diced GM could do it as well with a probability
arbitrarily close to 1 ("your favorite has to roll eighteen
consecutive 20's on a d20 ... okay, you _did_ roll that. Well, I was
mistaken. You have to roll five more 20's.").
As you say, the GM can ultimately decide what happens. So what?
If you're not enjoying yourself, if the GM doesn't allow you to
make a difference or have fun or whatever, get a new GM instead.
Lance
Carl Perkins wrote:
> Lance <emp...@success.net> writes...
>
> }If someone is making the descisions, it is not random. If you use cards, dice,
>
> Yes, it is. Particularly fro the point of view of the players.
>
(long discussion clipped)OK, I can see your point, but I think it comes down to a
question of definitions.
To my way of thinking, things which are chosen by a person involved in the game
are non-random, while things which are beyond the normal control of any person
are random.
Dice, in their way, are not random; after all, it would be possible to determine the
precise amount and direction of forces needed to roll a die and get any desired
result. If the person rolling the die is using these techniques, I will define the
roll as non-random. People are seemingly non-random by definition, but it is
possible to set up tables which have results distributed in jumbled ordre, and then
ask players to pick (say) a number from one to twenty. The player has no idea what
the number will indicate, so his choice is random by this definition.
Now, if you will for the sake of arguement acccept my definitions, then we can
discuss the relative merits of this sort of random/nonrandom dichotomy.
If you don't like these definitions, then call what I am calling random "fozzle" and
what I am calling non-random "non-fozzle."
Steve Mading
Thomas Lindgren (tho...@harpo.csd.uu.se) wrote:
: mad...@earth.execpc.com (Steve Mading) writes:
: > Thomas Lindgren (tho...@harpo.csd.uu.se) wrote:
: >
: > : mad...@earth.execpc.com (Steve Mading) writes:
: > : > WHAT ODDS? How can you talk about "odds" with a randomless system?
: >
: > : Have you ever placed a bet on, say, a horse race?
: >
: > No. Bad example, I think gambling is a stupid thing to do, given
: > that the 'house' has to keep the odds in its favor to make money.
: > ("Introducing The State Lottery: a tax on people who are bad at math.")
: Well, that's another kettle of kobolds :-)
: > Anyway, a horse race doesn't have the announcer there to 'fudge' some
: > of the horses to make sure that the one he wants to win will win.
: Neither has the diceless game. Why would the gamemaster 'want to win'?
: ("Okay guys, suddenly you all die. Hehe, I won again. Make up new
: characters") The dice won't protect you if the gamemaster really wants
: to win. As a GM, just throw in some more reinforcements with better
: magic items if the players start to get ahead in combat. Eventually,
: their luck will run out.
I was assuming all the horses in the horse race example were NPCs,
and the PCs were the ones betting.
In otherwords, the players are betting on trying to guess what the
GM will decide. Even if the GM is benevolent, it doesn't change
the fact that you are essentailly betting on whether or not he agrees
that your idea will work.
: The problem isn't dice or their absence. It's the gamemaster. Trust
: the GM or get a new one.
Trust has nothing to do with it. Favoritism does not have to
be deliberate to exist.
Steve Mading
Your Name (em...@domain.com) wrote:
: getting rid of dice makes tactics more important. this means that the
Bull. The stuff that you blame on diced systems is blame placed
on the wrong culprit. It's not the fact that dice exist that
causes the problem. It's the fact that nothing *but* the dice exist.
You sound like you came from a system like AD&D, where tactics are
meaningless and you just roll the die. The same problem would exist
if someone made a diceless system where the GM just decided whatever
he felt like all the time and there were no rules for tactics.
: players and the gm have to think on their more often and instead of just
: aiming the bow and roling the 2d4 for damage the player can say i want to
: aim at the gap in his platemail right below his ankle because i heard that
: his invulnerability was weaker there.
Christopher Casey
One more unto the breach, my friends. :)
sim...@msi-uk.com wrote in message <6i4lb8$3u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6i3qqm$6...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
> "Christopher Casey" <mir...@ix.spamguard.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Ahh ... but not all diceless games use the "bigger is better" rule. Just
>> because Amber (rock-paper-scissors) and Theatrix (give the players
godlike
>> powers to dilute the GM's godlike power) both lean that way doesn't mean
>> it's the only way. Personally, I think it indicates a lack of imagination
on
>> the part of the game designer.
>
>Rock paper scisors? You are talking about the Amber Diceless Roleplaying
Game
>right? Ok, sorry, just checking.
>
>I've never before see Eric Wujcick (sp?) described as being unimaginative.
No slight intended to Eric or his system, which works well for
Amberite-level gaming. The basic rules system of Amber, without dealing with
the role-playing aspects of it (which are subjective ... I'm trying to stay
objective here), is as follows: "If your stat is higher than your opponent's
stat, you win." That's the rock-scissors-paper mechanic I'm talking about.
Role-playing is "fuzzy logic" and harder to quantify in a way that a lot of
simulation-based players are used to. Plus it requires the GM to be more
alert to nuances and put more mental effort into the outcomes of various
strategies, which can be exhausting and difficult to do fairly over a long
gaming session.
(snippage)
>How successfull a character is depends
>on the resourcefullness of the player in taking advantages of the
character's
>strengths and exploiting her opponent's weaknesses.
No argument there. Amber is a fine system if you can get into the mindset of
it. I wouldn't recommend taking the same mechanics and using them for, say,
low fantasy, gritty Wild West, or Cold War spies games, though. Amber is at
its most "realistic" in the funky paradigm-based Platonian world of Amber,
but less so for more human-foible-level games.
--C.
Christopher Casey
One more post for old times' sake.
Scott A. Edwards > wrote in message <354637...@concentric.net>...
>Christopher Casey wrote:
>> Ahh ... but not all diceless games use the "bigger is better" rule. Just
>> because Amber (rock-paper-scissors) and Theatrix (give the players
godlike
>> powers to dilute the GM's godlike power) both lean that way doesn't mean
>> it's the only way. Personally, I think it indicates a lack of imagination
on
>> the part of the game designer.
>
>What 'godlike' powers are given in Theatrix (Unless the characters are
>actually RPing gods)? The characters have whatever abilities the GM
>thinks fits the setting.
Theatrix gives players (not characters) the ability to create details of the
game world from whole cloth. That seems pretty godlike to me. :) In the
example of play given in the rulebook, one player creates an entire airplane
simply by saying it's there. While Theatrix may make entertaining stories,
it also blurs the line a bit between simulationist RPG's and just sitting
around making stuff up in a group. Plus you need a really strong, flexible,
creative GM to play Theatrix. The other example from the book wherein a
couple of players in a murder mystery totally screw up the GM's set plot
would require one helluva scramble to make things fit from there on in. I
can imagine the players afterward: "That game made NO sense whatsoever!"
"Well," the GM replies with asperity, "if you hadn't blown my plot in the
first five minutes ..."
By the way, yes, I know the GM can trump a Plot Point, but that kind of
"out" weakens the system a little, IMHO. Players who come up with a cool
idea just to see it quashed by the GM might feel ripped off. And the GM who
has a neat idea for a story and sees it shredded by hyperactive players
might feel ripped off himself. Moral: Only play Theatrix with good friends.
:)
--C.
Steve C
Steve Mading <mad...@earth.execpc.com> wrote (in response to
"your name"
>
> : getting rid of dice makes tactics more important. this means that the
>
> Bull. The stuff that you blame on diced systems is blame placed
> on the wrong culprit. It's not the fact that dice exist that
> causes the problem. It's the fact that nothing *but* the dice exist.
> You sound like you came from a system like AD&D, where tactics are
> meaningless and you just roll the die. The same problem would exist
> if someone made a diceless system where the GM just decided whatever
> he felt like all the time and there were no rules for tactics.
Just to add to that, what I've found when actually playing Diceless
systems like AMBER is that you don't really rely on tactics, you rely
on your ability to BS the GM (so Steve's bull comment is especially
appropriate! P) ). What I mean by this is that in a diced, or more
appropriately
_mechaniced_ game, you can look the rules and say "hmmn, roundhouse
kick is -2 OCV, +1 DCV and +4D6 damage. That means I am less likely
to hit, slightly better defensively and do a lot more damage." In a typical
diceless game, you would have to say something like "hmmn, Steve thinks
Jean-Claude Van Damme is cool, so I bet a big roundhouse kick would
work in this situation" This basically comes down to playing the GM rather
than the rules (or is that what the rules have become I wonder?)
> Your Name wrote...
> : players and the gm have to think on their more often and instead of
just
> : aiming the bow and roling the 2d4 for damage the player can say i want
to
> : aim at the gap in his platemail right below his ankle because i heard
that
> : his invulnerability was weaker there.
I can't imagine a game system, including AD&D where you could not do this.
Sounds like a GM issue to me...
> --
> Steve Mading: mad...@execpc.com http://www.execpc.com/~madings
>
You go Steve!
Steve C. "Every man is a god,
spc...@itis.com Every man is free!"
--Aztec guy from MST3K
NOTE: Remove NOSPAM to reply
Triad3204
In article <6ho6uu$j...@newsops.execpc.com>, mad...@earth.execpc.com (Steve
Mading) writes:
>I did read it. That's whay prompted me to write the above.
>I just don't see the difference between randomless systems and
>ruleless systems. Once you say that it's pretty much up to the
>GM to compare the stats and make a judgement call, then what the
>hell are the rules there for? It isn't any different than just
>throwing away all the rules altogether. "Compare PC's stat X to
>NPC's stat Y. Bigger stat wins, unless you don't want it to because
>you liked the PC's description, or hated it." You might as well
>just say, "Whatever the GM wants to have happen will happen" and
>leave it at that.
Yeah, that's basically the idea behind diceless gaming. The idea is that the
players trust the GM and the GM trusts the players, and they work together to
tell a story. The only remaining rules are those that give a structure to that
storytelling, not those that attempt to determine the course the story will
take.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Triad3204
In article <6i38ti$r...@newsops.execpc.com>, mad...@earth.execpc.com (Steve
Mading) writes:
>Your post is an example. You assume that it is somehow better "drama"
>to have less realism, or that just because I like realism that I must
>not like drama as much. This attitude assumes that the two are at
>odds with each other. And it's *that* that I disagree with. They
>are not at odds with each other. You don't have to sacrifice one to
>get the other, despite what Hollywood keeps telling us.
You're right and you're also wrong. In a perfectly accurate simulation of
reality there is very little drama -- even in "high profile" jobs like police
officers (or even President of the United States). There are those who enjoy
role-playing games where this type of reality is shown. As you begin to add
more "dramatic drama" to the mix, the farther you get from this pure realism --
even if your rules remain very realistic in how physical processes and skill
use operates.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Triad3204
In article <BBank-25049...@max1-1.columbus.megsinet.net>,
BB...@megsinet.net (Bryan Bankhead) writes:
> That in a nutshell is the whole problem with diceless games. Not only
>do I not like playing in a game where everything is GM whim, but I don't
>like the additonal decision load.
What I don't like about the direction this thread is taking is the fact that
the people who are defending diceless games are (in general) being very careful
of pointing out that it's largely a matter of taste -- whereas the people
attacking diceless games (in general) seem to like making broad
generalizations. You really should have said "That in a nutshell is *my* whole
problem with diceless games."
I could just as easily, if I was purely a diceless roleplayer, that:
"Not only do I not like playing in a game where everything is the whim of the
dice, but I don't like losing that decision making ability."
I would not be justified, however, in concluding from that that: "That's the
whole problem with diced resolution systems."
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Triad3204
In article <6hrn5a$gdj$1...@ox.mc.edu>, Tim Dedeaux <tded...@csc.mc.edu> writes:
>Third, I ditched the "auction" (something I usually did in Amber) and
> just went with 100 points.
To go off on a tangent, there is something beautiful about a well-run Amber
auction. The trick, however, is that you need to have a justification for it.
If you're generating an entirely original royal family, I found the auction
works well (because you get results very similar to what you see in the books).
There's one other situation I created specifically to use the auction
effectively.
What's your experience with it?
Red
Steve Mading wrote:
> In otherwords, the players are betting on trying to guess what the
> GM will decide. Even if the GM is benevolent, it doesn't change
> the fact that you are essentailly betting on whether or not he agrees
> that your idea will work.
Aren't you assuming some sort of motive in terms of the GM here? I
mean, it seems to me that the GM's *job* is to do this sort of thing.
Let's say you the PC are betting on a bunch of NPC horses; and the GM
happens to know that horse number 4 has been doped to the gills with
[mcguffin] and will win; how then is the GM *not* supposed to dictate
the outcome?
el...@reed.edu
In article <6i7r2f$h...@newsops.execpc.com>, mad...@earth.execpc.com
(Steve Mading) wrote:
> : getting rid of dice makes tactics more important. this means that the
>
> Bull. The stuff that you blame on diced systems is blame placed
> on the wrong culprit. It's not the fact that dice exist that
> causes the problem. It's the fact that nothing *but* the dice exist.
> You sound like you came from a system like AD&D, where tactics are
> meaningless and you just roll the die. The same problem would exist
> if someone made a diceless system where the GM just decided whatever
> he felt like all the time and there were no rules for tactics.
granted, i should clarify. assuming that the gm does not make up
everything all of the time which is something i went over in my last post,
there is only one thing that the players can use to their advantage in
combat in a diceless game. this is tactics. whether or not tactics exist
in diceful games is not of my concern. however in diceful games, tactics
are not the only way of making a successful attack, you also have the
chance of roling well.
to recapitulate:
diceless games require tactics only.
diceful games require either tactics or a lucky dice role.
thus, getting rid of dice makes tactics more important.
other notes:
oddly enough, many fantasy role playing gamers only know ad&d. it has an
additional ten years of experience over all other gaming systems that are
still played in any quantity(to my knowledge) and that must count for
something. this is not to say that i like ad&d more than other gaming
systems or that i really even play ad&d anymore but the game still should
wield a certain amount of respect.
el...@reeed.edu etc.
Carl Perkins
Red <red_arm...@hotmail.com> writes...
Suppose that none of the horses has been modified so as to be unbeatable.
This means the GM must decide which horse wins. If the GM does not keep
a list of what horse runs a race of a given length in given conditions in
what kind of time, he can't look up on his handy dandy horse list which
one is fastest for this 4 furlong race on a dry dirt track. You win if the
GM likes the hoprse you picked. You loose if he picks a different one. How,
exactly, is the player supposed to pick the winner other than by happy
coincidence, bribery, or threats? Well, he could know that the GM might
pick a horse called Buttercup becuase he liked The Princess Bride. Then
again, he might pick some other horse for some even more inscrutable reason.
The GM will almost certainly have some sort of motive, from "I happen to like
that name" or "it was my favorite number" to "which result is more interesting
for the plot" or "do I really want them to win a 1000 dollar bet at 25 to 1?"
If the player can guess the motive he will know if he has any chance of
winning or not, and may have better odds at picking the correct horse if he
knows the GMs favorite number and what kind of names he likes for horses.
OK, you are the GM. My character is at a race track. I bet on a horse. Did
I win?
--- Carl
Steve Mading
Triad3204 (tria...@aol.com) wrote:
: Yeah, that's basically the idea behind diceless gaming. The idea is that the
: players trust the GM and the GM trusts the players, and they work together to
: tell a story. The only remaining rules are those that give a structure to that
: storytelling, not those that attempt to determine the course the story will
: take.
That's great. But my original point that started all this was
the observation that you might as well not fool yourself into
thinking this is a 'system' with rules. It isn't. It's no
different than just sitting around a campfire telling stories,
and as such you can't claim any good fun it gives you as an
advantage of 'the system', when it is in fact an advantage of
having a lack of a system.
Steve Mading
Red (red_arm...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
: > In otherwords, the players are betting on trying to guess what the
: > GM will decide. Even if the GM is benevolent, it doesn't change
: > the fact that you are essentailly betting on whether or not he agrees
: > that your idea will work.
: Aren't you assuming some sort of motive in terms of the GM here? I
: mean, it seems to me that the GM's *job* is to do this sort of thing.
: Let's say you the PC are betting on a bunch of NPC horses; and the GM
: happens to know that horse number 4 has been doped to the gills with
: [mcguffin] and will win; how then is the GM *not* supposed to dictate
: the outcome?
When the outcome is not so skewed as in that example, what's the GM
to do? The point is that *nobody* is capable of making a truly
fair random decision. You can't do it. No matter what you do, if
you don't introdice an external randomizer like dice, your decisions
are motivated by what you want to have happen.
Steve Mading
Triad3204 (tria...@aol.com) wrote:
: You're right and you're also wrong. In a perfectly accurate simulation of
: reality there is very little drama -- even in "high profile" jobs like police
: officers (or even President of the United States). There are those who enjoy
: role-playing games where this type of reality is shown. As you begin to add
: more "dramatic drama" to the mix, the farther you get from this pure realism --
: even if your rules remain very realistic in how physical processes and skill
: use operates.
The only kind of 'unrealism' you need to achieve this effect is to
omit the boring filler time. And I don't consider omission of reality
to be nearly as bad as outright reversal of reality. For example,
failing to mention that your character went to the store and bought
groceries this week is no big deal, but having him take 15 bullets to
the head and live just becasue he's supposed to be important to the
story *is* a big deal.
Steve Mading
el...@reed.edu wrote:
: to recapitulate:
: diceless games require tactics only.
: diceful games require either tactics or a lucky dice role.
: thus, getting rid of dice makes tactics more important.
Only if you are a bad roleplayer who never used tactics previously
in diced games. If you *already* used tactics (which is reasonable
given that doing so increases your odds) in diced systems, then
switching to diceless does not give you as much of a boost as you
claim it does.
Also, In the real world, a lucky shot CAN overcome bad tactics,
so in this respect diceless actually places *more* emphasis on
tactics than is realistic, by making sure that it is impossible
to win with inferior tactics. (If I understand you correctly).
In reality, inferior tactics makes it a lot less *likely* that
you would win, but it does not guarantee it.
You don't need 100% certainty of tactics to make people want to
use tactics. Simply having a system where tactics skew the odds
in a realistic fashion is more than enough.
Lance
Red wrote:
> Steve Mading wrote:
>
> > In otherwords, the players are betting on trying to guess what the
> > GM will decide. Even if the GM is benevolent, it doesn't change
> > the fact that you are essentailly betting on whether or not he agrees
> > that your idea will work.
>
> Aren't you assuming some sort of motive in terms of the GM here? I
> mean, it seems to me that the GM's *job* is to do this sort of thing.
> Let's say you the PC are betting on a bunch of NPC horses; and the GM
> happens to know that horse number 4 has been doped to the gills with
> [mcguffin] and will win; how then is the GM *not* supposed to dictate
> the outcome?
The GM could just as well define the odds for the various horses to win
and then what influence on these odds the (McGuffin) will have. This is
the basic diference, I think, between the "simulationist" and "dramatist"
camps; the dramatist will say "it is important for the story that horse 4
win, so that's what happens" while the simulationist will say "we don't
know for sure what will happen, but the chances of the doped horse are
better than they should be..." Clearly there are varying degrees of
simulationist admixture with dramatist, depending for example on how
heavily the simulationist weighs the odds in the favor of the drugged
horse... but the question is, which is more important, the modeling of
reality or the advancement of the story?
Rusty Wallace
ca...@gerg.tamu.edu (Carl Perkins) wrote:
>
>OK, you are the GM. My character is at a race track. I bet on a horse. Did
>I win?
(Assume we're playing Amber...)
If you have more than a couple of points of Good Stuff - Yes you did!
If you have more than a couple of Bad Stuff - No you did not. If
neither of the above apply:
Did you just pick a horse randomly? You didn't win - unless I have a
particular reason for wanting you to win...
Did you make some attempt to handicap the race? If yes, are you
ranked in Psyche (intelligence - sort of...) or Warfare (this might
apply in evaluating a horse's quality, YMMV). If yes again, then you
win. If no to the second question - you'll still win if you have any
Good Stuff at all. You'll lose otherwise.
All of the above is assuming that the trip to the track is not
intimately tied into the story in some important way that would cause
me to change one of the above answers. Ex: If the race is fixed then
you lose regardless - unless the very first qualifier on Good Stuff
applies in which case you are just lucky...
One of the important things about Amber is that your character really
is from the cream of the cream of the cream of the crop. Success and
failure generally aren't in doubt unless you are up against one of
your peers. This makes going diceless a much more palatable option.
I enjoy playing Amber diceless while I have serious doubts about
trying it with anything that does not involve the kind of power
differentials you see in Amber between PC's/important NPC's and
Everyone Else.
Rusty
Remove the 'xx''s to reply via emai...
PJS
On 30/04/98 09:29, in message
<elwin-30049...@c021h016.ipdorm.reed.edu>, el...@reed.edu wrote:
> In article <6i7r2f$h...@newsops.execpc.com>, mad...@earth.execpc.com
> (Steve Mading) wrote:
>
> > : getting rid of dice makes tactics more important. this means that the
> >
> > Bull. The stuff that you blame on diced systems is blame placed
> > on the wrong culprit. It's not the fact that dice exist that
> > causes the problem. It's the fact that nothing *but* the dice exist.
> > You sound like you came from a system like AD&D, where tactics are
> > meaningless and you just roll the die. The same problem would exist
> > if someone made a diceless system where the GM just decided whatever
> > he felt like all the time and there were no rules for tactics.
>
> granted, i should clarify. assuming that the gm does not make up
> everything all of the time which is something i went over in my last post,
> there is only one thing that the players can use to their advantage in
> combat in a diceless game. this is tactics. whether or not tactics exist
> in diceful games is not of my concern. however in diceful games, tactics
> are not the only way of making a successful attack, you also have the
> chance of roling well.
>
> to recapitulate:
> diceless games require tactics only.
> diceful games require either tactics or a lucky dice role.
> thus, getting rid of dice makes tactics more important.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree: in a diceless game the dice are simply replaced by the GM's opinion
on the matter. Objectively, success or failure are not more likely to be better
modelled, unless you believe your GM to be a better judge than the author of a
game with dice. The only difference is that players rely on their ability to
persuade their GM rather than on their luck.
Player: "I'll try and sneak up on the guard, then whip his sword out of its
scabbard before he can react. Then I'll hold it at his throat and tell him he
dies if he makes a sound."
Dice Game:
GM: "Make a Stealth roll ... make a DEX roll - no, you've failed."
Diceless Game:
GM: "Er . . . no, it doesn't work."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> other notes:
> oddly enough, many fantasy role playing gamers only know ad&d. it has an
> additional ten years of experience over all other gaming systems that are
> still played in any quantity(to my knowledge) and that must count for
> something.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Egypt has 5 000 more years of experience at civilisation than Germany, but
which is the more prosperous nation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> this is not to say that i like ad&d more than other gaming
> systems or that i really even play ad&d anymore but the game still should
> wield a certain amount of respect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It deserves thanks, but not respect in any other way.
---
"Many of us throw up our hands and say "I don't understand
this stuff"... as if ignorance of science were a badge
of artistic merit"
- Polly Toynbee
---
Sea Wasp
I have to laugh. I had often said to myself "well, I'll just plan out
what I'll spend for the character, and that would be that." And many of
my friends had said the same thing. So when I went to run an Amber game,
my friends got their characters planned ahead of time. Two of them
actually worked together, planning their characters in tandem.
And when the auction came... they threw caution to the winds! One of
them got an advantage, and suddenly it was as cutthroat as the original
auction in the book. Whee!
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Tim Dedeaux
Triad3204 <tria...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <6hrn5a$gdj$1...@ox.mc.edu>, Tim Dedeaux <tded...@csc.mc.edu> writes:
>>Third, I ditched the "auction" (something I usually did in Amber) and
>> just went with 100 points.
> To go off on a tangent, there is something beautiful about a well-run Amber
> auction. The trick, however, is that you need to have a justification for it.
> If you're generating an entirely original royal family, I found the auction
> works well (because you get results very similar to what you see in the books).
> There's one other situation I created specifically to use the auction
> effectively.
> What's your experience with it?
For Amber, sure. For the other settings I played in, ones in which the
PC's weren't related (and sometimes didn't go back very far: 10 years
isn't long for a vampire or immortal). It just didn't work right for
anything I tried except the Amber setting.
What is the situation you created specifically to use the auction? It
sounds intersting.
--
Timothy
Dedeaux T H I S S P A C E F O R R E N T
tdedeaux
@mc.edu
Operator 7G@megazone.2.3 Scott A. Edwards
Triad3204 wrote:
>
> In article <BBank-25049...@max1-1.columbus.megsinet.net>,
> BB...@megsinet.net (Bryan Bankhead) writes:
>
> > That in a nutshell is the whole problem with diceless games. Not only
> >do I not like playing in a game where everything is GM whim, but I don't
> >like the additonal decision load.
>
> What I don't like about the direction this thread is taking is the fact that
> the people who are defending diceless games are (in general) being very careful
> of pointing out that it's largely a matter of taste -- whereas the people
> attacking diceless games (in general) seem to like making broad
> generalizations. You really should have said "That in a nutshell is *my* whole
> problem with diceless games."
>
Why would we? Somewhere along the lines, Those Who Attack Diceless
Games have assumed that because some of us enjoy diceless, we
immediately set fire to our dice collection.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. I enjoy playing diceless games
(Theatrix). I enjoy playing diced games (Blue Planet, Teenagers From
Outer Space, HKAT, Feng Shui, L5R, etc.), and games that rely on 'other'
randomizers (Deadlands).
It's all just a matter of flavor. Each system brings a different mood
to the game, neither one better or worse than the other. Yes, diceless
games rely more off of descriptions and BSing the players/GM (we call
that 'roleplaying') to work. And both parties have to realize that a
lot more work has been dumped into their laps.
Games with randomizers add the thrill that 'something' is beyond
everyone's control. They're riskier (death hinging on the die, so to
speak), and sometimes the results are damn weird. But Players/GM have
to be willing to roll with the unexpected punches the randomness brings.
So no, I'm not telling you toa sacrifice your thirty pound dice
collection. Enjoy your diced games. I enjoy mine. I just enjoy a
diceless one as well.
Scott A. Edwards
Operator 7G@megazone.2.3 Scott A. Edwards
PJS wrote:
>
> I disagree: in a diceless game the dice are simply replaced by the GM's opinion
> on the matter. Objectively, success or failure are not more likely to be better
> modelled, unless you believe your GM to be a better judge than the author of a
> game with dice. The only difference is that players rely on their ability to
> persuade their GM rather than on their luck.
Out of curiousity, in RL when most people try to do something - do they
try to rely off of luck - or tools and training?
> Player: "I'll try and sneak up on the guard, then whip his sword out of its
> scabbard before he can react. Then I'll hold it at his throat and tell him he
> dies if he makes a sound."
> Dice Game:
> GM: "Make a Stealth roll ... make a DEX roll - no, you've failed."
> Diceless Game:
> GM: "Er . . . no, it doesn't work."
>
What's the player doing to make himself more stealthy? Does he have the
skills?
A guy in a Day-Glo clownsuit with squeaky shoes shouldn't be able to
sneak up on squat. So yes...you rely off of BSing your GM that your
paln will work. So what, you usually try to BS your GM into giving you
a better target number in a diceless game as well.
Player: OK, I wait til the guard looks sleepy. In the meantime, I slip
into my black ninja jammies, kick off my shoes so they wont scuff the
ground when I walk, and empty the loose change out of my pockets so they
wont jingle.
GM: Yaknow, I've never seen anyone botch a roll -that- bad before.
Dan Bongard
Your Name (em...@domain.com) wrote:
: it's not as if the gm can not make a random decision.
It is very much like that, actually. There is no evidence that
humans are actually capable of generating random data. Some people
like to think they can, but then some people like to think they
have psychic powers.
If your players believe you when you say you can make up random
numbers, though, good for you.
-- Dan
Carl Perkins
Frank Sronce
>}: it's not as if the gm can not make a random decision.
>}
>}It is very much like that, actually. There is no evidence that
>}humans are actually capable of generating random data. Some people
>}like to think they can, but then some people like to think they
>}have psychic powers.
>}
>}If your players believe you when you say you can make up random
>}numbers, though, good for you.
>}
>}-- Dan
>
>872.
>
>--- Carl
Hear, hear. Honestly, if you want to get that technical, with a good
enough simulation you could always figure out what the die-roll will end up
on, anyway- after all, the person rolling it can't do anything randomly,
right? At a particular circumstance, the die will be thrown a particular
way, and you can map and simulate that and figure out which side it'll land
on. Of course (chaos theory, and all that), you CAN'T actually make a
simulation that good. And similarly, you can't predict what number a person
will come up with.
Kiz
Frank Sronce
>> To go off on a tangent, there is something beautiful about a well-run
Amber
>> auction. The trick, however, is that you need to have a justification for
it.
>> If you're generating an entirely original royal family, I found the
auction
>> works well (because you get results very similar to what you see in the
books).
>> There's one other situation I created specifically to use the auction
>> effectively.
>>
>> What's your experience with it?
>
>
>what I'll spend for the character, and that would be that." And many of
>my friends had said the same thing. So when I went to run an Amber game,
>my friends got their characters planned ahead of time. Two of them
>actually worked together, planning their characters in tandem.
>
> And when the auction came... they threw caution to the winds! One of
>them got an advantage, and suddenly it was as cutthroat as the original
>auction in the book. Whee!
>
>--
> Sea Wasp
Ah, the auction. It has several odd effects, which some people like and
some don't. If the characters have never met before, it produces the weird
effect that you already know which of your new buddies is the best
swordsman, before anything else happens. It also gives the GM some idea of
exactly how much the players value attributes over powers. I wished that I
had been in one local campaign- apparently all of the players wanted LOTS of
powers, so one character managed to get first rank in all four attributes...
for 10 points each. If I had been that player, I don't know, I think I'd've
been tempted to hunt down and kill all of the other characters just to prove
that I could. First ranked in everything... that would tend to give a
character a big ego, I think.
One cute alternative was gradual character creation- we all played the
children of the lord of Tourmaline, Fabian. I was born first, and got
around 20 points to distribute amongst attributes and powers. Then the
second character was born, the GM ran a couple of short little things to
establish our relationship, and then we both got 20 points to spend.
Naturally, the others kept getting additional points after I did, until we
were all even. But it let the GM see the ORDER in which we acquired our
skills and abilities, and it let us make modifications based on other
characters. For instance, my younger sister managed to really tick off my
character (Sthenno the skilled warrior) in a training session. So rather
than selling back Warfare (as the player had originally planned), she ended
up taking some extra to defend herself. So character creation took a full
session, but hey, it always does. :-) What also made it a little cute was
that we could at any reasonable point say that our character leaves home,
and finish adding points in secret. So we weren't 100% sure of where we
stood.
At one point all of those characters had to walk crosscountry. No one had
any idea where they stood in Endurance, so no one was willing to admit that
they were tired- we wanted to see who tired out first and had to call a
halt. When the GM finally told Gary that his character was exhausted first,
he stared at everyone and pronounced, "I am at AWE of the endurances in this
party." Because he had never expected to be the lowest. :-)
I've also seen people bring in new characters, created out of sight. The
cute bit was that they DIDN'T know the totals of the other PCs, so they
sometimes guessed very wrongly about where their characters stood in rank.
Yes, the magic-oriented Logrus master did attempt to take on the character
with the most points in stats in a straight swordfight. And yea, did he get
his butt kicked.
Kiz
Sea Wasp
Frank Sronce wrote:
I wished that I
> had been in one local campaign- apparently all of the players wanted LOTS of
> powers, so one character managed to get first rank in all four attributes...
> for 10 points each.
One player in my game got Rank 1 in three out of four stats. He was one
of the two who'd originally made a deal to create simultaneous
characters. The joke was that he ended up kicking the other guy out of
first place in Psyche early in the auction, when they'd agree that this
was the stat that the other player would have as the high one. And a
THIRD player snuck in at the last moment with a high bid, forcing the
final result to be Psyche: Rank 1 (player1) rank 2 (player 3) rank 3
(player 2), when it should have been 2,1,3. The third player also outbid
everyone for Endurance. One player was only low-ranked in all stats, but
had Exalted Sorcery and Trump artistry; some of the others couldn't even
get from place to place easily.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Triad3204
In article <6iajdn$a...@newsops.execpc.com>, mad...@earth.execpc.com (Steve
Mading) writes:
>: Yeah, that's basically the idea behind diceless gaming. The idea is that
>the
>: players trust the GM and the GM trusts the players, and they work together
>to
>: tell a story. The only remaining rules are those that give a structure to
>that
>: storytelling, not those that attempt to determine the course the story will
>: take.
>
>That's great. But my original point that started all this was
>the observation that you might as well not fool yourself into
>thinking this is a 'system' with rules. It isn't. It's no
>different than just sitting around a campfire telling stories,
>and as such you can't claim any good fun it gives you as an
>advantage of 'the system', when it is in fact an advantage of
>having a lack of a system.
What's your point? If you're point is that there is no system . . . you're
wrong. Telling stories around a campfire is systemless -- Amber has a very
definite system which quantifies varying power and skill levels of PCs, NPCs,
and inanimate objects in the game world. This quantifiers are a system which is
used by the players and the GM to tell their story. Is it less of a system than
others which are available? Yes. Is it not a system at all? No.
If you're point is that the fun is not an advantage of the "system" . . .
you're right, but you're point is pointless. The system of D&D or GURPS or Feng
Shui do not make the game fun for me either -- they are tools which I and my
players use to tell a story, and it is the telling of the story which is fun
for me.
If you're point is that the advantage here is the "lack of a system" . . .
you'll find no argument here. The fact that Amber has less of a system in place
than, say, GURPS makes it very appealing for certain types of structured
storytelling. Since I never made that point to begin with, of course, you
haven't really proven anything.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com