Hello
I'm developing an idea to create a game that uses points to decide weather a character successfully completes actions or not and as such the game does not require dice. I do however recognise that my system is not the first Diceless RPG and I would like to know what experiences people have had with Diceless Games and the challenges/success stories involved with them.
You might want to check out Amber. There are threads here on the Force with plenty of info on it, and here's the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Diceless_Roleplaying_Game) to the Wikipedia page.
Amber is the grand-daddy of diceless rpgs, but it's more karma-based than resource-based
Some example of "mainstream" rpgs with diceless point-systems are NOBILIS (where you spend points to achieve difficult effects), or MARVEL UNIVERSE RPG (based, I hear, on ACTIVE EXPLOITS, that you can download for free here (http://www.pigames.net/store/default.php?cPath=21), but I am not sure about this because I never played any of them)
Some "indie" example are: UNIVERSALIS and MORTAL COIL, that have a dedicated forum here on the forge where you can find (or ask for) more informations.
For a while about 3 years back I was actively trying to create a similar system called Duelists. The problem I kept running into was that it suffered from a lack of drama. The advantage of dice is that you are never sure exactly what number will turn up when you roll them. Not that you can't do a diceless system, its' just really hard.
Thanks guys for all your help, I will research the things you have posted.
Let me run the idea I had past you guys and you tell me what you think...
As far as I can gather there are three sorts of dice rolls in a game - (really basic)
1. Complete an action roll - So a PC would roll to complete a task, whatever that might be.
2. Opposed roll - 2 PC's or 1 PC and 1NPC roll and the best result wins.
3. Effect roll - PC or GM rolls dice to discover the effect of their action
So I have to find a way of doing the above but without dice.... or any other aid really and yet at the same time ensure there is still drama in the game.
So I have first thought about using points. To do this I have to split the points up into 4 different areas.
1. Attributes - Attributes will provide a basis for skills and other scores.
2. Constructs - Constructs will determine the quality of the PC/NPC's equipment.
3. Skills - Skills determine the base score a PC/NPC will have for completing tasks.
4. Boosters - Boosters will augment skills when used.
So lets look at that in the three different times dice are rolled in the game and see how it works.
1. Complete an action - The GM secretly sets an score a PC must have points equal to or above to succeed - the PC uses their appropriate skill or attribute and then adds so many points from their booster to come up with a score. He then presents that score to the GM who then decides if the PC completed the action, partially completed it or failed it.
2. Opposed rolls - Exactly as above except 2 people present their final scores to each other and the one with the most wins.
3. Effect rolls - This would be determined by using the amount of points in a construct plus points from appropriate attribute plus any booster the player wants to use.
This would be emphasised even more in the game by making it difficult for PC's to regenerate their Boosters without sacrifice of time or energy. The drama then comes into it in the case of the player using their points effectively and at the same time never knowing if the score they have chosen will or will not work.
can anybody see a problem with the idea I have.??
#1 sounds an awful lot like: "GM decides whether the player will succeed or failure based on his own whim and fiat"
Given that the GM knows what points the player has available, he'll always be able to just decide whether the PC succeeds or fails...at which point, why not dispense with the illusion of points altogether and play free form.
I think you'll have more luck building an auction system where players and GM alike have limited resources that they bid for success now, but won't have available in the future. Something like:
Player: Ok, I'm going to bid 3 of my 7 points of strength, 2 of my 5 in fighting skill, and all 3 points from my high quality sword. That gives me a total of 8 points.
GM: Ok, I bid 6 of my big pool of Trouble for this scene, so you win by 2...tell me two things that happen as a result of your effort.
You can have all sorts of tweaks around this:
* the difference between secret one time bids and open rounds of competitive bidding
* "Magic" abilities that allow you to adjust your bid AFTER the reveal on a secret one time bid
*"Destiny Points" that the GM uses to bribe a player to allow the GM to adjust his bid After the Reveal (e.g. in the above example "GM: ok, I only bid 6 Trouble...will you accept 3 Destiny to let me up my bid to 9 so I can win by 1?"
* Different rules around how points refresh: Taking a turn to "sharpen my sword" gets my sword points back, or performing weapon katas to get my fighting points back, or sleeping to get my strength points back. Plus you can give each character their own unique point refresh technique...the drunkard character can refresh after going on a binger, the lecher can refresh after night of chasing tail, the pious paladin can refresh after a night of prayer and fasting...etc.
Auctions are fun and exciting and dramatic...which is why there are TONS of auction based Euro games out there. If you're looking to go diceless, I'd look at auction mechanics vs. strict point compare mechanics.
Simpler than an auction system is to have a reward for the player based on the number the player has to get? If they have to get five, its five points.
These points can be accumulated and spent on game world changes, with a pre set cost to them. Also I think the changes shouldn't be generic - the players set up a list of things they want changed when they make the PC. And the rougher things are, even though the fail, in the long term they are getting towards their goals.
HI Valamir
I like the idea of a auction system and I can see now how Amber does it.
However I don't really agree with you on the "GM decides if the player succeeds or not". The GM job is simply to state how hard he believes the task is.... so no matter how many points the player has if they are trying to leap from one huge tower block to the adjacent tower block during a monsoon it's going to be a high target for the player to get over.
The way to overcome any errors made by the GM would be to rustle up some form of scale that would show how a GM would come to their decision on how hard a task is.... for example..
it's 20 feet between the two buildings so that 1 point per 2 feet = 10 points
plus
Monsoon season gives an extra 50 points
so the target for a player to jump from one to the other is 60 points.
Can anybody think of any problems with me doing it this way?
Callan... I love your idea of rewarding the players based on the points they spent.... that is pure genius :-)
I will of course implement it :-)
I can see what your saying too about making the players select how they want to improve their character before hand and then work towards that goal.... I like that alot.
Quote from: zoom on June 27, 2007, 09:57:10 AM
However I don't really agree with you on the "GM decides if the player succeeds or not". The GM job is simply to state how hard he believes the task is.... so no matter how many points the player has if they are trying to leap from one huge tower block to the adjacent tower block during a monsoon it's going to be a high target for the player to get over.
The way to overcome any errors made by the GM would be to rustle up some form of scale that would show how a GM would come to their decision on how hard a task is.... for example..
it's 20 feet between the two buildings so that 1 point per 2 feet = 10 points
plus
Monsoon season gives an extra 50 points
so the target for a player to jump from one to the other is 60 points.
Can anybody think of any problems with me doing it this way?
Lots. First you'll need about 3000 pages worth of tables to reference every conceivable thing in the universe to make a system where such target numbers can be objectively calculated. Since obviously that's not a real option, the best you can do is set rough guidelines (like the Easy / Average / Hard / Impossible scales found in so many games). So what you've really done is left the decision completely subjective...but allowed the GM to hide behind an illusion of objectivity...which is actually way worse than just acknowledging its all GM whim anyway.
Here's how it will work in practice for most groups.
Player "I want to jump from the roof of the building to the next building"
GM <yeah, that sounds really cool>: "Ok the Target number is really low and easy"
or
GM <boring, snooze, seen that a million times, I'm feeling cranky and just don't like it>: "Ok the Target number is really high, you'll never make it"
or
GM <heh, yeah, I knew he'd do that, he's going to fall right into my trap>: "Ok the Target number is really low and easy"
or
GM <but if he does that, he'll miss this cool encounter, can't allow that to happen>: "Ok the Target number is really high, you'll never make it".
Since the GM knows exactly what kind of points the player has available, they can pretty much ALL THE TIME set the target number to be just within, or just outside of the players' reach based on factors that have NOTHING to do with "how hard is it really". Then you'll wind up with players trying to fight off high target numbers with long diatribes about how "they saw a guy jump 20 feet in full military pack on You Tube so they know its realistic to be able to do it so its unfair for the target number to be so high"
I honestly can't see any reason at all to go through the rigamarole of tracking resources and setting target numbers when the exercise 100% boils down to "the GM decides what happens". If I have faith and trust in the GM, and I know he delivers a cracking good story...then why bother with the rigamorole...just dump the mechanics all together and let him say what happens.
Ultimately I find Amber to be a pretty horrible example of a diceless roleplaying game...because Amber more or less boils down to "the GM decides what happens". Consider: In Amber high score wins...if I have the high score, I win -- unless you can find a way to shift the conflict to a different score that you're higher in...unless I can find a way to shift it back to a score I'm higher in...unless you can find a way to shift it back to a score you're higher in. Who decides whether those shifts occur and what score will be the final determiner...the GM...so ultimately if the GM likes your version of events better than mine, he'll let you switch the arena, and if he doesn't, he won't. Regardless of numbers, the GM pretty much decided who gots to win...the rest is just an illusion.
So if that's what you're looking for, then full speed ahead and all that. But realize, that without some extra element, that's what you'll get. The extra element could be dice, it could be cards, it could be an auction, it could be rock paper scissors (heck I played an RPG once in college where the resolution system was based on the weight of a fish landed in Bass Masters on the SNES)...but without something all's you'll have is "resolution by fiat". Most often you'll wind up with "resolution by GM fiat" but its possible to go the other way too and wind up with "resolution by player fiat".
Personally I find resolution by fiat unsatisfying most times. But if I was going to play a resolution by fiat game, I certainly wouldn't want to encumber it with the illusion of objective mechanics.
Quote from: Valamir on June 27, 2007, 11:18:47 AM
First you'll need about 3000 pages worth of tables to reference every conceivable thing in the universe to make a system where such target numbers can be objectively calculated.
Quote
I honestly can't see any reason at all to go through the rigamarole of tracking resources and setting target numbers when the exercise 100% boils down to "the GM decides what happens". If I have faith and trust in the GM, and I know he delivers a cracking good story...then why bother with the rigamorole...just dump the mechanics all together and let him say what happens.
Quote
Personally I find resolution by fiat unsatisfying most times. But if I was going to play a resolution by fiat game, I certainly wouldn't want to encumber it with the illusion of objective mechanics.
I think all of this assumes that the GM is an author whos goal is to tell a story and will try to manipulate circumstance in order to railroad the group. While such GMs exist, such a confrontational approach to gaming is as fun as the American confrontational justice system is effective.
I'm not here to defend Amber or even dice rolls, but if you think you need to roll dice to role play then you either have to trust your GM, agree on an objective method of difficulty measurement (such as a Monster Manual or other such beast), or devise a system for negotiating difficulty between players.
The problem with any game that has a proper GM is that even if you ignore arbitrary difficulty setting, the GM controls all of the parts of the game that aren't mechanically decided. Anything less and the GM is not a proper one by my definition of the term. So, finding or training a GM to not put the players on the rails is the important element for most systems that employ them.
The lesson here has nothing to do with difficulty setting and everything to do with tearing down the holy pedastal of the GM and promoting a cooperative environment for role playing. Competition should be saved for other genres of play.
Game mechanics serve only 3 purposes in an RPG.
1) They provide a degree of resolution uncertainty (and there are MANY ways to do this beyond just dice)
2) they provide a creative spring board by introducing unexpected elements that cause ALL players at the table to have to improvise.
3) SOME RPGs manage to write rules that provide effective parameters for objective arbitration of outcomes, but those are in a pretty distinct minority. Most RPGs do a pretty poor job of this, which is typically ok, because its not a requirement for an RPG to do this like it is for a board / war / card game. But pretending that the game does when it doesn't is worse than just not.
So the third one is really optional, but the first two are pretty much required. If the game mechanics do not do the first two then you have a game where all resolution boils down to fiat. That's OK...there are many great games being played that boil down to fiat. My point is, that if you're playing a game where everything is resolved by fiat, you don't need mechanics like this at all...you need only a technique for determining who has fiat power at any given moment and what they have fiat power over. Everything else is negotiated and collaboratory.
Point being if you WANT a resolution by fiat game, then all of the above rules are unnecessary and probably overly cumbersome. Its a hell of a lot quicker and less intrusive for a GM to simply say "Ok you make the jump across to the other building" then it is for the GM to go through the motions of looking up a bunch of numbers so they can then say "Ok you make the jump across to the other building". Because, as I've said, all those numbers are just an illusion. So if your GM is good enough to tell a cracking story and you have that level of trust and faith in them...its really pointless to waste time and effort pretending the numbers matter.
However, if you DON'T want a resolution by fiat game, then you need to hit the first two items above. And that requires SOME mechanism of uncertainty. If there's a way to accomplish both of the above that doesn't involve some uncertainty mechanic, I've yet to see it. Uncertainty doesn't HAVE to mean randomized...randomized is just the easiest (and most commonly employed) method of uncertainty. Auctions (in all their infinite variety) are probably the easiest means of introducing uncertainty without randomness. Trick taking card games are essentially single bid auctions where the currency (i.e. card values) are randomized. The awesome game Raj is essentially a trick taking card game where the currency is NOT randomized (every body has an identical "hand" of "cards" to bid with).
The system outlined in this thread so far has uncertainty in the resolution mechanic ONLY for the players. They are uncertain of what target number the GM is going to pick. The GM, however, as outlined has NO uncertainty. He knows what task the player is attempting, and he knows what resources the player has available. The outcome is ENTIRELY deterministic.
So how can you introduce uncertainty as to the outcome of the resolution for the GM as well as the players?
Even in the absence of dice or other randomizers there are many possibilities. An auction mechanic is one.
Here's another. The GM predetermines all difficulties in advance BEFORE he knows what the players are going to do. For example: "The Target Number for getting out of this situation is 9". The players have no idea what the target number is, and the GM has no idea what skills the players are going to try to use. Equal uncertainty on both sides. That doesn't seem all that FUN to me, but I'm trying to make the point that this isn't about "needing to roll dice to role play" and everything to do with needing some source of uncertainty for the game to not end up being "resolution by fiat".
Whatever form that uncertainty takes it NEEDS to be there...without it you'd be better off just playing free form and throwing away the illusion of objective mechanics.
What Ralph is describing, I was describing in a PM recently. Well, I think I was, and here it is in short form: If you want to engage real adversity, you want to ensure your not just deluding yourself that your doing so. It's like climbing a cliff face in real life - you go to do it and HEY your at the top! Oh wait - didn't the guy at the top winch me up here...and here...and here too? Oh wait, there was no adversity.
I think if you look through co-operative play reports, you see alot of winching points in that play.
Well, that might be a debatable point. What isn't debatable is that if there wasn't adversity but you think you faced adversity, your in a delusionary state. That means you want to be very, very, very careful about checking your adversity is real - casually saying co-op play has adversity may leave you in the described state.
Of course, alot of people don't have an interest in facing adversity, as Ralph says. And that's perfectly fine - but he's right, most rules just get in the way then.
Hi guys
Great Comments... Thanks for your input.
Hi Valamir... thanks for your comments.... I'm beginning to understand your point of view... I think....., let me try to understand what your point is (let me know if I'm wrong.. cos I'm always one for screwing up points of view..lol)
You are saying that becuase the GM knows what each character has he can then decide ultimately wether the player succeeds or not.
In that case would it be prudent then to put several things in place.
First of all in the case of the 4 area's I mentioned, by allowing a character the chance to spend "points" in these area's as they see fit and then decide in game how many of the different area's "points" are used in each task, this would make it nia on impossible for the GM to track where the character is upto and how many point's they have at any given time.
As regards the GM's difficulty table, I was suggesting that some form of scale be designed to show the difficulty of a task. I don't think I would need 500 different tables however. The majority of games that come out have a number of tables for things like Movement, Combat, Damage and piloting and they arn't all that complicated to follow.
As a GM I would consider the points use of the game to be the players responsibility and not mine.... I would have enough trouble keeping track of my NPC's (the baddies) and any other aspects of the story.
By adversity is it that we mean becuase there is no area of randomness then there is no hill to have climbed over in the first place??. In this game I think the fun would be the gamble of knowing when to use the points you have and how many of them. Should I run up those stairs and kill them three guys by spending 90% of my points or should I take my time and slug it out using only 50% becuase at the top I know I've got to jump from one place to the other.
If i'm barking up the wrong tree please let me know..... and thank you everybody for your comments so far
zoom :-)
Quote from: Valamir on June 27, 2007, 10:31:19 PM
Point being if you WANT a resolution by fiat game, then all of the above rules are unnecessary and probably overly cumbersome. Its a hell of a lot quicker and less intrusive for a GM to simply say "Ok you make the jump across to the other building" then it is for the GM to go through the motions of looking up a bunch of numbers so they can then say "Ok you make the jump across to the other building". Because, as I've said, all those numbers are just an illusion. So if your GM is good enough to tell a cracking story and you have that level of trust and faith in them...its really pointless to waste time and effort pretending the numbers matter.
My point is that any game can be ruined by abusive players. The issue here appears to me to be weather the rules are there to prevent abuse or to provide a common framework for exploration. I would fully agree that many, if not most, groups are led by wanna-be authors or megalomaniacs who abuse such power and make all of the intricate mechanics meaningless and by this measure your argument is completely valid.
I just think that mechanics shouldn't be viewed as protecting against such abuses. More effort needs to go in to creating a culture which avoids these problems.
Quote
The system outlined in this thread so far has uncertainty in the resolution mechanic ONLY for the players. They are uncertain of what target number the GM is going to pick. The GM, however, as outlined has NO uncertainty. He knows what task the player is attempting, and he knows what resources the player has available. The outcome is ENTIRELY deterministic.
Many things that a GM decides are deterministic. You don't roll for walking down a hallway unless there is a reason to believe that it will be unsuccessful and you have a chance of avoiding part or all of the effect which would prevent your action. The issue here is if a player disagrees with the GM that something is deterministic, the GM can go through the motions and just set an impossible goal. A system that can force the GM to give up this power has the opportunity of allowing players to make successful rolls to attempt the impossible and succeed. Mechanics won't save you when you don't have trust between players.
Quote
Whatever form that uncertainty takes it NEEDS to be there...without it you'd be better off just playing free form and throwing away the illusion of objective mechanics.
I don't think the choice is as simple as just those two. You can have game mechanics which address the role-playing aspect of the game without the requirement of objectivity.
Mothlos, I don't think we'll be able to continue this conversation until you can come to a point where you understand that nothing I've said has anything to do with abusive GMs or lack of trust. That is very specifically NOT the issue.
Imagine if you will the least abusive, most collaborative, totally non-dickweed GM you can. Now realize that EVERYTHING I've written so far applies 100% to them too. Until we're both on the same page about that, we're just talking past each other.
You can't write rules to block asshat behavior. That's a given, and totally has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
To your second point, I'm not talking about determining walking down the hall...I'm talking about conflict...the actual moment when two characters in the fiction have conflicting goals. If there is no uncertainty about how those conflicting goals will be resolved then you have resolution by fiat and the mechanics are just an illusion.
QuoteYou are saying that becuase the GM knows what each character has he can then decide ultimately wether the player succeeds or not
Zoom, yes...but not just at the individual action scale that you address next.
QuoteIn that case would it be prudent then to put several things in place.
First of all in the case of the 4 area's I mentioned, by allowing a character the chance to spend "points" in these area's as they see fit and then decide in game how many of the different area's "points" are used in each task, this would make it nia on impossible for the GM to track where the character is upto and how many point's they have at any given time.
You are correct that if I as GM know you have 16 "points" that as long as I don't know how many of those points you choose to spend for a single task that I am uncertain as to whether or not you'll succeed
at that task. But I'm still pretty much in control of whether or not you succeed in your overall objective. If you failing would "make for a better story" I can totally arrange to 18 points worth of difficulty in front of you spread across 4 tasks. I don't know which of those 4 tasks you'll choose to spend enough points to beat and which you won't, but I know for certain that you only have 16 points total so eventually I run you out. Further, as long as I have the ability to decide when you make checks as well as what the difficulty is, I can ensure that you will always make enough checks to run out of points and thus lose...or I can likewise ensure that ultimately you win. Now this can be a very fun way to play, and lots of folks spend their entire roleplaying career allowing the GM to make those calls because they have faith they'll get a heck of a dramatic and impactful story out of it. But then all that point tracking is really just unnecessary fiddling. Skip it and let the GM just decide.
So lets say you don't want the GM to just decide. One option is to limit the total number of points of difficulty I get to throw at you. Now I can't just keep throwing difficulty at you until you run out. And if neither of us know how many points the other is spending, we both have to be careful not to waste points and we can never be totally sure which conflicts are so important that we're willing to go "all in" to win. So now, neither of us is sure whether you will ultimately win or lose. You can provide some of those rough guides you mentioned about difficulty so that we can kinda sorta guess the range of what a reasonable number of points is for a given thing, but we still don't know.
Notice, that what I've just described is basically an auction where we are both secretly bidding limited resources in order to "win" the outcome of the conflict. This won't work if the GM has unlimited resources...it would be like going to an auction where you have $1000 to spend and I have $10 million...the only items you'll win are the things I've already decided I don't want.
From there the key driving elements of your game...what it will "feel like" in play...will then be driven by how and how frequently you get to refresh your points and how the GM get points to oppose you with. Does the GM have the same pool to use against all players or a seperate pool per player? Are there things that a player can do to benefit themselves that give the GM points to use against another player? Are the GM's points built scene by scene in advance or is there just a big pool that the GM uses on the fly on whatever seems important. Is it some action on the player's part that lets the GM refresh? Imagine, for instance, a game where the GM pool refreshed a certain amount every time a player character killed an NPC. Now imagine what such a rule would do to the way the game is played...how many times would players "let the arch villain escape" so as not to give the GM a big refresh right at the climactic conflict. How would the game play completely differently from one where the GM gets an automatic refresh each session based on the total number of NPC he has that are still alive?
See what I'm saying?. Once you build that level of conflict uncertainty in some fashion into the system, you can then custom tweak all the little variables to make the game feel the way you want. That's when you know you have successfully designed a great rules set...NOT when the rules just "get out of the way"...but when they actually contribute to the feel of the game.
Is that helpful, or am I just rambling on?
Quote from: Valamir on June 28, 2007, 03:59:49 PM
Mothlos, I don't think we'll be able to continue this conversation until you can come to a point where you understand that nothing I've said has anything to do with abusive GMs or lack of trust. That is very specifically NOT the issue.
Imagine if you will the least abusive, most collaborative, totally non-dickweed GM you can. Now realize that EVERYTHING I've written so far applies 100% to them too. Until we're both on the same page about that, we're just talking past each other.
I'm defining abuse as inclusive of ruling by fiat or railroading, not just maciliousness. As I understand it you are saying that as long as the GM can decide things by choosing values which virtually guarantee an outcome why should one bother figuring out values and rolling dice. I'm saying that any GM who does that without the full consent of the players, no matter how nice or well-meaning the GM is, is abusive.
A true GM is by definition is the final arbiter. It is the GM's duty to create a situation with points of uncertainty for players. A Choose Your Own Adventure writer shouldn't be in the business if you aren't ever given a choice about which section to turn to.
While a noble goal, as long as you are going to have a single player called the GM who is given the ability to decide the characteristics of the world, railroading is going to be an issue. I think it is a fair trade-off to have the responsibility for making sure the impossible doesn't happen rest in a single decider.
Quote
You can't write rules to block asshat behavior. That's a given, and totally has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
To your second point, I'm not talking about determining walking down the hall...I'm talking about conflict...the actual moment when two characters in the fiction have conflicting goals. If there is no uncertainty about how those conflicting goals will be resolved then you have resolution by fiat and the mechanics are just an illusion.
It's not always about goals, though. Sometimes it is simply descriptive like, "Can I climb the cliff?". In your previous post you said that the GM would decide what he or she wanted then set the difficulty for that result. This is abusive behavior. A good GM should try to set aside his or her plans for what 'should' happen and instead be responsive to what the players want to try. If the GM does so, uncertainty mechanics of all sorts are playable. If the GM fails to do this then I agree, why bother.
Hi mothlos,
Quickly quoting you
Quotethe GM controls all of the parts of the game that aren't mechanically decided.
I might be wrong, but I think Ralph/Valamir is refering to games where
everything is mechancially decided. If it doesn't have a deciding mechanic, the GM doesn't make a ruling, it's just impossible to do. For example, from what I know of "My life with master" there are no rules for just wandering up to the master and attempting to kill him straight away. The GM doesn't make a ruling here about doing that because there are no rules to do it - it just isn't part of the game everyone (presumably) decided to play.
I think your insisting on GM tasks and responsibilities which really aren't part of what Ralph is refering to in terms of design. Unless you get him to talk about games where not everything isn't mechanically decided, it's not talking about the same subject with him.
Cool... what a great discussion....
So then for me to balance this game far better between the gm and the players I should develop a way for the GM to be restricted in what they can do.
I had a think about this. In the case of NPC's and Bad guys I thought I would create a threat rating which is the base score that the bad guy gets in any opposed tests and in any tests to see wether the bad guy completes a task.
That way a GM is frozen in what they can do, and because both the GM and the Players have to go off the scale there can be little in the way of breaking any rules.... What do you guys think?
Quote from: zoom on June 29, 2007, 09:47:08 AM
Cool... what a great discussion....
So then for me to balance this game far better between the gm and the players I should develop a way for the GM to be restricted in what they can do.
Sort of...balance is one of those squirrely words, and I'm not sure how you're using it here.
I'm not talking about balance in power levels between the GM and Players. That might be a good thing if you want to track down a more competitive road which can be cool but not the issue I was commenting on.
Nor am I talking about balance in authority levels around any kind of tug of war between GM and Players over who gets to own the story. I haven't found a way to communicate this to mothlos, who's still hung up on ideas of abuse, but as long as you're clear that I'm not talking about "leveling the playing field to make it more 'fair'" or any such notion then that's probably good enough.
I probably wouldn't use the word "balance" but if pressed, I'd call it "Balance of Suspense". You've got your conflict -- its all poised on a knife edge -- the characters have announced their actions and goals and what not -- its time to resolve...and NOBODY knows for sure how its going to wind up...including the GM.
How this conflict resolves will color at the very least the rest of the scene and potentially the entire campaign...and its absolutely crucial that none of the people around the table know what the outcome is going to be until the last tweak of the resolution system has been executed. That may be dice, it may be cards, it may be point based auction, it may be any number of things...as long as the outcome is not preknown.
The reason this is important has nothing to do with preventing the GM from going all "author / railroady" on the players (although that is a common side effect). The reason its important is because this uncertainty is the creative fuel that will take your game to places that no peson would (or potentially even "could") imagine on their own. At THAT moment of resolution...everything changes...the world has changed in a manner that was not predicted and NOW the story is going to go somewhere new. Through the resolution system EVERYONE (including the players) had impact on where it was going to go, but NO ONE (including the GM) had control. At that point the narrative takes on a life of its own and obtains a synergy of creative energy that is not possible (at least not reliably so) if someone has fore knowledge or direct control of what was going to happen.
Quote
I had a think about this. In the case of NPC's and Bad guys I thought I would create a threat rating which is the base score that the bad guy gets in any opposed tests and in any tests to see wether the bad guy completes a task.
That way a GM is frozen in what they can do, and because both the GM and the Players have to go off the scale there can be little in the way of breaking any rules.... What do you guys think?
Maybe...I'm not entirely clear on what you're suggesting. But if this simply means that now the players know exactly how many points they have to spend to win, then you've just reversed the problem, not fixed it.
Quote from: Valamir on June 29, 2007, 12:44:56 PMMaybe...I'm not entirely clear on what you're suggesting. But if this simply means that now the players know exactly how many points they have to spend to win, then you've just reversed the problem, not fixed it.
Nay! Unless it's a game like snakes and ladders, where you win by pure randomness, then your winning will be influenced by what you've figured out. That means at some point a person could say 'I know exactly how to win this' and there would be no more suspence for him, he just wins it.
The problem with the traditional GM role is that once he figured it out, he could usually string it along for as long as he liked. Whole sessions. Whole campaigns even. But it's still okay to have a minute or two of non suspence for someone in a game, despite that.
What zoom's described is the point where you know their stats, you know what you'll need to spend, you know how to win (it's not GM fiat, you spend, you win). Cool, now lets work backwards from that point, to where you didn't know and figure out why you didn't know.
Quote from: Valamir on June 28, 2007, 03:59:49 PM
You are correct that if I as GM know you have 16 "points" that as long as I don't know how many of those points you choose to spend for a single task that I am uncertain as to whether or not you'll succeed at that task. But I'm still pretty much in control of whether or not you succeed in your overall objective. If you failing would "make for a better story" I can totally arrange to 18 points worth of difficulty in front of you spread across 4 tasks.
As has been pointed out I think, this is also true of diced games. Many times in my life as a gamer I've seen GMs arbitrarily have things happen regardless of the dice, or simply given NPCs massive modifiers or 'grow' special abilities that make things happen the way the GM wants them to. It can be done crassly or it can be done subtly but no game is immune to this.
What diceless games, whether Karma based or resource based do is put this out in the open, so that it's much more transparent. But they also need to provide mechanisms for affecting the outcome, and they do this by providing the players with resources that can effect changes in the game world.
For example suppose a party of Amber characters are attacked by a massive fireball. One character might shape shift into a salamander that's immune to heat, another might emergency Hellride away to another dimension. A third character might cast a Freeze spell on himself and another might just be so tough he survives anyway. When facing overwhelming opposition characters must get creative, calling on allies or using Pattern powers to modifty the environment to favour themselves or the lead the enemy into a trap.
What Erick Wujick realised is that the mechanics of comparing two character's abilities head to head really aren't very interesting. What is interesting is what options their abilities make available to a character. In Amber you can't cleverly manipulate the game system to gain statistical advantages, you have to get clever at using your character's abilities, what you know about your character's strengths and your opponent's weaknesses, which powers and abilities trump which other powers and abilities, or how you can use resources in the game world to achieve your goals. Diceless mechanics are more than adequate to facilitate such play.
Simon Hibbs
Hi Simon,
Ralph's not knocking the idea of diceless systems, he's refering to a resource leak (can be in dice games too), where the GM can draw on an unlimited amount of resources.
This can then be drawn on over and over again in the interest of a 'better story'. A common denial is that players can see the GM do this and can show unhappyness or discontent. This is simply flipping the problem around - the player draws on showing discontent over and over again, in the interest of a 'better story'.
The problem with unlimited resources vs unlimited discontent is that it goes on for an unlimited time. It takes something outside of the game, like someone saying or infering 'don't be a dick' to break that cycle.
Many gamers think that isn't a problem. But it stops you from actually playing the game, and if you think you have, your in a delusional state. For example, say your playing chess against a woman with a big cleavage and she fusses with them when your about to take a significant piece or checkmate her, to stop you doing that. That's not chess anymore, because those boobs are more important than any piece on the board or move you could make. If you think you've really played chess like this, your in a delusional state (but if you don't care about chess and are there for the boobies though, your fine!).
Same goes for the 'don't be a dick' technique, because it opperates in exactly the same area as the boobies do - outside of the game.
Many gamers actually include 'don't be a dick' as part of the game - however, it means they can never buy a new game and play a new way, because like the boobies, 'don't be a dick' is far bigger and more important than any of the rules - so obviously new rules wont change anything that's important about play. Here their delusional about having played a new game AND they are trapped in the same type of play over and over - regardless of the quality of that play.
Bah, I went on when I meant to just add some bullet points. To summerise, that's where resource leaks lead to.
Quote from: Callan S. on June 30, 2007, 07:08:24 PM
Ralph's not knocking the idea of diceless systems, he's refering to a resource leak (can be in dice games too), where the GM can draw on an unlimited amount of resources.
But surely GMs always have unlimited resources. They get to arbitrarily decide all of the stats of the NPCs, they get to decide the value of any situational modifiers and if they secretly change or add to the abilities of NPC's, who's to know? What you and Valmar seem to be saying is that diceless systems are pure illusion but illusion is possible, in fact it's easy, in just about any system. As I said diceless games bring this all out into the open. GM's can't play a shell game where they claim it's all open and fair when actually they rigged the whole thing from the start, as I've see (and done to be perfectly honest) so many times. In a good diceless game, as in any game, it's the ingenuity and creativity of the players in the face of the challenges presented by the GM that make the game fun.
You don't need dice to make a situation unpredictable, all you need is unpredictable people. So long as the actions and choices of the players are not always predictable in advance, and can affect the outcome of the game then I don't see a problem.
Simon Hibbs
Actually, no. Not all systems give unlimited resources to the GM. Dogs in the Vineyard for instance details exactly what all NPC stats look like from a numbers perspective, the GM merely assigns traits to the given die codes. PTA allows the GM to decide the difficulty of a conflict only by spending from a limited budget which is replenished only according to set rules. In The Shadow of Yesterday only the players get to decide when and when not to "Bring Down the Pain".
You are correct that most traditional games work as you've described...which is why most of them require a ton of drift and rely primarily on the social contract to find a playable balance for the group.
But, again, I'm not talking about the GM abusing the system to railroad the players. I'm talking about whether or not the GM knows what the outcome of a conflict will be in advance of its resolution. That fore knowledge is a bad thing, regardless of whether the GM uses that knowledge in an abusive way because it changes the creative synergy around the table.
In a "non-fiat" system (dice / cards / auction / whatever) the GM is not certain of the outcome*, because even if they make the conflict difficult -- by setting a high target number in a dice game, or bidding alot of points in an auction game -- they don't KNOW that the conflict will resolve in the way they've weighted it. That lack of knowledge is what I'm talking about.
*unless they really are using heavy handed tactics to give the illusion of uncertainty...which as has been pointed out is beyond the ability of mere rules to control.
Hi Simon,
QuoteAs I said diceless games bring this all out into the open. GM's can't play a shell game where they claim it's all open and fair when actually they rigged the whole thing from the start, as I've see (and done to be perfectly honest) so many times.
Do you mean they bring the target number out into the open? Absolutely. But the process for deciding that target number is still hidden - as Ralph noted, if you have 16 action points, the GM can easily arrange 18 points worth of tasks over four tasks or something before you get to your real objective, so as to control whether you get to it. That's all hidden still, wouldn't you say? The diceless system has exposed part of that, but it's not the whole deal.
QuoteBut surely GMs always have unlimited resources. They get to arbitrarily decide all of the stats of the NPCs, they get to decide the value of any situational modifiers and if they secretly change or add to the abilities of NPC's, who's to know?
Your a forgey kind of guy - so your not the sort to just say the GM gets to decide this as if its a tradition to be followed. You'd be saying the GM gets to do it, to achieve some practical quality. What is that quality? Say the GM doesn't get to decide anything - it's like a boardgame. What would you say were missing out on? Try and name just one thing - the most important thing.
If you can name it, then we can look at if it really needs a 'GM has unlimmited resources' rule to support it or not.
Hi there...
So I've had a think about everything that has been said and I've come up with this... you tell me what you think guys.
GM - A gm has the mission/dungeon/campaign setup as per usual. Only this time he had various monsters and baddies that all have a threat rating which dictates how many points they have when dealing with the PC's.
PC - The PC's have all their points ready to be used (like bidding) including the important Booster points which can increase any normal points they have.
GM - Has 2 bad guys on the stairs where the player must run up, He secretly assigns how many points each they will "bid" to stop the player getting past them.... The GM also checks the combat charts he has for any modifications to this point total for things like higher ground and second opponent.
Player - is faced with the dilemma of running up the stairs past 2 bad guys and then onto the roof where he must jump from one building to another..... He secretly decides to use points from his construct to generate "sports Trainers" plus points from his physical attribute and some extra points from his booster.
Both player and GM then announce what their points/bids are and from this result you can see if the player has partially succeeded, succeeded or failed to get past the bad guys.
Lets say the player makes it..... he is now faced with a dilemma, he used valuable points to pull of that feat of acrobatic Free-Running and now has to run and jump over the 20 foot gap between this building and the other. Does he spend valuable action time replenishing his point pools or does he try to make the jump with the points he has and hope he makes it.....
The GM now decides that the bad guys, having been made to look like fools, split up. One goes after the Player and other radios for backup. He decides that the Bad guy chasing the player moves cautiously and as such takes time to replenish his point pool (threat rating). As usual though he does not tell the player this and waits to see what the player decides to do....
The player decides to risk it on the notion that them bad guys could be running up the stairs after him and he hasn't got the points for a prolonged battle on the roof top. He runs and throws all the points he can to jump the gap.
The GM then checks the movement chart and it shows the point cost for movement and other effects such as wether conditions ect and then asks the player for his point total (bid).... the player gets a partial success which means he's holding on with one hand.....
The player then decides to wait a moment to catch his bearrings and as such replenish his Point pool...
Thats how I envisage the play happenning..... (there is an awful lot more to the game than just this but this is the basics)
Can anybody tell me if I've got problems with what I've written above?
I think you've got enough there to put in a rough form and start playtesting.
You'll probably need to spend some time finding the right balance of frequency for your refreshes...too frequent and you remove the scarcity of the currency...and it probably gets a bit fiddly. Too rare and no one can do anything.
That will take some actual play to nail down the right ratio for you.
Quote from: Valamir on July 01, 2007, 01:12:08 PM
But, again, I'm not talking about the GM abusing the system to railroad the players. I'm talking about whether or not the GM knows what the outcome of a conflict will be in advance of its resolution. That fore knowledge is a bad thing, regardless of whether the GM uses that knowledge in an abusive way because it changes the creative synergy around the table.
Sure, but even in a karma or resource based system the GM doesn't know that, because the players can have such a wide variety of abilities and stratagems they could try that how they choose to attack the problem, or even to not attack it and maybe even change the whole terms of the conflict, cannot be predicted by the GM in advance.
Yes if the GM dictates that in this scene you have to fight this enemy and you have to use such-and-such an ability and you are not allowed to come up with anything original then yes, the GM will know what the outcome will be. But if that's how the game is set up then you've already got loads of problems that are far beyond the scope of this discussion.
Quote
In a "non-fiat" system (dice / cards / auction / whatever) the GM is not certain of the outcome*, because even if they make the conflict difficult -- by setting a high target number in a dice game, or bidding alot of points in an auction game -- they don't KNOW that the conflict will resolve in the way they've weighted it. That lack of knowledge is what I'm talking about.
And what I'm saying is that this is not always a particularly interesting kind of uncertainty.
You can have certainty of outcome in some situations, which lead to uncertainties in how those challenges are eventually overcome. You're closing off some possible outcomes in order to create a particular type of challenge. Now to be sure this suits some genres and not others. Take Doctor Who for example. Nobody trying to fight Daleks or Cybermen militarily is ever going to win just by rolling well (except maybe each other) because what makes them so scary is the fact that in a direct conflict they are unbeatable, so the interesting thing in a Doctor Who story, or game, is what other tricks, techniques and resources The Doctor or the players use to confound their plans. Yes there are absolutes, but those absolutes are can be a vital dramatic ingredient in the challenge of the game.
Maybe that kind of game isn't for everyone, and doesn't suit every genre but it can still be a lot of fun.
Simon Hibbs
Quote from: simon_hibbs on July 02, 2007, 02:14:01 PM
Sure, but even in a karma or resource based system the GM doesn't know that, because the players can have such a wide variety of abilities and stratagems they could try that how they choose to attack the problem, or even to not attack it and maybe even change the whole terms of the conflict, cannot be predicted by the GM in advance.
Yes if the GM dictates that in this scene you have to fight this enemy and you have to use such-and-such an ability and you are not allowed to come up with anything original then yes, the GM will know what the outcome will be. But if that's how the game is set up then you've already got loads of problems that are far beyond the scope of this discussion.
As I've said a number of times, there are many ways to skin the cat of achieving GM uncertainty. Is it possible to envision a game where the interaction of fixed scores, special cases, synergy bonuses, cooperative effects, exceptions, and modifiers is complex enough that a GM can't suss out what a player's numerical capability to confront a challenge is? Sure. I haven't seen any and such a system might be hard to do and keep it fast playing, but sure. Its totally possible. GM uncertainty acheived.
But for any Karmic / Resource based game that a) I've seen, and b) is likely to be easily playable any GM whose played half a dozen times has no problem at all looking at your character sheet and figuring out what your numbers allow you to do. He won't know what creative excuses you'll come up with for applying those numbers. He won't know what twisty turny strategem you'll use to try and get as much advantage as you can...but he's played with you enough times to know how you think and ultimately it all comes down to what numbers match up against what numbers...and if he knows all those in advance, the level of uncertainty regarding the final outcome is pretty minimal.
I mean I know your "fight good" skill is a 4. I know your "think smart" skill is an 8. I throw a challenge at you that has a "fight good" threat of 6. Its hardly going to surprise me that you're going to try some clever player trick to switch the arena to "think smart" and win. Sure I won't know what your clever plan is...that'll be fun seeing what stuff you come up with...but the outcome isn't ever in any doubt. You'll win, as soon as you finagle some way to draw upon your "think smart". I totally know that going in...I know the numbers on your sheet and I know you've done that every session we've played so far.
Expand the situation from 2 possible skills to 5 or 10 or 20...yeah, its gets a little bit harder to juggle the permutations but lets face facts, comparing numbers to see which is higher ain't rocket science and you probably only have a couple "big ones" that you try to steer most conflicts to anyway. And yeah it gets harder yet when you have a party of characters with different combinations of numbers. But it still isn't that hard. I know Steve is going to try and bring his "magic stuff 10" and Bob and Jack are going to try and combo their "acrobatics 5" and "martial arts 7" and I know that this opponent is supposed to be tough but beatable so I have to put enough of its stats high enough that you can't just walk over him and I have to leave at least one number low enough so that when you suss out its weakness you can target that and win...at which point it just becomes an exercise in narrative sparring until you come up with the right combination to defeat the opponent that I knew going in you were going to defeat. Or if I didn't leave a weakness it becomes an exercise in narrative sparring until you realize you can't win and give up. And sure once in a while you'll come up with something that I didn't see coming and I'll be stunned and you'll be crowing, but once in a while ain't good enough.
Quote
And what I'm saying is that this is not always a particularly interesting kind of uncertainty.
You can have certainty of outcome in some situations, which lead to uncertainties in how those challenges are eventually overcome. You're closing off some possible outcomes in order to create a particular type of challenge. Now to be sure this suits some genres and not others. Take Doctor Who for example. Nobody trying to fight Daleks or Cybermen militarily is ever going to win just by rolling well (except maybe each other) because what makes them so scary is the fact that in a direct conflict they are unbeatable, so the interesting thing in a Doctor Who story, or game, is what other tricks, techniques and resources The Doctor or the players use to confound their plans. Yes there are absolutes, but those absolutes are can be a vital dramatic ingredient in the challenge of the game.
Maybe that kind of game isn't for everyone, and doesn't suit every genre but it can still be a lot of fun.
All true. But I'm talking about uncertainty related to the outcome of a conflict. Taking on Daleks militarily isn't really a conflict...any more than jumping into a pool of lava is a conflict. The interesting thing in Dr. Who is indeed what other tricks he uses...that's where the conflict is, and that's what the GM should have just as much uncertainty as the players have as to what the outcome will be.
In other words when the good Doctor decides he's going to Jury Rig the Tardis to travel upside down through the time portal inorder to reverse the polarity on a stolen Pterydactyl egg from which he's going to make a giant omlett with cream cheese -- "and by this method, will the Daleks be defeated"...then the GM ought to be saying "wow...lets see if that works" just like the players are. And that's not reliably produceable in a resolve-by-fiat system...or by a system that essentially devolves into a resolve-by-fiat system.
But I feel like we've all been saying this same thing a number of times already, so if Zoom has what he needs from the thread I'm happy to let it lie.
Hello,
My call is that zoom has received what he needed from the thread and that it has come to its natural end. There's no reason to post here further. (zoom, great job, by the way - it's an excellent example of a First Thoughts thread.)
Simon, the issues you've brought up are not, ultimately, aimed at what zoom was asking about, so I encourage you to bring them up yourself in a new thread, in Actual Play.
Best, Ron
Quote from: Valamir on July 02, 2007, 11:35:24 AM
I think you've got enough there to put in a rough form and start playtesting.
You'll probably need to spend some time finding the right balance of frequency for your refreshes...too frequent and you remove the scarcity of the currency...and it probably gets a bit fiddly. Too rare and no one can do anything.
That will take some actual play to nail down the right ratio for you.
Thanks Valamir for your help on this... I will immortalise you by putting your name in the game as a Bad guy NPC :-)
Happy playing everybody