Diceless ... clueless

[zoom]

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.

[Daniel Davis]

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 to the Wikipedia page.

[Moreno R.]

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, 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.

[JW Carroll]

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.

[zoom]

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.??

[Valamir]

#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.

[Callan S.]

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.

[zoom]

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.

[Valamir]

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.

[mothlos]

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.

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.

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.

[Valamir]

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.

[Callan S.]

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.

[zoom]

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 :-)

[mothlos]

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.

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.

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.

[Valamir]

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.

You 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.

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.

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?