Stumbling Around A Rebuttal

[Lxndr]

This is in response to Erick Wujcik's recent article that he submitted to the Forge.  I'm not sure if I've got my thoughts in order, but I wanted to put SOME sort of rebuttal.  Perhaps y'all can show me either where I'm wrong, or where I'm unclear, so I can better articulate what I'm actually thinking.

It appears to me that Wujcik's comments and examples are not describing diceless play, but rather freeform play.  Nowhere in his examples and discussion does he mention system-based non-Fortune resolution - instead, it sounds like he's discussing simply eschewing system-based resolution entirely in favor of freeform resolution.

In short, I take some umbrage with the following statement

Since no dice-based role-playing game can use dice for all possible random situations, it follows that all dice-based role-playing games use diceless mechanics.

In my opinion, this is an erroneous conclusion to make.  Simply because a dice-based roleplaying game does not use dice for all random situations, it doesn't mean it uses diceless mechanics at any time.  That last word, I think, is the linchpin on which my objection revolves.  

Yes, there is no game that uses dice for all random situations (though many games bundle many possible "random" outcomes into a single die roll, and failure assumes one or more of those outcomes might have occurred).  Yes, games drift into "free-form" when the mechanics are deemed unnecessary.

But that doesn't mean that any of these games use diceless mechanics.  The style of play Erick seems to be describing is something that can be drifted into through diceless play just as easily as diced (i.e. randomized) play.  "Ignoring the resolution mechanic" is independent of whether or not randomizers are present, and, by dint of ignoring the resolution mechanic, is not a mechanic of itself.

Thus, I cannot agree with this first maxim, from which the other two are derived:

Therefore all dice-based role-playing games are a fusion of dice-based and diceless mechanics.

Humbly submitted for your perusal,

[Alan]

Hi Lxndr,

In short, I take some umbrage with the following statement

Since no dice-based role-playing game can use dice for all possible random situations, it follows that all dice-based role-playing games use diceless mechanics.

I too found something about Erick's article that seemed to miss the mark, but I wasn't sure what it was.  Your quote and comments suggest an idea to me.

I recall the Lumpley principle - ie that system (written and unwritten) is the way the players agree what will be added to the collective fantasy.  

We also have to bring in the idea of credibility: how much "right" a given person has to add to the fantasy.

Most RPG systems have a way of setting a threshhold, past which some mechanic will decide what passes into "phact."  So the incidents Erick refers to, where a dice-using system allows undiced resolution are just incidents where the threshhold hasn't been reached.

Too, we have to differentiate between textual (what the rulebook says) and the cognitive, unwritten rules.  The Text rules may not have a means to cover every situation, but may give guidelines for when the credibility of a player should be challenged.  The unwritten rules are based on when the group (or just the GM in some cases) thinks credibility should be challenged.

This is the cool thing about a game like Trollbabe: dice rolls only happen when someone declares a conflict (tacitly challenging credibility).  If no one does, then events get added inidefinately.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I more-or-less agree, Alexander.  Well, sort of. In my a perspective on roleplaying thread, I had already been thinking along those lines. However, I am thinking about it differently. I am thinking that "diceless" of "freeform" is based on a very simple principle. That the elements in the shared space may be used in terms of what they are. Mike Holmes articulated this, but I am using it in a slightly different way that he seems to want to do with it. In that thread I combined it with the lumpley principle somewhat and believe, and this is just me talking, that this is roleplaying at it's most basic.

Eric addressed this in the article, stating that "diceless" is not "pure" roleplaying. I agree with this, but admit that I treat it as such sometimes. It's no more pure roleplaying than programing in binary is more pure that C++. It may be a lower level, but what's important is what you do with it.

It gets a little sticky when you look at Eric's D&D thief example. Were those mechanics? They weren't in the book beyond "just roleplay it" IIRC. And they did more that "just roleplay it" it sounds to me. They actually worked out on the fly methods for situation to situation on how to get his character out of scrape after scrape without rolling dice.

Here is where my thought fall apart a bit. Not to be vulgar but, does it have to be written in the rulebook that you should deficate out of your anus? Does it make it a mechanic if it is written down? Is it a mechanic if it is not written?

At this level it's a little confusing. It's almost at water is wet level, which is just common sense but the wetness of the water is a very important factor. Were it not wet, it wouldn't work. So I don't know how to get my head around it.

Eric even mentioned common sense. Problem is, I don't think that relying on common sense alone works. He and Mike Cuba managed to reach an agreement on how stuff happens in the shared imagined space. Lots of people do not. There's the rub for "Just roleplay it"

[Callan S.]

In my opinion, this is an erroneous conclusion to make. Simply because a dice-based roleplaying game does not use dice for all random situations, it doesn't mean it uses diceless mechanics at any time. That last word, I think, is the linchpin on which my objection revolves.

I'd agree. The 'diceless' roleplay is still within the domain footprint of a dice system. For example, if his theif falls down, he'll take Xdice of damage.

Sure, they can just roleplay the fall, but that's avoiding the system. Its not diceless, its dice evasion and avoidance.

If he wants to spot a particular intricate trap part and keeps pumping the GM for info, he's dodging a spot or search roll or such, not being diceless.

As long as your working out of a book that suggests a dice roll for what your doing, even if only vaguely (dex could be applied to walking down the street, for example, only its easier than running across a lurching shop deck), your simply avoiding the system, not being diceless. Valid play option, but not diceless.

[Tony Irwin]

This is in response to Erick Wujcik's recent article that he submitted to the Forge.  I'm not sure if I've got my thoughts in order, but I wanted to put SOME sort of rebuttal.  Perhaps y'all can show me either where I'm wrong, or where I'm unclear, so I can better articulate what I'm actually thinking.

It appears to me that Wujcik's comments and examples are not describing diceless play, but rather freeform play.  Nowhere in his examples and discussion does he mention system-based non-Fortune resolution - instead, it sounds like he's discussing simply eschewing system-based resolution entirely in favor of freeform resolution.

In short, I take some umbrage with the following statement

Since no dice-based role-playing game can use dice for all possible random situations, it follows that all dice-based role-playing games use diceless mechanics.

In my opinion, this is an erroneous conclusion to make.  Simply because a dice-based roleplaying game does not use dice for all random situations, it doesn't mean it uses diceless mechanics at any time.  That last word, I think, is the linchpin on which my objection revolves.

Yes, there is no game that uses dice for all random situations (though many games bundle many possible "random" outcomes into a single die roll, and failure assumes one or more of those outcomes might have occurred).  Yes, games drift into "free-form" when the mechanics are deemed unnecessary.

But in Eric's article, he mentions that while he was enjoying what you might describe as a drift into free-form, he was later able to identify and articulate underlying mechanics in his group's play. It was a drift from one set of mechanics (D&D rule book) to a new set (this is how our group plays).

So I responded in the only way that seemed reasonable. I completely avoided rolling the dice. No close combat, and no taking chances. If I had to deal with a lock, or a trap, I learned that I could just keep asking questions, and Mike would keep supplying imaginative answers. The campaign went on and on, and I dissected every trap, every lock, every mechanism, and every arcane bit of machinery. I used every sense, every trick, and role-played my little heart out whenever possible.

Mechanic 1: The GM may not harm PCs whose players make thoughtful effort to avoid risk.

No close combat, and no taking chances.

Mechanic 2: GM must allow PCs to solve problems when their player's demonstrate a  commitment of time and thought.

If I had to deal with a lock, or a trap, I learned that I could just keep asking questions, and Mike would keep supplying imaginative answers.

Mechanic 3: The GM must reward imaginative and immersive player behaviour by ensuring the survival of their PCs.

I used every sense, every trick, and role-played my little heart out whenever possible.

I see those as mechanics underlying their D&D play (at least when the thief was disarming traps). I don't see them as drifting into free form, rather they drifted onto their own set of mechanics for producing enjoyable play. System was still present, system still matters to them. Any player coming to their group would notice how their system differs from the rule-book system, even if the group themselves perhaps weren't able to exactly articulate how their drifted system works to any observers or new players.

I understood Eric's first point to be that dice-mechanics can be easily replaced with diceless ones, and can in fact result in a more enjoyable play experience. He uses this to establish the ground for this:

Since no dice-based role-playing game can use dice for all possible random situations, it follows that all dice-based role-playing games use diceless mechanics.

So diceless mechanics aren't just a potential substitute for dice mechanics, they are already present and vital in games that use dice mechanics. The need for an article such as Eric's is that until people recognise that their games are full of many more mechanics than just what and when to roll, they will not be able to identify and articulate the diceless mechanics that are vital to enjoyable play.

Trollbabe identifies and articulates dicless mechanics (rules for framing scenes) that can add to the enjoyment of play.

The Pool identifies and articulates diceless mechanics (specifying what exactly you can and cannot do in an MOV) that can add to the enjoyment of play.

Universalis identifies and articulates dicelss mechanics (how to challenge the input of another player) that can add to the enjoyment of play.
 
These games (like all RPGs that use dice) are a fusion of dice and diceless mechanics, the difference is that these genius authors recognised this and wrote about the diceless ones as well in order to ensure enjoyable play. They identified and articulated as mechanics, the things that many other game authors hope the groups will figure out for themselves.

Eric (and the rest of us) didn't have games like this way back when, the only mechanics in our rule books dealt with rolling dice. We hadn't yet realised that which dice to roll and when, weren't even the mechanics that were producing enjoyable play for us. Eric did though, he eventually recognised that system=dice was a crock and wrote a game (and now an article) to explore that.

PS, Quick question for the sake of my own understanding - how are you defining free-form in RPGs?

[Hunter Logan]

Mechanic 1: The GM may not harm PCs whose players make thoughtful effort to avoid risk.
Mechanic 2: GM must allow PCs to solve problems when their player's demonstrate a commitment of time and thought.
Mechanic 3: The GM must reward imaginative and immersive player behaviour by ensuring the survival of their PCs.

I don't think these are mechanics; these are rules. There is a difference. Mechanics are processes used to do things required for the game. Rules are instructions and guidelines for use while playing the game. While all mechanics are part of the rules, not all rules are mechanics. At its simplest, a mechanic is composed of a device, an evaluation, and an outcome. In Erick Wujick's example, this is the mechanic:

Device: Erick asks a question.
Evaluation: The GM answers the question.
Outcome: Erick gains information.

This process continues until Erick has enough information to solve the problem. Knowing what to do, Erick makes his move:

Device: Erick declares a course of action.
Evaluation: The GM decides whether or not to let Erick's character succeed.
Outcome: Erick's character succeeds or fails, though it seems that success was the norm and that the GM applied some version of Tony's three rules in determining the outcome.

It seems that all this is primarily freeform play. The player is entirely relying on the GM's answers to provide a course of action, and the GM is relying entirely on his own judgment and imagination to determine the outcome. There is no process for challenging that decision, nor any device for determining the outcome. It's all up to the GM, except that the GM apparently followed rules similar to what Tony outlined above. I think Erick's experience was a little unusual. It seems likely that a lot of GMs would have answered Erick's questions, might have given him some sort of bonus for asking them, and then would have insisted on the die roll.

To Lxndr's original point, there are diceless mechanics at work in Erick Wujick's example, but they're not part of the D&D's formal rules. You could say they became part of the group's social contract, but none of this makes D&D a combination of diced and diceless play. Indeed, D&D in particular relies on a die roll for just about everything to the point that, if you can't roll dice for it, you probably can't do it. Certain functions have written exemptions from the die roll, but the original design was written with the expectation that people would roll dice to resolve the vast bulk and majority of character actions. Adding a freeform, diceless process to a group's social contract does not mean that D&D is suddenly equipped with diceless mechanics. It only means that people can change the game to suit themselves.

Edit: Deleted last line.

[lumpley]

I read the article and said to myself, oh look, it's my rant as written by somebody else!  Right on!

Wujcik uses words like "mechanics" and "diceless" differently than I do, but I think his essay maps 1:1 to local theory.  He's just describing System.  Out there in the world, I guess it's still shocking to point out that it's the gamers who make things happen in the game, not the procedures described in the game text.

Particularly this:

But in Eric's article, he mentions that while he was enjoying what you might describe as a drift into free-form, he was later able to identify and articulate underlying mechanics in his group's play. It was a drift from one set of mechanics (D&D rule book) to a new set (this is how our group plays).

My emphasis.

I think we can read Wujcik as saying that every game group does this, every time they play, inevitably.  That's what he means by

My experience in Mike Cuba's fantasy campaign may have been extreme, but it's really the same as every other role-players experience, in every other dice-based role-playing campaign.

and

Therefore all dice-based role-playing games are a fusion of dice-based and diceless mechanics.

In other words, Hunter, D&D's players will inevitably make decisions without invoking D&D's rules (Wujcik's "diceless").  D&D's System in play must be considered to include whatever process those decisions were made by.  D&D may not make any provisions for that in its text, but it's still gonna happen: in play, D&D is "a fusion."

I agree with Tony: we need to hammer out "freeform" before we keep invoking it.

-Vincent

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Adding a freeform, diceless process to a group's social contract does not mean that D&D is suddenly equipped with diceless mechanics. It only means that people can change the game to suit themselves.

This is the Lumpley Principle in evidence. It is als present in a group using the rulebook word for word, but it is more evident here when the group does something not found in the rulebook. Eric realized that were he to leave his character to the mercy of the dice he would be rolling up a new character the first session. Somehow he and Mike came to an agreement about how to avoid this. The players reached an argeement on how to use the elements in the shared imagined space in terms of what they are. The thief disected the trap mechanisms to disarm it. Play went into the detail.

[Lxndr]

The way I keep defining "freeform" in my head is "system without mechanics."  That's how I used it in my initial post, at least, and what it invokes for me now.  Which is why the thoughts in my head butted up against Erick's essay...

After having re-read Vincent's rant (thank for the link), the article and rant don't seem to be very similar at all.  Erick is saying "because you don't roll the dice for everything, all games obviously include diceless mechanics, and thus the only games that are not a hybrid of diced and diceless mechanics are those without any randomizer at all."  Vincent is saying, "credibility is important, and can take many forms, either using the mechanics, eschewing the mechanics, changing the mechanics, or some hybrid of the above."  Vincent addresses mechanics only as a vessel for credibility; Erick addresses mechanics and says "since you don't roll dice, you're using a diceless mechanic."

To use a probably-flawed analogy, that seems similar, to me, as saying, "if I fast, then I'm being a vegetarian, because I'm not eating meat.  And since everyone fasts between meals, omnivores eat using a hybrid of vegetarian and omnivorous eating styles."

[Tony Irwin]

Mechanic 1: The GM may not harm PCs whose players make thoughtful effort to avoid risk.
Mechanic 2: GM must allow PCs to solve problems when their player's demonstrate a commitment of time and thought.
Mechanic 3: The GM must reward imaginative and immersive player behaviour by ensuring the survival of their PCs.

I don't think these are mechanics; these are rules. There is a difference. Mechanics are processes used to do things required for the game. Rules are instructions and guidelines for use while playing the game. While all mechanics are part of the rules, not all rules are mechanics. At its simplest, a mechanic is composed of a device, an evaluation, and an outcome. In Erick Wujick's example, this is the mechanic:

Device: Erick asks a question.
Evaluation: The GM answers the question.
Outcome: Erick gains information.

Thanks, I see what you mean. The stuff I listed wasn't really showing how play is produced, whereas what you have here definately does.

It seems that all this (Eric disabling traps) is primarily freeform play. The player is entirely relying on the GM's answers to provide a course of action, and the GM is relying entirely on his own judgment and imagination to determine the outcome. There is no process for challenging that decision, nor any device for determining the outcome.

Cool, but I don't really see how this is different from most conventional RPGs especially those with explicit "The GM is always right" text. An example from my red box D&D days could be

Me: Ok we go into the room, I'm up front with the torch, I'll hold it up high to make sure we all get a good view. What do we see?
The player is entirely relying on the GM's answers to provide a course of action

GM: An empty rectangular room 30' extending forward. Descending stairs at the far end.
the GM is relying entirely on his own judgment and imagination to determine the outcome.

Me: Dammit, I was hoping for more skeletons.
There is no process for challenging that decision, nor any device for determining the outcome.

Using your spec for mechanics we could say

Device: Tony asks a question about the dungeon.
Evaluation: The GM answers the question.
Outcome: Tony gains information about the dungeon.

So this isn't a informal house-ruled substitute for an existing randomizing mechanic (like the trap disarming), this is a diceless mechanic already present in the system living alongside dice mechanics.

To Lxndr's original point, there are diceless mechanics at work in Erick Wujick's example, but they're not part of the D&D's formal rules. You could say they became part of the group's social contract, but none of this makes D&D a combination of diced and diceless play.

Indeed, D&D in particular relies on a die roll for just about everything to the point that, if you can't roll dice for it, you probably can't do it. Certain functions have written exemptions from the die roll, but the original design was written with the expectation that people would roll dice to resolve the vast bulk and majority of character actions.

If there are any mechanics at all present that do not use dice, would you accept that the game is a fuzion of dice and diceless? I'm tending towards Eric's viewpoint which is even more radical, that the majority of what is happening in the game is based on diceless mechanics. A couple of (genuinely exciting) dice games, floated on a sea of dicelessness:

Even the most dice-heavy role-playing game around don't use dice for everything. Sure there are rules for conflict resolution that require dice, but Game Masters generally use diceless mechanics for the majority of the events in any RPG (conversions, common sense, movement, 'automatic' skills and abilities, etc.). Each role-playing session must, in order to keep things moving, pass over a multitude of dice-rolling opportunities.

I agree with Eric, I would argue that (red box the way we played it) D&D depended on diceless mechanics to make it work, but I would also say it failed to identify and articulate what many of them were. I venture the possibility that this is why it might seem from the text that dice are used to resolve the majority of character actions.

I'd point to Sorcerer an example of a game that depends on diceless mechanics to make it work (kickers and bangs) but very sucessfully identifies them in the text and makes players aware of them. Using Eric's terminology, Sorcerer is a fuzion of dice and diceless mechanics. If I had a great GM, and was getting crap rolls all night, I'd drift more of sorcerer's dice mechanics into diceless ones just like Eric did with D&D.

[lumpley]

Hm.  Lxndr, is it "mechanic" that's problematic?

Try substituting "decision making" for "mechanic" in his essay:

Sure there are rules for conflict resolution that require dice, but Game Masters generally use diceless decision making for the majority of the events in any RPG (conversions, common sense, movement, 'automatic' skills and abilities, etc.).

and

Therefore all dice-based role-playing games are a fusion of dice-based and diceless decision making.

Obviously I'm not him, but that's how I read his essay.

Since he doesn't give us a definition for "mechanic" (nor "rule" nor "system"), we're kinda shooting blind.

-Vincent

[Lxndr]

Replacing "mechanic" with "decision making", at least imnsho, changes the meaning significantly.  So I guess yeah, "mechanic" is the word which is my issue in the whole thing.

(System = Mechanic + Social Contract, I guess)

Take the following decision that, in most Fortune-based games, you wouldn't "roll" for (the sort of example that Erick uses to "prove" the dice/diceless hybrid):

"I walk across the street."

In most diceless-based games, you ALSO wouldn't resort to the supplied mechanics for such a statement, whatever those mechanics might be.  You wouldn't compare whatever trait corresponded best to walking against whatever target number "having street-crossing issues" would be.  The character generally would expend no resources (in resource-based games).  Et hoc genus omne.

Ignoring a mechanic in favor of a non-mechanical solution (likely one based on Social Contract) seems dissimilar to using a non-fortune-based mechanic.

In D20, "Taking Ten" or "Taking 20" seems to be a diceless mechanic in a diced game.  Conversely, "okay, I'm not going to make you roll while you eat to see if you choke," is outside of the realm of mechanics.

IMNSHO, of course.

[lumpley]

"I walk across the street."

In most diceless-based games, you ALSO wouldn't resort to the supplied mechanics for such a statement, whatever those mechanics might be.

Perfect.  Cool.

You're just forgetting Drama.  "I walk across the street." "Okay." is a Drama mechanic in action.

Isn't it?

Anyhow from this

...Game Masters generally use diceless mechanics for the majority of the events in any RPG (conversions, common sense, movement, 'automatic' skills and abilities, etc.).

I'd guess that Wujcik would say so.  Otherwise he's making a claim that's facially absurd: "GMs generally invoke Amber's trait-comparison Karma mechanics for conversations," eg.

-Vincent

[Lxndr]

It might be a Drama decision in action (or perhaps a Karma one, for all we know:  "Hmm, he's uninjured, so it shouldn't be a problem to walk across the street, okay, no problem..."), but I don't but that it's a mechanic.  It's a bit of decision making, but it's one outside the realm of mechanics.

I guess we need to define "mechanic."  But it looks like there's another thread that was just started to do that.

[Mike Holmes]

Alexander, I totally agree with Vincent. The term mechanic is a smoke-screen. That is, you just have a different definition of the term. I use the term like you do, personally, but there's lots of people, including Wujcik from the examples, that mean all of system. Consider that in the original DFK essay by Tweet, he states that these three sorts of "mechanics" are the way by which all game decisions are made.

I'm not even sure what a mechanical Drama Mechanic would look like. All Drama mechanics boil down to who gets to decide what happens, and maybe suggestions for what's appropriate. As soon as you reference anything statistical, it becomes Karma. So where are your counterexamples of decisions that are non-mechanical that don't correspond to Wijciks examples?

Mike