Stumbling Around A Rebuttal

[Mike Holmes]

I don't see anything implicit in the definition of Drama that has, as its requisite a lack of mechanics (which was the point of my example, not that it was Fortuneless, but that it was mechanicless).  But if he really meant something other than "mechanic" when he said "mechanic" (which is what the general consensus seems to be), that's a moot point.

So it's your definition or no definition? There's nothing implicit in Drama about a lack of mechanics. There is, in his examples, no mechanics. Obvioiusly he's not talking about what you refer to as mechanics, but rather has his own definition. This is what I can't seem to make you understand. He's using a term to mean something different that what you think it means. As soon as you look at it using his definition it all makes sense. Substiutute "method" for mechanics, or whatever term means "decision making technique" in the essay and see how it then reads.

Mike

[C. Edwards]

Despite how smart Erick may or may not be (and due to TMNT and Amber we can assume he's pretty smart) he should have made clear his particular use of such "obvious" terms like "mechanic".

Basically, I'm unwilling to assume that this guy I've never met means a particular thing when he uses a particular word in a particular way. For me, unless Erick can clarify what he meant, the article isn't of much use.

I don't think that Erick's meaning is quite so obvious, and I really don't think anyone should get scrappy with a person because they think that Erick should have been more clear.

-Chris

[M. J. Young]

Yeah, I, uh--I'm having difficulty working out what this article is really about, too.

I've gone back and read it again, and it sounds to me as if this is a defense of "diceless" play. It is specifically addressed to us,

It is with not a little pleasure that I've been reading some of the postings here on The Forge relating to the mixing of dice-based and diceless role-playing mechanics. All very interesting, all very insightful.

Still, I'd like to present a rather different point of view from those already posted.

When he reaches his point--well, I'm pretty sure this is his point, because he says,

Now back to my contrary point of view... Which is actually pretty simple.

If you are playing a dice-based role-playing game, you are already combining it with diceless role-playing.

He drives this home further by his conclusion,

Therefore, when it comes to dice (i.e. randomizers) there are two, and only two, possibilities. Fusion systems that use some combination of dice-based and diceless mechanics, and diceless systems that use no dice or randomizers whatsoever.

Yet, thinking more broadly as a gamer and less as a role playing gamer, I see quite a few more possibilities:[list=1][*]Fortune-only game systems in which there is little room for anything other than fortune results, such as Parchesi or War.[*]Karma-only game systems in which there is no fortune or drama, such as Chess.[*]Drama-only systems, such as most childhood make-believe and much freeform play, in which nothing other than agreement by the players matters (whether dictated by a referee or derived by a consensus system).[*]Fortune-Karma hybrids in which the object is to do the best you can with what fortune delivers, such as Bridge and Pinochle.[*]Fortune-Drama hybrids, as I take Legends of Alyria to be, in which there aren't really strengths and weaknesses but only scores which are each a strength and a weakness, and randomizers and group consensus work together to create the events.[*]Drama-Karma hybrids, of which I think Amber Diceless Roleplaying is the leading example, in which relative strengths can determine outcome but narrative manuevering is also important.[*]Fortune-Karma-Drama hybrids, which I take OAD&D to be, in which sometimes things are decided directly by dice, sometimes by scores, and sometimes by referee decision.[/list:o]Thus I think that the entire "diced/diceless" dichotomy is nonsense. Very few "diceless" games are "pure" either, because nearly all of them mix karma and drama in their systems.

I think Drama may be the inescapable mechanic in role playing games; I can't see how to design one that doesn't have someone making judgments about outcomes at some level, which would still be functional. Perhaps Erick's article illustrates that--if the referee can decide that you don't have to roll the dice, then if he decides that you do have to roll the dice, that's a drama-based decision to activate a fortune resolution system.

What really confuses me most about it is the fact that it's addressed to those of us at the Forge, as if he had taken time to become at least passing familiar with our discussions, yet it overlooks this simple distinction between drama and karma (which is in the first article, System Does Matter). We're all in agreement that you can create and run fortuneless games. Most of us think that to do so you need a fairly strong karma system to support decisions and give it the feel of a "game"; but I think part of that is that we have not yet really explored the concepts of drama mechanics (precedent has been mentioned as a drama mechanic which might or might not be part of a drama-based game system; canon has been mentioned in discussions, but I'm not certain whether anyone has yet said that this is another possible drama mechanic, a core reality that is set down and agreed before play that cannot be violated--and again, possible but not necessary to play).

If all he wants is for us to say that yes, diceless play is legitimate, he doesn't seem to have been listening to us. My understanding is that that statement was made in the original documents which predated the Forge and provided the foundation for GNS theory, and that issue has never really been challenged here.

So my problem is I hear him saying, "I disagree with you, and am here to say that diceless play is perfectly legitimate"--and I'm left responding, "So, when were you going to get to the part with the disagreement, given that we've been saying this as long as we've been theorizing about game design?"

Lxndr sees Erick stating that he disagrees, and so seems to be extrapolating to figure out where the disagreement is, pushing the article beyond what perhaps was actually said. Mike seems to think that Erick doesn't disagree, and so has ignored the part where he says he does. I'm left confused, because I see quite clearly a statement that Erick disagrees with us regarding diceless game design, and nothing in the article that I find remotely radical, challenging, unfamiliar, or contrary to what we've said here--and elsewhere--all this time.

So I'm left wondering what I missed.

--M. J. Young

[Erick Wujcik]

Yeah, I, uh--I'm having difficulty working out what this article is really about, too.

I've gone back and read it again, and it sounds to me as if this is a defense of "diceless" play. It is specifically addressed to us,

It is with not a little pleasure that I've been reading some of the postings here on The Forge relating to the mixing of dice-based and diceless role-playing mechanics...

I was referring to a specific, and lengthy, discussion, labelled "Dice & Diceless?" ( http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7287&start=0 ).

Since that particular discussion has, as of now, 54 postings and 1,269 'views,' I figured it would be fairly well known... Sorry if I made an erroneous assumption.

My article basically responded to the main thrust of the discussion, having to do with merging dice and diceless into the same game... and therein is an explanation for my conclusions, that RPGs with dice already include diceless methods and 'mechanics,' and that adding more on the diceless end doesn't really change their nature. Conversely, adding any dice to a diceless RPG means changing the fundamental nature of that game.

...thinking more broadly as a gamer and less as a role playing gamer, I see quite a few more possibilities...

As do I... but I was referring exclusively to role-playing games (the sort of role-playing games commonly discussed hereabouts).

...What really confuses me most about it is the fact that it's addressed to those of us at the Forge, as if he had taken time to become at least passing familiar with our discussions, yet it overlooks this simple distinction between drama and karma (which is in the first article, System Does Matter). We're all in agreement that you can create and run fortuneless games...

I'll try to clear this up...

First, I'm delighted to hear that you are 'all in agreement that you can create and run fortuneless games...' However, that's clearly not a unanimous opinion in the larger community, so I made the assumption that those of a contrary point of view might well number among my readers (indeed, since the article was posted it was reported on the Palladium Book bb system, and it was discussed favorably).

Second, while I am, as you point out, 'at least passing familiar' with Forge discussions, the article explicitly does not address either drama or karma (mostly because these distinctions make me feel distinctly Hulk-like... or perhaps Gerard-like... and they are terms I feel unqualified to invoke). I defined my own term 'diceless,' in a way that I hoped would be clear. As to whether my definition equates to the 'absence of forture' I will leave for those who have a greater facility with the terminology.

Third, when you say "...it overlooks this simple distinction between drama and karma..." you are 100% correct. I wasn't aware that making this distinction was a prerequisite for my fairly simple observation about dice/diceless. If I am in error, please let me know.

...I see quite clearly a statement that Erick disagrees with us regarding diceless game design, and nothing in the article that I find remotely radical, challenging, unfamiliar, or contrary to what we've said here--and elsewhere--all this time.

Again, I refer to the "Dice & Diceless?" thread.

In that discussion, there were many who expressed opinions with which I am in total agreement (especially Hunter Logan's very insightful post of Fri Jul 25, 2003, who said; "...mixing dice and dicelessness... is a poor design decision..."; and who also used the term 'mechanic' very neatly), but also postings that seemed to me to be at odds with what I wrote...

That you find nothing in the article remotely "radical, challenging, unfamiliar, or contrary..." is a very good thing.

Thanks for your comments!

Erick
[/url]

[Hunter Logan]

Wow. There's nothing left for me to do except say thanks to Mike and Erick.

Mike,

Thanks for your response. Your way of putting it makes perfect sense to me.

Erick,

Thanks for for what you said and for taking the time to clarify things.

[M. J. Young]

I, too, want to thank Erick for that clarification; it does help significantly.

I had forgotten that thread, although I was a participant at the time. My impression then was that it was more of a challenge to create a game which could be played either with or without dice; I didn't think of it as much in terms of whether that would be desirable, but rather in terms of how you would achieve it were that your objective.

I see a lot of game concepts here (at The Forge) that I think aren't particularly to my liking; I see quite a few that are in my opinion ill-advised. In general, I don't say so when I do; after all, my tastes are not universal. I'm more the nuts-and-bolts man in game design: tell me your objective, and I'll find a way to make it work.

The question seems to be whether it is good design to create a game which can use or not use fortune mechanics as desired by the players. I'll certainly agree that it would be difficult to make such a game and have it be equally as strong in either mode of play, but I don't think I would say it was impossible or even that it wouldn't find an audience. Some of the suggestions on that thread were, I thought, innovative; and the questions raised were often insightful. In the end, though, I suppose the question is why (apart from the intellectual exercise of solving such a problem) would you wish to invent such a game? I didn't ask that question on that thread, as I assumed the designer already had a reason for attempting to do so, or at least wished to explore it as a possibility to see whether it would work.

I certainly agree with you that there's no reason to put fortune mechanics into a game that doesn't need them.

My only other objection is to the suggestion that "diceless" automatically means "not hybrid". I have yet to see a functional (or at least marketable) game system that was entirely drama-based, nor any game system that is not partially drama-based. That thread contained many ideas about resource allocation (karma) and score comparison (again karma), and few suggesting a pure drama resolution system--in fact, I believe I was the only one to make that suggestion in that thread

One could in theory devise a system where the player and the referee each propose an outcome of an action, and everyone votes (perhaps as simple as a colored chip or marble held in hand and displayed simultaneously) on the outcome they want to see happen.

It was also on that thread that I raised the same objection to the discussion that I'm raising now,

Dice versus diceless doesn't really express what this discussion is about, because diceless has at least three meanings:

[*]A fortune system with a randomizer other than dice, such as cards, coins, stopwatch, or roshambo.[*]A karma system in which strategy and strength are elevated to critical importance.[*]A drama system in which decisions are made by one or more players based on what outcome is desired.[/list:u]

--lest you think I'm particularly picking on you. Most "diceless" systems are karma/drama hybrids, just as nearly all "diced" systems are (as you eloquently demonstrated) fortune/drama hybrids (usually with karma elements as well). Calling attention to the fact that such "diceless" resolution is part of all nearly all games is certainly worthwhile, and now that I understand the frame of reference, thanks for the clear statement of that fact. It should prove useful for game designers who are locked in the Rolemaster-brand simulation mindset of needing a diced method of resolving everything.

Oh, and welcome to The Forge. I do hope we'll have you around to knock our thoughts in new directions in the future.

--M. J. Young

[Mike Holmes]

Oh, and welcome to The Forge. I do hope we'll have you around to knock our thoughts in new directions in the future.

I second that, and also apollogize for myself and others for murdering the spelling of your name. :-)

Mike

[Callan S.]

Man, this discussion goes this way and that...so I'll keep it short.

When you do somthing in game that fits some rules that use dice, and you don't use dice, its not a diceless system. You've just invented a diceless resolution based on those RPG rules, but thats your invention. Its not part of that RPG, its you.

If the rulebook doesn't have a rule (that uses dice) for somthing, and you resolve it without dice, you've invented a resolution for it. You, not the book.

So to say all RPG's are a framework and can be worked on and added to cover things not already covered in their rules is true. They can even be developed to have diceless parts, as one particular option.

To say all RPG's have diceless elements (after you run out of rules with dice), is bollocks though. They don't, all they have is nothing, an empty framework. What each user decides should go in that framework for resolving things is open to anything.

Just because there isn't a rule for what you want to do, doesn't mean your going to do it diceless.

[M. J. Young]

When you do somthing in game that fits some rules that use dice, and you don't use dice, its not a diceless system. You've just invented a diceless resolution based on those RPG rules, but thats your invention. Its not part of that RPG, its you.

If the rulebook doesn't have a rule (that uses dice) for somthing, and you resolve it without dice, you've invented a resolution for it. You, not the book.

O.K., I may be a bit extreme on this, but I'm not in either of the places you suggest. Let me see if I can clarify this.

Multiverser has a section about surprise. The rules state,

The first rule is anticipation negates surprise, or no one is surprised by what he anticipates.  There are four tests to determine anticipation, and three of them are simple common-sense determinations of fact.  The character is clearly anticipating if any one of these facts is true:  1) the character knows or correctly guesses with accuracy reasonable to the situation the nature and timing of the event; 2) the character takes precautions indicating readiness for an event of this nature at this time although he does not know or guess the nature or timing; 3) the event is non-threatening and common to the setting even if the character has no immediate knowledge and takes no precautions. If none of these facts are true, the player might be surprised.

The text goes on to give examples which illustrate when those principles do and do not apply, and then gets around to the fourth determinant, which is a die roll to determine whether the character recognized the situation and thus was not surprised.

Where is this going? In the end, if there is some question about whether the character is surprised, there is a fortune mechanic which determines that, a die roll. However, the die roll is only called for if there is some question as to whether the character might be surprised. So what determines whether the roll must be made? That's determined by the judgment of someone at the table--in this case, the referee. But the judgment of someone at the table is a drama mechanic. That means in this system, there is a drama mechanic that allows the referee to choose between "You're not surprised" and "Roll the dice to see if you're surprised."

You might argue that such a mechanic doesn't exist; but I think it always does. After all, no referee in his right mind would say, "It's broad daylight, unclouded, on an open plain, and the enemy, wearing their bright red clothes, have been coming toward you for an hour, while you've been watching in all directions, and now they're here, roll to see if you're surprised." Yes, there is a fortune mechanic that determines this, and there are fortune mechanics that determine many other things in play. However, if someone has the authority to say when such a die roll is or is not required, that is a drama mechanic. Do you need to make an agility check to walk down the road? to cross the Brooklyn Bridge? to cross a three-foot wide wooden foot bridge? to cross on a moss-covered heavy fallen log? to cross on a three-inch diameter log? to walk a fence rail? to walk a tightrope? Someone has to decide when the fortune mechanic does and does not apply, and that power of decision is a drama mechanic: it is a human judgment based on information, directives, examples, and understanding, which determines how the game will proceed.

Thus I maintain that nearly all games contain this drama element, which is by its nature "diceless" (or "fortuneless", as I prefer). It's just that most of us overlook that aspect of the process, because we just do it without thinking about it, even when (as in the Multiverser example above) it is hard-coded in the rules that someone has to make the decision as to whether a roll is required.

Does that make sense?


--M. J. Young

[Callan S.]

But does it tell him to use a diceless method for any of that?

No, it doesn't. It essentially trails off leaving it up to whatever resolution method the GM wants. Oh, yes, it can be diceless if he wants...but it doesn't have to be. And in any event, whatever way the GM rules, its not part of the book, its somthing the GM's added. Its not somthing you can attribute to that system, but rather to that particular GM.

So, all dice based games can be said to have the option of having extra bits added by the user which are diceless.

Equally all diceless games can be said to have the option of having dice mechanics added to them by users.

Which goes against a couple of Ericks statements at the end of his piece.

Anyway, your saying the book leaves the determination up to the GM and then implying it has to be done via dramatic resolution. I'm saying it just leaves it up to the GM...that's it. What each GM decides to use is different and not part of the equation, including in your example.

To give an example, from your post

. After all, no referee in his right mind would say, "It's broad daylight, unclouded, on an open plain, and the enemy, wearing their bright red clothes, have been coming toward you for an hour, while you've been watching in all directions, and now they're here, roll to see if you're surprised."

No GM is forced to determine if its broad daylight, unclouded, etc etc via a dramatic mechanic, he can be using dice if he wants. He can also add a one hundred to any spot roll and eliminate any possible critical fumble roll for that check, if he wants.

He can also just be absurd and ask for a spot roll. No quality of the system stops any of this.

You can suggest, instead, that the system suggests a dramatic resolution. But then the systems quality is that it suggests a dramatic resolution. This doesn't make it have, as a quality, diceless elements.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

You can suggest, instead, that the system suggests a dramatic resolution. But then the systems quality is that it suggests a dramatic resolution. This doesn't make it have, as a quality, diceless elements.

For the most part, I agree. I especially liked:

Equally all diceless games can be said to have the option of having dice mechanics added to them by users.

I agree with this in that I don't think that "the GM decides"  really means that anything the GM decides is part of the system. Or, as you put it, not everything every GM decides is part of the system. It may apply to the individual group, but to attribute it to the published book is false.

However, I disagree in another sense. I think that you will find more often a dice game with be played diceless more often than a diceless game played diced. Why? Because the so-called diceless method is a more basic form of roleplaying. It is easier to regress to this than to develop dice methods, especially on the fly. Such is my view.

[M. J. Young]

I'm saying it just leaves it up to the GM...that's it. What each GM decides to use is different and not part of the equation, including in your example.

What I'm saying is "leaves it up to the GM" and "What each GM decides" is  by definition drama-based resolution.

I agree that the GM could decide to use dice to determine all those things; but when he decides to use dice, that's drama-based.

In its essence, drama as a resolution system means nothing more than "someone at the table decides how it will be resolved". They can say, "the last time we faced this, we used an agility check," and then the decision to use an agility check is a drama decision, even though the check itself is fortune. They can say, "I don't think you have to roll for that," or "I don't think you can do that even with a roll," or "roll for that", and those are in themselves all drama-based resolutions of the situation--the third of which is the drama-based decision to invoke a fortune mechanic.

Perhaps the problem is in the nature of the term. Drama does NOT mean, "someone decides according to the best interests of the goals of play (or story)"; it does not mean "someone decides entirely based on his own whim." It means nothing more and nothing less than "someone decides".

Thus if a player decides to try something that is not covered by the rules, even if the referee says, "You can't do that, because it's not covered by the rules," that's a DRAMA-based decision that something is impossible within the game world. He could have said, "that's enough like this other thing that we'll do it this way, roll for this"--a drama decision--or "I don't see anything in the rules that suggests how to handle that, so we'll do it this way"--a drama decision.

Unless the rules themselves state that nothing can be done that is not covered by the rules, you can't escape drama as a resolution mechanic even by agreeing that nothing can be done that is not covered by the rules (agreement of the players is a drama mechanic).

Whenever someone says, "This is what we'll do", that's drama. Can't get out of it.

--M. J. Young

[Erick Wujcik]

Noon has made a pair of statements, both of which are 100% correct.

I cannot, however agree with his conclusion.

...all dice based games can be said to have the option of having extra bits added by the user which are diceless.

Correct. This is exactly the case that I made through the entire article. That diceless resolution is used constantly through dice-based games.

Equally all diceless games can be said to have the option of having dice mechanics added to them by users.

Again, totally correct.

However, I believe, as I said in the article, "Only purely diceless role-playing games, where there are no dice at all, avoid becoming a fusion of dice-based and diceless systems."

Of course one always has the option of adding dice. It's just that I would conclude that adding a dice resolution means that the game is no longer diceless (this is by the way, the root of a long-standing argument I've had with one of the best Game Masters in the Amber Diceless community).

Which goes against a couple of Ericks statements at the end of his piece.

In what way?

My major conclusion is that all dice-based role-playing games are a fusion of dice-based and diceless.

Erick

p.s.: Would the following be a correct re-statement? "All fortune-based role-playing games are really a fusion of fortune and non-fortune."

[Callan S.]

I'm saying it just leaves it up to the GM...that's it. What each GM decides to use is different and not part of the equation, including in your example.

What I'm saying is "leaves it up to the GM" and "What each GM decides" is  by definition drama-based resolution.

I agree that the GM could decide to use dice to determine all those things; but when he decides to use dice, that's drama-based.

Oh, I get what you mean. But when the boundry of RPG Y ends at point X, a pre arranged house rule set might be neatly butted in there. In fact the GM may develop this rules set as he goes along. This might be considered dramatic rules development, but its not dramatic resolution. He's making descisions about how the resolution is done, not deciding the result of the descision itself. The former can influence the latter greatly, but that doesn't make it the same. And its not part of the book itself either.

And really, all rules development was 'dramatic' at some point, so there's not much point naming its so...uh...dramatically.

If it still sounds as if the particular dice mechanic he chooses is a dramatic resolution, then its a stretch of the meaning.

Resolutions determine what happens in the story.
Rules choices determine whats in the system. That's a different type of choice, which should produce a maxim somthing like 'Once dice mechanic RPG's run out of rules, the method for developing house rules (dice or diceless) is done dramatically, by user choice.'

Its a dramatic resolution of what house rule to create and use. That's not the same as making a dramatic resolution.

In its essence, drama as a resolution system means nothing more than "someone at the table decides how it will be resolved". They can say, "the last time we faced this, we used an agility check," and then the decision to use an agility check is a drama decision, even though the check itself is fortune. They can say, "I don't think you have to roll for that," or "I don't think you can do that even with a roll," or "roll for that", and those are in themselves all drama-based resolutions of the situation--the third of which is the drama-based decision to invoke a fortune mechanic.

Perhaps the problem is in the nature of the term. Drama does NOT mean, "someone decides according to the best interests of the goals of play (or story)"; it does not mean "someone decides entirely based on his own whim." It means nothing more and nothing less than "someone decides".

Thus if a player decides to try something that is not covered by the rules, even if the referee says, "You can't do that, because it's not covered by the rules," that's a DRAMA-based decision that something is impossible within the game world. He could have said, "that's enough like this other thing that we'll do it this way, roll for this"--a drama decision--or "I don't see anything in the rules that suggests how to handle that, so we'll do it this way"--a drama decision.

Unless the rules themselves state that nothing can be done that is not covered by the rules, you can't escape drama as a resolution mechanic even by agreeing that nothing can be done that is not covered by the rules (agreement of the players is a drama mechanic).

Whenever someone says, "This is what we'll do", that's drama. Can't get out of it.

--M. J. Young

Its an interesting question. If I say my character uses his kung foo charlie attack, listed on page 26, or his dreaded lurgi attack, listed on page 32, is that a dramatic resolution? Or is it a descision I bring to the system...my choice in that particular moment can't be considered part of the system, really, can it?

You can call it drama and dramatic, but not dramatic resolution. It doesn't resolve anything.

You could call that choice diceless though...and since it holds some element of drama, and it resolved the choice...perhaps its could be called dramatic resolution. But if anything else resolved the choice it would then be called brainless resolution.

[Callan S.]

Noon has made a pair of statements, both of which are 100% correct.

I cannot, however agree with his conclusion.

...all dice based games can be said to have the option of having extra bits added by the user which are diceless.

Correct. This is exactly the case that I made through the entire article. That diceless resolution is used constantly through dice-based games.

To which I just wrote they have the option of using that resolution type all the way through, by the users choice[/i].

Its an option, not a certainty. Its uncertain because its up to the user. Its not an element of that system.

Massive abtractionism already exists in these games. The average sword attack is amazingly complex really, yet we usually roll one die and add somthing? No, dice rolls can abstractly contain everything. You might choose not to, but thats your choice, not somthing that's to do with the system.

Equally all diceless games can be said to have the option of having dice mechanics added to them by users.

Again, totally correct.

However, I believe, as I said in the article, "Only purely diceless role-playing games, where there are no dice at all, avoid becoming a fusion of dice-based and diceless systems."

Of course one always has the option of adding dice. It's just that I would conclude that adding a dice resolution means that the game is no longer diceless (this is by the way, the root of a long-standing argument I've had with one of the best Game Masters in the Amber Diceless community).

I'd say its no longer diceless, the moment a cheeky player buys a die in the game and wants to know the result when he rolls it. Unless you dramatically resolve an actual in game die roll, which is kind of a funny turn around if you think about it. :)

Anyway, my point was that whether they are a fusion or not is up to end users.

Which goes against a couple of Ericks statements at the end of his piece.

In what way?

My major conclusion is that all dice-based role-playing games are a fusion of dice-based and diceless.

Erick

p.s.: Would the following be a correct re-statement? "All fortune-based role-playing games are really a fusion of fortune and non-fortune."

I'm wondering if, say, a dwarf having a speed of 20feet is considered diceless? I'd had the impression that the idea of diceless was intimately connected with dramatic resolution. Not just about an RPG element that doesn't use a dice in it.

If it isn't and 20foot speed is a diceless thing, well then I guess that's true. But it hardly seems radical or deserving of special consideration and maxim. The +3 quality of my sword is diceless as well, until its applied to a strike roll, too. The range increment of my weapon, diceless. But I didn't think this was what we were getting at by saying its diceless.

I mean, can cars be called a fusion of wheeled and wheeless? What can we do with this information?