After seeing this thread over in RPG Theory, and recently having read "The Dice Man" by Luke Rhinehart, this idea came, unbidden, into my head. I don't know what it would be like to play, but I thought what people here would think. This is my first game design here at the Forge, and it's a grand total of an hours thought, but I would like to hear your comments on it.

Thanks,
Warren

DICEMEN
I'd imagine the setting is 50-70s Americana. Hunter S. Thompson, William Burroughs kind-of-stuff in the main, mixed with some Hard-boiled film noir stylings. However, the mechanics assume that the characters are all "Dicemen", (see the book) and have allowed themselves to become ruled by the roll of a die.

Character Creation:
Choose 6 words (verbs?) that describe your character. One of the words must be an action your character would not do (hit a woman, use drugs, murder, rape, maybe even 'show emotion'). It is best to start of with a minor dislike and grow it as you lose Free Will. This is your Threshold Trait, and it goes in slot 1. The other words you can assign at will to numbers 2-6. You start with a Free Will rating of 4.

i.e. I'm creating a world-weary gumshoe, John Stark, his Threshold Trait is "Hit a woman". His other words are 2-"smoke", 3-"rain", 4-"bribe", 5-"brute force", 6-"library".

Resolving Actions:
Before your character can embark on any significant action, you must roll a number of dice equal to your Free Will rating. Your narration of your action must feature words from the slots rolled by the dice. You must fit at least one word into your narration for it to be valid.

If this action causes a conflict, you resolve this by counting the number of words you 'miss'. This is your Hesitation. If you roll doubles (or triples/quads) then the word only has to be said once, but if it is missed, it count as 2 points (or more) of Hesitation. The winner of the conflict is the person with the least Hesitation.

In the event of a tie, and neither side wishes to concede, there has to be a follow-up conflict. All parties roll the dice again, but any words that have been used in the initial conflict cannot be used again. This continues again until someone manages to get less Hesitation.

i.e. I want Stark to spy upon a drug deal happening at the docks. This counts as a "significant action", so I have to roll four dice and get 2,3,5,5. I narrate my action as "Standing around in the _rain_, I casually _smoke_ a cigarette whilst keeping one eye on the warehouse." That's allowed. I have a Hesitation of 2 on this action (The two fives).

Degeneration:
After you successfully narrate an action using your Threshold Trait, you entrust your will to the dice a little more and you lose a point of Free Will. Choose another Threshold Trait (usually a more extreme one) to go into slot 1. If your Free Will ever drops to zero, you are out of the game.

i.e. I want Stark to get a safety deposit box number out of the femme fatale who is perched on my desk in the office. I roll 1,1,3,5. I decide to use my Threshold Trait, and narrate ("Using sheer _brute_force_, I swing a punch at the dame on my desk, _hitting_that_woman_ onto the floor." I have a Hesitation three, just missing one die - the 3(rain).

She (the GM) rolls her 3 dice and gets just one word into her narration, "She falls to the floor, looking up at you with eyes full of _tears_." so she has a Hesitation of 2, and I win, so she give me the number and I have to lose a point of Free Will because of this. I also choose a new Threshold Trait trait of "rape". He's just got a lot darker.

Change and Growth:
After you successfully narrate an action where all your dice come up with the same number you can choose to exchange the word you had to use with another. You cannot do this for Limiting Traits, as this is covered by Degeneration, above.

e.g. I want Stark to investigate who owns the safety deposit box behind a bunch of shell companies. I roll 6,6,6 and narrate "After spending a long afternoon in the city _library_, I track down who owns that damn box." I choose to change my word in slot 6 to be "Colt .45", as I think I might need to become violent soon.

---------------------------------
What do you think? It's lacking any way 'out' -- i.e. regaining Free Will, and there isn't any kind of player positioning mechanism yet either, but I have to say that the thought of playing it does intrigue me.

Well, it's an interesting theory to try and build a game around. But, from what I could gather from excerpts and reviews of the book, I don't know how much of an audience you will find for a game like this. I could be terribly wrong of course. There's a cult following for Hunter S. Thompson, Timothy Leary, Burroughs, Kerouack and Reinhardt, but as for how many of that fanbase games? I don't know.

The only other issue I see is an image of the Dave McKean drawn Graphic Novel "Arkham Asylum". Inside they'd help "cure" Two Face by getting him to use a d6 to increase the chances, which only resulted in him being unable to make a decision at all, to the point of soiling himself. With what I saw, and read of your suggestion, maybe you'll end up with a lot of "Two Faces" running around.

I dunno... interesting theory, don't know if it will convert well.

IMHO. :c)

Yeah, I understand that this would not work for long-term games, and would have limited appeal, but I think that as the occasional one-shot, it could be interesting. As the RPG Theory thread points out,

"Because system can contribute to the process, pointing out possibilities and creating structure that people wouldn't easily come to on their own."

Right, if the game is a freebie, or for your own satisfaction, I'd say go for it, it's a great expiriment! :c) If it turns into a popular game, all the better. ;c) I guess Tarantino fans would also be interested in this genre, it seems to flow up his alley.

I think you've got something potentially really interesting there Warren. And I don't think that it has to be something for a particularly small crowd. When I was reading over your posts, I was totally thinking of watching the recent film version of Frank Miller's Sin City, where every character seems to have this horrid over-the-top narration that makes the film so wonderful.

Now, I haven't read the books you mention, nor have I ever heard of them, but I don't think that the system you've described so far appears to be tied down to any one particular text. It sounds like it'd fit any kind of noir-flavored game.

Here's a few thoughts;

I wouldn't like the idea that the Free Will rating is so close to the number of words. If I'm rolling 4 dice and there are 6 words, then unless the words change every time I roll, then I'm going to be repeating those words over and over again. That seems like it might get real boring real fast. What if you just expanded the number of words and the die size? d10s come to mind and I think that'd work out nicely. (in which case, you'd probably want to make there be 2 threshold words instead of 1)

Even with an expanded number of words to pull from, I'd like to see them change, a little, every time you're done rolling. Say, one word has to change every scene?

Have you considered a bit of rule where one player can change another player's words? Let's say that your character and my character are in conflict in the scene. You win the conflict and the scene, and in the end get to pick a word that I've got to incorporate into my list for the next scene.

I'm not too sure I dig how you've got Degeneration set up. First off, who wants to be ousted from the game? Everything else you've got there dosen't seem to be pointing to the type of game where you'd like to see a player removed from play due to narration. Granted, as you've got it set up, you could only be removed from play if you narrated your Threshold word when your Free Will is 1, but is being removed really necessary?

Consider this change; Eliminate the requirement to narrate even a single word from the list. Then, a higher Free Will is bad, and a lower Free Will is good. The more dice you have, the more words you need to narrate into your conflict if you're going to be the winner of the conflict. Then, you tie narrating the Threshold word into -gaining- a die of Free Will (which at this point I'd probably rename), and every time you stoop to narrating that thing that your character hates in order to win the conflict you stand a higher chance of having to narrate it again next time too.

Of course, with all those changes, Advancement and Growth would have to be looked at too. Might even go out the window. But then, if a word is changed every conflict, then all you'd have to do is look at 'advancement' again, which would probably mean reducing the number of Free Will dice you have to roll.

But then... *sly grin* ...In that vein of spiraling downwards anti-heroes, why not have it so that your character can NEVER reduce the number of Free Will points? Ever downward the characters will go, further and further from being able to control their own destinies.

But hey, I just think it's a really nifty idea.

-Eric

Hi Eric,

Thanks for your comments and your interest. I agree that using the same words over and over would get repetitive, but I'm not sure about changing the die size for three main reasons; firstly, I feel than non-d6 are regarded as very "gamey" by the mainstream, and whilst everyone has got a few d6 that can be scavenged from old board games or whatever, getting hold of a bunch of d10 is more of a task. I'm happy to admit that this is just purely personal preference, however.

Secondly, the original source material, d6s were used in the main, and for those that wish to stay true to that experience, I wouldn't want to change it. Finally, and most importantly, I think that asking for ten words/traits to describe a character during creation might be a bit much for most players. I've found that getting players to think of a half-dozen traits for Dogs in the Vineyard is a bit of a struggle, but adding new traits during play isn't as big an issue. So I think that keeping to d6s, but changing the words more frequently is the way to go. I also think that players being able to change other players words is a very good idea too, and that's going to have to form the basis of my player positioning system.

I'm not sure that I follow that the higher the Free Will the harder it is for you to control your characters destiny. The feeling I was trying to portray is that when your character first starts to follow the dice they have a lot of options to take (i.e. pick one from four possible words), but to in conflicts they have to follow the dice more and more (i.e. use more words to get less Hesitation) to achieve their aims. But as Free Will goes down they start to obey the dice habitually, without thinking, and thus win conflicts more often (less potential Hesitation) but their choices are much more limited (one word which you must use, or do nothing). This, combined with the Degeneration rules, is meant to reflect the progression of the Dice Man from bored psychologist to random madman. But I think that it might need some thought if I move it to a more Noir-ish idea.

I think I might have to put an objective more explicitly into character creation too; something like "Why did you turn to the dice?", and then use that to focus advancement/growth. I'll muse upon this a bit more a put up a reworked system soon.

Thanks,

Warren

I'm totally on-board with sticking with d6s. For every reason you mentioned.

As for the ever-increasing Free Will stat, lemmie try to illustrate. But first, let's take two assumptions; 1) Let's say Free Will starts a bit lower at 2; and 2) You aren't required to use any of the words you roll. Other than those two changes, things stay the same, especially the Hesitation rule.

Now, I narrate against you, and we both are rolling 2 dice. We each come up with two words, worth 1 point of Hesitation each. If you narrate both of your words in and I narrate one of my words in, then you win the conflict, correct? Because I earned myself one point of hesitation from narrating one word short. Now let's say that I've got 10 dice to roll, and you've still got two. You roll two words at one point each, and choose to narrate NEITHER one, so you earn yourself 2 points of hesitation. I, on the other hand, roll 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5. At this point, I MUST narrate word number 3, or automatically fail the conflict. I can get away with not narrating words 4 and 2 and still win... but not both of them. And words 1 and 5 would cause me to tie with you.

Imagine the 2/10 dice split again, only this time, you choose to narrate both your words and I roll 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Now, I can get away with not narrating 3, 4, 5, and 6 individually, but I've still gotta narrate 3 of the four to win, and I have no choice in narrating words 1 and 2 if I want to win this conflict.

In either case, before we even roll the dice I know that I'm going to be forced to narrate more of my words in than you, and I'm going to have much less choice about which ones must be narrated.

Make sense?

-Eric

Thanks Eric,

Yes, it does make sense, and I do see what you are saying now, but part of me is attracted to that. It should be difficult to win an argument/conflict with someone who truly believes and follows his dice without hesitation, whereas you have to put a lot of effort, and tortuous logic (i.e. use a lot of your words) to match them.

This is also one reason why I think the must narrate at least one word comes in. In the 2/10 example, I roll 2 dice but can't find any way of getting them into the narration of my side of the conflict, I have to concede as long as you can use one of your words. And that's where Degeneration comes in; the more 'powerful' you get, the more chance you have of loosing any form of self-control (i.e. your Free Will dropping to zero). You don't have to use your Threshold word, even if you roll only ones, but you have to concede the contest instead, which I think says a lot about your character.

One modification could be to remove multiples before counting Hesitation, and limiting the maximum Free Will to 5 (maybe 6). Then, if it was a Free Will of 5 vs. 2, and my five dice came up 1,1,1,2,4, I would have an effective Free Will of 3 for this roll (1,2,4) and thus just have to narrate one more word than you to win, with no single word being 'forced'. Admittedly, this breaks down if you drive the number of dice rolled above the number of words available, but I'm not sure that's such a good idea anyway.

I'm thinking of having this game quite structured for the GM. He can throw up to five conflicts at each player during the course of a session, one using 1 die, one using 2 dice, another with 3, etc. up to a 5 dice conflict. This is on top of any player vs. player conflicts, obviously.

What do people think?

Warren

I want Stark to get a safety deposit box number out of the femme fatale who is perched on my desk in the office. I roll 1,1,3,5. I decide to use my Threshold Trait, and narrate ("Using sheer _brute_force_, I swing a punch at the dame on my desk, _hitting_that_woman_ onto the floor." I have a Hesitation three, just missing one die - the 3(rain).

She (the GM) rolls her 3 dice and gets just one word into her narration, "She falls to the floor, looking up at you with eyes full of _tears_." so she has a Hesitation of 2, and I win, so she give me the number and I have to lose a point of Free Will because of this. I also choose a new Threshold Trait trait of "rape". He's just got a lot darker.

BigElvis,

Welcome to the Forge & thank you for your comments. Yes, you are correct spotting the mistake in my example; it should be Hesitation 1 rather than 3.

Do the characters themselves roll dice? To be honest, I'm not sure. It would be true to the book, certainly, but I'm not sure how far down that route I wish to go yet. Maybe (off the top of my head) force the word "dice" into slot 6, and apply a bonus if you manage to get it into your narration? Hmmmm.

And the term Free Will? I'm not sure on that too, but I can't think of anything more appropriate; again I was trying to simulate the book and Luke living his life more and more by what the dice told him, but in doing so, achieving greater things. But as things might be moving away for this a little, and more into a Noir-ish self narration style, I'm not so sure.

But yes, my original intention, as I pointed out above, was forcing the use of dice to create 'better' narration, and I would like to think that it does.

Thanks for your interest,
Warren

Thanks,
And by the way I am sorry if what I am writing is a bit messy some of the time, partly it is because I am not english, and partly it is because I am just writing in a very 'stream of conscious' way right now(tell me to stop and I'll try).
I think it might actually be better to drop the dice all together, but if you wish to keep them in the setting, i think a forced trait being dice would work.
What if you actually dropped the dice all together? I know I might be taking it in a different direction, than what you want, and I am sorry if you think I am distorting your ideas.

I am just going to toss this idea out, that I admit isn't thought through all the way.
You might have the 6 traits.
Maybe the GM could have some 'setting or GM traits' like
1- cars, 2- bad lighting, 3- mobsters, 4- rain, 6- Love
Lets say that the GM narrates the following:

As you walk out on to the sidewalk you find it is still _raining_. Across the street you see your _girlfriend_ being shoved into a _car_ by two _mobsters_ that you recognize as Little Tony and Fat Pete from Garnelli's crew.
The GM used 4 of his 6 words. This could mean that for the next action the character tries to undertake he needs to use more than 4 words, if not he could take damage in some way. Maybe in this situation he could take some 'despair' for not finding out where the mobsters took her. When he goes to their hideout and fights them he could take some 'wounds'.

To change a trait, I think, if playing it this way, it would be usefull to agree beforehand that if maybe 3 or more words are included in the narration you can change a trait.

Oh yeah, notice that the listed traits would be setting traits. The GM could perhaps have written up characters that he could use as the players do.

You could even have the setting traits be open to everybody for use. So that players can use the badlighting to hide in, and the GM can use it to hide things from them.