Hello everyone,

I'm just looking for some feedback on a little RPG I put together over the weekend. It's called the Less-Dice system, and the rules as of right now are here: http://www.mediafire.com/?76l66hcxyftivmr

I guess a little background is in order. I've never played or owned any diceless RPGs, or resource management RPGs, though I know they exist.  I built this system as a response to wanting something that didn't use dice or randomizers to determine success or failure, but still used them to represent certain grey factors, with a range of results.

Take a look and tell me what you think, I've had some new ideas since putting this PDF together, but it has the heart of the idea down.

I'm mostly looking for feedback towards things that you think are missing that would be encountered in a single game session.

It's a work in progress so I'll try to keep this updated as I work on it.

Thanks!

Notes, read these after reading the PDF:

There are no rules for healing damage. But outside of magic, healing will take place over longer than a single session.

I'm considering an automatic perception rating, something like Mind + Manoeuvre. If someone doesn't like their score they can purchase a skill to replace it, or maybe improve it.

I'd also like to bring in a little more dice, I was thinking about making skill points worth a d4, but that makes them a lot more valuable. Changing a Burned action point to be worth a d6 is a less drastic change.

Hi Sam,

I suppose what I'll say will sound a complete non sequitur, but a bit of a repeating design pattern in RPG's is that the combat rules/main rules listed in the text are in no way connected to the outcome of the game? For example, say your off to save the princess - you have a fight with some goblins and yeah, the rules really nail down all sorts of moves and who takes damage and who hits who. But really for intricately resolving the goblin fight, the ruleset has done nothing towards resolving the princess saving at all? In fact (and this is the important thing), if we considere the princess saving as the important thing, then the rules have absolutely nothing to do with what's important in the session. Have you noticed this in other RPGs? And what do you think?

You're right, that is a bit of a non sequitur.

However, you're not wrong, but I think my response to this is the same as to the question "is game design going in X or Y direction?", and that is: game design is going in all directions at once. For everyone going in one direction, someone is going completely the opposite direction.

In many games, mine included, the focus is more on using the mechanics to answer a specific question at hand, not bring the story any closer to it's conclusion in anyway, other than to determine a direction. These games want a more free flow to how they are structured, having mechanics the specifically drive the characters towards the goal of Saving the Princess, are of no use if the players decide that's not what they want to do that session after all, or grab a thread headed in another direction.

In others the opposite is true, many new indie games I've read specifically try to drive the story along with mechanics. In Fiasco a subtle little mechanic that I didn't find specifically mentioned in the book is that due to the finite number of dice, there is a finite number of scenes with which you have to tell the complete story. Stuff needs to happen in each scene, every one of them needs to count, because when they're gone, they're gone.  Those are some of the only mechanics in the game and I think they do a good job of ensuring that when used they bring the story closer to it's conclusion.

These games want a more free flow to how they are structured, having mechanics the specifically drive the characters towards the goal of Saving the Princess, are of no use if the players decide that's not what they want to do that session after all, or grab a thread headed in another direction.

Wait, what?
If I were to tell you, “I’m going to design a new line of motorcycles. Though, mind you, I’ve never read any schematics for existing designs, nor have I ever ridden one, nor do I intend to, but I have heard of them.” what would you say to me?
I have played a couple diceless systems, and read quiet a few more, specifically because I wanted to build one. Here’s a professionally built free one called Active Exploits. http://www.pigames.net/store/product_info.php?products_id=92
You may notice it’s free because it’s presented here as a generic system. If you want a game that does something specific you’ll have to pay for it.
Here’s another, somewhat sketchier one, called Fiat. It’s got some good ideas in and it is also very free.
http://fantasyheartbreak.pbworks.com/w/page/19608530/FiatDiceless

Here are my notes on playing/designing diceless systems.
1. Your players will never fail a test. Well, that is to say, unless you hide the target number form them, and then they’ll be doubly upset and with you specifically when it doesn’t pan out. So why don’t they ever fail? Because if they decide the karma cost of a thing is to high, they simply will not do that thing. This can be a problem because attempting something and stumbling is an important part of telling a good story.

2. Players can get a little fidgety and detached without some physical artifact to manipulate. I used to despise dice before I tried playing without them. Now I realize the real purpose of dice is not, in truth, to add a sense of uncertainty (though that is something they do). They give the player a lever to pull.
It gives a tactile feedback. The players feel engaged because in order to perform an imagined action, they must perform a real one.
There’s a reason fortunetellers roll bones, play cards, and poke at ashes. It lends legitimacy to the crap they’re making up. Some goes for roleplayers.

As for what you’ve written so far.
1. Generic systems
The longer and harder you work on a generic system the less functional it will be. You force the GM/Players to spend a lot of time either cutting out fat, or making things from scratch. I’d recommend at least having something specific in mind initially. If that works out then you can strip bare and sell the skeleton at a discount. Or give it away as a promotional offer, like Active Exploits and a mess of other things do.

2. Fight some more why don’t you.
Whatever else you want this system to do you clearly want the players to bust some heads. I notice dice are only really used for damage. Meaning when the game starts, the players are going to see all those interactive artifacts laying around that they only get to touch then they successfully maul someone. What was that old saying about everything looking like a nail?
If your main goal is that of a brutality simulator why waste space with all this auxiliary? Why not tie secondary functions into your important(combat) stats. Ex: Players can use their Defense rating to manipulate people in a social situation, their Range attack rating to recall information/solve puzzles, their Maneuver rating in tests of speed and agility, and their Melee attack rating for feats of might.
I have some other suggestions but they fit more under my next point.

3. Karma pool
You got a lot of different kinds of currency running around in here.
You’ve got skill points (non-combat only), action points (combat only), fate points (skill points but super), and inspiration points (mentioned on page one, then forgotten). I’d recommend taking a look at Lady Blackbird (which is also free incidentally). http://www.onesevendesign.com/ladyblackbird/
It has a really great example of how to manage a resource pool and tie it into actual RP. Using lady blackbirds Refresh Scene mechanic you can feel free to just go ahead and make that combat sim you want without the needless baggage of an adventuring skill system.

4. Damage
I see you like FATE’s stress boxes. Problem though, how do you define “[taking] a condition”. A condition is described as “a temporary penalty” and nothing else is said. There doesn’t seem to be a place for them on the character sheet either. Also, it looks like you’ll have to get through a hell of a lot of boxes to impose something a meager as a “temporary penalty”.  How exactly do you see a fight ending?

Wow, thanks so much for responding! I really appreciate you taking the time to read what I have and write up a good bit of feedback.

D.R. wrote:
Wait, what?
If I were to tell you, “I’m going to design a new line of motorcycles. Though, mind you, I’ve never read any schematics for existing designs, nor have I ever ridden one, nor do I intend to, but I have heard of them.” what would you say to me?

D.R. wrote:
Here are my notes on playing/designing diceless systems.
1. Your players will never fail a test. Well, that is to say, unless you hide the target number form them, and then they’ll be doubly upset and with you specifically when it doesn’t pan out. So why don’t they ever fail? Because if they decide the karma cost of a thing is to high, they simply will not do that thing. This can be a problem because attempting something and stumbling is an important part of telling a good story.

2. Players can get a little fidgety and detached without some physical artifact to manipulate. I used to despise dice before I tried playing without them. Now I realize the real purpose of dice is not, in truth, to add a sense of uncertainty (though that is something they do). They give the player a lever to pull.
It gives a tactile feedback. The players feel engaged because in order to perform an imagined action, they must perform a real one.
There’s a reason fortunetellers roll bones, play cards, and poke at ashes. It lends legitimacy to the crap they’re making up. Some goes for roleplayers.

D.R. wrote:
As for what you’ve written so far.
1. Generic systems
The longer and harder you work on a generic system the less functional it will be. You force the GM/Players to spend a lot of time either cutting out fat, or making things from scratch. I’d recommend at least having something specific in mind initially. If that works out then you can strip bare and sell the skeleton at a discount. Or give it away as a promotional offer, like Active Exploits and a mess of other things do.

D.R. wrote:
2. Fight some more why don’t you.
Whatever else you want this system to do you clearly want the players to bust some heads. I notice dice are only really used for damage. Meaning when the game starts, the players are going to see all those interactive artifacts laying around that they only get to touch then they successfully maul someone. What was that old saying about everything looking like a nail?
If your main goal is that of a brutality simulator why waste space with all this auxiliary? Why not tie secondary functions into your important(combat) stats. Ex: Players can use their Defense rating to manipulate people in a social situation, their Range attack rating to recall information/solve puzzles, their Maneuver rating in tests of speed and agility, and their Melee attack rating for feats of might.
I have some other suggestions but they fit more under my next point.

D.R. wrote:
3. Karma pool
You got a lot of different kinds of currency running around in here.
You’ve got skill points (non-combat only), action points (combat only), fate points (skill points but super), and inspiration points (mentioned on page one, then forgotten). I’d recommend taking a look at Lady Blackbird (which is also free incidentally). http://www.onesevendesign.com/ladyblackbird/
It has a really great example of how to manage a resource pool and tie it into actual RP. Using lady blackbirds Refresh Scene mechanic you can feel free to just go ahead and make that combat sim you want without the needless baggage of an adventuring skill system.

D.R. wrote:
4. Damage
I see you like FATE’s stress boxes. Problem though, how do you define “[taking] a condition”. A condition is described as “a temporary penalty” and nothing else is said. There doesn’t seem to be a place for them on the character sheet either. Also, it looks like you’ll have to get through a hell of a lot of boxes to impose something a meager as a “temporary penalty”.  How exactly do you see a fight ending?