I've been pondering this game design problem for a while now, and thought I'd ask for some input from the Forge crowd.

I'm trying to devise a system such that it can be played with dice (or other randomizer), and also diceless, without requiring any change to mechanical entities, only the resolution systems that interact with them. The dilemma I've reached is one of elegance of mechanics vs. complexity of play; while many modern diceless systems have something like a resource-allocation mechanic to produce variation of results, a diced system doesn't need such a contrivance.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6877

This thread is a discussion that jburneko and I (with some comments by others) had about making Sorcerer (a diced game) diceless through changing as few mechanical entities as possible. The discussion sort of trickled off, but before it did there were a number of excellent ideas that, depending on how your system is made up, might at least give you some ideas.

I hope that's of some help.

There's an easy way to do this -- make the dice system a resource system as well.

Consider this quickie system:

Characters have a pool of points. You spend points to attempt a task -- as many as you want, but before you know for sure how tough the task is. The idea is to beat a certain difficulty. In the diced version of the system, spending a point allows you to roll a d6 -- add the results together and compare to the difficulty. In the diceless version, each point spent is worth a "roll" of 4 -- add them all together and see if you beat the difficulty.

So the diceless version of the system is like the diced version of the system, with slightly-above-average roll results.

Does that make sense?

I have been investigating exactly this sort of arrangement. I think the important thing to consider is that the diceless system must encompass the same range as the die roll. Of course, this is the real challenge. My solution has been to use a curved die roll, such as 1d6 curved to produce the following results:

1 = -2
2 = -1
3,4 = 0
5 = +1
6 = +2

or 2d6 curved as follows:

2 = -3
3,4 = -2
5,6 = -1
7 = 0
8,9 = +1
10,11 = +2
12 = +3

or 2d10 to produce results +5 to -5, etc.

Then, for the diceless component, the player gets a pool of points with a fixed starting value such as 2, 3, 5, or 10. The player may then assign modifiers within the range of the dice. Of course, the player must keep the pool built up. If it reaches 0, the player is out of points and must take a penalty. Alternately, the player can be allowed to deficit spend for one result, and that deficit becomes a penalty until the pool is returned to 0 or higher. It's a managed resource scheme, but I like it because it gives the player a high degree of control.

I do make a certain number of assumptions with this method. Attributes are assumed to run from 0 to 10 or along a similar range of small numbers. Also, the die roll generates positive and negative numbers so the player doesn't need to jump through hoops in order to refresh the pool. It refreshes as play progresses. Results are compared to a target number.

Edit: Typos

xiombarg wrote: ...
So the diceless version of the system is like the diced version of the system, with slightly-above-average roll results.

Does that make sense?

Well I had an interesting thought last night which is not exactly what is described by hopefully might permit a new angle. Speed speed speed is a major criteria for me and so I was wondering how to eiminate multiple die rolls in a single exchange. The reason I want multiple die rolls is so I can have multiple inputs impinging on the resolution, and the reason I don't is that they add handling time. So after a bit of tinkering I thought, why not make a pack of cards each of which has a matrix of results that the system my generate. So a given card for Vampire, for example, would have outputs for die pools of each size, a humanity roll etc; one card is one batch of results with all special cases taken into account (e.g. exploding dice). If multiple rolls are required, a single card flip gives you discrete outputs for each roll to be made simultaneously.

So applying this to above, for this is still a randomiser, I wonder if there is a difference between heavy karma and most diceless play. I don't think that in itself is radical (Conspiracy-X eliminates die rolls through karma), but tied to the card device above you could publicly reveal a set of cards which will, in sequence, be employed as a randomiser. Play then revolves around who gets to utilise which space on the card containing a number when. So, off the top of my head, you could do things like say each block on a card, as representative of a particular type of roll, can only be used once in a given exchange in a conflict. Initiative would be important because you'd be able to lay claim to the best set of available results; losing initiative would be bad becuase you would have to deal with the leftovers. On the other hand, a set of numbers might come up that make an apparently irrelevant ability useful in some manner.

So in any way, I guess the general principle is that a random system should be seamlessly convertible to a non-random system if the random element becomes Karma-ised. You could in principle do something very similar by generating a page of numbers and employing other devices to determine who gets which when. Everything will still be about decision and planning.

Shreyas Sampat wrote: I've been pondering this game design problem for a while now, and thought I'd ask for some input from the Forge crowd.

I'm trying to devise a system such that it can be played with dice (or other randomizer), and also diceless, without requiring any change to mechanical entities, only the resolution systems that interact with them.

If I am following correctly, then we are talking about a system which can alternativelyly be used either with or without a randomizer, right?

If so, then I side with simon a bit in that a diceless system is more than just you don't roll the dice. I mean d20 has this with the take 10 or take 20 rules. There is nuance to diceless design that is missed when approching it as a dice design without the dice (both in design and in attempted play).

I also don't think the idea of the systems being compatable will really work. Some examples that come to mind are T&T solo vs group play, where solo characters, or the rewards of solo play are often disallowed. And Warhammer battle to WHFRP conversions (or any rules-to-rules conversions) which is always nice to have but IME rarely used, if ever.

Thanks for the thoughts, folks. I'll be posting some stuff in Indie Game Design once I have a firmer grasp of the design I'm working towards.

Chris, a.k.a. xiombarg, was on the right track when he wrote: There's an easy way to do this -- make the dice system a resource system as well.

Back when I had a website, I had rules for Diced Nobilis (I like the diceless version myself, they were largely written to show that such conversions were possible) that essentially worked the way most people are suggesting -- they converted the diceless attribute totals into a roll and add pool of dice.

But I was thinking -- this is essentially adding a minute failiure chance into a dice-based resource system -- it isn't that interesting. And then I had an idea for a mixed dice / diceless mechanic which interested me.

Essentially, you have your base scores and your resource pools ala Nobilis and such. When resolving an action, you add your spent resource points to your base score and the total gives you your effectiveness. OR, you can roll a number of dice equal to your point expenditure, take the highest, and add your base score (ala Sillohouette.)

So, essentially, you can get things cheaper if you risk failure. However, past a certain point, luck will no longer avail you, and you must blow your resources.

Is this interesting as a resolution mechanic?

yrs--
--Ben

When I was working on my Matrix RPG, I had a dichotomous system that avoided the congruity problems by making them mutually esclusive. Essentially, anyone still hooked to the matrix rolled for success. (xd10 where x is the number of relevant stats, highest result over difficulty is success).

However, if a character is freed from the matrix, their sense of self-confidence is such that they automatically succeed actions whose difficulty is below their freedom rating (which can get fairly high) + the ratings of any other relevant traits. An actions with a higher difficulty, like defying gravity or fighting an agent, start out with the same number plus an expenditure of points from their freedom pool.

Shreyas started the thread, and he's satisfied with the outcome. For that reason, I considered it ended; but now I see it's not ended. I seem to have gone over the top here. Maybe someone will find the response useful.

IMO, people who are considering designs that combine dice and dicelessness, or even people who are contemplating one option over the other, need to look at the topic more formally and consider the underlying reasons for each decision.

Dice serve a function. They provide both an element of risk and a sense of realism. The element of risk comes with the chance that the dice can bless or screw the player on any given die roll. The sense of realism comes with the fact that we as people really don't know exactly what will happen when we do something. We may have a high degree of certainty about it, but there is always a chance events will turn out better or worse than expected.

Resource-based dicelessness also serves a function. It provides an element of control and a sense of self-determination. The element of control comes from knowing that the player can allocate the points to affect the outcome. The sense of self-determination comes with knowing the ramifications of every decision. If the player allocates the points now, they won't be available again until later.

Now, recognizing that these two options serve different functions, it seems to me that a designer must make some self-evident and different assumptions about using each one. When the designer chooses dice, the designer is choosing an element of risk, an element of surprise, a desire to gamble, and a desire to accept the unknown as part of the equation. When a designer chooses dicelessness, the designer is choosing player control and a right to self-determination.

With this in mind, I assert that mixing dice and dicelessness (die roll + resource in the same mechanic) is a poor design decision because it muddies the water. If you roll dice, you agree to take a risk. At that point, spending resources just dulls the sense of risk. If you spend resources, you are demanding self-determination. At that point, rolling dice merely diminishes the player's degree of control.

If strategy is important to the designer, it will play a role in the decision-making process whether the game's mechanics use dice or not. In any game, players can look at the situation, the character's ability, and the risk in deciding on a course of action. Strategy is not the crucial issue. The crucial issue is desire to gamble vs. value of character ability vs. desire for control.

MJ made an interesting point when he said that the "diced version (of a game) provides an essentially unlimited number of points but limits use to the number rolled." As a broad statement, it's wrong; but it's true within the constraints of a game session. The statement is wrong because, when dice are rolled enough times to accurately generate a statistical distribution, the average of all the results always migrates to the middle of the range. The point pool is effectively limited. This is the whole basis for spending resources: Though the numbers always average, the player can limit the occurence of really unpleasant results and choose the moments when his character will look really cool.

The statement is true because the number of times a player will roll is usually much too small to guarantee that the die rolls themselves will (as a group) conform to expected statistical distribution. In this case, the player really can't control what comes up when, or even necessarily predict the likelihood of certain results within the game session. So, we're left with a high degree of risk and the possibility that the numbers a player actually rolls would be impossible to achieve using the rules for a point-based resource. In other words, Roll a d6 1000 times, and the average result will be 3.5; but let a player roll that d6-cube 8 times in a session, and he could conceivably roll eight "1's" or eight "6's" in a row.

Now, about those diceless results... I'm no expert of d20, but I've heard about the "take 10" rule. If I have it right, the player starts with a 10 point base, which represents the average die roll of a d20. Then, he gets a 10 point pool to manipulate the results. On each roll, he can add or subtract points from the pool to determine his "die roll". Since this is a resource-based diceless means of resolution, I maintain that this changes the player's expectations. The use of a diceless resource is not about gambling or risk; it's about control and self-determination. The value of the "take 10" rule is that the player, if he plays carefully, can live blissfully free of the dreaded "I rolled a 2" fumble, and that's just fine.

Now, when discussing this sort of mechanic, xiombarg suggests allocating the points before knowing how tough the task is. MJ in his example suggests keeping the obstacle (target number) in the diceless game secret. This works fine when a character is locked in conflict with another character (or important npc). The player still has his wits about him. He knows what constitutes a good result and what constitutes a bad result. In the diceless scenario, he controls his results and that control strongly affects the outcome (whether the character wins or not). For other situations, this is still an acceptable approach, but I think it could be abused as a ploy to make the player waste points. I think the player should have at least some idea about how tough the task is so that the player can make an intelligent decision about how much effort to put into accomplishing the thing. The GM doesn't necessarily have to reveal the actual target number, but I think the GM should give the player a hint.

OTOH, if the GM does simply give the player the TN, this may not hurt anything. Simon was talking about narration of outcomes. He asserted that "Merely replacing randomisers with a resource allocation system still leaves a game in which game mechanics controll outcomes, rather than game narrative." Well, yes and no. "Yes" because game mechanics do still determine the outcome; but "no" because in the diceless version, the player is determining the outcome. The player is making an active decision about the outcome of every action, and that's a lot different than just rolling dice. If a designer really wants narrative to determine the outcome, then dice and numbers may both become irrelevant. That designer is possibly better off looking at a game like John Tynes' Puppetland or something and finding a way to make a game that is based primarily on player assertion, not numerical mechanics.

From memory the Eden Studios unisystem was designed to be diced or dicless by just using averages. So the damage for a weapon in their book would be listed as 1d6[4], for example, meaning to roll 1d6 or just use the rounded-up average of 4, etc.

Brian.

Just a note: Don't consider that I've closed the thread, since it's clearly a subject of ongoing and interesting discussion. In fact, some responses to Hunter,

who wrote: IMO, people who are considering designs that combine dice and dicelessness ... need to look at the topic more formally and consider the underlying reasons for each decision.

Dice serve a function. ...
Resource-based dicelessness also serves a function. ...

Now, recognizing that these two options serve different functions, it seems to me that a designer must make some self-evident and different assumptions about using each one. When the designer chooses dice, the designer is choosing an element of risk, an element of surprise, a desire to gamble, and a desire to accept the unknown as part of the equation. When a designer chooses dicelessness, the designer is choosing player control and a right to self-determination.

With this in mind, I assert that mixing dice and dicelessness (die roll + resource in the same mechanic) is a poor design decision because it muddies the water. If you roll dice, you agree to take a risk. At that point, spending resources just dulls the sense of risk. If you spend resources, you are demanding self-determination. At that point, rolling dice merely diminishes the player's degree of control.

...

Now, about those diceless results... I'm no expert of d20, but I've heard about the "take 10" rule. If I have it right, the player starts with a 10 point base, which represents the average die roll of a d20. Then, he gets a 10 point pool to manipulate the results. On each roll, he can add or subtract points from the pool to determine his "die roll". Since this is a resource-based diceless means of resolution, I maintain that this changes the player's expectations. The use of a diceless resource is not about gambling or risk; it's about control and self-determination. The value of the "take 10" rule is that the player, if he plays carefully, can live blissfully free of the dreaded "I rolled a 2" fumble, and that's just fine.

Active Exploits is another one of those that uses the same mechancics (same Skill / Ability framework) but can be played diceless. Actually, the dice-enabled version has skill being the most important factor. A skill will give you 15-30 points towards the task rating, while the dice can offer you a few d6's more (rarely more than 3) towwards a task. There is randomness, but it seems overdetermined by Skill differences and other conditions. (So basically, it's doable and done by a few systems here and there.)

One idea is to make the choice between dice/diceless have an impact on the game. The choice of risk versus self-determination is somewhat key. Realistic adventures may work best with a strict representation of diceless rules; heroic adventures may work with some risk and chance involved, and adventures that are more heroic than this may be diceless again, but with more points to spend and perhaps more rules-slack, depending on the narrative itself.

Dev wrote: One idea is to make the choice between dice/diceless have an impact on the game.

Shreyas wrote,

In response to this all:
So clearly, if you're going to choose a mechanism that allows you to choose dice or diceless as the situation demands it, you are compelled to make it clear what this means. Are you going to give your action to the winds of chance, or are you going to take responsibility and control over your action? This could be an interesting thematic issue...

As for taking 10... in DnD3.0 you don't get to vary your result, you get to take 10. Maybe there's some variant where this resource pool happens, but baseline didn't have such a thing. Perhaps you're thinnking of some other branch that does.

Hunter Logan wrote: MJ made an interesting point when he said that the "diced version (of a game) provides an essentially unlimited number of points but limits use to the number rolled." As a broad statement, it's wrong; but it's true within the constraints of a game session. The statement is wrong because, when dice are rolled enough times to accurately generate a statistical distribution, the average of all the results always migrates to the middle of the range. The point pool is effectively limited. This is the whole basis for spending resources: Though the numbers always average, the player can limit the occurence of really unpleasant results and choose the moments when his character will look really cool.

The statement is true because the number of times a player will roll is usually much too small to guarantee that the die rolls themselves will (as a group) conform to expected statistical distribution. In this case, the player really can't control what comes up when, or even necessarily predict the likelihood of certain results within the game session. So, we're left with a high degree of risk and the possibility that the numbers a player actually rolls would be impossible to achieve using the rules for a point-based resource. In other words, Roll a d6 1000 times, and the average result will be 3.5; but let a player roll that d6-cube 8 times in a session, and he could conceivably roll eight "1's" or eight "6's" in a row.

Hi MJ,

I see what you're saying. My practice with the resource-based diceless mechanic is that the player always spends negative points to replenish the pool. This is the same as getting low rolls, though I expect the player would never suffer negative extremes unless he actively wanted the character to fail. As indicated in my original example, I like die rolls that are recurved to generate negative numbers (such as -5 to +5). I like rolling 2 dice because this naturally pushes results to the middle. If I wanted to use raw numbers, I could still use 2d6 for my die roll, though that makes the mental arithmetic a little clumsier. Of course, the 2d6 roll generates range 2 to 12 with a preference for results 6-8. If I were to making a diceless system based on this, I would give the player an unmodified base number = 7 + an Ability modifier. The resource pool could start with 5 points, though I would opt to make the point pool into a purchased attribute, so some players would start with more points than others. Whatever the case, in that system, the player may spend up to 5 points on any action. Then the player's result becomes Ability mod + 7 + resource (which falls in a -5 to +5 range). The spending of negative points replenishes the pool.

Example: Player John wants his thief to steal the shiny bauble. The GM informs John that the bauble will be really hard to steal. John decides to case the place before making a move. He hopes this will make the job easier. The GM agrees that this will indeed make the job a little easier, but it's still no cakewalk. John decides it's time. His thief is good at stealing stuff, so his Ability base is 8. He gets another +7 representing the average of the range, and decides to spend the full 5 points on the effort. So, John has 20. Of course, this is clumsier than just adding 8 + 5 = 13, which is why I like to recurve my die rolls.

In any case, your described replenishment methods seem like they could be pretty entertaining. Maybe you can play around with those as part of a little game. Finally, I now see what you were originally saying now about die rolls vs. spent resources. I just wasn't looking at it quite the same way because of my insufficiently stated assumptions about replenishment.

Thanks for the reply.

-Hunter

Hunter Logan wrote: Your Matrix game is a homebrew, yes. It sounds interesting. Is it posted somewhere?

Hunter Logan wrote: My practice with the resource-based diceless mechanic is that the player always spends negative points to replenish the pool. This is the same as getting low rolls, though I expect the player would never suffer negative extremes unless he actively wanted the character to fail.

Hi MJ,

You're right, there's always the possibility for abuse. The best solution is as you say: Only count points when it really matters. Then, you define those conditions in the social contract and enforce them in play. I would hope that players will not do the things you describe, but I have seen players do similar things. Then, my fix is to make the outcome more brutal. I don't like it, and I haven't had to it very often; but it usually only takes one demonstration to put the house in order.

From your example: The player has his character swing across the swimming pool, but the character is goofing off. So the -5 penalty means that the character falls in the water. It also means that the character bashes his head on the side of the pool, and really hurts hiumself. If no one helps him, he could drown. It's a really ugly outcome, especially if the character drowns; but it wouldn't even be a particularly vindictive act on the GM's part. In a game where an ability rated at 3 or 4 indicates trained competence, that -5 penalty produces a disastrous outcome. So, unless the character is some kind of expert at rope-swinging or acrobatic jumping, the player won't do too much of that. Still, it's far better to work it all out in the social contract at the start of play than to screw the players during play. Hope that helps.

-Hunter

Well, to tie that back to what's been discussed earlier: Going diceless is a clear statement "I take responsibility for my action." Therefore, rolling poorly should mean that the character is personally, directly responsible for something bad. If all it means is minor embarrassment, then it's defeating the thematic purpose of the mechanic.

To add a differing opinion to the mix here, I really think people tend to overstate the difference between Fortune-based and Fortune-less systems. Many, many folks go with what seems intuitive, that Fortune-based games tend to give you "random, unexpected" results, while Fortune-less games give you "calculated, deterministic" results. Honestly, having played both types of games extensively, I really haven't found this to be the case. It totally depends on how the game is designed.

Fudge, for instance, is totally Fortune-based, but has such a bell-shaped Fortune curve that you hardly ever get things that are completely surprising. On the other hand, systems like In Nomine, which sports an extra "degree die" that determines the overall effectiveness of the roll, make unexpected results happen all the time ("The giant, killer demon rolled an effectiveness of 1?").

Likewise, in diceless games, the amount of "randomness" can vary between systems. Nobilis can seem very random, simply because a player can decide, all of a sudden, to eat the sun, without warning and without thinking twice about it. This has nothing to do with dice/dicelessness. A game like the new Marvel Universe, on the other hand, is very predictable, while still being Fortuneless.

So, to state something that may seem obvious, I don't think it's really about whether you have Fortune or not. It's about how you use it. In this case, I would hope that Torchbearer's aesthetic would be the driving force behind either take on the system, so that playing with or without Fortune wouldn't really affect the play too much (though, of course, it would have some effect). This way, it becomes more of a matter of personal preferences, which is what I guess Shreyas was probably intending.

To jump in on both meta0threads here before the inevitable split...

The general advice on non-diceless (diceful?) systems is that it's a GM judgement call whether an action requires a roll. The guidelines tend to be either "under stress" or "if there's a chance of failure." Both imply that the consequences of failed action are that player intent is foiled, and that the GM has weighed the intent to be sufficiently significant as to merit the test.

Pretty much all GM judgement then.

What diceless systems do is to put some power over this judgement into the hands of the player: they can decide the significance of the action, as well as the effort, skill, resource, etc that they put into it. The card based systems I've seen do a similar job, by giving the player more control over the resource management aspect of the game (though the resources are randomly allocated).

I seem to recall (though I can't think where) that some systems have, implicilty or explicitly, placed some of this attitude into standard RPG's, by saying that a player may elect to roll for a trivial action, but must stand by the consequences: the same attitude for the parrallel diceless system was explained earlier: by electing to use a negative bid on a diceless action, the player has agreed to let his character, or rather his intent, to suffer an appropriate level of consequence. They have declared the action to be significant.

Secondly, I think Jonathan Walton's comments feed into some of the stuff arising from Shannon Appelcline's and Greg Costikyan's analysis of board and card games, of randomness and chaos. Chess, for example, has no random element, yet, due to the geometric complexity of the possible moves, it has a fair degree of chaos in the mathematical sense. Similar openings may lead to vastly different endgames. This is even more true of Go.

To go to RPG's, chaos (as opposed to randomness) seems to be a function more of setting than system, as it arises from the available scope of character action: in Nobilis, as Jonathan noted, the scope is very wide to begin with (godlike powers), and tends to increase as a game progresses, as players find more creative uses for their domains, etc. Universalis, as a counter example of a non-conventional RPG, starts with very high chaos, which reduces as story elements are defined.

And, as with board games, a social dynamic emerges, which tends towards more players = higher chaos (eg Diplomacy, which should only be played with the full 7 players, has no random element beyond the brains of the players, and is very high chaos). However, I think with RPG's, this curve flattens out (or turns bell shaped, or possiby even begins to resemble the Julia set...) as larger groups get dominated, or mob psychology starts to prevail. I'm sure most people will know the feeling that in an established group, the GM can reasonably well predict the reactions of the group, but side-shows with fewer players or one-to-ones tend to become less easy to plan...

To clarify, as usual Jonathan was dead on about my original intention: to create a game where Fortune or Fortuneless was a matter of whimsy, not meaning. This hasn't led me very far, but hopefully the idea's benefited someone else. I turned onto a slightly different path, which I'll be posting in Design when it's formatted.

As for the difference between highly random systems and highly ordered systems, and their relation to the Fortune switch, I think that's probably a daughter thread, as is the 'significant consequences' train of thought.

I think a decision like fortune or fortuneless pretty much has to be a matter of meaning because it's a deliberate decision that affects the way people play the game.

Hunter Logan wrote: I think a decision like fortune or fortuneless pretty much has to be a matter of meaning because it's a deliberate decision that affects the way people play the game.

Andif that decision is placed in the hands of the players, not the designer, then the players explicitly make decisions about the theme of the game through their selection of mechanics.

Hunter Logan wrote:

Andif that decision is placed in the hands of the players, not the designer, then the players explicitly make decisions about the theme of the game through their selection of mechanics.

This is true. It's also true that a designer can give players the choice by supplying both options. Whether the decision is made in design or in play, the decision is still deliberate and has some meaning behind it. It's not whimsical or random.

pete_darby wrote: And if that decision is placed in the hands of the players, not the designer, then the players explicitly make decisions about the theme of the game through their selection of mechanics.

Yeah, I thought I was agreeing, but I forgot to include "yeah" in my post...

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: It seems too much like an attempt to get as many different types of people/player to buy it.

pete_darby wrote: ... then the players explicitly make decisions about the theme of the game through their selection of mechanics.

Jonathan Walton wrote:
Honestly, I think this is destined to happen anyway, not because of the mechanics themselves but because of the emphasis different groups will put on different parts of the setting or mechanics. Different groups will play the same game differently, no matter if you give options for diceless/diceful or not. I don't think it makes the system weaker if both are viable options (as to one just being half-heartedly tacked on). Heck, I like playing both Fortune-based and Fortuneless games. Why does making that an option weaken the game? I don't think I quite understand what you guys are trying to say.

I know it's a bit late in the thread for this, and I'm embarrassed to say that it has come to my mind every time I've read this thread so I've no excuse for not mentioning it until now (well, my excuse is that some days I didn't think it was worth writing and other days I didn't want to tuck it into a post on something else--but it's not a good excuse).

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.

All of this discussion has compared the diced fortune system to the karma system; but would a drama system be considered in some way? 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.

--M. J. Young

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Which is what bothers me about the idea of a game that is either fortune or fortuneless. It seems too much like an attempt to get as many different types of people/player to buy it. That's what I'm seeing with this.

M. J. Young wrote: 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.

simon_hibbs wrote: I'm concerned that this might encourage players to use the mechanic they feel gives them the best advantage in a given situation, rathert than which mechanic is thematicaly appropriate to the situation.

M. J. Young wrote: All of this discussion has compared the diced fortune system to the karma system; but would a drama system be considered in some way? 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.

The trivia game Malarkey contains chips of six colors plus black; the function of the black is for when the player is identifying himself--his own color chip is in front of him, so everyone can see what color he is. Each player proposes an explanation of the question, and everyone votes by displaying a chip of the color of the person they think is right. Handling time is not so bad, really. It plays more smoothly than Fictionary in practice.

I've seen other games in the trivia and personal issues areas which use similar mechanics, but nothing in roleplaying.

I don't think there would be a lot of handling time problems with the idea I proposed, as long as there are only two proposed outcomes--the referee's and the player's. That way it would be a simple black-and-white choice. I think handling d6's to make sure you've got the right side up would be more complex, even than having chips in six different colors.

You could perhaps let the votes represent points, positive and negative (or votes for the player versus votes to increase the target number), toward victory; then a player might succeed even if most people voted against him, if he had high enough scores.

I see a lot of stragizing happening in the formation of the outcome statements. Some people will generally vote for the player's outcome, but not all will; and there will be some who will vote for "the most reasonable" or "realistic" sounding outcome. Thus there's an inherent social motivation to try to create a moderate outcome description, and so garner more votes. On the other hand, proposing an outrageously good or bad outcome once in a while can win votes just to liven up the game--a referee could win votes particularly by proposing that one of the player characters gets in trouble, and needs the others to rescue him, which might draw the others to vote for the referee's option so as to give themselves more screen time in the rescue.

I'd like to hear how it goes when you've got something.

--M. J. Young

Do you think it'b be possible to have players who love doing diceless rpg and players who love using dices play the same rpg at the same time? Like one side of the table would be the pro-dice and the other side the pro-diceless?

The system I'm working on looks like this:

It uses the concept of effort points. The more effort you use to make an action, the more chance you have to succeed...and consequently, the more tired you get.

To make an action, you need to add:

Attributs + Skills + Effort Points Vs Level of Difficulty

For exemple:

Dexterity (+3) + SwordFight (+4) + 4 effort pts = 11

For the pro-diceless, he would use the 4 points from his pool of effort points.

For the pro-dice, 4 points of effort means using 4 D6 and he will take the highest score to add to Attributs and Skills.

The pro-diceless will have more control over the effort points but he will be limited to the number of points he uses for the action.

The pro-dice will have to rely on fate to succeed, but at the same time, he can have a higher score with less effort points. With the exemple above, he spends 3 points of effort, but if one of the die land 6, his total goes from 11 to 13 (3+4+6). Of course, if the highest score is 2, for exemple, it would mean that he has spent 4 effort points to add only 2 (intead of 11, he'd get 9).

So each system has its own pros and cons. It's up to the players to use the system that fits best his needs. With that system, do you think it would be possible to have both types of players during a game?

Note: the core rule of my system is a little bit more complexed, but I hope you guys understand its philosophy.

ClaudeC

For the pro-dice, 4 points of effort means using 4 D6 and he will take the highest score to add to Attributs and Skills.

You know, I think using the Fudge-like dice system is really neat for my system. For exemple, if the player use 4 effort points. He would throw 4 dices.

If the result is: 1 or 2 or 3, he would add -1 to the effort points. If the result is 4 or 5 or 6, he would add +1.

Yeah, I really like it. Thank you Mike for suggesting the idea. :)

ClaudeC

You're welcome, Claude.

Your take has an oddity to it that's not neccessarily problematic, but I thought I'd mention it. When rolling an odd number of dice, you can't ever get the original number as a result. Even numbers you can get the original number, but then you can't get a number that's one away from the number, either more or less. These ommisions in the curve occur then at every two points. So, with four dice, you can only get 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 as results. With five dice you can only get 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 as results. As you can see, only even numbers can ever result from this method.

Mike

ClaudeC wrote: Do you think it'b be possible to have players who love doing diceless rpg and players who love using dices play the same rpg at the same time? Like one side of the table would be the pro-dice and the other side the pro-diceless?

Erick Wujcik wrote: It's mostly just a matter of speed (at least in my case), since the players not using dice are getting more things done, and seem to be having more fun.

That's all true, Kirt. But Erick's point stands in that, in the case of a system where the two options stand side by side, and the dice method is just inteded to randomize the other method, then it will neccessarily be a little more time consuming. As such, he's speaking clearly to Claude's proposed design.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: That's all true, Kirt. But Erick's point stands in that, in the case of a system where the two options stand side by side, and the dice method is just inteded to randomize the other method, then it will neccessarily be a little more time consuming. As such, he's speaking clearly to Claude's proposed design.

Mike Holmes wrote: That's all true, Kirt. But Erick's point stands in that, in the case of a system where the two options stand side by side, and the dice method is just inteded to randomize the other method, then it will neccessarily be a little more time consuming. As such, he's speaking clearly to Claude's proposed design.

Neat.

That's all I have to say about that.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: You're welcome, Claude.

Your take has an oddity to it that's not neccessarily problematic, but I thought I'd mention it. When rolling an odd number of dice, you can't ever get the original number as a result.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: So, with four dice, you can only get 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 as results. With five dice you can only get 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 as results. As you can see, only even numbers can ever result from this method.

The main reason I asked about the possibility to have pro-dice and pro-cideless players in one table is that I know there are different kind of players. And I also noticed that some rpgs were designed specifically for pro-dice players and others for pro-diceless players.

I wanted a game that would allow both kind of players to play the same adventure in the same world. If I had only pro-diceless players, then that'd be fine because the game was designed for them in mind. If I had only pro-dice players, then that'd be fine too because the game was designed for them too. And If I happen to have players from both side, it'd be fine too because the game was designed to handle those too type of players.

So you see I'm not "stuck" with one kind of player. It's not like "Oh, you guys love throwing dices? Let's play this rpg game #01." and "Ah, you guys want to play diceless? Well, I have the rpg game #02." I want to be able to say to my players that no matter what kind of system you like (i mean by that dice or diceless), you can still playing the SAME RPG game.

The system I'm working on has that philosophy. I wanted something that would be the link between the 2 systems, and effort points were that one.
Both system use effort points, but the way you use the effort points work differently if you use or not dices. The level of difficulty is not revealed to the players, so that the diceless player won't have an advantage over the dice player. As Mike said it, playing the game with and without dice can become a strategy since in my game, players can switch from dice to diceless whenever they feel like it. Some action work best if you use dices, some other when you don't use any dice.

For exemple:

You want to open a door. The GM knows the level of difficulty, but he doesn't tell you. You can use dices, but if the dices give you a low result, you can end up using effort points and still fail the action. You can decide to go the diceless way. But you can end up using too much effort points to open the door. In my game using too much effort points to do an action is like a critical failure. In this case, if you use to much effort in opening the door, you might hurt yourself (this rule apply only for diceless play). But you can also decide to check on the door. If you have Lockpicking in you skills list, you can find out how difficult the task is. You can find out the exact number of effort points to use to open the door. In this case, going diceless work best.

Another exemple:

You're fighting a guy. Because you want to survive this fight, you will put a lot of effort points in order to make a lot of damage. You don't have to worry about putting to much effort point when you use the dice system. The too-much-effort rule works only with the diceless system. But you will have to worry about critical failure when you use dices (it's when all your dices land "1"). Since you're using a lot of dices (meaning a lot of effort points), the chance that you can land a "1" with all you dices can be fairly remote. So in this case, it's best to go with the dice system.

I hope I explain it right lol Sorry for my English. What do you think about the system I'm working on? Is it possible or is it playable?

ClaudeC

You're proposed method would fix it Claude, as you are essentially rolling FUDGE dice as I suggested above.

For the original method let's look at the possible outcomes.

4 dice has the following possible outcomes:

++++ = 8
+++- = 6
++-- = 4
+--- = 2
---- = 0

5 dice has these results

+++++ = 10
++++- = 8
+++-- = 6
++--- = 4
+---- = 2
----- = 0

No matter what the original level is, rolling with the method you described always results in an even result.

Mike

Last night we playtested the diceless-plus-fate-cards system I described earlier. I need to write up more detailed descriptions of the attributes and abilities in the game, and how combat damage is handled, but the basic mechanics worked very well IMHO. At least I as Narrator found it fairly easy to run the game from the mechanics points of view, and the Fate Cards seemed to work very well. There was certainly a storm of cards coming down in the final confrontation scene, but because I had some cards to counter them with it wasn't a foregone conclusion at any stage.

The enxt step is to more fully express the game design in written form, so that others can use it to run a game too. I think that's realy the hard part in writing a game. I can design games for me to run fairly easily, but writing a game others not only can play, but will want to run themselves, is another matter.


Simon Hibbs