PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying dice based systems without dice



Project_Mayhem
2009-05-20, 07:41 AM
Recently I've joined a game of Mage the Awakening that my friend, an experienced Dm, has been running for a term or so. I've played with him before, but only with us both as players; this is my first experience of him running a game, and I discovered that he has basically removed most of the dice rolls from the game.

The only things that remain intact are the rolls for spellcasting. Random chance is handled by the Dms whim, or a secret d100 roll. Everything else is mostly determined by the characters stats, back story, and situation, and the players description of what they do.

For example if my character is trying to duel a far better swordsman 1 on 1, then with no mitagating circumstances, then I lose. However, if I can cheat, distract him, get the drop, etc. then I might be able to disable him with some cheap hits.

This seems to have worked so far, and often eliminates the occasional stupid fumble that clearly wouldn't have happened, but then I've only played a few sessions like this.

What are other peoples opinions on the idea? Have you tried it? Do you think it would work in a more rulesey system like DnD?

shadzar
2009-05-20, 08:24 AM
default win or lose sucks.

I would like some random something to give me the chance to fail or succeeded on my own under normal circumstances.

a kitten going up against a dragon still has a chance to do some damage to it, even though it is fated to lose, so that isn't normal circumstances.

there shoudl be some random determining thing that bridges the gap betwen DM/GM fiat.

Otherwise you may find that type of thing is what created the entire "DM vs Players" mentality in the first place.

BobVosh
2009-05-20, 08:35 AM
Not really seeing Player vs DM here.

It seems ok, and should work reasonably well in most Mage and Changeling games. Other WW games would probably have issues.

And D&D/etc forget it.

Project_Mayhem
2009-05-20, 08:45 AM
Ah, well first you appear making the assumption that the DM is against us. It works both ways; I play a guy well schooled in practical swordplay, with lots of actual experience, and if I choose to attack an unarmed man with no fighting experience, under conditions that don't grant him the advantage, then he is going to die.

And as I said, there is an element of randomness - If chance would clearly be involved, he rolls a percent die, such as determining if, for example, the rotton bridge we're fighting on breaks


a kitten going up against a dragon still has a chance to do some damage to it, even though it is fated to lose, so that isn't normal circumstances.

Erm, thats silly. Really silly. The kitten doesn't have a chance in hell of hurting the dragon in the slightest. Even using a real example, if an ordinary guy like me in rl attacks a trained martial artist, they're gonna kick my ass without an trouble. If I tried to do that in game, I'd only really be able to hurt him if I did something that mitigated his advantage, like throw dirt in his eyes.

Edit: Interestingly, he says it works even better in Vampire (the Masquerade, in an case) given the massive difference in power levels - I can potentially make a character who has been studying fighting for 400+ years. They will most likely beat anyone

shadzar
2009-05-20, 08:49 AM
Erm, thats silly. Really silly. The kitten doesn't have a chance in hell of hurting the dragon in the slightest. Even using a real example, if an ordinary guy like me in rl attacks a trained martial artist, they're gonna kick my ass without an trouble. If I tried to do that in game, I'd only really be able to hurt him if I did something that mitigated his advantage, like throw dirt in his eyes.

Any more silly than a kitten killing a trained spellcaster? a kitten could damage a dragon. Just wouldn't be anything worth really noting for the dragon anymore than the rose thorn stuck in its knee for the past 3 centuries that it still hasn't noticed to this day.....

Project_Mayhem
2009-05-20, 09:06 AM
Any more silly than a kitten killing a trained spellcaster?

The fact that DnD has several stupid stupid mechanics is kinda irrelevant. Yes that would be very silly too. One of my problems with DnD

shadzar
2009-05-20, 09:28 AM
The fact that DnD has several stupid stupid mechanics is kinda irrelevant. Yes that would be very silly too. One of my problems with DnD

ACtually that joke has turned into far more arguements and failure to understand the system than when it was spoken.

Sure a wizard could die to a kitten because of 3HP to start, but how often do you go into a battle against a kitten? Let alone a lone wizard going into a battle with a kitten.

They just covered everything people might need to cover. If you have dogs that can fight you, why not cats.

More to the point is also is the fact that you have to loot at what you are doing.

Stupid rules are less of a problem than stupid players or stupid DMs.

That isn't the point here though.

the point is that a system that just has fate tellign you who would win by comparing some averaged numerical quality, means that you are pretty much no longer playing a game and just telling a novel with 4-5 people as the authors.

Two wizards go up against each other. One is suspected to be more powerful and thus wins by default without having to mess with casting those silly spells.

:smallconfused:

Isn't the point of the game to play it, not skip it? I don't like hack'n'slash heavy games, but you need some fighting.

The players need to feel as though they are doing something otherwise they are just pawns for the story to dictate what they are doing.

If you are just wanting to tell a story then it would work for a while, but you would have to figure out why can this character always win?

Verisimilitude comes into play when you do things like this for a wide variety of people.

There just needs to be a bit more player control.

Suppose in OOTS this was used. Xykon would have never been defeated at the first gate, because the order was way outnumbered and it should have been a war of attrition.

Belkar wouldn't have ben able to claim Sexy shoeles god of war after killing over a hundred hobgoblins again because there were too many people.

The way you would have to figure it out would be crazy amounts of work or just leave it to the biggest numbers to decide, which is worse than playing it out and chancing to lose when you should win.

Sometimes you will have a one-on-one fight where someone that should clearly have the advantage runs away. So just looking at something and saying the stronger guy wins just doesn't work well for D&D IMO.

D&D is about giving the players the chance to do things. Just saying they win or lose, removes the players ability to act at all once they have gotten into an encounter.

So it does become DM vs players.

DM decides you won and killed the opponent. OOPS you wanted to kep them alive. DM says ok he lives!


:smallconfused:

anyway, thats my opinion and i will leave it at that.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-05-20, 09:32 AM
If it works and everyone's enjoying it, that's all that counts. It certainly moves the focus off the mechanics and onto the RP, thinking, choices, and drama - that can not be a bad thing.

Timeras
2009-05-20, 09:52 AM
Some things are not random. So if the GM uses common sense and just tells you if something works, even though the rules say you should roll dice, that is a good thing.

Project_Mayhem
2009-05-20, 09:57 AM
@Tsotha-lanti: yeah, I think that was his plan. Like I said, seems to be working - Its nice not to have to optimise and think about mechanics

@Shadzar: I really don't understand your point w/ regards to the kitten v wizard thing. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have statted the kitten, or made provision for if a wizard fights one - I mean that it's stupid that they balanced it so that the cat will probably win.

But as you say, thats irrelevant. Back on topic -

I don't think you understand what I'm describing. I simplified the example greatly for the sake of brevity. You are right when you say that the game would be boring were it just a case of:

Me: I attack Bob
DM: You win. Bobs dead

or

Me: I attack Bob
DM: You lose. Bobs dead.

As you say, player control is important. This method doesnt preclude that. We still play combat rounds of 3 seconds, we still describe our actions - it's just that the DM adjudicates them instead of rolling

For example, to continue the previous example, where I am attacking Bob:

Me: So I charge at Bob and swipe my knife at his face
DM: (looks at my sheet and Bobs sheet - sees that I am good with a knife, and that Bob is quite slow) Ok - He tries to dodge, but you are too fast, and cut him quite deeply. (he writes the damage down on Bobs sheet) In response, he pulls his gun at you and tries to shoot you
Me: I try to grab his gun with my other arm and stop him
DM: (looks at sheet) Oh, havn't you hurt that arm?
Me: err, yes
DM: OK - he is stronger than you, but the distraction causes a glancing hit on your arm - take x damage
etc.

Do you see what I mean? Its not like we just skip over combat

toasty
2009-05-20, 10:01 AM
You don't need dice to play an RPG so long as you have some bone fide method of combat resolution.

When I stick my sword into someone, what happens? He or she dies, right? But what happens if he or she dodges? Well, how can I know if he or she doges? What if his or her dodge is about the same as my sword stick ability?

Obviously if I'm a master swordsman and I attack a commoner, then I will win. But if I attack 10 commoners? Should I win? Should I lose? Can I win?

Obviously, DM/GM fiat works, but my thing is that you can argue with your GM and try to explain things away with whatever crazy explantions. If you come up with a semblance of logic, your GM might allow you bend the rules from time to time. But you can't argue with the dice. The dice are your predetermined method of combat resolution and you can't argue with them.

That's why I like dice. I'd be hestitant to play a game meant for dice without the dice; especially one like DnD where they are so vital to the game.

that being said, if everyone is okay with not using dice, then you can go ahead and do that. I wouldn't be interested in it though.

valadil
2009-05-20, 10:01 AM
Personally I think it's a great idea. It wouldn't apply to every game, but if you're involved in one that is based on collaborative storytelling moreso than tactical wargaming it should be fine.

I've always felt that a good way to encourage roleplaying was to limit combat mechanics. D&D has interesting combat mechanics and we want to play with them. If the mechanics were something simple we'd be less inclined.

I've used this to my advantage in running LARPs. Here's a system I came up with a while back. Everyone has a combat stat from 1-5. When you fight someone you play rock paper scissor. If you win RPS you get +2 to your stat. Then compare stats to see who wins or repeat if its a draw. Someone with a +1 relative to you will beat you 2/3 of the time. Someone with a +2 relative to you will beat you all of the time, but it may take a while if you win RPS and force a draw repeatedly. Someone with +3 will beat you hands down. It's simple, but it's effective. Most importantly it's boring. Nobody in the game wanted to try out that cool mechanic. If a fight broke out, this would tell you who won, but that's all it did and it let players focus on other aspects of the game.

-edit-

Who says RPGs have to have combat? If you're playing a game where there's a lot of sword sticking, you probably don't want diceless. A story based game can do fine without fight mechanics.

Project_Mayhem
2009-05-20, 10:09 AM
Yeah, I agree that you definately need a group and DM who are all cool with it and won't abuse it.

Also, @ Toasty, I should point out that the way our game world works is pretty realistic. Aside from the fact that you can cast spells, but hey. 1 master swordsman against even 4 or 5 coordinated normal chaps, using mob tacics is likely a loss for the swordsman. Course if they come 1 at a time then frankly the deserve to die

But yeah, for Heroic fantasy, it might be very different

toasty
2009-05-20, 10:20 AM
Who says RPGs have to have combat? If you're playing a game where there's a lot of sword sticking, you probably don't want diceless. A story based game can do fine without fight mechanics.

I use combat in the narrative sense. Bargaining for your cow manure to farm your farm is combat. perhaps I should have use the word conflict? That might have been more accurate.

Zeta Kai
2009-05-20, 10:56 AM
Well, a long time ago, I tried to run a session of D&D (3.0 back then) without using dice. The players had their characters already rolled up, as it was an on-going campaign. The in-game explanation was that there was an area with wild magic that was altering the laws of physics in strange ways. For that one session, every time a die roll was needed, you got the average instead. A d4 = 2.5, a d6 = 3.5, a d8 = 4.5, etc. It was... interesting. I wouldn't say it was necessarily bad, but it felt somewhat empty & dull, in a way that I have difficulty describing adequately. The randomness of the world was just gone. In some ways it was pretty cool, because it meant that bonuses & penalties to stats meant a whole lot more (even a +/-1 was a set-in-stone pass/barrier to what you could do), but there were no exciting events. Nobody rolled really high or low. There were no critical hits, & no dramatic fumbles. The players learned quickly what they could & could not accomplish, so by the end, they were far like daring because they already knew the outcome of any potential action. The gameplay became more strategic & thoughtful, but less adventurous & bold.

The next session used a different rule: we wrote down every possible die roll (1-4 for d4, 1-6 for d6, etc.). Everytime a roll was needed, we took a value from the list, in descending order, & checked it off. So if you needed to roll a d20, & someone just go the 20, you'd get the 19. Again, it was interesting, but I wouldn't recommend it for long-term play. It gave us much more varied numbers, but like before, the players knew the number before the roll was even needed, so strategy increased while daring withered. Even worse, because the numbers were obvious for any potential action, even when a high or low number came up, there was no real excitement or disappointment. The players just lifelessly went through the world, trying to avoid actions that would yield poor results, making for sub-optimal adventuring.

Overall, they were interesting experiments, but my players were quite thankful to have their dice back.

shadzar
2009-05-20, 10:56 AM
For example, to continue the previous example, where I am attacking Bob:

Me: So I charge at Bob and swipe my knife at his face
DM: (looks at my sheet and Bobs sheet - sees that I am good with a knife, and that Bob is quite slow) Ok - He tries to dodge, but you are too fast, and cut him quite deeply. (he writes the damage down on Bobs sheet) In response, he pulls his gun at you and tries to shoot you
Me: I try to grab his gun with my other arm and stop him
DM: (looks at sheet) Oh, havn't you hurt that arm?
Me: err, yes
DM: OK - he is stronger than you, but the distraction causes a glancing hit on your arm - take x damage
etc.

Do you see what I mean? Its not like we just skip over combat

A good bit better now yes. But i would still want some random in there for some parts on the attacks, and ALL the damage being dealt would want it random with dice, chits, etc.

The case where the arm was hurt and couldn't grab is excellent use or no dice, just because it makes the most sense.

The initial too fast would need a roll for me.

Of course, anyone that doesn't care about extenuating circumstances wouldn't be bothered by it. But from day to day, just like dice, people can have better or worse days.

The way I play is a bit of specific.

I like dice in fights, and RP outside of fights. Like the new rolling for skill challenges thing sort of takes the entire opposite of your view and you can roll for everything in the game.

Yours is 180 degrees to near no rolling or 100% no rolling.

I prefer a balance of rolling to not rolling things in my games. Battle seems the best place to roll, and RP seems the best place not to.

The above is great thematically. But being Bob, I would ask how exactly did I hit with the knife, how was I faster, since there is les rolling, then I want to know more with the available time to get the story portion of the fight.

Make sense?

Just wouldn't be as satisfying for it to happen and not know how or why it did. While with dice, I probably screwed up my karma and was owed some bad rolls in the game. :smallwink:

Quincunx
2009-05-20, 11:10 AM
There's a precedent for pre-determined outcomes in some LARP rulesets, where the character with superior stats always wins a given challenge (see valadil's post, which is a bit fairer with fractional results). When someone complains about dice-based min-maxing, players in those games just giggle. It's amazing the ways people will find to shoehorn a challenge into being solved with their superior stat. . . .On the other hand, White Wolf games are a good place for such 'cooperative' resolutions. So long as one can always ask for the dice when one doesn't agree with the Storyteller's interpretation, yeah, I'd be perfectly happy to play that way--with the important caveat that all of my gaming circle had approximately the same notions of fairness. D&D would, however, fall on its face without some randomness.

valadil
2009-05-20, 12:19 PM
I use combat in the narrative sense. Bargaining for your cow manure to farm your farm is combat. perhaps I should have use the word conflict? That might have been more accurate.

Ah. Yes, I'll agree that there needs to be some form of conflict resolution beyond DM fiat. Incidentally I've been working on my own game system designed for conflict resolution without dice. I don't know if I'll ever publish it, but I'd like to at least write enough to beta test it. I posted about it here (though I can't find a link) and on my blog (http://gm.sagotsky.com/?p=9#more-9) previously.

grautry
2009-05-20, 01:30 PM
If it works for you then thumbs up.

But I wouldn't like playing in a game like this.

I think that dice mostly add to the game.

Sure, with a fair DM such a diceless system can work out quite nicely. But ultimately, even with the nicest and the best DM evah, you're still on the mercy of DM-fiat.

If a DM doesn't want for you to open the door, it won't. If he doesn't want for you to hack the computer, it won't. You'll never face a situation where your athlethic, buff guy slips when jumping between buildings and his recuperation becomes a subplot. You'll never face a situation where the Mastigos utterly dominates the mind of the BBEG thanks to a lucky roll and completely changes the chronicle on the spot. Or where it happens to you.

Naturally this can still happen in a dice-based game but it will be obvious - because the DM will be imposing sky-high difficulties/penalties or huge bonuses/low difficulties if he wants to railroad.

Not to mention that your DM is still human. He likes some people more. He likes some people less. It's only natural and you can't blame him - but it can influence his actions. Dice don't care about personal loyalties.

In short, I think that diceless games are almost inevitably more railroaded. If the successes and failures of your characters depend on someone's decision - then are they really successes and failures?

For my last word, I think that this tale illustrates why I like dice quite nicely. (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/talesfromthetable/khunbaral.html)

valadil
2009-05-20, 01:45 PM
In short, I think that diceless games are almost inevitably more railroaded. If the successes and failures of your characters depend on someone's decision - then are they really successes and failures?


Conflict resolution is up to DM fiat. What conflicts you get into are up to you. This will get back some of the freedom given up with the dice. Whether or not this amount of freedom is greater than what you gave up depends on you and the GM.

Look at it this way. A game with dice will have mechanics. That buff guy who fails a check jumping between buildings will have stats. Between sessions, the GM will come up with those stats. The game is ultimately railroaded between a finite set of entities with game stats. Depending on the game your GM may be able to improvise around that or maybe he'll be able to prepare for anything. In a system with fewer mechanics you'll have more freedom to go anywhere, whether or not the GM had time to prepare mechanics for it.

Project_Mayhem
2009-05-21, 05:50 AM
Conflict resolution is up to DM fiat. What conflicts you get into are up to you. This will get back some of the freedom given up with the dice. Whether or not this amount of freedom is greater than what you gave up depends on you and the GM.

Look at it this way. A game with dice will have mechanics. That buff guy who fails a check jumping between buildings will have stats. Between sessions, the GM will come up with those stats. The game is ultimately railroaded between a finite set of entities with game stats. Depending on the game your GM may be able to improvise around that or maybe he'll be able to prepare for anything. In a system with fewer mechanics you'll have more freedom to go anywhere, whether or not the GM had time to prepare mechanics for it.

Yeah, this summerizes it better than I could. Kudos. We are p[resented with a world, we interact with it, and the dm adjudicates the results

appending_doom
2009-05-21, 07:14 AM
The next session used a different rule: we wrote down every possible die roll (1-4 for d4, 1-6 for d6, etc.). Everytime a roll was needed, we took a value from the list, in descending order, & checked it off. So if you needed to roll a d20, & someone just go the 20, you'd get the 19. Again, it was interesting, but I wouldn't recommend it for long-term play. It gave us much more varied numbers, but like before, the players knew the number before the roll was even needed, so strategy increased while daring withered. Even worse, because the numbers were obvious for any potential action, even when a high or low number came up, there was no real excitement or disappointment. The players just lifelessly went through the world, trying to avoid actions that would yield poor results, making for sub-optimal adventuring.

Overall, they were interesting experiments, but my players were quite thankful to have their dice back.

Another interesting experiment might be to let the players each have their pool of dice values (1-20, for example), and choose which value they get for each die roll. You can't re-use values until you've used all 20.

While it definitely steals randomness from the game, it does turn all activities into an interesting strategic decision, as you actually can waste a 20. I don't know if it'd be fun or not, but it's an interesting thought experiment.

Xenogears
2009-05-21, 08:35 AM
Dice don't care about personal loyalties.

After reading the thread about dice a couple days ago I think a good portion of the people on this site might disagree with this sentiment.

kc0bbq
2009-05-21, 04:10 PM
I've played in enough diceless games to know that you don't need random dice telling you what to do.

Amber DRPG works because dice can't possibly represent Zelazny's world. Certain outcomes are inevitable, like with Corwin's fight against Benedict on the black road. Corwin was not going to win a fight with Benedict. Dice rolls would have given him a chance to do what was fundamentally impossible. He had to play to his strengths and use knowledge that his brother didn't have. You can't represent that in a game with random chance, but you can represent it in a diceless game. Some types of RPG are best suited to being completely abstracted.

grautry
2009-05-21, 04:35 PM
Look at it this way. A game with dice will have mechanics. That buff guy who fails a check jumping between buildings will have stats. Between sessions, the GM will come up with those stats. The game is ultimately railroaded between a finite set of entities with game stats. Depending on the game your GM may be able to improvise around that or maybe he'll be able to prepare for anything. In a system with fewer mechanics you'll have more freedom to go anywhere, whether or not the GM had time to prepare mechanics for it.

Why should that be the case?

You're using a dice-based system as a base for a diceless system, right?

So this means, that even if mechanics are omitted then your characters are pretty much capable of the same things they would be if the dice were in. The world is pretty much the same as it was.

If you want to use vampires in a diceless system, then you need to know what vampires are capable of. If you want to use vampires in a dice-based system, then you need to know what vampires are capable of. Nothing really changes, except for the need to track mechanics.

Your characters have similar capabilities in diceless as they do in dice-based systems. They don't suddenly become omni-capable in a diceless system so their abilities will be pretty much the same. What they can do in a dice-based system they can do in a diceless system and vice-versa.

I just can't see it. Give me an example.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-21, 08:10 PM
The principle role of dice in any game are to resolve conflicts and to introduce "The Unknown" into the game.

"The Unknown" is the excitement you feel when faced with a situation whose outcome is beyond the control of any mortal agency. Putting your fate into a roll of a die can be terribly stimulating - it is the foundation of random-type gambling (ex: Craps, Roulette). It can also derail a story that is fun; all systems that use dice find a balance here.

Conflict Resolution is actually a rather complicated subject.
In a pure storyteller game, each player would narrate what their character does and the general outcomes of these events - let's call this Narrative Control. Many varieties of this system exist, where there are certain conventions regarding who has Narrative Control over what events and what are the limits of that Narrative Control. Bliss Stage (http://swingpad.com/dustyboots/wordpress/?page_id=229), for example, has a sophisticated system for sharing Narrative Control among all participants in a game.

However, you will eventually reach a situation where two players will have overlapping Narrative Control; the classic example is the sword fight. Swordman A can narrate that he dodges, parries, and strikes true - as can Swordman B. Who wins the sword fight?

Fiat Resolution
The system you are talking about is Referee Fiat (as has been noted). In this system one player is told to decide who wins (the Referee) and each Swordman makes their case to the Referee as to why they should win; the Referee makes his determination without restriction. There are many types of Fiat-based system; the Democratic Fiat (an odd number of non-participating players vote on who should win) and the Rotating Fiat (the Referee for an action is determined either at random or by a rotation scheme) are two examples.

The main criticism of pure Fiat systems is that group dynamics and whims of an individual matter more than any causal mechanism or even the integrity of the story. Also, Fiat eliminates much of the suspense you would normally have with such a conflict - everyone can tell who will win by their knowledge of the players involved and the arguments presented.

Random Conflict Resolution (Simple)
Here, a small number of dice (perhaps even a single die) determine who gets Narrative Control for a given conflict, and what rules surround the subsequent narration. A common one, used in The Mountain Witch (http://www.realms.org.uk/cms/articles/themountainwitch) and other games, is the Degree of Success Roll.

In a Degree of Success Roll system, each player involved states their goal (ex: I disarm Swordman B; I knock Swordman A to the ground) and rolls a single die apiece (here, a d6); they then compare results. The difference between the two values determines how well either side succeeds.

Example Degree of Success Table
0 = Neither party achieves their goal
1 = One party almost achieves their goal (a "partial success")
2 = One party achieves their goal, but something bad also happens (a "mixed success")
3 = One party achieves their goal (a "full success")
4 = One party achieves their goal and may gain a Partial Success in another goal (a "critical success")
5 = One party achieves their goal, and an additional goal as well.

These die rolls can be affected by various other rules (tokens to gain bonuses, multiple die rolls, etc.) but the actual mechanic is very simple and universally applies to in-game conflicts.

Random Conflict Resolution (Complex)
D&D. Enough said :smalltongue:

It should be noted that all of these basic approaches can be implemented in different ways. You could use a deck of playing cards and resolve Narrative Control Conflicts by playing out a hand of poker (Deadlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadlands#Unique_aspects_of_the_Deadlands_game)) or by auctioning off control using metagame resources ("Plot Chips" awarded for mission completion, good roleplaying, and DM whim) for example.
Ultimately, the Conflict Resolution mechanism lies at the heart of every RPG; without it, you're just acting out an extended improv exercise. Some RPGs adapt easily into other systems - White Wolf games, being largely Narrative focused, can be easily converted into Simple or Fiat systems. Other RPGs do not do so well - WotC D&D is heavily systematized and if you stripped out all of the dice rolling, it's hard to say if you're even still playing D&D.

Personally, I favor randomized systems over pure fiat systems. The ability that randomizers have to introduce "The Unknown" into a game excites me more than a Fiat system where arguments over Conflict Resolutions are difficult to resolve. YMMV :smallsmile:

valadil
2009-05-21, 09:38 PM
I just can't see it. Give me an example.

I wish I could give a real life example, but I haven't actually played in a diceless game. I've played in some rules light ones though and the feeling I've gotten has always been that there is more stuff available to do when there are fewer rules. The focus of the game tends to gravitate to where things (namely NPCs and statted encounters) are already defined.

The_JJ
2009-05-21, 09:43 PM
Hmm... reminds me of something...

Ah yes. The link in my sig. 42+pages of awesome madness, contained only by the GM and the limits of our sanity. Worked wonderfully. :smallcool:

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-21, 09:45 PM
I wish I could give a real life example, but I haven't actually played in a diceless game. I've played in some rules light ones though and the feeling I've gotten has always been that there is more stuff available to do when there are fewer rules. The focus of the game tends to gravitate to where things (namely NPCs and statted encounters) are already defined.
This is actually a cognitive problem - I call it "the box." For some reason, when people see rules for doing some things, they assume anything not written down cannot be done. Sometimes this is fair - there are no "called shots" in D&D - but usually it is not; most systems include some sort of method for resolving Things The Rules Don't Cover.

I highly recommend trying to push the boundaries of any game that you're playing, if that's what you like to do; some people just like playing inside "the box" :smalltongue: