PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying without dice [any system]



Project_Mayhem
2010-01-29, 11:42 AM
A while ago, I posted a thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112039) that discussed the concept of removing the dice rolls from a system and replacing it with DM adjudication. The response ranged from interest to abject terror.

Now, with nearly a years experience playing this way, I thought it would be interesting to re-approach the idea and see what people think.

I currently play Mage: the Awakening this way. The guy running it removed most of the dice rolls from the game. To a large extent, the only things we roll for are the magic system and any other supernatural effects, as they can't be realistically adjudicated. We keep some other rolls that we've found keep things realistic and/or interesting, such as initiative and the roll to stay concious when you are very damaged. Additionally, the DM will use a percent dice to determine random chance when it is appropriate; i.e are the local werewolves patrolling this part of their territory? Are there any hairs from the mage we're tracking on the couch he was sleeping on?

Everything else is determined by character ability, intent, and circumstance. For example, my character has enough in athletics that he will, under normal circumstance, jump a high fence with no problems. However, if he's broken his arms, then he won't be able to. If something genuinely does come down to chance, then the % roll is made.

I'm aware that this system is only likely to work with a DM who is unbiased to a large extent, and that it is less appropriate the more dice rolls a system requires.

So, I was interested if anyone has played like this, has any thoughts on the matter, or wants to ask me any questions about how we do it?

Fhaolan
2010-01-29, 11:47 AM
Yeah, we do this a lot. Freeform gaming. It's not really 'gaming' though. It's more collective storytelling, and it can go south very easily if the person running the setting gets tired of it.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-01-29, 11:55 AM
I've tried some freeform games before, but I didn't really like it. I disliked the fact that the success or failure of all my actions were completely decided by the GM. In combat, particularly, this was a problem. It felt like the DM was telling a story and I was only watching and occasionally describing a small part of the action.

Also, on top of interesting roleplaying and plots, I like to have math, probabilities, and complex rules. Freeform, by definition, doesn't really have these.

Project_Mayhem
2010-01-29, 12:10 PM
Yeah, before I started playing, combat was a worry for me, especially as I'm playing a martially inclined character. It works out quite well, although I admit it relies on a DM who knows his stuff.

Generally we play round by round, describing what we plan to do in reverse initiative order. this way, if someone lower on the list is prepping a spell, I know to put a bullet in his face or prepare to counter.

We tend to state what we do in reasonable detail - For example might begin with "Ok, this turn I'm going to approach him slowly with my sword held defensively, and then parry his attack, make a quick counter, and step back.

If the DM agrees that's Ok, then he adjudicates based on what the spirit was going to do - if it was going to make a wild swing forwrd, then my counter would probably pay off. If it was also being cautious, and fainted, then we'd most likely clash but not hurt each other.

Ichneumon
2010-01-29, 12:13 PM
I think you can go almost completely "systemless" without much trouble, but I think you do need a very good DM to pull it off well when you go completely dice naked. I agree it could feel a lot like the GM just decides what happens and that could ruin the fun, so personally, I'd prefer just rolling a d20 once in a while and see if it goes well, with the general rule "high roll=good result and low roll=bad result".

Totally Guy
2010-01-29, 01:24 PM
Abject terror here.

But!

If you wanted to simulate combat as you describe what you could do is modify a Rock Paper Scissors game of it.

Dodge about
I hit him!
Feint
Block and counterstrike

You could them secretly choose an option so that...
{table]Action|Dodge|Strike|Feint|Counter
Dodge|Nothing Happens|Dodge wins|Dodge Wins|Counter Wins
Strike|Dodge Wins|Both Hit|Strike Wins|Counter Wins
Feint|Dodge Wins|Strike Wins|Nothing Happens|Feint Wins
Counter|Counter Wins|Counter Wins|Feint Wins|Nothing Happens[/table]

But you probably know way more about fighting than me.

Reaper_Monkey
2010-01-29, 01:27 PM
I disliked the fact that the success or failure of all my actions were completely decided by the GM.

Just because a game uses no dice, does not mean it is entirely up to the GM to decide what occurs. You can still have 8 ranks in hide or 3 points in gun fighting, you can even have 4 BAB and assume all attacks are made by taking 10.

Removing dice does not remove mechanics, it just removes chance. As such, its good for quick resolution and broader strokes of skill (so you're Good or you're Excellent, you're not 14 +/- 10). I generally like the idea of it, but you do lose some fun from the chance element and it can be reduced into an entirely deterministic game and thus lose that edge of caution (the 'what if I roll 1' mechanic).

storybookknight
2010-01-29, 01:55 PM
This is hardest on people who want to play savvy socialites and who simply don't have that ability. When it happens in a dice-based game, you can just have them roll for it, but when they want to think of some clever way to get past a security guard and can't....

This would be frustrating, I think.

Premier
2010-01-29, 01:56 PM
Of course, Amber Diceless is designed to do exactly this.

JeenLeen
2010-01-29, 02:03 PM
Abject terror here.

But!

If you wanted to simulate combat as you describe what you could do is modify a Rock Paper Scissors game of it.

Dodge about
I hit him!
Feint
Block and counterstrike

You could them secretly choose an option so that...
{table]Action|Dodge|Strike|Feint|Counter
Dodge|Nothing Happens|Dodge wins|Dodge Wins|Counter Wins
Strike|Dodge Wins|Both Hit|Strike Wins|Counter Wins
Feint|Dodge Wins|Strike Wins|Nothing Happens|Feint Wins
Counter|Counter Wins|Counter Wins|Feint Wins|Nothing Happens[/table]

But you probably know way more about fighting than me.

This sounds very much like the one-on-one battles in the Suikoden video game series.



I've never played diceless, but I can imagine it working well for some things. We're playing Mage: The Ascension, and for some stuff like Athletics and other things, not having to roll would make sense in more situations than not. If somebody is very good at something, you really don't fail 5% (1 on a d20) of the time.

The DM does often say, "Yeah, you can do this" or "Yeah, you know this," but sometimes it is rather aggravating to roll horribly when doing something easy.

I can't imagine doing it for combat, though. I would feel too puppet-like, and like the DM is handing us the fight or just making us lose.

Project_Mayhem
2010-01-29, 02:15 PM
If you wanted to simulate combat as you describe what you could do is modify a Rock Paper Scissors game of it.

Dodge about
I hit him!
Feint
Block and counterstrike

Well, only to the extent that real combat involves rps - remember we're accounting for character skill. If my character were to attack an unarmed civilian, then because I'm substantially better, whatever I do will likely kill them. Vice versa, were I to attack someone better than me, say a 500 yr old vampire who has trained his whole life, then odds are that however I attacked, he'd win.



Removing dice does not remove mechanics, it just removes chance. As such, its good for quick resolution and broader strokes of skill (so you're Good or you're Excellent, you're not 14 +/- 10). I generally like the idea of it, but you do lose some fun from the chance element and it can be reduced into an entirely deterministic game and thus lose that edge of caution (the 'what if I roll 1' mechanic).

I should mention that, in combat at least, the tension has changed from 'what if I roll poorly, to 'what if I make a poor strategic decision', which I feel is a good trade.


This is hardest on people who want to play savvy socialites and who simply don't have that ability. When it happens in a dice-based game, you can just have them roll for it, but when they want to think of some clever way to get past a security guard and can't....

This would be frustrating, I think.

It sounds harsh, but given the emphasis we put on roleplay, I would be inclined to steer a socially inept player away from playing a character who is the opposite. For example, despite how useful it would be, I didn't make a politically savvy character, because I the player can't do, and don't enjoy, all the scheming.

However, if a player really wants to play a character who is more expressive etc. than themselves, I guess the answer would be to have the DM interpret what they say as very persuasive, and socially successful.

I would add, also, that dice don't seem to solve the problem either. It doesn't look like playing a social character would be fun if all you do in the game is say 'I bluff him', or 'I seduce her'.

Edit:


I can't imagine doing it for combat, though. I would feel too puppet-like, and like the DM is handing us the fight or just making us lose.

I'm finding it hard to explain I guess, but, for my group at least, it's not turning out like that. We're replacing what is essentially just a statistical simulation, with something where strategic decisions and skill are everything.

Optimystik
2010-01-29, 02:39 PM
It sounds harsh, but given the emphasis we put on roleplay, I would be inclined to steer a socially inept player away from playing a character who is the opposite. For example, despite how useful it would be, I didn't make a politically savvy character, because I the player can't do, and don't enjoy, all the scheming.

But isn't one of the points of roleplay to do things we can't do in real life?

What if your less social player really wants to try being the party face? You either have to try and railroad him into being a low-charisma class, be extremely lenient as he haltingly describes his actions, or penalize his character for the deficiencies of his player. None of those possibilities seems very palatable to me.

Project_Mayhem
2010-01-29, 02:44 PM
But isn't one of the points of roleplay to do things we can't do in real life?

What if your less social player really wants to try being the party face? You either have to try and railroad him into being a low-charisma class, be extremely lenient as he haltingly describes his actions, or penalize his character for the deficiencies of his player. None of those possibilities seems very palatable to me.

I'd be inclined to take option two. However, as I said, if you use dice, your options are the same, except that we have the additional option of allowing him to simply not roleplay, and merely state what he tries to do. I personally find that that defeats the point a bit, especially in WoD, where social encounters are common. So in both cases, using dice or not, I would just have him rp, and adjudicate the reaction based on the dice/ his stats.

Totally Guy
2010-01-29, 02:49 PM
However, if a player really wants to play a character who is more expressive etc. than themselves, I guess the answer would be to have the DM interpret what they say as very persuasive, and socially successful.

I would add, also, that dice don't seem to solve the problem either. It doesn't look like playing a social character would be fun if all you do in the game is say 'I bluff him', or 'I seduce her'.

Hey you've just given me an idea! Or at least given me opportunity to steal one.

Avoid the Topic
Make a direct point
Make a misleading point
Lie to make yourself more convincing.

Then you could play it like a modified Rock Paper Scissors...


Then it becomes not "what if I stutter?" but "What if I make a poor strategic decision?".

(Of course if you can't think of a misleading argument to roleplay you can't use that particular option.)

Swordgleam
2010-01-29, 03:56 PM
I've been freeform roleplaying for a lot longer than I've been gaming. It's entirely different, and satisfying in a slightly different way. I don't see the point in using a system or a DM to freeform. You just say what your character does, they say what their character does, and you only RP with people mature enough to not create godlike characters and say "I win" in every conflict.

I really think a lot of gamers could benefit from some freeform RPing. People often seem to be seeking something that they aren't getting from RPGs, without ever realizing that what they're looking for is found in freeform, and all the rules-light systems in the world aren't going to give it to them.

erikun
2010-01-29, 05:03 PM
The system you're describing sounds mostly like Amber Diceless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Diceless_Roleplaying_Game) or freeform roleplay. More along the lines of Amber, as you still use stats to determine what each character can do, and how well they can do it.

I happen to like the WoD system quite a bit, and the thought of a diceless WoD is interesting. It even has willpower as a way to improve your "rolls" even without the dice being involved. Do you use the Mind's Eye Theatre (LARP) rules? I'm not familiar with them myself, but I would assume that they avoid using dice.

I'm not sure if removing dice and replacing them with rock-paper-scissors is much of a change. After all, the point of playing "diceless" is to remove the randomizing aspect (although not necessarily the random aspect) from gameplay.

I'll probably be back later to see how this thread continues. As I said, I'm intrigued by idea of a diceless WoD; it would certainly make for some interesting gameplay.

Gamerlord
2010-01-29, 05:11 PM
I react with horror to this idea!

Anyway, it seems OK, this is more like collective storytelling, something like insanowar on these forums.

Optimystik
2010-01-29, 05:13 PM
I'd be inclined to take option two. However, as I said, if you use dice, your options are the same, except that we have the additional option of allowing him to simply not roleplay, and merely state what he tries to do. I personally find that that defeats the point a bit, especially in WoD, where social encounters are common. So in both cases, using dice or not, I would just have him rp, and adjudicate the reaction based on the dice/ his stats.

The difference with dice, however, is that dice rolls have modifiers.

He can get the same bonuses that your lenience would have given him, but he has a lot more control. In other words, he can stack bonuses to his social skills (via items, spells, feats etc.) And there is a tradeoff - the more he optimizes his sociability, the weaker he will be in a situation where those social skills are not required, such as a fight. And because these modifiers are all his choice, you get to be fair and impartial to all of the players, rather than cutting one of them a break to excuse his lack of improv skills.

Glimbur
2010-01-29, 05:19 PM
I know people that love their Nobilis, which is a diceless system. One day I might try it.

There's also Amber, which has already been mentioned. Or, of course, there's Pretend, which has a different rulebook in every different person's head.

Raum
2010-01-29, 05:26 PM
To some degree this was the default in Basic and Advanced D&D. It's also common in many of the newer 'light' systems. In both cases, the system simply leaves many details to GM and / or player decisions or negotiations. In the case of older D&D systems, players often looked for unique solutions which would require the GM to make a decision. Partially because it was more interesting than just rolling but also because the GM was usually more forgiving than the system. :smallwink:

The old phrase applies: 'Unless both success and failure are interesting, don't roll.'

Tyndmyr
2010-01-29, 06:08 PM
I've tried some freeform games before, but I didn't really like it. I disliked the fact that the success or failure of all my actions were completely decided by the GM. In combat, particularly, this was a problem. It felt like the DM was telling a story and I was only watching and occasionally describing a small part of the action.

This is my problem with freeform. I've tried it repeatedly, but can't get past the fact that EVERYTHING is DM fiat. Thus, it's really mostly a story. And books tend to have better stories than the DM tells.

That said, I can imagine resolution systems that are neither fiat nor have dice. Diplomacy comes to mind...it's a strategy game in which combat resolution is straightforward, and involves no randomness. There's a variant on axis and allies that is also extremely low random(takes average damage for everything, only rolls for remainders).

erikun
2010-01-29, 07:18 PM
The difference with dice, however, is that dice rolls have modifiers.
Diceless systems have stats and modifiers, too. It's freeform that is entirely based on the player's descriptions. (I assume that we're talking about diceless here.)

Honestly, the same bonuses and creativity you can apply to social skills can be applied to combat skills. After all, the player can still optimize their combat skills, and doing so would be at the disadvantage of their social skills. And originality and improv can be just as important in combat as it is in social settings, especially when the player doesn't have the raw stats to overwhelm the situation.

Although perhaps I'm completely missing the point and just going off-topic.


This is my problem with freeform. I've tried it repeatedly, but can't get past the fact that EVERYTHING is DM fiat. Thus, it's really mostly a story. And books tend to have better stories than the DM tells.
In most of the successful freeform I've played in, the players take actions and determine outcomes based on how well they view their character in the situation. The GM simply provided situations and NPC interactions, along with progressing the story at times.

The end result was the players controlling a lot of minions, only important NPCs being run by the DM. A lot of the interesting situations were dependant on the actions of the players, and quite a few "Big Bads" were the result of primary/secondary characters of the players. Of course, this whole situation relied on the maturity of everyone involved not to godmod or have perfect characters, as even one disruptive player could make the whole game unstable.

Swordgleam
2010-01-29, 07:22 PM
This is my problem with freeform. I've tried it repeatedly, but can't get past the fact that EVERYTHING is DM fiat. Thus, it's really mostly a story. And books tend to have better stories than the DM tells.


I've never freeform roleplayed with a DM involved. I don't understand why you would have one.

Knaight
2010-01-29, 07:34 PM
I've done it, it is OK and often works, and from what I've seen this works much, much better with narrativist systems built for using diceless. D&D doesn't have any good mechanics for this, Fate does. Aspects specifically.

Aik
2010-01-29, 08:38 PM
I've played a lot of freeform, and I'm not saying that freeform is bad ... but having a resolution system adds a lot. It steers how the game goes in completely different manners than what you get by GM fiat (or any player fiat - most freeform I've played is GMless).

One thing that I really disliked about freeform was having the responsibility of what happens dumped entirely on top of you. Even though everyone is cool with having their character lose if the dice hit them, having the GM just decide that you lose will seem unfair. There's pressure on the GM to decide in favour of the players, and that can kill the interesting consequences of failure. As the GM, it's not actually fun to have to decide these things for the character - you feel both guilty for not adding pressure to the story or for being a **** to the players. The resolution system lets bad things happen in the story as well as good things without any weird social problems that crop up when someone's deciding the fate of your character.

Lupy
2010-01-29, 09:09 PM
Happiest time of my Life was in a GMless FreeForm game in this very forum. Disputes killed it after about a year though.

Grumman
2010-01-29, 09:26 PM
Abject terror here.

But!

If you wanted to simulate combat as you describe what you could do is modify a Rock Paper Scissors game of it.

Dodge about
I hit him!
Feint
Block and counterstrike

You could them secretly choose an option so that...
{table]Action|Dodge|Strike|Feint|Counter
Dodge|Nothing Happens|Dodge wins|Dodge Wins|Counter Wins
Strike|Dodge Wins|Both Hit|Strike Wins|Counter Wins
Feint|Dodge Wins|Strike Wins|Nothing Happens|Feint Wins
Counter|Counter Wins|Counter Wins|Feint Wins|Nothing Happens[/table]

But you probably know way more about fighting than me.
I've got a few of those old Warhammer Warriors books that work this way, with a 32*32 grid. Apparently it's based on a game called Lost Worlds.

Cainen
2010-01-29, 09:42 PM
The resolution system lets bad things happen in the story as well as good things without any weird social problems that crop up when someone's deciding the fate of your character.

Not necessarily. Remember, the law of large numbers doesn't say anything about where the individual dice rolls will land, only what they will average out to - and that also fails to include importance of the rolls made. You can very easily have nothing but bad things happen to you if you're simply unlucky - have you ever missed a 11+ roll fourteen times in a row? How about being counterattacked on the same odds and being hit as many times as you missed, also in a row?

Those social problems are self-created - I certainly never had them, over all of my experiences.

Aik
2010-01-30, 08:52 PM
Well, okay - so sometimes the dice decide to hate you, but it's ultimately still fair. Even if it isn't fair, there isn't anyone to blame and dice can't feel guilt for being bastards, so everything functions. The only problem is frustration, then, but I think it's far less of a problem than the really awkward social stuff that comes with ruling by fiat.

Besides, depending on the system, failing can be a lot of fun. I don't think this would be so true in D&D, but systems that treat failure more as complications to the story rather than 'you get beaten up and die' or that generally just block your progress, being beaten with the fail-stick doesn't hurt so much. In a tactical game, yeah, it sucks - but GM-fiat in a tactical game is even more asking for trouble.