DwarfFighter
2010-12-22, 07:39 PM
I remember back in the day there was this whole new thing: Diceless RPGs.
I know there were several systems created that didn't use dice or other random decision makers (e.g. cards); I've got one of them on my shelf right here: Imperium 3000 (http://www.librarything.com/work/2862905/covers/). As far as I can tell, these kinds of systems would include character statistics to determine what the character could reasonably achieve in a normal situation, and then modify that for favourable or difficult situations.
To me it seems obvious that diceless games are awesome when it comes to co-operative game play: The GM sets the scene and the players immerse themselves in it.
But it seems equally obvious that this genre of RPGs are inherently flawed when it comes to conflict resolution. Sure there are mechanics that allow for "buying" a success at one point by "paying" for it with a few minor set-backs at other points. But at worst this turns the game into a weird kind of advanced multi-player chess where one of the players (the GM) is free to choose to win!
Of the two "genres", a game based on conflict seems to me to have a lot more appeal. In a co-operative game, choosing success for your character and getting it for no other reason that you want it strikes me as being as somewhat... selfish. There is a thrill to saying "I attempt to..." and roll the dice. Even if the chance of failure is just one out of twenty, the chance of failure adds to the significance of the act. I really cant see a diceless RPG beating that.
Diceless. Is it even possible?
-DF
I know there were several systems created that didn't use dice or other random decision makers (e.g. cards); I've got one of them on my shelf right here: Imperium 3000 (http://www.librarything.com/work/2862905/covers/). As far as I can tell, these kinds of systems would include character statistics to determine what the character could reasonably achieve in a normal situation, and then modify that for favourable or difficult situations.
To me it seems obvious that diceless games are awesome when it comes to co-operative game play: The GM sets the scene and the players immerse themselves in it.
But it seems equally obvious that this genre of RPGs are inherently flawed when it comes to conflict resolution. Sure there are mechanics that allow for "buying" a success at one point by "paying" for it with a few minor set-backs at other points. But at worst this turns the game into a weird kind of advanced multi-player chess where one of the players (the GM) is free to choose to win!
Of the two "genres", a game based on conflict seems to me to have a lot more appeal. In a co-operative game, choosing success for your character and getting it for no other reason that you want it strikes me as being as somewhat... selfish. There is a thrill to saying "I attempt to..." and roll the dice. Even if the chance of failure is just one out of twenty, the chance of failure adds to the significance of the act. I really cant see a diceless RPG beating that.
Diceless. Is it even possible?
-DF