Diceless systems?

[lunar2]

So, it seems that for any construct of an rpg, there is a system that does away with it. there are classless systems, level-less systems, etc. but are there diceless systems, or more generally, 0 randomness systems? if they exist, to what extent do they get played?

i'm wondering because another thread (wizards are for blasting) got me thinking about some old ideas i had, including an entire system i built that required nothing but some basic math skills.

for example, melee combat wasn't like D20's "my attack is a 10, your AC is a 16, i have a 70% chance to hit you". it was "my attack is a 10, your defense is a 6, i do (weapon damage) +4", or attack 6, defense 10, for weapon damage -4.

i was thinking about rebuilding the system, but wanted to know if it would be worth the effort. i never wrote it down, but i remember the important parts, and need to change a lot of things anyway, since it was something Nale would create (needlessly complex).

[Jay R]

I know a lot of people on this forum get upset at the ideas I prefer in game design, but I have no interest in a non-random combat system, because it doesn't simulate combat.

The same boxer doesn't always win. The same fencer doesn't always win. The same sports team doesn't always win. The same martial artist doesn't always win.

For people who have no desire to simulate combat with any accuracy, it might be perfectly good. But for those of us with a desire for accurate simulation (of the non-magical aspects), it has no appeal.

[Edge of Dreams]

Most diceless systems are very narrative-focused and use fewer stats and numbers. The only ones I've heard of specifically by name are Amber Diceless and Nobilis.

Nobilis is pretty interesting because the players are Nobles (like demigods), each with a different domain. You might have a party consisting of the Noble of Love, the Noble of Denial, the Noble of Cats, the Noble of Pillows, and the Noble of the Color Blue. As extremely powerful supernatural beings, Nobles know exactly what they are capable of (based on some simple stats) and always succeed at any task that is within their limits, unless opposed by another Noble or equally powerful being. Nobles also get "Miracle Points" they can use to exceed their limits. When it's not clear if a particular task is within a Noble's limits or not, the GM just decides directly.

[Knaight]

There are quite a few diceless systems, with Amber and Nobilis being the poster children of this. There are also systems which don't use dice, but either have a randomizer or a pseudo randomizer - my favorite example of this is the horror game DREAD, which uses a Jenga tower throughout the game, which gradually gets pulled and gets more and more unstable, until somebody topples it, and their character dies a horrible death (or somebody deliberately pushes it over, and their character dies in a blaze of glory, at which point it is rebuilt).


I know a lot of people on this forum get upset at the ideas I prefer in game design, but I have no interest in a non-random combat system, because it doesn't simulate combat.

The same boxer doesn't always win. The same fencer doesn't always win. The same sports team doesn't always win. The same martial artist doesn't always win.
This doesn't follow. Non random systems don't translate into the same person winning every time, because there are generally variable levels of resources in play, making the win dependent on a mix of who starts out in a better position regarding the resources and how much people are willing to spend on the win. Generally speaking, having a better skill is equivalent to spending some points in the conflict for free, and having a much better skill is equivalent to spending a great many points in the conflict.

Granted, these systems generally don't simulate anything at all, and are aimed at story structure, but saying that the same person wins every time is outright false.

[Geostationary]

Aha! The siren call of Nobilis calls to me!

So, diceless non-random system are not terribly common, as Amber and Nobilis are the only ones I can think of offhand as well. Amber assigns each character ranks in a skill (war, fencing, whatever), and someone with a higher rank in that skill will always defeat someone of lower rank, unless the lower ranked person gets all clever and sets things up in such a way that the GM says that they'd win.

Nobilis uses a blind-bidding system. You rate your four attributes from 0-9 (though you're capped at 5) and you also a resource, Miracle Points, with which to raise the level of an effect. These can only be spent in increments of 1,2,4, or 8+wound. You can perform Miracles equal to or below your Attribute for free. In combat, you don't know the level of effect you're necessarily facing or the additional modifiers that can be added to a Miracle, created a degree of uncertainty. Knowledge of the target's intimacies and nature can also be used to exploit their weaknesses. Diceless systems can run combat quite well, it's just that they do it in a very different manner than some more popular systems. The effect of an attack is generally more important than the actual numerical value- it's not "you took 36 damage from the bullet", it's "dammit, he shot me!" that matters.

[lunar2]

@Jay R
you are right. the same boxer doesn't always win against the same opponent. same with anything else. but that's not really a matter of luck. seriously, there's not that much luck involved in a one on one fight. the guy dodging your right fist directly into your left fist, or whatever, isn't luck at all. you deliberately put your fist there, he deliberately put his face there, no luck involved.

besides, no PnP game is going to accurately simulate combat while still being actually playable. it's a matter of taste, sure. i'd prefer a fast paced, simple game where you know what's going to happen if you try a specific action in a specific circumstance (you deal x damage, jump to x ledge, etc.)

i took a quick look at the games mentioned. i'm not looking for rules-light. i'm looking for simple and flexible, but with definite consequences.

example: you can call it a lightsaber , or a war hammer, or a baseball bat, but in game it is a medium melee weapon that deals 6 base damage, modified by your medium melee weapon skill and their defense (as in my last post). that's not rules light, that's simple , flexible, and definite.

[Knaight]

i took a quick look at the games mentioned. i'm not looking for rules-light. i'm looking for simple and flexible, but with definite consequences.

example: you can call it a lightsaber , or a war hammer, or a baseball bat, but in game it is a medium melee weapon that deals 6 base damage, modified by your medium melee weapon skill and their defense (as in my last post). that's not rules light, that's simple , flexible, and definite.

The easiest way to do this is to use a generic system, then remove the die rolls. Diceless Fudge is already a thing, and it fits in this category example. For instance, within combat: You can take a Melee Skill, they take a Melee Skill, you operate off of that skill, include stances, include various penalties (e.g. ganging up), include ODF and DDF (Offensive and Defensive Damage Factors), use the default wound track with RD+ODF-DDF damage. With stances being kept secret, this works quite well.

Basically, here's how it happens: Both people have a combat skill, whoever has the higher combat skill deals damage equal to how much better it is, plus the damage of the weapon (possibly including strength), minus the protection of the armor (possibly including some innate protection due to toughness, vitality, or whatever else. It depends on the attributes you pick). Rolls would normally be involved, but they are removed. What stances do is they split your combat skill into two parts, offense and defense, where both people compare their offense to the opponents defense. So, for instance, you might take a highly defensive stance (there are 5 stances total, this is one end), then ratchet around to a highly offensive stance predicting that your opponent is going to do the same thing, for a double hit injuring both of you, putting you both at a penalty, at which point you ratchet back around to a highly defensive stance to buy time for an ally to come in and start smacking around the wounded guy who is now at a penalty, while you stay there to apply an outnumbered penalty on top of that.

[demigodus]

The same boxer doesn't always win. The same fencer doesn't always win. The same sports team doesn't always win. The same martial artist doesn't always win.

For people who have no desire to simulate combat with any accuracy, it might be perfectly good. But for those of us with a desire for accurate simulation (of the non-magical aspects), it has no appeal.

I'm pretty sure it is poorly hidden insults like this that upset people. NOT that you have different preferences, but that you declare your preferences to be THE right ones.

[Totally Guy]

The easiest way to do this is to use a generic system, then remove the die rolls.

I can think of another way that could work.

You take your generic system as the base system and overlay some extra stats for each character - a manner in which they do something.

The manners could be: Directly, Patiently, Hastily and Sneakily. Everybody would have the same number of points to invest in their manners.

Then you could write a table for each kind of conflict you can imagine. For now lets go with fighting. On our fighting table we could state that when someone fights Hastily with someone fighting Sneakily the Sneaky person gets +4.

Both parties choose the manner in which they commit to act in secret. Then they describe their character acting in that way.

So then the guy adds his fighting skill to his manner and then any bonuses from the conflict interaction table.

The more strongly you favour a particular manner the better it is for you to use it. But the more predictable you are the easier it would be to exploit your style.


This resolution mechanic would either, depending on exact numbers, be solvable (to someone who has full access to the stats of the opponent), be arbitrary (as in rock paper scissors) or have behaving randomly be its optimal strategy. But is, of itself, devoid of actual randomness.

[Knaight]

I can think of another way that could work.

You take your generic system as the base system and overlay some extra stats for each character - a manner in which they do something.

The manners could be: Directly, Patiently, Hastily and Sneakily. Everybody would have the same number of points to invest in their manners.

So, basically you take Burning Wheel and Apocalypse World, smash them together, extract a tiny bit of the mixture, and stick in the game?

[Totally Guy]

I admit its not far from existing things that I know. But this was just an initial demonstration for a diceless (and non-resource based) resolution system that carries uncertainty.

Jay R placing a bet on the better boxer wouldn't be a dead cert.

[Raum]

For people who have no desire to simulate combat with any accuracy, it might be perfectly good. But for those of us with a desire for accurate simulation (of the non-magical aspects), it has no appeal.Hehe, manuals meant to teach fighting skills can't accurately simulate real fighting. Games abstract even that at least one more level. They have to - far too many variables otherwise.

-----
As for dideless games, there are several. Over the Edge can be played w/o dice. Amber and Nobilis have been mentioned. Active Exploits is another. Even WotC published a diceless game - Everway. You could also include many free form games or larps. Then there are those which still include some other randomizer like cards.

[TheOOB]

The thing is, an RPG system without a random factor isn't really a system at all, but more a set of guidelines. Without a random factor, the game is either just a freeform exercise, and thus not a "game" per say, or a brutal contest of raw strategy. Since there is far more money is selling game systems than rough outlines and ideas, and chess already exists, most RPGs have a random element.

Dice are a device created by humans to be a random number generator, and they have been serving in that role for thousands of years. They work very well, and without resorting to electronics it's difficult to make a better random system.

[Raum]

The thing is, an RPG system without a random factor isn't really a system at all, but more a set of guidelines. Without a random factor, the game is either just a freeform exercise, and thus not a "game" per say, or a brutal contest of raw strategy. Err...no.

There is a lot of space between "freeform exercise" and "raw strategy" which you're passing over so blithely. But that's really beside the point. Dice are nothing more than a method of adding a random factor to a conflict resolution system.

RPGs don't need dice, they need conflict resolution systems. And those are one small part of the game - not the entirety. :smallwink:

[valadil]

I was working on a dice less system. Then my wife had a baby and my free time went out the window.

The basic premise was bidding. Each player gets a set of points that effective represent narrative control over the story. Characters have stats and skills as usual. When a conflict occurs characters compare their stat and skill plus water amount their player wishes to bid.

So no there's no external randomness, but you won't get the same fight every time regardless of stats.

[Geostationary]

I was working on a dice less system. Then my wife had a baby and my free time went out the window.

The basic premise was bidding. Each player gets a set of points that effective represent narrative control over the story. Characters have stats and skills as usual. When a conflict occurs characters compare their stat and skill plus water amount their player wishes to bid.

So no there's no external randomness, but you won't get the same fight every time regardless of stats.

You should look at Nobilis- it uses a blind bidding system not unlike what you describe.

[Zeful]

The thing is, an RPG system without a random factor isn't really a system at all, but more a set of guidelines. Without a random factor, the game is either just a freeform exercise, and thus not a "game" per say, or a brutal contest of raw strategy. Since there is far more money is selling game systems than rough outlines and ideas, and chess already exists, most RPGs have a random element.

Dice are a device created by humans to be a random number generator, and they have been serving in that role for thousands of years. They work very well, and without resorting to electronics it's difficult to make a better random system.
Ugh. Just no. You can build an RPG with no random elements that is still a game. It just operates completely differently from anything you can think of.

Taking this post to work from because I'm lazy:

I can think of another way that could work.

You take your generic system as the base system and overlay some extra stats for each character - a manner in which they do something.

The manners could be: Directly, Patiently, Hastily and Sneakily. Everybody would have the same number of points to invest in their manners.

Then you could write a table for each kind of conflict you can imagine. For now lets go with fighting. On our fighting table we could state that when someone fights Hastily with someone fighting Sneakily the Sneaky person gets +4.

Both parties choose the manner in which they commit to act in secret. Then they describe their character acting in that way.

So then the guy adds his fighting skill to his manner and then any bonuses from the conflict interaction table.

The more strongly you favour a particular manner the better it is for you to use it. But the more predictable you are the easier it would be to exploit your style.


This resolution mechanic would either, depending on exact numbers, be solvable (to someone who has full access to the stats of the opponent), be arbitrary (as in rock paper scissors) or have behaving randomly be its optimal strategy. But is, of itself, devoid of actual randomness.

We essentially codify two axes. One for how a character does something and what they do. Let's call the first one Elements (from the idiom "in your element" referencing a general sphere of capability), and the second one Skills. For Elements we'll posit that there are 3: Magic, Stealth, and Steel. They should have some kind of benefit, but for the purposes of brevity we'll assume that the bonuses are player-driven and require approval by not only the game master, but every other player at the table.

Then you have skills, let's say, there are 9 of them: Attack, Guard, Resilience, Conversation, Deduction, Understanding, Motion, Perception, Suspicion. You assign points on a 1-10 scale and resolving action is by comparing stats against each other and then comparing the result against one of your status skills (Resilience, Understanding, Suspicion).

For actual play, we'll be assuming the game is controlled by traditional turn-based mechanics and an AP system. AP can be spent up to a limit based on the skill's modifier (so having attack at 5 let's you spend up to 5 AP to attack).

With all this defined let's look at some scenarios (written in second person perspective for the audience of the thread in general):

You've been invited to a party by Duke Valerie's daughter, Louise. You were a part of the group involved in saving her life from a zombie horde crashing her wedding and killing the groom. During the party the Duke approaches you asking to talk about "men's affairs", lacking an immediate excuse you follow him (He wins a Social exchange with a 4 (conversation) against your 3 (deduction), and your understanding status lowers as a result). Getting you away from the party (eating half your 20 total AP for this round), Duke Valerie speaks at length about how much Louise praised your strength of arms and bravery in rescuing her from her failed wedding. You interrupt mentioning this sounds like there's something not being said, he agrees, chuckling at how easily you saw through him (you executed a social exchange of 1 uncontested against him, raising your understanding status and lowering his). He talks about how the groom's family will see this as an insult, and seek Louise's life, and how she needs someone who can protect her, and with her clear infatuation with you, he's offering you her hand in marriage; you can think of no argument to decline, her life is in your hands, (he's won a social exchange of 8 against you. With only 2 AP left this round, you can't prevent your Understanding status from reaching 0 as you only put 5 points into the skill, and are +-0 from the previous exchanges, if you had sunk those AP into your interruption, you would have 1 understanding at the end of this round, and it would be your turn next, allowing you to escape).

You are a thief that is getting ready to break into a mansion. You're first goal is to sneak over the wall. In trying to be as sneaky as possible, you refrain from using a loud grapple and free climb. The climb is slow but it's enough to get you to the top of the wall, but the guard on top of the wall didn't hear you (you win the exchange with a 5 Movement against his 2 Perception, his Suspicion status lowers). You decide to wait, hoping he'll move along. The guard being particularly diligent as your chosen approach is more heavily shaded by trees, and other obstacles, is sacrificing speed for thoroughness. He looks over one side of the wall, examining the shadows and hollows in the branches, before looking away for a moment and looking back and talking to mid air, startling you (You win the first exchange with a 3 against 3, lowering his suspicion again, but now you are out of AP, the rest of your 20 was spent climbing the wall and getting into position, the second exchange is 3 uncontested, raising his Suspicion higher than his normal and lowering yours to 1). Shaken you clear your mind, and begin moving sideways along the wall, hoping to find a better position (You have a new round, and 20 new AP, but only 1 suspicion, you spend 6 AP to climb along the wall, and win the exchange with a 6 vs 3, lowering his Suspicion again). Taking a chance, you throw yourself up the wall, across the parapet and down to the ground on the other side, and rolling into a nearby bush as the guard's cry wakes the compound (the jump burns 5 of your AP, and you end your turn out of line of sight of the guard, but rolling under the bush burned up enough AP that you were unable to win the exchange against his 3, lowering your Suspicion to 0 and resulting in the guard raising the alarm and the compound now being actively searched), but you grin, knowing that you are on the premises only makes this more interesting.


In the first scenario, it's tactical maneuvering, not the Duke's higher Conversation skill and AP that resulted in the loss (moving to tap out AP, deciding not to contest the interruption to conserve his, he only spent 2 more AP in the scenario (10 movement, 4 for his first attack and 8 for his second is only 22 total)). While in the second, despite having double the movement skill of the guard's perception, the thief still lost because of the risks he took. There was no randomness in the system, and it still behaves like a game. Granted it's more like Poker than anything resembling a normal PnP RPG, but for an hours work it does show what's possible really well.

[Siegel]

Fiasco basically

Beat to quarters

Primetimeadventures

[Totally Guy]

Beat to quarters

Is Beat to Quarters good? I hung out with the author at a convention but I have little interest in the source material.

[Siegel]

From what i have heard on Actual People Actual Play it seems to be.

[valadil]

You should look at Nobilis- it uses a blind bidding system not unlike what you describe.

Looks neat. I'm afraid of reading more because if it's too similar to my idea I'll have to come up with another system to write instead :-P

[lunar2]

wow, there are a lot of good ideas out there. i was thinking of a dual layered ability system. skills, which are rank + ability mod + other mod, which are compared either to another skill or to either the physical or mental defense, with degree of success being determined by number difference.

example: I'm wearing a light armor that gives +4 physical defense, and have a dexterity modifier of +3, for a total defense of 7. I am attacked by someone using a +3 light melee weapon, 1 rank in the light melee weapons skill, and a strength modifier of +1, for a total attack of 5. i take no damage from the commoner with the puny dagger.

my perception is only a +3, though, and his stealth is a +5, so he could use stealth to lower my defense by 2 by taking a minor action to feint, allowing him to deal 1 damage with his next strike.

then, there would be techniques. techniques are powered by energy, and are governed by your affinity to different technique types, which is based on your soul.

in the above example, my opponent has 5 ranks in the direct attack technique, which gives a 1 to 1 exchange between energy and effect (each rank is 0.2 exchange rate). sneak attack deals direct HP damage, ignoring defense, based on the amount of energy you expend. it is a damaging technique, which he has 3.5 affinity (an effect multiplier) in, so if he spends 2 energy, he deals 7 damage.

that's the basic system. skills are direct comparison, with no investment other than permanent ranks, while techniques are governed by the amount of energy expended.

note also that the system has near 0 inherent fluff. that +3 light weapon could be a dagger, or a high heeled shoe, or any other small melee weapon. that direct attack could have been a power attack, a sneak attack, a lightsaber, or just about anything else. the concern of the rules is what you do, not how you do it. a wizard's invisibility spell and a rogue hiding are both the stealth skill with different fluff.