PDA

View Full Version : No Stats Roleplaying?



JellyPooga
2008-01-02, 09:32 AM
About a year or two ago, I started creating a setting for which I was nominally going to create a new system for (based on a few other game systems)...eventually, I got bored of it, due to difficulties in actually making a ruleset that works.

However, I kept my notes and whilst digging through my hard-drive to clean up all my old crap that's in there, I rediscovered them and have decided to give the setting another go. Having also recently started running a GURPS game or two, I considered trying to adapt this setting into GURPS, but found that even the mightily customisable GURPS would still need some extra rules to encompass my setting...I'm not prepared to make new rules (I don't have the time or inclination anymore).

So, I've started considering the possibility of writing the setting and then running a game in "True" Roleplaying...i.e. you have no stats beyond, say, three or four 'key-words' (For Example: Strong, Quick, Telekinesis) and you go from there. No numbers, no hard and fast rules, you say what you're doing and the storyteller says "yay" or "nay" and it either happens or doesn't.

However, I have no experience in running such a game and was wondering if anyone had any advice for doing so or knows of any links to sites that might be of use. Any anecdotes about how such games have gone, stories about successes or failures of such games or merely handy hints for running/playing such a type of game would be most appreciated.

Cheers,
JP

CabbageTheif
2008-01-02, 09:41 AM
well, in my campaign we take brakes in between dungeon crawling for what i call 'marketplace adventures', although they may not have to take place in that particular location. people bring their character sheets to remember what their powers are,, but not a single d20 is rolled; they ask what they see, i tell them, they interact with the people, and more often than not hilarity ensues. i find that no stats roleplaying is a good thing to add to anby campaing, but as the whole system? it sounds intriguing, but i see too many arguments happening that would stem from 'you dont like me so i fell' 'no, you may be very dexterous but you burned your hands on the trap and the wall is very slick. you fell' 'nu-uh!' and so on

if you can make it work, great! tell us how it went! but if it doesnt work, tell us anyways. good luck to you.

Arcwell
2008-01-02, 09:52 AM
You might want to look at a game called Unknown Armies. It runs a percentile based system and is very minmalistic as far as skills and stats go. There are 4 standard main stats (Mind, Body, Speed and Soul) and they each cover you various skills. You have a few standard skills such as General Athletics (body) and a skill that will cover your magic based powers (soul) but anything else you want to add is completely left up to you.
I don't think it would be to difficult to adapt it into any custom setting that you would want to make. Hope this helps.

JellyPooga
2008-01-02, 09:53 AM
...but i see too many arguments happening that would stem from 'you dont like me so i fell' 'no, you may be very dexterous but you burned your hands on the trap and the wall is very slick. you fell' 'nu-uh!' and so on

Yeah, this is what I'm thinking as well, which I suppose is why I'm looking for advice! :smallwink: I suppose this kind of purile bickering is only going to happen if the group I get to play are...well, purile. With a decent group, I would hope that this sort of thing wouldn't happen, or at least not happen very often...Mostly, I think it would come down to the storytelling skill of the DM (i.e. me), as to how often this kind of conflict comes up...trying to spread the misfortunes such that no one player gets all the "bad luck", justifying any "you might be dextrous but you fail anyway" situations such that it doesn't seem like arbitrary persecution, etc.


if you can make it work, great! tell us how it went! but if it doesnt work, tell us anyways. good luck to you.

Will do, cheers! :smallbiggrin:


You might want to look at a game called Unknown Armies. It runs a percentile based system and is very minmalistic as far as skills and stats go. There are 4 standard main stats (Mind, Body, Speed and Soul) and they each cover you various skills. You have a few standard skills such as General Athletics (body) and a skill that will cover your magic based powers (soul) but anything else you want to add is completely left up to you.
I don't think it would be to difficult to adapt it into any custom setting that you would want to make. Hope this helps.

I'll take a look, but the particular setting I've devised is quite specific on certain things that, as I said, even GURPS doesn't have a contingency for and that's supposed to be Universal and Generic. So if these ideas don't gel with the system I'm using, I'd rather play without rules at all. Thanks for the tip though!

kamikasei
2008-01-02, 09:56 AM
So, I've started considering the possibility of writing the setting and then running a game in "True" Roleplaying...i.e. you have no stats beyond, say, three or four 'key-words' (For Example: Strong, Quick, Telekinesis) and you go from there. No numbers, no hard and fast rules, you say what you're doing and the storyteller says "yay" or "nay" and it either happens or doesn't.

A shot in the dark here as I've not played the system, but from what I've heard here and there, Spirit of the Century is pretty much exactly that sort of thing and is highly adaptable to different styles/genres to boot.

Kristoss
2008-01-02, 10:21 AM
I have experienced this sort of game before where the game is completely free form without rules. The group i played with had a few drama students so that helped the game along a lot and they had a good idea of what to do. The games tended to have a horror theme so i don't know how well it will apply to your campaign
A couple of tips

play in the dark this helps the imagination a lot, but if your not going for a horror theme it may not work
let players experiment with the level of power you will let them have in character, it helps player immersion


I can confirm that the system works but I wasn't the one who ran the games so I can't give you much more advice
hope this helped :smallwink:

Tormsskull
2008-01-02, 10:31 AM
The foremost problem that I could see is the lack of advancement. If "Telekinesis" is used to describe a character, what are the limits of that telekinesis? Can it get better? If the limits are left very vague, then you are going to have to constantly adjucate how telekinesis works. That's going to get very old very quick.

If you want to still stay really rules-light, I would give each player x number of points to make their character. Maybe they get 4 points, as an example. They can put those 4 points in anything they can think of at all, and then the player and you discuss what that means. Any skill that doesn't have points in it assumes the character is average.

So if one character comes up with - Strong (1), Quick (1), Telekinesis (2), and another comes up with Guns (1), Street Smarts (1), Shadow Magic (2), you're going to have to sit down with each player and figure out what a character is capable of doing with each of these skills.

One of the simplest ways of doing it is giving each point in a skill a die relation. So if you decide to use the d6 for example, then the first above example character would get to use 1d6 for anything he can convince you should be covered by Strong or Quick, and 2d6 for Telekinesis, for example. You then set a DC number for any action a character tries to take, have them roll, and go from there.

This kind of system and be modified hugely depending on how much you want the skills to matter. You could make the base roll 1d20 and have each skill give a 1-point bonus to that roll, modeling after d20 (which means every 1 point in a skill increases a characters effectiveness by 5%).

In the first type of system, where each point in a skill equals another 1d6, the difference in the skill levels is huge. In the second type where each point represents only a 5% increase, the difference between the skill levels is very minimal.

So, basically, figure out in the beginning how you want things to go, and then move from there.

As for particular experience in using a system such as this, one of the times between our D&D sessions I told my group I had a system I wanted them to try but they really had to use their imagination for it. I told them to make any kind of character they could possibly imagine, and write out the abilities that their character had.

I told them that they had to give their characters boths strengths and weakness', and give them some depth.

Surprisingly, they built quite interesting characters utilizing mechanics that they had adopted from D&D and from brainstorming with one another. One character ended up resembling a Myddraal (I always spell that wrong) from Wheel of Time, another was a mind-powered light armored character that had a symbiotic creature built onto his hand that served as a weapon. Another character was a blademaster the the ability to parry/deflect weapon melee attacks with a high probability, and the last was a priest-type character that could cast limitless low-powered spells.

We built very rough layouts for how their characters would advance, and I worked carefully to intertwine their stories and reasons for being together and in the campaign world. This type of free-form, build whatever kind of character you want worked pretty well for a few sessions. Eventually it kind of fell apart because one of the players wasn't comfortable without some kind of hard and fast mechanic structure.

JellyPooga
2008-01-02, 10:33 AM
I have experienced this sort of game before where the game is completely free form without rules. The group i played with had a few drama students so that helped the game along a lot and they had a good idea of what to do. The games tended to have a horror theme so i don't know how well it will apply to your campaign
A couple of tips

play in the dark this helps the imagination a lot, but if your not going for a horror theme it may not work
let players experiment with the level of power you will let them have in character, it helps player immersion


I can confirm that the system works but I wasn't the one who ran the games so I can't give you much more advice
hope this helped :smallwink:

I imagine drama students would be a great boon to this sort of game style! Unfortunately I don't know any drama students...do you think political idealists would do instead (they're just as loud, but their arguments are more linear...:smallbiggrin: )?

The setting is indeed horror-ish, so sitting around in candlelight might be appropriate, but then again, it's also a cyberpunk-era setting, so perhaps, lights out with some neon signs and a computer on in the background might be more approps...

What do you mean by 'experiment with power level' exactly? The game I have in mind is one where the characters start of fairly weak (only having just come into their supernatural powers) but rapidly gain in power as they learn more about their nature, etc. (if you hadn't pieced it together, the game is something similar to World of Darkness meets Cyberpunk). Or did you mean more along the lines of give the characters variable leeway with actions and such to find out what's a comfortable level of "harshness" for all involved?

Tormskull - I like the idea of having differing levels in the "stats", merely so I (as the DM) have some kind of reference level. However, I want to steer clear of dice and randomisation altogether. I also want to make it such that there is no official XP or advancement ruling, bar those that happen 'in game', so to speak...i.e. you (as a character) find out (somehow) that you have access to a certain ability (e.g. telepathy) in game. Over time, you try to use it and research it etc. and eventually find the secret of using it and unlock this ability and can write it on your character sheet (and us it from then on). I know it sounds arbitrary, but that's what I'm going for...if you put a lot of effort into playing your character and developing his/her abilities, then you will be rewarded with both leniency in success and with a better set of abilities.

I don't think that with the particular group I'll be playing with that hard and fast advancement rules will be neccesary, but I'll bear it in mind given your experience of it...

Winterwind
2008-01-02, 10:49 AM
Why don't you just make the final step and get rid of any mechanics whatsoever entirely?
Stupid me, I should have read your words more closely; I got the impression you wanted to retain some minimum of rules still. Yeah, just giving each one a few stats to describe the character and make it easier for the gamemaster to see what a character is good in, but without ever using these stats in actual mechanics is a fine way; another, which my GM always chooses, would be to ask the players to describe their characters with three (or any other number) positive and three negative adjectives.

One of the groups I have played in for the past five years doesn't ever play in any other way than free of any dice and mechanics, and I have found that, a good gamemaster and trusting players provided, it has a lot of advantages over any game with mechanics.

My favourite example is combat. In a game with mechanics, a fight may easily be reduced to nondescript "I attack."-statements, possibly infused with some additional tactical options, but still hardly more than that. Even if you describe your attacks, the description still is, effectively, unimportant, for it's just the mechanics and dicerolls which will ultimately decide what happens. Not so in a freeform game - there are no rounds, so everyone can try to react however they wish to what happens. The opponent makes a high swing? Throw yourself under his sword against his legs to bring him to fall! The opponent has got you pinned and disarmed against the wall? Try to feel around desperately with your last free hand whether you happen to find something like a sharp stone or a torch to bash his skull in - which will work, because there are no hit points, either, just wounds which have immediate results - if you sprained your ankle, you won't be able to run as fast anymore, but you are not closer to death (at least, not due to that). It's both more cineastic and more realistic at the same time!

This is much, much faster than any mechanical battle could be and, more importantly, it feels like one - the players are excited, are trying desperately to come up with the one solution which might yet save them, and immersion is never broken by switching to OOC considerations regarding rules and mechanics.

If you should go for this route, my advice would be to start with each of the players giving you a thorough (not necessarily long, but thorough) description of her/his character, including stating what the character is good in and what in bad; and then just keeping this in mind. Of course, you should not always let characters succeed just because whatever it is they do happens to be their own discipline - there are always challenges too big - but make sure that they are clearly presented as better in that area than the rest of the characters, and capable of more astonishing stunts. And always ask for sufficient descriptions - like I said, there is no such thing as "I attack" anymore, because that hardly explains what you are trying to do.
Have a clear idea how much better who is in relation to each other - if a famed warrior (sorry for bringing up so many combat examples; they are illustrative, that's why, we actually very rarely have fights) fights against a much lesser warrior, you can pretty much have the better warrior have his will and allow anything he tries, however spectacular, to happen; if they are closer matched, you should always make it seem to the player as if the NPC could kill him any second if he doesn't watch out (vice versa is true as well, of course, but the player doesn't know what the NPC feels, and by making the fight seem really dangerous you illustrate how this is a mighty opponent who will not forgive any mistakes), and make the combat really, really close.

The basic condition which must be fulfilled for this to work is, of course, that the players trust the GM to do whatever it is that is best for the story and the fun of everyone, and not to screw them over or abuse their power. But then, this condition must be fulfilled for any RPG anyway.

I had an awesome link to a site discussing this form of roleplaying, with a ton of useful advice, but I can't find it; maybe the site doesn't exist anymore. :smallfrown:

JellyPooga
2008-01-02, 11:02 AM
Why don't you just make the final step and get rid of any mechanics whatsoever entirely?

One of the groups I have played in for the past five years doesn't ever play in any other way than free of any dice and mechanics, and I have found that, a good gamemaster and trusting players provided, it has a lot of advantages over any game with mechanics.

My favourite example is combat. In a game with mechanics, a fight may easily be reduced to nondescript "I attack."-statements, possibly infused with some additional tactical options, but still hardly more than that. Even if you describe your attacks, the description still is, effectively, unimportant, for it's just the mechanics and dicerolls which will ultimately decide what happens. Not so in a freeform game - there are no rounds, so everyone can try to react however they wish to what happens. The opponent makes a high swing? Throw yourself under his sword against his legs to bring him to fall! The opponent has got you pinned and disarmed against the wall? Try to feel around desperately with your last free hand whether you happen to find something like a sharp stone or a torch to bash his skull in - which will work, because there are no hit points, either, just wounds which have immediate results - if you sprained your ankle, you won't be able to run as fast anymore, but you are not closer to death (at least, not due to that). It's both more cineastic and more realistic at the same time!

This is much, much faster than any mechanical battle could be and, more importantly, it feels like one - the players are excited, are trying desperately to come up with the one solution which might yet save them, and immersion is never broken by switching to OOC considerations regarding rules and mechanics.

If you should go for this route, my advice would be to start with each of the players giving you a thorough (not necessarily long, but thorough) description of her/his character, including stating what the character is good in and what in bad; and then just keeping this in mind. Of course, you should not always let characters succeed just because whatever it is they do happens to be their own discipline - there are always challenges too big - but make sure that they are clearly presented as better in that area than the rest of the characters, and capable of more astonishing stunts. And always ask for sufficient descriptions - like I said, there is no such thing as "I attack" anymore, because that hardly explains what you are trying to do.

The basic condition which must be fulfilled for this to work is, of course, that the players trust the GM to do whatever it is that is best for the story and the fun of everyone, and not to screw them over or abuse their power. But then, this condition must be fulfilled for any RPG anyway.


This is exactly the sort of game I'm looking for...the "key-word" stats I was talking about were just specialties that the characters have or are particularly good at, mostly so that I don't have to remember every single detail about the players characters but can still have a good idea of what those characters are capable of (i.e. mr "quick, strong, telekinesis" from my OP would be particularly quick and strong and have telekinetic powers). For the game to work, each character would also need more than that, in background, personality, appearance, etc. and would have to play to their character (as opposed to to their stats, like you do in more rules heavy games, like D&D).

I'm glad that you've had a good experience with this style of game, as it gives me hope for my own game. If you've got any more tips, I'd be most grateful...for example, outside of combat, how does this sort of game work in regard to speaking as your character/NPC...in a rules-heavy game, you can just roll a dice to determine the outcome of a conversation, but in this sort of game the emphasis has got to more on exactly what you're doing/saying (like you said, there's no such action as "I attack" anymore, so likewise, there's no such thing as "I persuade" either). This isn't a problem when playing characters similar in temperament/eloquence/etc. to yourself (as a player), but when you're a shy, stuttering geek playing as a gregarious, charismatic football star, it's hardly fair to ask him to go word-for-word (and I'm loathe to not allow players to play characters wildly different to themselves).

valadil
2008-01-02, 11:09 AM
I ran a White Wolf game like this a few winters back. It was only for two players and it didn't have normal sessions. It was what we did during downtime while hanging out. Like while waiting for food to show up at a restaurant or waiting for our movie to start.

Anyway, it was statless. I think we made character sheets at first, but never used them. Instead of dice we did rock paper scissor. If someone had a big advantage, they'd win on ties in RPS.

This kind of system really helps take the focus off of stats and mechanics. If fighting means you play rock paper scissor with the GM, combat becomes uninteresting so players look elsewhere for entertainment. You might want to have some sort of stats, but they should be simple enough that you can memorize all the character's stats. I like the idea of having them pick from a list of adjectives or powers. Or better yet, don't show them a list.

Of course this type of game does require the right sort of player. I wouldn't impose it on any old D&D group. Find the players who think it sounds fun or interesting and run it for them.

Kristoss
2008-01-02, 11:16 AM
I imagine drama students would be a great boon to this sort of game style! Unfortunately I don't know any drama students...do you think political idealists would do instead (they're just as loud, but their arguments are more linear...:smallbiggrin: )?

The setting is indeed horror-ish, so sitting around in candlelight might be appropriate, but then again, it's also a cyberpunk-era setting, so perhaps, lights out with some neon signs and a computer on in the background might be more approps...

What do you mean by 'experiment with power level' exactly? The game I have in mind is one where the characters start of fairly weak (only having just come into their supernatural powers) but rapidly gain in power as they learn more about their nature, etc. (if you hadn't pieced it together, the game is something similar to World of Darkness meets Cyberpunk). Or did you mean more along the lines of give the characters variable leeway with actions and such to find out what's a comfortable level of "harshness" for all involved?

It was probably the GM finding a sweet spot for harshness. But as a player it felt as though the character was testing out new powers and discovering limitations. For example if a character tried to fly they discovered they couldn't but if a player happened to be playing a teen slash movie style villain they found that they would miraculously come back to life after being positively slaughtered.
The fly power was not aloud because it just did not suit the style of game but the resurrection occurred because that helped cement the style of the world, which was a dark place that harbored many secrets. It was up to the character to discover whats happening.
This works for a free form system because the character powers are completely in control of the GM. This also is useful for directing what style of game you intend to run. That said the powers do not need to be completely passive just find the right sweet spot for the group.:smallwink:

I have to log off now, it's getting late.:smallfrown:

Winterwind
2008-01-02, 11:45 AM
This is exactly the sort of game I'm looking for...the "key-word" stats I was talking about were just specialties that the characters have or are particularly good at, mostly so that I don't have to remember every single detail about the players characters but can still have a good idea of what those characters are capable of (i.e. mr "quick, strong, telekinesis" from my OP would be particularly quick and strong and have telekinetic powers). For the game to work, each character would also need more than that, in background, personality, appearance, etc. and would have to play to their character (as opposed to to their stats, like you do in more rules heavy games, like D&D).If you look to my last post, you'll see I noticed my mistake; I also edited a few more remarks and tips into it. :smallwink:


I'm glad that you've had a good experience with this style of game, as it gives me hope for my own game. If you've got any more tips, I'd be most grateful...for example, outside of combat, how does this sort of game work in regard to speaking as your character/NPC...in a rules-heavy game, you can just roll a dice to determine the outcome of a conversation, but in this sort of game the emphasis has got to more on exactly what you're doing/saying (like you said, there's no such action as "I attack" anymore, so likewise, there's no such thing as "I persuade" either). This isn't a problem when playing characters similar in temperament/eloquence/etc. to yourself (as a player), but when you're a shy, stuttering geek playing as a gregarious, charismatic football star, it's hardly fair to ask him to go word-for-word (and I'm loathe to not allow players to play characters wildly different to themselves).Well, "I pursuade" rolls are something we don't even allow in my other group, where we do play with mechanics. Discussions and conversations with NPCs are, after all, one of the major opportunities for acting out a character's personality.
What we do is the following: We just act out the conversation (always in first-person-speech), and then, when the gamemaster determines how the NPCs react to the PC's words, (s)he takes into account who and how the character is supposed to be. Which means that, if the character is supposed to be charismatic, the NPC much more readily shows an amiable attitude and may accept arguments for true which are, maybe, not exactly the best ones, whereas an uncharismatic character should present his case much better. Basically, if the character is charismatic, the NPCs react as if what the character said was worded better than it actually was, possibly with a charming smile, and so forth, and on the other hand, if the character is uncharismatic, the NPCs instinctively dislike the character and act accordingly (which is not to say (s)he can't convince them nevertheless, it's just more difficult).

This is how we proceed even with stats, by the way.

JellyPooga
2008-01-02, 02:19 PM
If you look to my last post, you'll see I noticed my mistake; I also edited a few more remarks and tips into it. :smallwink:

Yeah, after writing my post, I did notice you'd done an edit :smallwink:, but I didn't want to faf around editting my post again and stuff...much rather write another post after seeing if anyone else had anything to say, etc, etc. cheers for those tips, they'll definitely come in handy!


Well, "I pursuade" rolls are something we don't even allow in my other group, where we do play with mechanics. Discussions and conversations with NPCs are, after all, one of the major opportunities for acting out a character's personality.
What we do is the following: We just act out the conversation (always in first-person-speech), and then, when the gamemaster determines how the NPCs react to the PC's words, (s)he takes into account who and how the character is supposed to be. Which means that, if the character is supposed to be charismatic, the NPC much more readily shows an amiable attitude and may accept arguments for true which are, maybe, not exactly the best ones, whereas an uncharismatic character should present his case much better. Basically, if the character is charismatic, the NPCs react as if what the character said was worded better than it actually was, possibly with a charming smile, and so forth, and on the other hand, if the character is uncharismatic, the NPCs instinctively dislike the character and act accordingly (which is not to say (s)he can't convince them nevertheless, it's just more difficult).

This is how we proceed even with stats, by the way.

Ah, fair enough. In games (with game-mechanics) where a character is more charismatic/better at something than the player is, we generally just give the 'gist' of whatever it is the character is doing and let them roll it, basing it entirely off of the roll, rather than what is actually said by the player.

I guess what you're saying is to do exactly the same as what we'd do anyway, except instead of the roll, 'fudge' the result based on what the character is supposed to be like..? That would work for me anyway...


It was probably the GM finding a sweet spot for harshness. But as a player it felt as though the character was testing out new powers and discovering limitations. For example if a character tried to fly they discovered they couldn't but if a player happened to be playing a teen slash movie style villain they found that they would miraculously come back to life after being positively slaughtered.
The fly power was not aloud because it just did not suit the style of game but the resurrection occurred because that helped cement the style of the world, which was a dark place that harbored many secrets. It was up to the character to discover whats happening.
This works for a free form system because the character powers are completely in control of the GM. This also is useful for directing what style of game you intend to run. That said the powers do not need to be completely passive just find the right sweet spot for the group.

Yeah, this was almost exactly the sort of thing I had in mind anyway, so that's cool, cheers!

I realise that most of my replies to what peeps have posted have been "yeah, I was gonna do that anyway", but that's almost exactly what I was looking for RE: replies to my OP. I had a fairly good idea on how I'd do it and was looking for some backup...which is what I got! Huzzah! Cheers guys, keep it coming.

When I've finalised the details of the setting I'm running this game in, I might post them here for your perusal/use/adaption/whatever...it's be nice for some feedback on that too, but seeing as it's all "fluff" and that the setting is fairly lenient towards many things, there probably won't be a lot to say about it other than "that's cool" or "that's crap"...anyway, I'm starting to ramble now, so I'll shut up.

Once again, cheers guys!

spotmarkedx
2008-01-02, 02:50 PM
A shot in the dark here as I've not played the system, but from what I've heard here and there, Spirit of the Century is pretty much exactly that sort of thing and is highly adaptable to different styles/genres to boot.
This statement is heartily endorsed by myself if you want to have set your play as not diceless, but more freeform than D&D. It also has its base rules on the interwebs: http://bzr.mausdompteur.de/fate3/fate3.html

The base setting is skewed heavily towards Pulp, but I see no reason you can't have swashbuckling kill it and take its stuff. Or fantasy :D

Mewtarthio
2008-01-02, 02:56 PM
This statement is heartily endorsed by myself if you want to have set your play as not diceless, but more freeform than D&D. It also has its base rules on the interwebs: http://bzr.mausdompteur.de/fate3/fate3.html

The base setting is skewed heavily towards Pulp, but I see no reason you can't have swashbuckling kill it and take its stuff. Or fantasy :D

SotC is itself based off the Fate (http://www.faterpg.com/) system, which is completely generic. They've got the 2.0 rules available online, but I don't think they're done with the 3.0 rules.

Ne0
2008-01-02, 03:02 PM
You might look into the Wushu system as well. Although it's meant for more cinematic fantasy. Myself, I've always been a big fan of pure statless roleplaying as well. It works quite well, if you have enthusiastic players and a motivated DM. :smallsmile:

Winterwind
2008-01-02, 03:04 PM
Ah, fair enough. In games (with game-mechanics) where a character is more charismatic/better at something than the player is, we generally just give the 'gist' of whatever it is the character is doing and let them roll it, basing it entirely off of the roll, rather than what is actually said by the player.

I guess what you're saying is to do exactly the same as what we'd do anyway, except instead of the roll, 'fudge' the result based on what the character is supposed to be like..? That would work for me anyway...Sort of. We find - and it might be just us, so do whatever you as group find more fun :smallwink: - that even if the player cannot speak in the manner befitting her/his character, it is still preferable to have the player attempt to do so and act out the conversation. After a bit of overcoming their initial qualms, players seem to usually find it fun to at least make the attempt, and often also find that it is not quite so difficult to speak freely as they imagined when nothing is at stake in real life and they can use their roleplaying persona (matter of fact, I believe I have become more eloquent in real-life due to roleplaying myself :smallbiggrin: ). Speaking as your character is roleplaying after all, and hence presumably what the players consider fun, since they chose to play a roleplaying game after all.

Where the stats (in a game with mechanics) or who the character is supposed to be (in a game without) enter now is, that the NPCs' answers in that conversation depend on them - if the character is supposed to be charismatic, then the NPCs will react as if what the player said was much more well-spoken and thought-out than it actually was. And vice versa.

This basically amounts to a fudged roll, yes, but we never skip interesting conversations (we do skip stuff like players going around to buy stuff, and such, unless the players are actually interested in acting this out) - the stats/description influence the conversation in such a way that it rolls more the way as if the character was what the player envisions her/him to be, but they don't replace it.

two_fishes
2008-01-02, 05:31 PM
YOu might want to take a look at The Pool, written by James V. West. It's got a very interesting mechanic, and it's very generic (really it's not much more than a resolution mechanic.) And it's free!

The Pool (http://www.randomordercreations.com/rpg.htm)

nerulean
2008-01-02, 06:33 PM
We've played a couple of completely statless games and they've gone really well, and we've played one that bombed horribly. The difference was that in the failed one we had someone who was both very loud and very immature. The sort of personality who will wreck a normal game will wreck a statless one even more, because there are inevitably fewer rules you can use to bring them back into line.

If you go without stats, then go completely without stats, but not without randomisation. Whether you get everyone to bring a d20 and roll and decide vaguely on the outcome, or whether you just flip a coin, make sure you have some element of randomisation involved, because this is the single best way of stopping players crying foul. In a similar vein, make a really, really big effort to be fair.

One thing that is possibly just a personal peeve is when you try and play statless and people keep quoting rules mechanics at you. They say "I put up a ward against spells. It works like spell turning, y'know so it'll block between like, 7 and 10 spell levels. Y'know, if we were using spell levels." Some people find that the most efficient way of doing things, but if you're trying to run a campaign that gets rid of these rules completely for the sake of the atmosphere of the setting, then make sure your players know what you want.

Citizen Joe
2008-01-02, 06:56 PM
You could define people by deviations from the norm. So everyone is average unless they happen to be better or worse at something, and that is how they are described.

So someone may be the "strong silent type". In a situation where he might be able to use his strength, he'd get a bonus. By contrast if he was sent out to gather information he would have a penalty due to his silent-ness. Of course, he could quietly appear and look menacing in which case he could compound the benefits.

Winterwind
2008-01-03, 08:49 AM
If you go without stats, then go completely without stats, but not without randomisation. Whether you get everyone to bring a d20 and roll and decide vaguely on the outcome, or whether you just flip a coin, make sure you have some element of randomisation involved, because this is the single best way of stopping players crying foul. In a similar vein, make a really, really big effort to be fair.I must say that here, I have mixed feelings regarding this piece of advice - if you get rid of stats, why not use the full benefit and go with whatever you, as GM, deem the best compromise for story and representing the players' characters, instead of leaving it to blind coincidence? If your players trust you, and are okay with this style of playing, they will know that you will treat them more fairly than the dice ever could, and work towards a more enticing story. Dice can have a streak of good or bad luck, or they can roll just the wrong way in a situation where the other would clearly lead to a more fun scene.
However, even our statless group has not get rid of a randomization element entirely - in very rare situations (like, maybe thrice per seven hour session), when a player tries something truly difficult and extraordinary, and the GM could not make up his mind otherwise, we tend to roll a dice after all (and the GM sees whether it surpasses some specific number to decide what happens. Our GM, additionally, asks the player before the roll whether it shall be "low" or "high", meaning whether the first few lowest or highest numbers count as success - it doesn't really bear relevance, obviously, but I think he does it to grant the players a bit more interactivity, and thus, more fun).

Another thing - obviously, you don't know everything about a player's character, and hence can't always come to the same decision about what the character is good in and what not as the player. This is not a problem: If you trust your players, there is no reason why you should not, when you don't know how good a character might be at some specific task, just ask the player. It's their character after all, they have to know - and if they are truly interested in roleplaying (which they would have to, if they agreed to such a statless game), they will answer truthfully.


One thing that is possibly just a personal peeve is when you try and play statless and people keep quoting rules mechanics at you. They say "I put up a ward against spells. It works like spell turning, y'know so it'll block between like, 7 and 10 spell levels. Y'know, if we were using spell levels." Some people find that the most efficient way of doing things, but if you're trying to run a campaign that gets rid of these rules completely for the sake of the atmosphere of the setting, then make sure your players know what you want.Here, on the other hand, I agree. We found it not much of a problem in our statfree group, but then, all of our players were hardly interested in rules to begin with, and most didn't know the rules of the system we played anyway. Which leads straight to an easy solution of this problem if it should become one: Just make a system you know, but not the players, the foundation of your game. If all your players play D&D, do not play statless D&D - play statless World of Darkness, or whatever.

Kizara
2008-01-03, 09:53 AM
I have always seen stat-less gaming having the following concerns:

Pros:

-Character Customizibility. Want to play a really off-the-wall concept and don't want to homebrew new races/classes/feats/entire game mechanics? Much, much easier.

-Immersion. Less OOC discussions about rules or game mechanics, because they don't exist.

Cons:

-Ability to arbitrate. Do they succeed? How strong actually are you? How powerful actually is your magic? How much do you actually know?

-Balance and fairness. Is Ice Magic equally strong as Shadow Blood Magic? REALLY? What if shadow blood magic corrupts you and hurts you as you use it, is it stronger then? What if your soul is slowly being frozen and in 10 moons the Lunar Hunters are coming to claim it, is your ice magic stronger now cause you have a suitibly angsty drawback to your character?


Here's some illustrations:

1) Cimenatic combat. (in basic skills)

P1 character: Sword and shield combat style +1, toughness +1, leadership +1

P2 Character: Javelin throwing +1, savage survival/hunting/tracking +1, rage +1

P2: *flowery description that amounts to "I throw my javelin with great skill, power and precision at 'P1'"*

P1: *flowery descriptions that amounts to "I raise my shield to block his javelin."*

Does he hit? According to the information provided, P1's character should be good at blocking with his shield, but P2 also specialized in his weapon directly, as opposed to a more general style.
Does that make him better? P1 also saw the shot comming, giving him reaction time. However, P2 had an armor-piercing javlein that he used to hunt monsters because of their tough hide (he informs you of this now, but it makes perfect sense and he simply didnt mention it before cause it didnt occur to him then).

So, what happens? Does he hit, but since P1 has "toughness +1" the wound is not severe, and perhaps P1 can close and even the fight a bit? If so, how bad is the wound? When he tries to attack P2 now, and P2 tries to dodge, does his wound impair his attack enough to allow him too, or does ethier his skill still perservere or is he able to 'grit it out'?

Alot of problems that I would rather solve with 1d20+8 vs AC 21.


2) Cinematic Combat take 2.

P1 character: 3 arcane magic

P2 Character: 1 stealth, 1 percision damage, 1 speachcraft

(For some reason, P1 suspects P2's character is in the area)

P2: *overdrawn description that amount to "I try my best to sneak past him"*

P1: "I cast Eye of Jacnithar, Visage of Truth. My magic reveals all that is hidden around me but aside from my incantation no visible effect is present."

(does he see P2 now? he should, since I would imagine magic 3 beats stealth 1, not to mention description-wise he seems to have trumpted what the rogue was trying)

P2: *I sneak around to behind him and perpare to assassinate him with one swift strike* (add more description if it makes you feel better, it amounts to the above)

P1: Since I can see P2, I move back a bit and cast Death (or maybe Charm, Hold, Disintegrate, or whatever direct-effect spell you feel is fair in power for p1 to cast with Magic 3)

So, what now, P1 has no expectional ability to resist magic, not even 'toughness' or the like. Does he die/be paralized?

..............

Skill problems.

P1 has a very strong character. He is a powerful knight with giant blood in him. He can rip apart horses with exertion with his bare hands.

He wants to lift an Iron Portculus that is baring his path so him and his companions can pass underneath.

The portculus is quite large, heavy and is relative good repair. Can he lift it? If you actually know exactly how heavy that portculus is as a GM, major kudos, but I bet you don't. And you don't really know how strong P1's character is regardless, so you basically just arbitarily decide.
Why did P1 succeed, because you decided he should, not because his character actually was strong enough.

Problem 2:

P1's character is a half-ogre barbarian from the Iron Mountains.

P2's character is a cloud giant.

P3's Character is a Archangel.

P4's Character is Thor.

P5's Character is the father of Zeus, Odin, AND Thor.

P6's Character is Chuck Norris.

They arm wrestle. I hope you see the problem.

DeathQuaker
2008-01-03, 10:20 AM
Look up "Story Engine" and/or "Story Bones." Story Engine is a trait based roleplaying system (eg as you describe--on your character sheet is "Strong," "Quick as a Leopard" etc. rather than numbers). The dice rolled involve odd and even numbers--very quick to learn. "Story Bones" is merely a simplified version of "Story Engine."

I've only run the "Bones" version, for a fast paced, very freeform game, but it did work quite well for my purposes.

I used to be able to find a free .pdf for "Bones" but I can't find it now--but look around; you might find it. "Engine" used to out of print but it looks like it's back in print and available for sale for about $10; it will include the "Bones" rules as well.

Even if you choose not to use that system, it'll give you a good idea of how such a system can work.

Lord Tataraus
2008-01-03, 11:10 PM
Just to throw this out their, I think that Risus (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww222.pair.com%2Fsjohn%2Frisus.h tm&ei=TLJ9R4OlJ5T8pgSLn81Z&usg=AFQjCNGQrNiBLWD_tEV1QDKdMyUPijdOCQ&sig2=vFZOJ47wgIIWS1yXgE8WUA) would work great for you. Though it is meant for comedic games, it can be played in a serious one and does a great job with it.

nerulean
2008-01-04, 08:16 AM
I must say that here, I have mixed feelings regarding this piece of advice - if you get rid of stats, why not use the full benefit and go with whatever you, as GM, deem the best compromise for story and representing the players' characters, instead of leaving it to blind coincidence? If your players trust you, and are okay with this style of playing, they will know that you will treat them more fairly than the dice ever could, and work towards a more enticing story. Dice can have a streak of good or bad luck, or they can roll just the wrong way in a situation where the other would clearly lead to a more fun scene.
However, even our statless group has not get rid of a randomization element entirely - in very rare situations (like, maybe thrice per seven hour session), when a player tries something truly difficult and extraordinary, and the GM could not make up his mind otherwise, we tend to roll a dice after all (and the GM sees whether it surpasses some specific number to decide what happens. Our GM, additionally, asks the player before the roll whether it shall be "low" or "high", meaning whether the first few lowest or highest numbers count as success - it doesn't really bear relevance, obviously, but I think he does it to grant the players a bit more interactivity, and thus, more fun).

Another thing - obviously, you don't know everything about a player's character, and hence can't always come to the same decision about what the character is good in and what not as the player. This is not a problem: If you trust your players, there is no reason why you should not, when you don't know how good a character might be at some specific task, just ask the player. It's their character after all, they have to know - and if they are truly interested in roleplaying (which they would have to, if they agreed to such a statless game), they will answer truthfully.

I can see your point here, and I guess it depends on what's better for your particular group. My group tends to favour an element of randomisation in statless. To use statistical terms in the way that we both just agreed wasn't the way forwards, you're assumed to be taking ten until you come across a situation that's too difficult for that to succeed. It means your highly dexterous character doesn't have a chance to fumble his "tie shoelaces" check, but that he does have a chance to triumph in a spectacular blaze of good fortune as he jumps off the burning balcony, grabs the chandelier, swings across the hallway kicking a vase into the button that will stop the building's self destruct system then hangs upside down and rains pointy death on all the hobgoblins with his throwing knives. While blindfolded.

That said, when I run statless online, I generally do away with randomisation. In the internet arena, there's much more time to think about all the factors applied to a certain situation and check things with the players if necessary without breaking the flow of the game. Even then, though, if it's a close call like most of the situations Kizara pointed out, I'd grab some randomisation tool.

Character A, who is exceptionally focussed on casting mind-affecting spells to the point where he can do little else with magic casts a mind-affecting spell on Character B, who is exceptionally well-trained to resist just those sorts of spells. Just deciding arbitrarily seems a little harsh.

One way we have run this is that just the DM has the randomisation. We ran a very combat-heavy session where the difficult opposed situations come up most often, and the DM would toss a coin. If the characters were evenly matched then success would be heads and failure would be tails. If it was an easy target, he'd flip the coin twice or more and only need one heads. If it was difficult, he'd flip the coin three times or more and need at least two, or some variation on a theme. It worked really well, and added a little bit of the unknown to the day, which made things more exciting. The possibility of failure makes success all the sweeter.

Jayabalard
2008-01-04, 08:31 AM
Interesting timing on this question; minimus (http://www.adastragames.com/downloads/RPGs/Minimus.pdf) was just mentioned yesterday at schlock mercenary. I've not actually played it, but from reading over the character creation process it sounds like it might be the kind of thing that you're looking for.

Pronounceable
2008-01-04, 10:47 AM
Once, I forgot to bring dice and had to run that session diceless. It was back in high school (years ago). Last time we met and talked about those days, that was the session my players distinctly remembered. Hope that gives an example.

That said, keep randomization. Dice, coin, rock-paper-scissors, last digit on chronometer, doesn't matter but keep randomization. You as a DM can "stagnate" without a little bit of chance. One can get bored with that much authority. And your usage of gray cells will decrease if there's no surprise for you. Or you may end up railroading them, or being unfair, without even realizing that's what you're doing.

But diceless is great, if you have the group for it.

TomTheRat
2008-01-04, 02:00 PM
There is a diceless rp system called Amber, very similar to what you're describing.

http://www.phagepress.com/