Diced versus Diceless

[Finarvyn]

Most gamers are intrigued by the concept of diceless, but untill they experience a game many are convinced that it can't work. I know I was unsure of how to make ADRP work until I got to play in a game GM-ed by Erick. That was clearly an "aha!" moment for me and allowed me to bring the experience to my gaming group.

I think that fundamentally the problem is that most gamers are used to rolling dice and letting "fate" decide what happens. The concept of taking away the dice and letting the GM make that determination instead requires a lot of faith and a lot of trust in the GM. The fallacy is that most RPG systems allow for the GM to be in control, only that fact is hidden from the players due to the illusion of the dice.

For example, in an OD&D game a party of adventurers encounters a bunch of orcs. The GM may have decided in advance how many orcs would be there, or may roll some dice to determine how many orcs would be there, or may simply make up a number of orcs to be found there. The players have no real idea that the GM is in control and trust the GM when he says "you encounter a band of seven orcs". However, as a GM I want to let a fun story develop. If the characters are high level they may wade through the orcs, so I need to adjust my totals and maybe say instead "you encounter a band of fifteen orcs" so that the encounter is at least somewhat challenging.

The point is that all of this happens behind the screen and the players don't know about the process involved, nor should they as finding out spoils some of the mystery of the adventure. If the players die in the first encounter, the game is no fun. If the players never feel like they might die the game is no fun. The challenge of the GM is to put the players in situations where they think that their characters might die because that's where the thrill is.

Diceless is just like that. In the ADRP rules, Erick uses examples from Zelazny's writing to explain encounter difficulty. Encounters where the outcome is certain are passed by in a hurry so that we can get to the meat of the adventure, while interesting encounters are slowed down to the point where players can make tactical decisions to influence the outcome. This may not mean that they always win, but if they are losing they have options to withdraw or whatver.

It's the same thing, whether you have dice or not.

[Dilvish]

I never really thought of it that way. I always think of the dice in charge or the GM in charge, but the notion that either way the GM is in charge is an interesting one. I'll have to ponder this...

[Finarvyn]

I've been a GM for a long time and I guess that makes it more obvious to me. I know that there are times when the dice say that X should happen but I realize that X kills the story so I decide that Y happens instead. Because of the dice rolls, the players really have no inkling that these decisions are being made -- they think that I rolled Y on the dice instead.

A diceless system just makes this more obvious to the players. Either way they need to trust the GM or the game falls apart.

[nihilisticmind]

My problem with diced games is that I will let the dice decide the fate. I can't bring myself to just fudge the dice rolls for an NPC if he fails miserably and ends up dead, even if he was an important NPC. Why rob the player of a victory, even if it is a lucky one?

I find diceless gaming to be very suitable for my gaming needs, which is probably because ADRP was my introduction to roleplaying games using a system.

[Finarvyn]

nihilisticmind said:

Why rob the player of a victory, even if it is a lucky one?

Just curious ... do you rob a player of a death, even if it is an unlucky one?

When I run a campaign (diceless or otherwise) I hate to see my characters die (either PC or NPC) unless it is well deserved. To me there is nothing more annoying in a story than an important character who dies in a meaningless manner, so I tend to be more forgiving both ways. ;D

[nihilisticmind]

Honestly, I absolutely would let a player character die from an unlucky roll. No questions about it.

I've never had to since NPCs are usually on the receiving end of bad rolls rather than PCs. But like I said, I can't bring myself to fudge the dice and let an NPC live.

It's part of my problem... I adhere to the rules very accurately, which is why I like simple and smooth systems, with homebrew rules added for good measure. My favorite diced RPG system is the first edition of Legend of the Five Rings. It is a Gem, IMO. With the right homebrew rules, it is an intuitive system for players and well-oiled monster machine of gaming for me.

This is certainly off-topic and won't make much sense to people who are not familiar with Legend of the Five Rings. For that I apologize:

I recall a situation in one of my early L5R campaigns where the characters represented each Great Clan for a very important quest. It was imperative that they remained alive or they would fail THE QUEST. One of the characters jumped off a tower hoping to save a monk who had fallen (the monk was supposed to die, potentially... the PC was not).
He rolled badly. He would have died if the rest of the group hadn't traded their use of Void Points for the next 3 sessions.

The bad roll forced the group even tighter together and they doubled their efforts to work together, and they were at a great disadvantage in exchange with not having to deal with the roll's effects. Overall a great gaming experience for everyone.

If nuts happens in a campaign and it doesn't go the way I intended, I make up something, I tie up loose ends later or I let the characters fail miserably and suffer for it.


What is bad stuff for a PC but a way for the GM to tap into that 'bad roll' mana without the guilt?

When nuts hits the fan and the PCs get hurt because of luck, or bad stuff or stupidity, it's the way they handle the situation afterwards that makes it worth for them... and for me, as their GM!

Bottom line (reiterating... Yes I repeat myself a lot, I know) I would even let a bad roll ruin my campaign plans. It's the fun in chaos and randomness, isn't it? It can't be just a game for the players! I like to be creative when it comes to fixing things, too.

[matausch]

Oh yes, I had those discussions, too.
Traditional roleplayers just can't swallow the whole "diceless" thing. They say it takes "power" away from them and puts it into the hands of the GM. Which is, if you really think about it, nonsense.

I've played my share of Forge games, PTA, DitV, TPK, Capes, Fastlane, Sorcerer, Pool, TSOY, and a couple of others. Interesting how they go to extreme lengths to ensure "game balance" and "balanced narration rights" and stuff like this.

What these games, all of them using dice or cards, seem to forget is the simple fact that it's the GM who's in control. Even games like PTA (Primetime Adventures), that try to strip the traditional GM off of their power -- even these games rely on the GM making decisions -- and coming up with an appropriate "difficulty factor" for the characters' actions.

In PTA, it's not only the GM who has control over the narration, it's all players. BUT: To resolve a scene, to find a solution for an in-game problem a character is facing, it's still the GM who determines the difficulty.

It's even more obvious in traditional games like D&D or SR. Of course, it's not the player's dice roll that determines the outcome. It's how difficult the GM thinks an action is. If, in old SR, I roll 6d6 and have to come up with at least 3 sixes, I may *feel* in control over the fate of my character, but in reality, who determined that I had to roll 3 sixes?

So, it really makes no difference if the players roll dice or not. Oh, there's one BIG difference for sure: In Amber and other diceless games, GMs and players must think quicker, and describe much more vividly and thoroughly than in diceful games.

[nihilisticmind]

I don't know if I should be proud or embarrassed by this... You guys will be the judge in that matter I suppose, but what is done is done:

I've had one player character actually die from a dice roll... in Amber. And no, I didn't make it come back to life.

The situation was quite dire, please tell me if you think it was a mistake to involve dice: The PC had come into the possession of a spikard, and while fighting one of the main adversaries of the campaign (the PC was actually doing well), the character decided to unleash pure energy out of the Spikard. Due to his Bad Stuff (10 points worth) and his high psyche, he was able to control it succesfully but wasn't able to "shut if off".

This all was going on in a massive cave and rock started falling left and right. Throughout the campaign, I had made it clear that Spikards posed a real danger and that they had a psyche and personality of their own, although those were mostly unreachable and tucked away. The Player Character decided to use his advanced shapeshifting to fuse a part of his mind with the ring to control it. I warned the PC of how dangerous it could be and taking the bad stuff into account, I had to simply propose the following, since I didn't want to kill the character outright for what seemed like a good (yet crazy) idea:

Roll a 6 on a 6-sided die and the character is lost to the ring forever. The player agreed. He rolled a 6. I didn't go back on my word. What do you think?

(I'll post the campaign chapter conclusion and player reaction after I get to hear about you guys' reaction to this situation)

[Finarvyn]

I suspect that Erick would say something about the whole point of diceless is that these decisions would be based upon what makes for the best story. If the character should die from his actions kill him, but if not let him live. No dice required.

However, I think there is a place in any RPG (even a diceless one) for the "random event" simply because such things can create surprises for both players and GM. That can be fun because often I don't want to feel like I am "railroading" the players with a pre-determined outcome. If the game seems too linear, players might as well read the book or watch the movie. This is where dice can make things interesting.

I once had a D&D player try something really absurd and I laughed and said "okay, I'll give you a 3% chance to succeed." Well he picked up the percentile dice and I'll be darned but he rolled a 03. Made the session interesting in a way that would never happened in a truly diceless environment.

Just my two cents.

[nihilisticmind]

The death absolutely enhanced the story and the general idea of how dangerous it can be to mess with Spikards.

I had in mind that the character should be maimed but wanted to make death an eventuality. The roll actually helped achieve a result the player felt ok with... It was easier for him to blame his character's death on his one-time bad roll than one the foolishness of his action and the fact that he got repeated warning of its deadly potential.

[ed]

Damage doesn't always have to result in death. NPCs know that an Amberite has a death curse so would probably try to injure, disable, or disadvantage the PCs rather than risk a curse. I suppose Eric made an error thinking that Corwin wouldn't be close enough to death or desperate enough to curse him in 9PiA. And besides, it is a better story if the character lives but has to claw their way back to power or respectability or wholeness after a major setback.