can someone explain "diceless"?

[alsih2o]

i have been gaming for a long time, since the late 70's, but i haven't played many kinds of games. D+D has been my bread and butter and jam and meat and potatoes. i dabble with some warhammer, and did one shots in battletech but that is about it.

now i keep hearing "diceless system(s)" and i do not know what it means.

if it is diceless is it actually a system? isn't that just cooperative storytelling without any randomness?

an explanation or a link would be great, but i would also like to hear reccomend/avoid suggestions

edit: and a short lived fascination with marvel superheroes circa 1989

 

[Celebrim]

From my experience, imagine D20 without the d20. It is as if everyone just takes a 0 or a 10 (or whatever) and you either can do it or you can't; you have either the higher number and you win, or you don't. So, basically, it just boils down to cooperative storytelling, which isn't a bad thing, but it tends to be very different than what most RPGer's are experienced with. More like meleodrama and less like an 'adventure'. That isn't to say that there are no combats, but the rather deterministic nature of combat tends to force players to engage in consensual combat with some mutually agreed outcome. The emphasis is more on finding dramatic things to say and do during combat (or more to the point during the 'combat scene') rather than trying to alter the eventual outcome.

 

[der_kluge]

I used to have a tagline that read:

"I hit, I hit - I kill it." - diceless roleplaying

Alsih20, you're a man after my own heart. I've pretty much always just played D&D. Never had much need for anything else. Oh sure, I flirted with Shadowrun, and we played quite a bit of Teenagers from Outer Space in college (an obscure comic RPG), and the occasional Battletech, but mostly it was just D&D.

I believe "Amber" is the system that is most commonly referred to as the "diceless" system. And I believe the explanation Cerebrim gives is correct. I've heard it described that you have points in an ability score, and so long as those points meet or exceed some target number, you automatically succeed.

 

[Apok]

Nobilis also uses a diceless system, but it works differently than Amber's. I've never actually played the game so I don't claim to be an authority, but from what I understand the resolution system is not 100% dependant on your "stats" like Amber and isn't completely dependant upon GM whim, either.

So, there are rules, but they aren't flat number comparisons or GM arbitration. Confused yet? Me too.

If you really want to learn more, just go to rpg.net and post a thread asking about Nobilis and I'm sure you'll get plenty of responses.

 

[Staffan]

And then there are some systems that are technically diceless, but not without some influence on results. In Castle Falkenstein, you have four cards you can use during a session in order to enhance your results (the cards work better when used for an activity appropriate for the suit - IIRC, hearts = social, clubs = fighting, diamonds = athletics and spades = intellectual). Dragonlance 5th age does something similar, except that the cards renew themselves all the time, and you get fewer cards when you're hurt.

 

[Zappo]

Some games use other means of randomness instead of dice. Cards, whatever. I don't consider them "diceless" - yeah, technically they may be, but in practice the principle is the same.

Generally, I call diceless a game where there is very little or no randomness. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that fights are predetermined... at least not from the player's point of view, which is the only point of view that matters.

Lack of information can provide the doubt and tension that we find in dice-based games. On the most simple level, not knowing the combat rating of your opponent already means that you don't have certainties. But you can devise more complex systems where even knowing the enemy's stats isn't enough - maybe there are some cards or tokens which may be used to get bonuses, for example. No randomness, but you still can't know the result without knowing the full stats of the enemy, his cards (or whatever), and the strategy he's going to employ - all this information is hard to obtain.

So... just because it isn't random, it doesn't mean that it can't have exciting combat.

 

[BiggusGeekus@Work]

I've played lots of RPG systems and read even more. D&D is where it's at, at least for me.

One diceless game I read/played was Amber. It's based off the Zelazny books. The idea is that you are a dimension traveling super-powerful guy with lots of intruge in your family.

Character creation is done by bidding. It's something like STRENGTH, COMBAT, ENDURANCE, WILL. I probably have those names wrong, but those are the general ideas. Now, here's where it gets tricky: the players bid on them. The first numbers are a secret bid and then it's opened up. But you only have 100 points. So if you get carried away on STRENGTH you're going to get boned in the other stats. There are also other powers (like dimension traveling) that cost about 25 - 50 points and a few minor skills (like being a doctor) that cost about 4. Being a wizard is ~25-50 and spells cost a few points each.

The scale for these abilites are (and I'm probably going to get these wrong):

Human -> Chaos (weak dimension travel guys) -> 0 -> #

... where # is 1-100, what you're bidding on. One "level" always beats whatever is below, no questions asked. So a Chaos guy is always going to beat a human and a 0-point Amber guy is always going to beat a Chaos guy. Any power gamer worth his salt will immediately note that bidding 1 point on every atrribute is the way to go because you'll always whip up on most other stuff.

Now you play! If you have a higher number in something than someone else, you beat 'em. If you have a higher rank, you really beat 'em (think Darth Vader vs. Biggus Geekus).

I won't go into the setting. But that's how you handle play. Roleplaying and other stuff can modify the situation. For instance, if you have an Uzi and the other guy has a water pistol, the game master may give you an advantage in COMBAT. But there are no hard rules for it, it's very free form.

I played through character generation in high school before I gave up. A buddy of mine played in college and said the game quickly fell apart. But we're both powergamers. So maybe it works well if you have the right group.

 

[Bagpuss]

There are a number of different types of diceless systems.

a) Dice are replaced with another randomiser, such as playing cards, "scissors-paper-stone", whatever.

b) Non-random - highest attribute wins, usually this is modified by circumstance, IE: You might be the strongest, but you will still be beaten by weaker more numerous foes that attack as a group.

c) Non-random - Bidding systems, you have a set number of 'chips' (each session or combat) that can give success even if your attribute isn't high enough. Its up to the player when he decides to use them.

 

[Celebrim]

I think D&D is a good game, and 3rd edition finally brought the game into the modern era, but I've had problems with characters that have only played D&D in that they tend to become a bit too rules lawyer for my taste. You really I think need to have experienced a broad range of rules sets so that you can mentally accept that the rules are merely convienent simplifications - not sacred writ. There are alot of things in D&D that still annoy me and I find it alot easier as a DM to make impromto rulings against them when I think they aren't working if the player has played alot of rules sets and knows how much better some other rules set deals with the same situation.

At a minimum, I think every RPer needs to have played Stars Wars, CoC, and GURPS - preferably in the original pre-D20 forms. Actually, the best RPers in my experience tend to be those that learned to RP in several different settings before they learned the rules to even one game system. There is a good reason that the DMG and the PH are separate - a reason that seems to have been lost on the designers of 3rd edition.

 

[Aaron2]

I think D&D is a good game, and 3rd edition finally brought the game into the modern era, but I've had problems with characters that have only played D&D in that they tend to become a bit too rules lawyer for my taste. You really I think need to have experienced a broad range of rules sets so that you can mentally accept that the rules are merely convienent simplifications - not sacred writ. There are alot of things in D&D that still annoy me and I find it alot easier as a DM to make impromto rulings against them when I think they aren't working if the player has played alot of rules sets and knows how much better some other rules set deals with the same situation.

I find it to be the exact opposite. Players to know too many rule systems are constantly saying things like "game A does grappling better", "game B does arrows better", or "game C does magic better". They are never satisfied. It drives me crazy.

Its like buying a car; pick one and then shut the heck up.


Aaron