can someone explain "diceless"?

[Sam Witt]

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

Usually, it means no randomizer is involved in resolving challenges.

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

Removing randomizers is not the same as removing the system. A resource management system, for example, can be very intricate andn complex, yet need no randomization. It would work something like this:

I have a Warfare skill of 8 and my opponent has a Warfare skill of 10. When we go at it, my GM tells me, "Your opponent slaps your weapon away without effort and nearly nicks you in the exchange."

Clearly, this guy is better than me, so it's time to use some of my resources. I expend a few points of my War Aura and now I have a Warfare skill of 11, compared to my opponents 10. Maybe certain conditions can even give me some free points to throw into warfare (if my Intelligence is greater than my opponents, for example, maybe I get free Warfare points equal to the difference during the fight). Perhaps tactics can provide free Warfare, as well.

With diceless resource management, then, the goal is to use as few of your own resources to defeat your opponents or overcome challenges as possible, so that you'll have some juice left when it comes time to go toe-to-toe with the Big Bad Guy.

Some diceless systems rely on simple comparisons between skills and difficulties to resolve challenges, with a system of modifiers based on how a problem is approached. In Amber diceless, a combat example plays out showing how a character with a higher endurance can win a fight against a foe with superior warfare by wearing his opponent out.

Without resources to manage, however, this can be trickier for the GM, who has to adjudicate whether or not specific tactics provide any sort of bonus. It can get messy, but certainly no messier than your average d20 rules argument ("But the xill has FOUR ARMS, man, he HAS TO BE A BETTER GRAPPLER!").

In my experience, diceless games work better when there is a level of assumed competence and heroes only need to exert themselves when they're being, you know, heroic. The lack of a randomizer puts the focus on the character and the action she's attempting to perform, not on the whirling polyhedron of doom that will determine her success or failure.

Properly designed diceless games reward players (and their characters) for shrewd resource management and good tactical play. In the diceless Marvel Universe RPG, for example, tactics seem to be much more important during combats than in many other superhero games, where the most important tactic is often how you design your HERO and what your dice do to you.

From my non-playtest viewpoint, that's because the MURPG is so heaviliy dependent on the resources of your character. You may need to start a delaying tactic to build up the energy you need to really put the whammy on the bad guy, or you might want to let that punch knock you out so you can lie safely on the floor and regain energy for your dramatic return to save the day at the end of the fight.

The biggest difference between the random and non-random games, however, is probably the decision making process. A character normally succeeds because the player decides to expend the necessary resources to guarantee a success, or because the character is simply good enough to succeed at the task without effort. In a random game, however, even relatively trivial tasks can be shut down by a bad die roll and the impossible can be achieved through a really lucky roll.

Both types of system have their strengths and weaknesses, though I strongly prefer diceless play for very powerful or competent characters, to avoid the anticlimactic, "I rolled a 1." feeling.

On the other hand, I really like diceless for grittier, lower-powered games, where chance is a real factor.

Sam

 

[Drawmack]

I played a diceless system once, only once. I didn't like it at all.

OTOH: What I found I really like is a role-off system. This is a system where every roll is an opposed roll. They are completely random. A 10 hit last time but this time it might take a 15. Those are really fun cause you never know.

 

[drnuncheon]

Both types of system have their strengths and weaknesses, though I strongly prefer diceless play for very powerful or competent characters, to avoid the anticlimactic, "I rolled a 1." feeling.

Yeah, but you also miss out on the elated "I rolled a 20!" feeling!

At least in D&D, there's no auto-failure for skill rolls, so if you're /really/ good you don't have to worry about embarassing yourself when attempting mundane tasks.

However, your made me think of one big pitfall with diceless play for a lot of people.

With diced games, if you fail, what do you do? You blame the dice. (At least, that's what every gamer I've ever known does, with the exception of my online group, who blame me, because the virtual dice don't roll as well when I'm around.)

With a diceless game, if you fail, you don't have the dice to blame - so the first instinct is to blame the DM. You really have to watch out that the games don't become too adversarial. The DM has to be able to make fair and consistent rulings, and the players have to be able to trust him to do so.

As an aside, there are other ways to avoid the extreme randomness of the d20. I like FUDGE's system a lot - your abilities are rated, as are the difficulties of tasks, and then you roll a certain number of dice marked with +, -, and blank, which adjust your ability up and down. The advantages for this are that your ability is equal to the average task you can succeed at, and the randomness has abell curve, which tends to cluster it around the middle.

You could even get this effect in D&D if you rolled 3d6 rather than 1d20, although you'd need to adjust certain things like crit ratings...

J

 

[Sam Witt]

With a diceless game, if you fail, you don't have the dice to blame - so the first instinct is to blame the DM. You really have to watch out that the games don't become too adversarial. The DM has to be able to make fair and consistent rulings, and the players have to be able to trust him to do so.

It depends, I guess. If the game is purely diceless and comparison-only, then yeah, the GM has to accept the chance that his players will hate him. Which is not too cool, but comparison-only games are not too cool, either.

Resource management games avoid most of that, though, because it becomes about player choice, more than anything else. You could have a rat bastard GM that throws encounter after encounter at you until you have no resources left, but that's not any different than bad GMing in diced games.

Still, I'm not ditching my dice anytime soon - there are only two really good diceless games out right now, and I'm not playing either one of them at the moment.

Sam

ps - I dislike succeeding because of a lucky roll as much as failing because of an unlucky roll. It's just so . . so. . . random.

 

[Afrodyte]

A number of LARP games are diceless, which is probably necessary given the play environment. Paramount amongst these are White Wolf's Mind's Eye Theater games.

Some systems are diceless because of the design goals of the game. In a game such as mine, introducing a random element like dice could undermine the ideas that form the basis of the game. In a game that is literally about creating stories, having fortune-based mechanics often serve to undermine that purpose. Dice in and of themselves have no bearing on the characters' nature, background, goals, or passions. They are simply a random element used to determine success or failure in a given situation. This is completely opposed to what I wanted to do with the game, which was empower the players to choose how their characters' stories unfold. Free form roleplaying using a social contract wasn't what I had in mind either because from my experience, FFRP usually lacks the tension and conflict which makes for good stories. Part of this is due to the nature of FFRP, which more or less prohibits characters who have confilcting natures and goals to confront each other and resolve whatever issues they have. Since there are no mechanics which player can reference, everything is more or less done by player agreement. While this is fine when players share the same ideas and goals, there needs to be a point of reference if disagreement occurs, or at least an objective way of deciding what the outcome should be. In short, a dice-based mechanic undermines my goals because conflict resolution is arbitrated by fortune regardless of how much of the character is invested into the situation; free form games prevent me from achieving my goals because they lack a means of creating and resolving conflict between players as well as characters.

Of course, neither of these were on my mind when I created the system for my game, but in retrospect, those are the reasons why I'd play my system for a story-based game as opposed to a more generic diced or diceless game. My initial goal was to create a game that put maximum focus on narrative elements (character, plot, setting, theme, etc) and rewards players for creating three-dimensional characters or at least an interesting variation of an archetype. As the protagonists of the story (as opposed to the supporting cast), creating a means of assisting this process was vital. Hence, Story Points and the bidding system.

I've playtested it about three times in a small group (2 or 3, including myself), and it worked well even without much preparation. I am eager to do more playtesting with a slightly larger group.

 

[Hand of Evil]

In a diceless game (Amber) it is given that the stronger, smarter, fastest, whatever will also win. The ramdom chance is out the window. It is about the drama, the storytelling, the descriptive adjectives.

Both the DM and the players have to be able to express themselves and argue their abilities.

 

[Jeph]

IMHO, games that use another randomizer aren't diceless (I know that makes no sense, but what we all mean when we say diceless is "no random factor").

I prefer bidding systems, personally. There are also some nifty systems where you choose wheather you succeed or not, but the GM gets to stick you with something if you choose to succeed to often.

 

[Kesh]

I love White Wolf's Mind's Eye Theater system. It still uses stats and a randomizer, but it's made for use in "Live Action" games, so it's rather easy to keep up with.

Basically, you buy up your character in a similar manner to the pen 'n paper White Wolf games. However, instead of just numbers, you get a certain number of 'traits'. Essentially, these are adjectives you use to describe your character.

For example, let's say you wanted to play a sneaky character. And you build him to have three "dexterity" based traits. To go with that, you choose the adjectives 'sly', 'quick' and 'lithe'.

Now, you're in combat with someone else, who has built a strong character. You each start by bidding one of your traits in the battle, usually by using it when you describe your action. Your opponent opens by stating, "I strike the thief with a harsh blow." (Bold is his trait he bid.)

You respond by saying, "I lithely avoid the blow, and kick him in the junk."

Then, each player throws down in Rock-Paper-Scissors. Whoever wins, also wins the challenge. The loser has to mark his 'trait' off the character sheet for the night/encounter, and the winner (in this case) deals damage to him.

Of course, there are variants, but that's the general idea. This also encourages role-playing, because you have a fixed number of traits to bid during an encounter. Use them all up, and you're stuck losing every challenge the rest of the night... so it's best to find other ways around the problem, if possible.

 

[Plane Sailing]

OK, This isn't an RPG but it is truly diceless, and I used to love playing it.

Warpwar, a sci-fi microgame by "metagaming". Basically, whenever there was a combat you secretly decided for all of your ships whether they would take an offensive, a defensive or a retreating posture, and what their drive setting would be (within the limits of that particular ship). You opponent would do the same, then you cross-reference the results on some matrices to find out what had happened. It was thus much more complex than a mere scissors paper stone, but it had a rich tactical edge to your attempting to outguess an opponent (a common tactic at high tech levels was to launch a spread of missiles all at different drive settings to improve the chance of getting at least one hit!).

I've also played a simple gladiator tabletop game, which was a sort of glorified scissors-paper-stone, but with extra wrinkles from the weapons used, and that was great fun (I was most excellent at guessing!)

Cheers

 

[nsruf]

Nobilis also uses a diceless system, but it works differently than Amber's.

I've played it a little. You have some basic ability scores ranging from 0 to about 10, and the rules tell you what is within the normal scope of your abilities. Since you play demigod-type characters, 0 is human average and 2 the peak of human ability (except in supernatural stats, which humans usually don't have at all). To exceed your limits, you can spend miracle points to raise your stat to an appropriate level. Since you only get those points back through special rituals, you need to be careful with your resources.

There are also some other abilities which you can buy with built points you don't spend on basic stats (probably much like Amber), and a magic system based on flowers (it's a weird game) - although we haven't used it yet.

Diceless seems to work ok if the PCs are very powerful, since they can be expected to fail only at the most extreme tasks. As long as the GM comes up with a fun and interesting story, a lot of mechanics will only get in the way, IMO (one of the problems people seem to have with epic D&D). Now whether/how diceless can be made interesting for more classical settings I don't know.