"d52" Diceless Resolution Mechanic

[Epidiah Ravachol]

I am very intrigued by this and I would love to hear of how it works out in playtest. Do you have ideas about character creation yet? Can the players play cards against each other if they want to waste their precious resources with internal bickering?

I would possibly add the option of declaring a trump for a particular action or type of action (hearts for social stuff, spades for combat, diamonds for... roguery stuff?, clubs for anything else?) - and allowing players to play more than one card against the DM if they're trump for the action. That allows a player to make the best of a set of poor cards, at the downside of spending lots of cards.

Another idea along these lines is to allow the players to play two, three, and four of a kind. Two of a kind trumps a single card of higher value, three of a kind trumps a pair of higher value, and four of a kind trumps three of a kind of higher value. But the candle that burns twice as bright, burns half as long.

P.S. Please excuse my ignorance, but what does RAW stand for?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

We need an Uno deck numbered 1-20. Then you can play RAW D&D with this mechanic and a deck instead of dice. You can simulate the other dice with the deck -- say you're "rolling" for damage with a dagger, say normally d4+1. You can either (1) not allow playing a card over 4 for the d4, or (2) allow cards over 4 to count as 4. So if all you had to play was a "20" card, you'd have to waste it on 4 damage or draw ...

 

[Hypersmurf]

We need an Uno deck numbered 1-20.

Skip, Skip, Reverse!

I was experimenting briefly with a system of playing cards for generation of stats for a 4-person D&D party. It seemed to have potential.

Rel - in order to really have tension ramp up as the game goes on, what if the GM gets to take certain cards into his hand?

For example, any time a player plays a face card, he might win his action... but that card goes into the GM's hand after the action is resolved, which means the bad guys just got 'tougher'... (If the GM plays a face card, it's discarded.)

-Hyp.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I like the idea, but I think that it looks a little too complicated - a little too much to remember. It almost becomes a game within a game.

The Jenga approach works well because it is very simple and with tangible effects.

If you wanted to go for something similar with cards, you could perhaps take a 'blackjack' style approach, where someone draws cards and adds them to try to get a target DC (starting at 10 or 12 say), but if they go above 21 and 'bust' then they have the bad effect.

Then as the game progresses, the DM gradually increases the DC towards 21 to ratchet up the tension.

Thus increasing tension doesn't depend upon manual dexterity, but the risk of going bust when drawing cards. The pack can be shuffled after every draw, or on some other pre-arranged schedule.

 

[Clueless]

Rel, let me know when your playtest will be.

 

[Clueless]

Ok, random thought in the middle of the night just occurred to me. Part of what makes Dread so... dread-like, is a "rising tension" not just over the length of the game, which Rel's Old Maid mechanic will handle, but also in an individual moment.

That moment where everyone at the table has leaned in close, all are holding their breath, hands tremble on the tower... there are a few gasps, blocks shiver... and then one way or the other the moment is resolved. Beathing starts up again and everyone settles back in their chairs with a breath of relief (or despair).

What d52 currently lacks is that moment. That pause between declaration of intent and resolution. There's no physical 'struggle' for everyone to watch as there is with jenga though - so we need something else to slow things down. A psychological struggle for those at the table to observe and get involved in. To which I propose another alternative rule: The bluff

Two opposing forces (DM/Player or 2 players or what) place cards on the table. They are given the option to withdraw. If neither withdraws, the cards go face up and into whatever discard pile applies.... It is that moment of 'are you sure about this' in which one may bluff to force the other to withdraw their challenge to the event - thereby allowing a player or GM with a really bad set of cards to pull out a miracle. It becomes a game of chicken.

Hm. A few other ideas about this to encourage the use. If the challenge is withdrawn (someone wins the bluff), perhaps the card goes back into your hand, and the loser is the only one whose card gets discarded sight unseen - thereby encouraging you to get the other person to back down? (and negating card counters) Alternatively some sort of minor penalty goes to the person who loses when the cards come face up?

Rel, how do we handle multiple person engagements - where a player wishes to assist another player in a contest against the GM? We gotta have some way of determining that. Trump style system perhaps?

And as a last note, some mean part of me also suggests reverse OldMaid - where the Maid spells doom for the *opponent* encouraging it to be used but then it may be used in retaliation...

 

[Rel]

Ok, random thought in the middle of the night just occurred to me. Part of what makes Dread so... dread-like, is a "rising tension" not just over the length of the game, which Rel's Old Maid mechanic will handle, but also in an individual moment.

That moment where everyone at the table has leaned in close, all are holding their breath, hands tremble on the tower... there are a few gasps, blocks shiver... and then one way or the other the moment is resolved. Beathing starts up again and everyone settles back in their chairs with a breath of relief (or despair).

What d52 currently lacks is that moment. That pause between declaration of intent and resolution. There's no physical 'struggle' for everyone to watch as there is with jenga though - so we need something else to slow things down. A psychological struggle for those at the table to observe and get involved in. To which I propose another alternative rule: The bluff

Two opposing forces (DM/Player or 2 players or what) place cards on the table. They are given the option to withdraw. If neither withdraws, the cards go face up and into whatever discard pile applies.... It is that moment of 'are you sure about this' in which one may bluff to force the other to withdraw their challenge to the event - thereby allowing a player or GM with a really bad set of cards to pull out a miracle. It becomes a game of chicken.

Hm. A few other ideas about this to encourage the use. If the challenge is withdrawn (someone wins the bluff), perhaps the card goes back into your hand, and the loser is the only one whose card gets discarded sight unseen - thereby encouraging you to get the other person to back down? (and negating card counters) Alternatively some sort of minor penalty goes to the person who loses when the cards come face up?

Rel, how do we handle multiple person engagements - where a player wishes to assist another player in a contest against the GM? We gotta have some way of determining that. Trump style system perhaps?

And as a last note, some mean part of me also suggests reverse OldMaid - where the Maid spells doom for the *opponent* encouraging it to be used but then it may be used in retaliation...

All very intriguing insights and I will reply, at length, after I make it through this weekend which holds not only Mother's Day but also my Anniversary.