Game Design Masterclass: Going Diceless

While they are pretty (oh so pretty) you don’t actually need dice to play a role-playing game. If we don’t mind the Gamemaster fiddling with results to improve the story (when players do it, that’s just cheating) how much do we really need to roll something? Some GMs say they only roll as they love the sound the dice make. So if you are fudging anyway, why not go the whole hog and be open...

While they are pretty (oh so pretty) you don’t actually need dice to play a role-playing game. If we don’t mind the Gamemaster fiddling with results to improve the story (when players do it, that’s just cheating) how much do we really need to roll something? Some GMs say they only roll as they love the sound the dice make. So if you are fudging anyway, why not go the whole hog and be open about not using dice at all?

amberdicelessrpg.jpg

In 1991Eric Wujcik went that far with the Amber Diceless RPG, a game that blew my mind when I first came across it. Amber is based on the series of novels of the same name by Roger Zelazny. In the setting, only the feudal castle Amber and its lands are truly real, and the many other worlds (ours included) are mere reflections of it. The noble family who rule compete constantly for control of Amber, as nothing else in the multiverse truly matters.

While there are no dice used in Amber, it’s not entirely fair to call it systemless or entirely narrative. Resolving conflicts is done by comparing the attributes of those involved (Warfare, Psyche, Strength and Endurance). But these are not usually rated by a number. For the most part they are rated between the player characters as who is the best. Unless someone cheats in some way, the best person will win any conflict. When it comes to NPCs the GM simply decides secretly if the NPC is better or worse than the PC in question.

It’s quite common in narrative games for players to get stuck for ideas. One thing dice are good at doing is forcing a result. But Amber offers some basic options players can use to get clues about how good their opponent is. For instance, in a sword fight you might begin by declaring you are going all out to defend yourself. If you seem to be holding your own you might be pretty evenly matched. If your opponent is still landing the odd blow you are clearly in trouble. Every scene is a back and forth between players and Gamemaster until a conclusion is reached.

While Amber can be a little tricky to find these days, the system was revised by Rite Publishing with a new setting as Lords of Gossamer and Shadow. But another well known adaptation of the system is Jenna Moran’s Nobilis where each character is the embodiment of an aspect of the universe. Nobilis takes the system another step further by putting some points to the character’s attributes. This lets you ask a simple question each time they face opposition – ‘do you want to win enough to spend a point?’ Doing so is pretty much a guarantee of a win, but you only have so many points to use. There are also elements of diceless play to be found in many other dice-based RPGs that tilt towards the narrative like Smallville and Invisible Sun.

You may have noticed by now that the characters in most diceless games are a little more powerful than most player characters. They are often Gods or Lords and Ladies of the universe. It’s this level of play that suits diceless best as it allows you to ignore all the small stuff. Scenes are about shaping the universe not picking a lock. You can assume the characters are all potent enough to just worry about the big issues where it is worth spending their points or working out how to deal with the bad guy.

While a diceless game is a lot of fun, it will test your imagination whether you are a player or a Gamemaster. It can take some getting used to. In most games the players are used to the dice defending them from the Gamemaster. The GM sets a problem and the players escape it by succeeding at a dice roll. While it might not always look like it, dice are the player’s only defense.

When you first play a diceless game it is easy to fall into the trap of playing as you would with dice, and just making up what happens. This generally leads to the GM doing all the talking and trying to figure out results for everything. If a pit opens up in front of the characters, who falls in? You can’t roll so it’s the GM deciding to potentially kill your character off. There are no dice to protect you by making a Dexterity roll or the like.

So the key to running a diceless game is actually player input. Instead of waiting for the GM to interpret the dice roll the players should be the ones to decide what happens to their characters when presented with a situation. When presented with a pit, one might describe leaping across, but another might decide they’ve almost fallen in and are clinging onto the edge for dear life.

It’s a tricky style of play to master as it goes against a lot of habits you never knew you’d picked up rolling dice. For this reason alone it is a good idea to try it at least once and see how your group reacts. It can be liberating but also a lot of hard work. Without any clues from the dice as to how you’ve done, you have to make those decisions yourself.

While diceless might not be for everyone – and I’m not suggesting it’s innately any better than using dice – it is also a good way for a player to train as a GM. It lets the player invest in the story and make decisions about their character’s adventure that are usually left to the GM. Essentially it teaches how to play with everyone writing the story as a whole, rather than just their character’s part in it. As a final note, it’s also a pretty good way to play an RPG on a long car journey where you don’t have a surface to roll dice on and the driver can’t keep looking at their character sheet.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Andrew Peregrine

Andrew Peregrine

Doug McCrae

Legend
The best game I ever played in - Paul Mackintosh's Dream Game campaign - was run partially, not merely diceless, but systemless. About half of the campaign was set in dreams and half in the real world, with the PCs playing themselves. The real world part was heavily investigative and run systemless - everything being decided by the GM. It was also probably the highest freedom and least railroady game I've ever played in.

The best session I ever ran, a superhero oneoff, was also diceless and systemless. It was a very high freedom, non-linear adventure. Afterwards one of the players said it was the best rpg session he'd ever experienced.

I don't think I would've ever tried running games in this way if I hadn't encountered Amber. For me it was a rpg-ing epiphany.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

DerKastellan

Explorer
It all sounds fine until you really deliberate what the shift away from the random means. Random means "In principle, I could get lucky even if I'm not the best." In Amber, the best-laid plan wins, if you manage to bring your high attributes into play and tend to avoid being pinned on your low ones.

People have compared it in this thread as moving from the probabilities of Risk to the chess. And that lays bare the problem at the core more clearly. Amber is not a story game (some have claimed that) because it does not really share shaping the story around. (Like a game like Spark tries to.) Amber is a game of strategy, and if the wits in the group are unevenly distributed, the smarter player should be more successful.

In a game of D&D somebody can opt to play somebody who just hits things with a pointy stick and contribute to overall success. Being clever surely can give you advantages but everybody can play. In a game like Amber there is no true spotlight protection. Even if you are best at Warfare you might be still outwitted. When the wizard in D&D is out of spells it's down to the fighter to hold the line. That's their spotlight, just as slinging spells of mass destruction is the wizard's. In a game of Gumshoe, pools fulfill a similar role - you overspend, you're in trouble later. You chose what you will shine at. You can chose to shine at certain things in Amber, too, but the other player will always try to undermine your strengths, and if they are better at this type of thing, your strengths might not help you at all.

Unless played with a story-oriented and fair attitude, Amber could easily devolve into a series of "I'm smarter than you" chess moves that might alienate players who aren't really into that type of thing - for any reason. Be it that they don't have the requisite skill, be it that they don't have that attitude. Amber sounds like you find out who could be a villain among your fellow gamers really fast. Just wait until somebody displays the combination of smart, ruthlessness, and some creativity to get their way.

And I guess that's good game design if you consider the source material's apparent gist and what the game can evolve to and devolve into. There's nothing wrong with that but I would personally find it tiresome. As a GM you also have not only to have a good grasp of this key skill, but also a good narrative sense when to play to win and when to play to lose. Something most RPGs don't require of you, come to think of it, because they are not truly competitive at the core. It's a wholly different mindset. A D&D GM sets themselves up to lose constantly, for example, to keep the campaign going.

What might be an interesting alternative is Hero Quest 2 by Robin D. Laws, the ever-experimenter. It is a cheating system from the core in that the GM decides when the players should fail and when they should win, setting difficulties accordingly. The players decide what things they are more likely to succeed at. But they still might win - and make the story entertaining - by making that one roll. It can create interesting story twists yet most of the time plays as planned. All you have to do is get over the inner sense of heaving at setting nonsensical difficulties - or getting really good at creating situations that justify it, in which case you might wonder, why not do that in any other RPG anyway?
 


TarionzCousin

Second Most Angelic Devil Ever
I didnt like the player vs player adversarialism of Amber either.
That is in the books and one of Wujcik's credos, but it's not required to play Amber. In fact, most of the games I've played in and nearly all of the ones I've heard about from friends' campaigns and conventions don't pit the players against each other. It got old.

I've been playing Amber Diceless steadily for over twenty years at conventions and in multiple campaigns. I'm running an Amber Diceless campaign right now.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
That is in the books and one of Wujcik's credos, but it's not required to play Amber. In fact, most of the games I've played in and nearly all of the ones I've heard about from friends' campaigns and conventions don't pit the players against each other. It got old.
Sure however If you are designing a game to emphasize team play I think there are elements you include that you wouldn't in a game not envisioned that way.
In D&D you have had since the beginning implied battle roles and sometimes explicit ones. Where the fighter takes the front line and protects the wizards who then sweep chafe or the rogue ganks the big bad while the fighter distracts him etc ... in a sense it is another way to differentiate we may even each be rank X in the big picture of battle (warfare). But we have specializations which synergize. If we make the right choices.
 


aramis erak

Legend
Personally, my experience with Amber is entirely in the "unpleasant and unworkable" bin....
Due to the way it is set up, it presumes that the group is stable from launch to conclusion; the bidding process makes adding characters a bit of a pain.
The near-total subjectivity of the modifiers renders it very strongly "GM gets what they want".
The lack of a decent decision tree matrix and of a point-spend system leaves the decision process way more arbitrary than is good.

I know some people enjoy it, but those people tend to be, at least of those I know persionally (FTF), the people who don't think system matters much, because they seldom invoke system no matter what game rules or setting is in play.

I personally find Theatrix a far better diceless approach. It has a strong decision tree system, and has a point economy that allows altering the decision tree. It's still super reliant upon some level of arbitrary, but the skill vs difficulty card also gives a way to resolve skills readily. (It also includes rules for percentiles in place of the decision tree for groups who can't handle the tree based system's lack of random.)

My favorite diceless games, however, aren't randomless: Dragonlance Fifth Age and Marvel Super Heroes Adventure Game. (While I playtested Freemarket, it flopped with my group because of lack of comprehension of the nature of the conflict resolution system.)
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I've read the Amber books, and the Amber rules. I almost had a brush with Amber, but it never hit actual play. And it might have been because I was too good at bidding.

One summer in college we did a 17-18 person camping trip for a week at a state park. We were going to do an Amber one shot one night and we had like 8-10 people interested. So we did a bidding process so we could come up with characters during the afternoon. I seem to remember that there's ranks 1-4 and that's as low as it goes - you can have people tied at rank 4. (Or maybe that was this DM for so many players.) Anyway, with this many players the DM was also being a little funky with bidding. Everyone did a secret bid and spent the points. If you were in the top 4, there was another secret round where you could raise your bid if you wanted to.

I knew with this many people bidding you couldn't be in the top 4 for everything so I planned to purposefully lose one and only bid a single point. So the first round we bid, and everyone was getting the feel and I ended up winning, taking 1st rank. The second one comes up, it's more aggressive which I expected from the talk about how I sorta lucked into 1st cheaply (which I did, but also a bit of reading people). And I ended up taking 1st again because I knew I had a big reserve with my plan. Then came a crazy bidding round that I bid my single point, ending up with Rank 4 Psyche. And it was the most expensive round yet, both from seeing the escalation of the earlier rounds plus some people wanted something that wasn't a 4. Got really expensive. Then the last round ... but three rounds of bidding more and more cleaned some out, and others wanted to save enough points to get cool other stuff since they didn't have great ranks, leaving me able to take 1st rank again.

That's right, an easily controlled 4th rank psyche with 1st rank everything else. Perfect recipe for GM mayhem.

I think I had enough points left to walk the pattern, with taking on some Bad Stuff. Or maybe it was a partial pattern. I don't remember, it was bargain basement time.

At the time I was 19 or 20 and felt really cool about how I managed to get all of those 1st ranks. But with only 9 ranks that weren't a 4 up for grabs among 8-10 people, and I had not just a full third of them but the best third of them, I think everyone else may have been less than enthused about their characters. And the game never ended up taking off that night.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I think everyone else may have been less than enthused about their characters. And the game never ended up taking off that night.
The whole thing reminds me about the games of risk I used to play... of course if everyone is ganging up on you next game it ended up not going so well
 

Without addressing posters directly, just a few points about the Amber system:

1) Character generation is, at a basic level, a points build system. Each players gets 100 points to spend on designing their character. The difference is that character generation begins with an auction, that encourages players to spend points on Attributes. The amount they spend, comparative to others, gives them a Rank. However, they also have clear point costs to buy the various powers with the remaining points they have, and can earn a few points by downgrading Attributes and doing things like writing journals for the game in character.

2) There is a ‘luck’ element in the game - called “Good Stuff/Bad Stuff” - that is based on whether the player underspends or overspends their allotted 100 points when everything is calculated. If you overspend, you end up with an unlucky character and this gives the GM an indication that they can adjudicate against you or just throw more challenges your character's way. If you underspend, the GM would take it easy on you.

3) The game is narrative in as much as players can have their characters do anything they wish - even alter reality around them with the right powers. They can create their own worlds, and navigate between them at will. On Earth (merely a shadow realm in the game) they will be stronger and smarter than any human (unless they downgrade themselves). As protagonists, they can create whatever narrative they like until some antagonist comes along to oppose them. This is the essence of any good story.

4) Not everybody will like this game, or narrative games, or diceless games, or freeform games. Not everybody likes chocolate cookies. C'est la vie.
 
Last edited:

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top