Stagnation in RPG

[AuraSeer]

Obviously, you speak from ignorance. While my preference runs to using randomizers in games, I've played in non-randomizer games, and they can work. There can be risk.

That depends on whose risk you're talking about. There might be apparent risk to the characters, but never to the players. Unless somebody takes a totally unexpected action that the GM fails to correct for, the game will always follow the kind of script the GM lays out.

In a diceless game, anything the GM thinks is reasonable will automatically work. Angry Bob needs to jump a 10' wide chasm? Okay, he's a decent athlete and it's not critical to the story, so he gets across. He needs to win this fight against some random mook? Of course it's just a mook, so Bob ends up killing it. He needs to crack this safe and get his hands on the McGuffin, before the countdown reaches zero? Hey what a coincidence, he managed it just in the nick of time.

That's why some gamers feel there is no element of risk-- not because it's impossible for characters to die, but because it's impossible for accidents to happen.

Read that again: accidents are impossible in a diceless game. Even if the GM is surprised and must improvise his reaction on the spot, the game still follows his script. That's not how life works.

If the stronger competitor were always certain to win, and there were no chance for accidents or surprises, all sorts of sports, games, and contests would be tremendously boring. Many gamers feel that the same is true of RPGs. Having this opinion is not a sign of ignorance, only personal preference.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I cant expect any one to understand what im saying, this discussion is quite similar to politics, or moral philosophy.

If you mean that out of 1,000,000 people you'll find 1,000,000 different opinions on the same subject, you're right.

Personally, to me, D&D is a "role-playing game". If you're relying on a mechanic to do the role-playing for you, than you're not going to get far at my table. I don't hand anyone a crutch when I'm playing Chess, Doom, or Parchissi, and I don't believe in handing anyone a crutch for D&D. However, the mechanics are there for the purpose of mass-appeal (the more people that don't need to role-play the more players there can be, hence the marketability of the game is increased). If you want to hold the game at your table at a higher standard, than by all means do so. Lord knows I do. But when you post what you seem to have a habit of posting, you can expect (from a community that is as big as it is because of the feature your complaining about) some amount of backlash.

Quite correct, and im very impressed with your memory. But cut me some slack. Its only an irrelevant point i made to desperatize my post.

Unfortunately, when you do that, it gives the appearance that you are either a troll or (to those willing to give you the benefit of a doubt) suffering from a short-term memory issue.

 

[Umbran]

That depends on whose risk you're talking about. There might be apparent risk to the characters, but never to the players. Unless somebody takes a totally unexpected action that the GM fails to correct for, the game will always follow the kind of script the GM lays out.

In a diceless game, anything the GM thinks is reasonable will automatically work.

Not true.

Imagine a game that has no dice. Instead, the character has some number of "power points". In order to succeed at difficult actions, a character must spend some number of points. The number of points required are either set (like DCs in D&D), or are part of a dynamic bidding challenge. In either case, there is no "randomizer". The mechanic is deterministic, based solely upon choices - whoever spends enough resources wins.

If the player does not know how many points are required, there is risk of failing to spend enough points on the action, with possible nasty repercussions.

If the player does know how many points are required there is still risk, in that the player does not know how many points wil be needed in the near future. If you spend the points now, will you have enough left to defend next round?

 

[ZSutherland]

Umbran-

You're right that there are diceless systems where bidding of a set number of "points" works pretty well. LARP WoD springs to mind as an example, and while even the final challenge is arbitrated by player choice (paper, rock, or scissors), that still represents a bit of chance. It serves the same basic function as dice w/o requiring you to carry a bag of dice with you all over the gaming area, but after three years of playing and teaching LARP for the Camarilla, I decided that it was by no mean, rules-lite. Everyone gets paper-rock-scissors. Most people are a little confused about trait bidding at first, but keep up enough. When I get to the explanation about skill retests, discipline retests, static challenges, blocks, and overbidding, their eyes take on a glassy appearance that tells me I'm speaking greek. The rules in such a game aren't meant to be simple. They're meant to be expedient and unencumbering to the initiated. A new player though can drag a LARP game to a halt much faster than a new D&D player. I have even played emote based MUDs where even combat was resolved through a series of open-ended emotes that everyone involved agreed on. Disagreements, however, were handled with code.

As for the concern about randomness, I've seen tables turned by clever play and good paper-rock-scissoring more than a few times, but typically, the big guy (or smart guy or social guy depending on the type of challenge) wins. The same is true in D&D. My first level wizard, depleted of spells, might attack the 20th level fighter, roll 3 20's in a row, and if the variant in the DMG is being used that such an event is an instant kill, my depleted 1st level wizard has just killed a nearly epic character, but the other 5 million times we hash this out, the wizard's going to die quickly w/o so much as scratching the fighter.

What the OP wants (other than to troll and play the victim) is a game that is infinitely more ficticious than D&D. He wants a game where when player 1 says to player 2 "Bang! I shoot you! You're dead." Player 2 says, "Okay. My character clutches his chest and dies." In short, he wants a bunch of clones of himself that will always agree with one another and make nice-nice. Keep dreaming.

Z

 

[Dogbrain]

I give up. Its too much to chew over. I cant expect any one to understand what im saying,

I do understand what you are saying. I also disagree with it. Do not be so arrogant as to think that anyone who understands you must, therefore, agree with you. Has it ever occurred to you that you are not the sole universal arbiter of all that is right and wrong?

this discussion is quite similar to politics, or moral philosophy.

Yes, a lot of posing and pretention with nothing to back up claims made.

You have made a concrete claim, that there is only one proper way to play roleplaying games.

I call your bluff: Demonstrate the validity of your universal claim. Demonstrate that it is not merely a matter of personal taste. Demonstrate that it is a universal, and verifiably universal principle.

 

[Umbran]

You're right that there are diceless systems where bidding of a set number of "points" works pretty well. LARP WoD springs to mind as an example, and while even the final challenge is arbitrated by player choice (paper, rock, or scissors), that still represents a bit of chance.

Yes, depending on how you define "chance". However there are tabletop games which don't have the "rock-paper-scissors" aspect. The newest incarnation of the Marvel Supers game, IIRC, is pure bidding.

 

[Dogbrain]

Some people I think enjoy playing a dog in the manger Josh.

Fair enough--but it's one thing to enjoy it and QUITE another to insist that it is the only valid way to game.

 

[Dogbrain]

That's why some gamers feel there is no element of risk-- not because it's impossible for characters to die, but because it's impossible for accidents to happen.

Read that again: accidents are impossible in a diceless game. Even if the GM is surprised and must improvise his reaction on the spot, the game still follows his script. That's not how life works.

Try reading the thread again. I was arguing against somebody who turned his personal taste--that diceless games are automatically and universally bad because of the reason devoted to "chance".

As for "That's not how life works."--tell me, can you prove it? Is life truly chaotic or merely stochastically determinative? After all, either explanation can fit current physical theory.

 

[barsoomcore]

Is life truly chaotic or merely stochastically determinative?

I love you guys.

 

[Storm Gorm]

Has it ever occurred to you that you are not the sole universal arbiter of all that is right and wrong?

I believe i am.

Demonstrate that it is a universal, and verifiably universal principle.

The notion of any universal principals is quite silly.

Im sorry if i seem arrogant to you, but its only a manner of speaking. We are simply not on wavelength.

If you mean that out of 1,000,000 people you'll find 1,000,000 different opinions on the same subject, you're right.
Personally, to me, D&D is a "role-playing game". If you're relying on a mechanic to do the role-playing for you, than you're not going to get far at my table. I don't hand anyone a crutch when I'm playing Chess, Doom, or Parchissi, and I don't believe in handing anyone a crutch for D&D. However, the mechanics are there for the purpose of mass-appeal (the more people that don't need to role-play the more players there can be, hence the marketability of the game is increased). If you want to hold the game at your table at a higher standard, than by all means do so. Lord knows I do. But when you post what you seem to have a habit of posting, you can expect (from a community that is as big as it is because of the feature your complaining about) some amount of backlash.

You Bendris, on the other hand, people like you are almost the sole reason for me to have a slight faith in D&D. Thank you many times over.