Worlds of Design: “I Hate Dice Games”

When I first saw D&D, I was in my Diplomacy playing phase. That’s a game with no dice, no chance mechanisms at all, but with lots of uncertainty owing to 7 players and simultaneous movement (which can involve guessing enemy intentions). I said, “I hate dice games” and that was it. But not long after (mid-1975), I played D&D at a game convention and loved the possibilities despite the dice.

View attachment 103236
​

Can something like Diplomacy’s lack of randomizers be arranged for RPGs? I see an RPG as a microcosm of life, where you try to minimize the times that you have to hope to get lucky (as in life). Inevitably, as with life the game involves much chance. BUT what if you do hate dice games, how do we make a diceless RPG that is a game rather than a story?

When this question came to me I was not familiar with diceless RPGs, but my Twitter correspondents named several. Whether these are actual games (competitions), or storytelling aids, is open to question. I’ve discussed this in detail elsewhere: games involve opposition that may result in failure, as they have for millennia; storytelling aids do not, they’re essentially cooperative and lack failure, though the result may not be particularly satisfying for all. Diceless or even randomless storytelling-aids are not as hard to make as games of this type, because the participants are collectively writing a story and will do it as they wish; the uncertainty comes from the participants alone.

Diceless can mean several things:

1. No dice are used, but some other randomizer is involved (usually cards)
2. No randomizer of any kind is involved
3. No randomizer directly involves the players, but randomizers (dice or otherwise) can be used by the GM when setting up (for example, rolling for number of monsters appearing)

Version #1 is fairly easy to implement. Cards can directly substitute for dice (cards numbered 1 through 6 for a d6), or you can devise indirect methods using “battle cards” and the like. James Wallis’ RPG Alas Vegas [sic] uses Tarot Cards as randomizer, or you can make up your own deck of cards. I use my own battle deck in board game prototypes such as Germania and Frankia.

Version #3 is easier on the GM, but is otherwise like #2.

Version #2 is the most challenging. Games depend heavily on uncertainty; many things we call games, without uncertainty, are actually puzzles, e.g.: Tic-Tac-Toe, Chess, Checkers, Go, though three of these four are too complex for humans to entirely solve. Notice, the “games” most subject to computer solution are in this category. Computers now play the last three games listed much better than any human. Tic-tac-toe is simple enough that humans can match computers, and the game is always a draw.

Amber: Diceless Roleplay (and its successor Lords of Gossamer & Shadow) is one of the major diceless games, and if you're familiar with Roger Zelazny's Amber series you know that there are innumerable options available to the only characters that really count, the immensely capable royal family, who can shape reality to their will. A diceless system fits the setting, dice would be inadequate.

We also might think about what we’re resolving: combat, “skill checks” (other than combat, which is just a form of skill check that's often separated from the rest) - and what else? Contents of treasures? Number of monsters?

There are ways to avoid dice: in some rules, the number of monsters is more or less set by their Challenge Rating (or something like it). Some games don't use skill checks, preferring to be based on the actions of the player characters. For example, instead of a "negotiation" skill, you judge from the skill of the player to negotiate in the particular situation. I've not seen combat resolved in non-randomized way, but surely someone has come up with a method. You can use battle cards of some kind to avoid using dice, of course, but there's still a randomizer involved.

Likely some of the readers have tried diceless RPGs and can report their experiences.

This article was contributed by Lewis Pulsipher (lewpuls) as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program. You can follow Lew on his web site and his Udemy course landing page. If you enjoy the daily news and articles from EN World, please consider contributing to our Patreon!

 

[Blue]

I haven't played fate, but my understanding is that invoking aspects gives a bonus to dice. Maybe invoking aspects to determine margin of success/failure on a task would work.

While not incorrect, that comes at it from the wrong angle. In a D&D 5e game, the variaion on the d20 is a lot more than the modifiers, so thinking that you modify the dice.

In FATE, the biggest part generally is your skill. You roll four dice with -1, -1, 0, 0, 1 1 that converge around 0 and use them to modify your skill. The die part is almost always the smallest part, and is often no change. So it already has a lot less swing then d20 based games. It's mostly deterministic already.

And yes, you can spend plot currency called Fate Points (which have a lot of uses) to give +2 to the result if there is an appropriate Aspect you can tag (on you, on the target, or in the area). This can be done more than once if there are ultiple applicable Aspects and you have enough FP.

When I started working on the system it was mostly as a challenge to myself. It was also because as far as I could tell, there is no deterministic tactical tabletop RPG so there was a possibility for the system to exist in a niche if I decided to try publishing it.

I think I covered a good deal of what determinism does to subtract from gameplay, although I didn't mention the tension that can come with an important die roll. The flip side of that is frustration when things don't pan out despite a good plan.

Determinism adds certainty. When a player chooses an action they can be sure of its -immediate- results. It could potentially make gameplay a lot faster as well by removing die rolls and consistent need for arithmetic. Alternatively, the extra time found by removing die rolls and arithmetic may allow for complexity (and hopefully depth) elsewhere.

In the right circumstances determinism may help players feel like they really earned a victory rather than getting lucky. Those circumstances would be: The opposition is equal in strength to the PCs or the PCs BELIEVE the opposition is equal in strength.

In a deterministic game where PCs are generally facing weaker opposition, it would likely be a good idea to have objectives in every encounter that do not hinge on the survival or defeat of the PCs. Thus, even if PCs defeat their opposition it would be possible for PCs fail to meet their objective despite inferior opposition. Ideally these stakes would need to be things (narrative or mechanical) that PCs care about.

That is really cool.

Question - do you have uncertainty in that the player need to estimate how hard they have to push / what scope of resources they need to use? Or is that also known so any single step can be charted?

 

[LostWormOnItsWayHome]

While not incorrect, that comes at it from the wrong angle. In a D&D 5e game, the variaion on the d20 is a lot more than the modifiers, so thinking that you modify the dice.

In FATE, the biggest part generally is your skill. You roll four dice with -1, -1, 0, 0, 1 1 that converge around 0 and use them to modify your skill. The die part is almost always the smallest part, and is often no change. So it already has a lot less swing then d20 based games. It's mostly deterministic already.

And yes, you can spend plot currency called Fate Points (which have a lot of uses) to give +2 to the result if there is an appropriate Aspect you can tag (on you, on the target, or in the area). This can be done more than once if there are ultiple applicable Aspects and you have enough FP.



That is really cool.

Question - do you have uncertainty in that the player need to estimate how hard they have to push / what scope of resources they need to use? Or is that also known so any single step can be charted?

If I understand the question correctly, there would still be some uncertainty for the players at the beginning of an encounter. They would generally be unaware of many of their opposition's characteristics, for example. I plan for some of the character development to be based around abilities that accumulate information, or allow retroactive change in actions in response to unforeseen circumstances.

Currently, my focus is more on getting the encounter balance right and haven't yet put much thought into strategic and more long-term considerations ("should I use this now even though it means I won't have it for a later encounter?").

 

[The Crimson Binome]

When I started working on the system it was mostly as a challenge to myself. It was also because as far as I could tell, there is no deterministic tactical tabletop RPG so there was a possibility for the system to exist in a niche if I decided to try publishing it.

If you can find it, you might want to look at the Street Fighter game, from White Wolf. I know that they went as far as to remove attack rolls, since whether you hit was based on specific grid positioning, and much of the play centered around moving on the grid so as to not be where the attack lands.

I think there might still be dice for damage/soak, or attempting to block, but they're really secondary to the primary action of choosing your moves. You could probably turn them into flat values, without losing too much.

 

[LostWormOnItsWayHome]

If you can find it, you might want to look at the Street Fighter game, from White Wolf. I know that they went as far as to remove attack rolls, since whether you hit was based on specific grid positioning, and much of the play centered around moving on the grid so as to not be where the attack lands.

I think there might still be dice for damage/soak, or attempting to block, but they're really secondary to the primary action of choosing your moves. You could probably turn them into flat values, without losing too much.

Thanks for the information. I'll definitely take a look for inspiration.

 

[5ekyu]

The main ways I have seen RPGs handle diceless/randomless/choice driven resolutions well that include uncertainty include three main aspects:
A degree of blind choice or incomplete info - think rock paper scissors but with more ability to influence outcomes.
Resource management and expenditures - essentially a transactional resolution
Multi-stage resolutions with costs and risks

I have said for ages that GMs for diced games should take a turn at a couple diceless. Then go back to diced. Diceless play helped me appreciate how much I was leaving "to the dice" instead of "to choice" and when I went back to diced gaming I did better at presenting scenes where the dice are there but there are a lot more interactive choices to influence the dice.

Winning a fight in Amber is all about controlling the circumstances. The GM is driven to setup scenery that is full of not stuff that's not just colorful and cool but **useful** and to see things from tharpt viewpoint. When the players control the scenery they too are driven towards that.

So it's less marching order and initiative as you enter the library but more flip the table for cover, use the rug for trips, duck between the stacks to isolate, etc.