No Dice, No Stats, Just Character background [Archive]

Jack Spencer

01-07-2002, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by blackguard
I have a question for you diceless, statless gamers:

At what point does an RPG lose the last letter and become RP?

I've encountered this sort of response many, many times and I still haven't gotten a decent answer for it. But I'll try again anyway.

First of all, the losing the "G" comment is taking a literal definition of the word "game." This is a fruitless pursuit since the term "role-playing game" has a meaning of its own, separate from the meanings of the individual words.

I've just recently dealt with someone focused on the literal meaning of "role-playing" Now you're stuck on "Game" Maybe tomorrow someone will get stuck on "Playing" or "-"

Now, I don't want to sound like I'm knocking you, but your whole post shows a personal preference. You prefer to have the dice and numbers and whatnot and that's OK. However, that isn't the end-all and be-all of what a RPG can be and those who's preference is different from yours have a right to call it RPG if they wish to.

Games have variability, which is the reason nearly every game pits one person against another or requires some form of input variability in the form of dice.

I've always thought of a game to be a means to interact with other people. True, most games I can think of have some form of variability, from Monopoly to Football, but then variability does not have to come from a die.

Such as In Hogshead's Baron Munchausen game. Basically a player starts teling a story of one of their bold exploits. The other players passively listen until one decides to inject a piece into the tellers tale via a betting mechanism using "coins." There's the variablity in Baron Munchausen. Not only are you making up a story on the spur of the moment, but the other players may at any time mess with what you're doing.

(It may sound like Baron Munchausen isn't a RPG, really. It sort of is in that the players are their characters sitting around, drinking very fine wine, and regaling each other with tales of their glorious adventures)

I think that you can role-play within the boundaries set by rules, stats and dice and that the result could very well be called an RPG.

This you can but you can also have a game without stats and dice.

unheilig

01-07-2002, 11:44 PM

PRIMEVAL: No stats, no skills. Lots of dice though.

Working on some sci-fi rules with no skills, no stats, no dice...
but there are Specifications and Operating Modes.

unheilig.

S. John Ross

01-07-2002, 11:52 PM

I disagree that it's a minority interest with a niche hobby.

Of course, you're correct. It's super-popular, and has been taking the hobby by storm. How silly of me not to notice it before you enlightened me.

I don't know why you'd want him to since he doesn't seem to have much interest in the topic of this thread.

The topic is of considerable interest to me. The colossal ignorance of the _premise_ is what I find ridiculous.

Look the words up, if you have trouble.

Tim Kirk

01-08-2002, 12:05 AM

What IF: There were a game that didn't have stats, skills or the like, just character background?

How do you keep it fair so the players don't feel cheated
What about this:

A Pool of Points call them "Plot Lynchpins" or "Plot Points" or whatever, when the game begins the player can spend these points to perform actions--as many as they like. These points merely measure how much the declared action/event impacts the plot. Spending 5 may be a minor change in current events, while spending 25 is a major change in current events. The GM gets 5%-25% more points than all the players (5% is for Heroic Mook filled games, while 25% is for realistic and gritty games ) "Plot Points" which he uses for villians, NPCs, events at the same scale as the players--5 is a minor change, 25 is a major one any points not spent in the game are lost as everyone gets all their points back at the end of the game with a few exceptions. The exceptions are major changes in a characters abilities created by equioment changes (like a Magical Soul Drinking Sword) or an innate ability they didn't have before, that will continue to be useful--such as learning magic, or being given superpowers or whatever, in this case if /not/ everyone has the same "plot" effecting elements, then the character who does loses a small sum of points based on the overall usefullness of the item/ability.
They item is always worth that value of points in the game--so a 20 Point Soul Drinking blade, when used is always acting as 20 points (but the player must spend at least one plot point to "'activate" it...)

What do ya think?

Andrew Martin

01-08-2002, 12:08 AM

> But then we aren't talking about simply freeform, are we?

I'm not talking freeform roleplaying. I'm talking about these kind of game components:

consistent methods of character description;
consistent methods of arbitrating character actions;
consistent methods of changing character description;

All these methods should work with game world descriptors, and not use conventional RPG mechanics. Here's what you won't see:

Strength: 17
Hitpoints: 56
Sword skill: 95%

Here's what you might see (quoted from Kingfisher book on The Medieval World by Philip Steele):

Salah-ed-din Yussuf ibn Ayub... was the most famous Saracen. In Europe, he was known as Saladin. Of Kurdish birth, he was a skilled general who became a ruler of Egypt and Syria. He was wise and admired by some Christian knights for his chivalrous behaviour.

From this short character description, we can see that the character Saladin has descriptors based on real world terms, which are:

the most famous Saracen;
Kurdish;
Skilled General;
Ruler of Egypt and Syria;
Wise;
Admired by some Christian knights;
Chivalrous;

So if this was the description of a character in a Medieval RPG game, we can see that Saladin would automatically suceed in any actions that would involved these descriptors and didn't involve opposition.

Let's try out some actions. Saladin leads a force of Saracens versus a force of Christian knights. Who wins? Saladin. Why? because he's a General and the leader of the Christian knight's force wasn't significant enough to mention.

What if the Christian knights had Count Raymond as their general? Saladin would still win because Saladin is a Skilled General, while Count Raymond is just a general. The battle would be harder.

What if the Christian knights had a highly experienced general in charge? This gets a little trickier, because it's a highly experienced general versus a skilled general. Maybe 40/60 respectively? It's really up to a dice roll now.

What if Saladin was taunted or challenged to single combat to decide a battle? Would Saladin accept? Probably not because Saladin is Wise enough to resist this method of loosing a battle.

What if Saladin was caught up in single combat in a battle, perhaps the 40/60 battle above? He's a skilled general, but there's no special mention of extraordinary skill at arms. So in a fight with a christian knight, the battle would probably be 50/50 as we can assume being a skilled general and the most famous saracen, he's at least equal in fighting ability to an average christian knight.

This is the kind of game I'm wanting to write up and play.

Andrew Martin

01-08-2002, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by Tim Kirk
A Pool of Points call them "Plot Lynchpins" or "Plot Points" or whatever, when the game begins the player can spend these points to perform actions--as many as they like.
...
What do ya think? [/B]

Too many numbers and the pool of points is too obviously a game mechanic with no correspondence to characters or other setting things. Sorry.

But "Magical Soul Drinking Sword" is a nice descriptor to have in the game. It's clearly better than your everyday magical sword and is far better than a sword. Perhaps a 3:1 advantage over a sword? In the hands of mythical hero, it would slay hundreds and thousands! Mmmmm, hundreds and thousands... :D

Andrew Martin

01-08-2002, 12:51 AM

Leviathan wrote:
> So how would one avoid the attacks of the character if one stated in their character background "____ can wield their sword with great might!"

Let's look at the descriptors for your character in this situation:

Sword;
Great Might -- two descriptors "Great" and "Might";

Let's check out the other side has to offer to resist this. Seems like nothing. OK, opponent is out of the fight. What would you like to do next, finish them off or do something else? :D This is because the opponent brings nothing to the combat, so the opponent is automatically defeated, at a probability ratio of 3:0 or three applicable descriptors to none.

Let's put your character up against Saladin. :cool: Again, you've got three applicable descriptors for the fight. Saladin has at least these descriptors (based on being a Saracen):

fine Sword;
round shield;
mail coat;
Skilled General;

The swords are about the same as Saladin's fine sword would be much the same in combat versus a sword. Round Shield and Mail Coat would certainly help against the damage inflicted by Great Might. Skilled General would also help, probably best as one descriptor instead not two. So the ratio looks like 3:4 for your character versus Saladin respectively. Either party could get hurt.

At this point, it would be a good idea to check for appropriate combat tactics, if one wants a more detailed resolution of the conflict.

An alternative resolution is to compare your attacking descriptors versus Saladin's defending descriptors, your defending descriptors versus Saladin's attacking descriptors, your damage descriptors versus Saladin's protection descriptors, and your protection descriptors versus Saladin's attacking descriptors. This could make for a more interesting combat, where gaining and loosing the initiative matters.

Tim Kirk

01-08-2002, 12:53 AM

So you really are advocating a system that just values things ambiguously rather than one which has hard values.

I mean "Fair" "Good" "Highly" "Poor" "Feeble" "Amazing"

Really are subjective, not only to each person, but to each genre, setting and even in some cases individual characters.

For example:

I want a character who is a an amazingly skilled swordsman,

So is amazingly better than highly? Is it better than "Great" or worse than "fantastic"?

Even if you wrote up what each one represented your /still/ assigning a value to them,

If you say the heirarchy looks like this from best to wors

Amazing
Fantastic
Stupendous
Good
Fair
Fine
Poor
Feeble

Your still numbering them /by/ valuing them...

If Amazing is higher than Fantastic and the scale is 8 things then it's 8! and Feeble is one so why not say

Bob has Skill 7 with sword?

Why the ambiguous fog, of obfuscation in between.

Lunamancer

01-08-2002, 12:56 AM

Something Ric Flair used to say. If Johnny "the Best" Mann always wins against Ricky "the Runner" Upton, how can Ricky ever change and evolve in such a way to become "the Best"?

So if this was the description of a character in a Medieval RPG game, we can see that Saladin would automatically suceed in any actions that would involved these descriptors and didn't involve opposition.

Let's try out some actions. Saladin leads a force of Saracens versus a force of Christian knights. Who wins? Saladin. Why? because he's a General and the leader of the Christian knight's force wasn't significant enough to mention.

So, virtual unknowns never rise to the occasion and beat the established top dog? For that matter, the more skilled opponent never has a bad day? In the case of actions sans opposition, the wise never make foolish mistakes? Of the fool fails at all feats of wisdom? Another old saying goes, "Even a broken clock is right twice per day."

What if the Christian knights had a highly experienced general in charge? This gets a little trickier, because it's a highly experienced general versus a skilled general. Maybe 40/60 respectively? It's really up to a dice roll now.

So we take these vague descriptors, translate them into numbers so that we can actually do something with them, and from there treat it like it were an actual RPG?

I've got a little innovation for ya--how about start with the numbers to begin with, that way we have more precise descriptors and something more to work with when we've got to make that die roll to see if someone succeeds or not?

I've said this before, numbers are better descriptors than words. What tells you more--the car was going speeding, or the car was going 60 miles per hour? The very meaning of "speeding" varies depending upon the speed limit of the road you're talking about, and still will not lead one to automatically conclude 60 MPH.

As much as I try to see the advantage to this style of RPG, I simply cannot find one.

Andrew Martin

01-08-2002, 01:16 AM

Tim Kirk wrote:
> So you really are advocating a system that just values things ambiguously rather than one which has hard values.

Not quite. The description contains the descriptors. They don't fit on a scale. When descriptor/s are compared to opposing descriptor/s, it's only then we determine whether there's automatic success or failure, or a dice roll.

> I want a character who is an amazingly skilled swordsman. So is amazingly better than highly? Is it better than "Great" or worse than "fantastic"?

I'm refusing to say. All I can tell is that your character is a swordsman, who is amazingly skilled, which is at least three descriptors applicable to swordsmanship. :)

> Why the ambiguous fog, of obfuscation in between?

Only by testing your character's skill at swordsmanship (by fighting another character), can your character be sure of their ability and only for that conflict against that opponent. By throwing away statistical certainty (hard numbers), I force players to think about what their character is doing in a combat or other critical situation. They no longer have the confidence to just say, "I hit" because they know that they have X% chance of hitting, but must work at either adding more descriptors to their side or being cautious or attempting to remove descriptors from the other side.

Tim Kirk

01-08-2002, 01:35 AM

Only by testing your character's skill at swordsmanship (by fighting another character), can your character be sure of their ability and only for that conflict against that opponent. By throwing away statistical certainty (hard numbers), I force players to think about what their character is doing in a combat or other critical situation. They no longer have the confidence to just say, "I hit" because they know that they have X% chance of hitting, but must work at either adding more descriptors to their side or being cautious or attempting to remove descriptors from the other side.
----

The problem with that is within a few game sessions the Player will know /anyway/. Secondly games with more substantial systems tend to allow one to modify things based on situations--so a Sword skill 5, is often only as /hard/ a measure of the ability, as saying Good with Swords.

In a game which relies strictly on linear advancement (D&D), I can see the reason for contention. In games which don't-- that rather allow individual advancement of skills, you really don't have that problem. Having Skill 24 in Gurps, or Skill 5 in BESM is really good. But Situational modifiers still impact that greatly, and at least those modifiers are spelled out for GM's especially /new/ GM's and new players to use.

Remember RPG's use rules, for at least one purpose-- So you don't get into "No he doesn't"/"Yes he did" kind of bickering. In an Ideal world people would trust each other to be fair. But we are far from an ideal world. I've played in too many games to entirely trust a GM I've not played dozens of games under to be fair (because those GM's had favortism towards me, towards their SO's, towards another players SO and the like) since this is the case any /system/ should be able to deal with both the best GM's and give a leg up for the worst...

Unfortunatly I don't see how your system is better than me playing "lets pretend" when I was 8.
So show me more, dazzle me, and prove me wrong...

Andrew Martin

01-08-2002, 01:44 AM

Lunamancer wrote:
> how can Ricky ever change and evolve in such a way to become "the Best"?

How does one do this in real life? Study, practice, train, get a coach, etc. then add this extra training to one's description.

> So, virtual unknowns never rise to the occasion and beat the established top dog?

An unknown is unknown. No one knows their skill. If the top dog is overconfident and so careless, then they will be beaten.

> For that matter, the more skilled opponent never has a bad day?

The more skilled opponent fighting versus a skilled character? Sounds like a string of failures of 60/40 to me.

> In the case of actions sans opposition, the wise never make foolish mistakes?

Of course these are possible. But only for a brief moment. Prolonged application of a skill compensates for mistakes. Are brief mistakes important to overall skill resolution? I don't think they are. They're only important if one is doing detailed resolution of things like combat, where brief mistakes can be fatal.

> Or the fool fails at all feats of wisdom?

Why not? They are a fool after all. If your character is a wise fool, then that's a different matter.

> Another old saying goes, "Even a broken clock is right twice per day."

And the broken clock is wrong for nearly 24 hours every day! Even when it's right, do we know when it's right? Only by comparison to clocks that show the right time.

> So we take these vague descriptors, translate them into numbers so that we can actually do something with them, and from there treat it like it were an actual RPG?

Nope. The descriptors are not turned into numbers. They're merely compared to each other and a probability assigned for that one occasion, much like real life and most game settings.

> I've got a little innovation for ya--how about start with the numbers to begin with, that way we have more precise descriptors and something more to work with when we've got to make that die roll to see if someone succeeds or not?

There isn't a need for precise numbers to match inexact attributes and skills. Instead we just need a way of comparing description to description.

> I've said this before, numbers are better descriptors than words. What tells you more--the car was going speeding, or the car was going 60 miles per hour? The very meaning of "speeding" varies depending upon the speed limit of the road you're talking about, and still will not lead one to automatically conclude 60 MPH.

Real world descriptors are even more better. What's more descriptive?

The car was going speeding;
The car was going 60 miles per hour;
The car was going at MOVE: 194;

Now let's imagine I'm trying to pursue this car. What speed do I have be at to match the car? I think 60 miles per hour is a better descriptor than the traditional game attribute of MOVE: 194.

> As much as I try to see the advantage to this style of RPG, I simply cannot find one.

I hope I've changed your mind. If not, please blame my bad writing.

Andrew Martin

01-08-2002, 02:52 AM

Tim Kirk wrote:
> So show me more, dazzle me, and prove me wrong...

Difficulties so far (as I interpret Tim Kirk's message):

Players knowing the odds;
Modifying odds -- How does one do this?;
Situational modifiers -- need to be spelled out?;
Favouritism and fairness;

Please forgive me, if I've missed any difficulties out.

Conflict resolution over long periods of time, such as battles, crafting pots, writing rules sets (I'm terrible at this!:) ), driving a car, writing a email, and so on is probably covered by simple use of an applicable descriptor.

For example, a potter will be able to make pots all day long, provided the potter has clay, tools and what not. One can see that the simple descriptor of "Potter" is enough for a character to have the capacity to make pots. There's no need to roll dice, or have a random chance to see if things go wrong. No doubt as the potter works, there will be mistakes made, but those mistakes will be observed and corrected.

What if those mistakes weren't corrected by the potter? Then that must mean that the potter is worse than other potters, perhaps a amateur potter, or a unskilled potter? Or maybe the potter is forced to work with clay that's not up to scratch, or a furnace that's got an unseen fault, or a wheel that wobbles. Some of these circumstances can cause the potter's production of pottery to have minor or major flaws, or to stop production entirely.

Let's say the furnace runs out of fuel and stops midway through firing a load. Then obviously all the pottery in the furnace would be spoiled. There's no need to roll dice. It's automatic failure, no matter how much skill the potter has.

What if the clay had a defect? Then the potter would likely spot this problem right away, once the clay is checked, and would be able to take appropriate action to compensate, usually by replacing the clay. If forced to work the defective clay, say, by a harsh taskmaster or bad ethical judgement (each of which is a descriptor), then the finished pots would be defective to any that bother to check.

Let's say the potter wants to make a pot to impress a merchant. What should the potter do? The potter could:

visit a expert potter and ask for training to be a better potter;
select a better grade of clay than normal;
spend extra care and attention on the forming, firing and glazing of the pot;
buy a high quality pot from the expert potter;
visit a mage and buy a charm to place on a pot;
study the artistic sensibilities of the merchant so as to pick a suitable style finish for the pot;
obtain a rare and expensive gem to be part of the pot;
or some thing else.

The results of these actions could be no pot, or one pot. If it's no pot, the potter could try again provided other circumstances allow. If it's one pot, the potter will undoubtedly check on the pot's quality and make sure sure it's at least standard quality (unless the potter is foolish (descriptor)...).

So we have a pot with a number of extra descriptors attached to it. The potter looks at pot with it's descriptors. Is it enough to suit the merchant? The potter won't know until the pot is presented to the merchant. All the potter knows is that there's been a lot of extra effort put into this pot. The potter could be cautious (descriptor) and show the pot to other potters, like the expert potter, and take advice from others. Or the potter could be rash (descriptor), and take the pot to the merchant immediately, straight from the furnace.

Obviously, the player of the potter has the goal to achieve 100% success, but doesn't know where that point is. This is just like real life. The real test of the potter's desire to impress the merchant with a pot comes when the pot meets the merchant. Only then is the comparison made between the pot's descriptors and the merchant's artistic sensibilities.

Spiral

01-08-2002, 03:09 AM

First off, let me say I really like the idea of descriptors et al.

There are, however, a few things that I'd like clarified. E.g. how does a "Very skilled at chess" descriptor compare to "Amazing chess-player"? Very+skilled+chess should by rights equal 3 desriptors; this seems somewhat counter-intuitive when amazing+chess-player equals 2 descriptors.

See my point? This is where my efforts always strand when I try to go the descriptor route. Solve this, and I'm a happy man. ;)

Patrick Chipman

01-08-2002, 04:11 AM

The only easy way I can see for this problem to be adjudicated is through the use of some sort of "denotative strength" per descriptor, which can range from the GM simply saying "amazing" is better than "very skilled" to a dictionary-sized book with rankings for every possible modifier to a descriptor.

One major problem I see with a descriptive system is that human language is a very dicey, ambiguous thing, and one function of RPG rules is to provide an unambiguous way to impartially decide superiority in a conflict. The use of numerical descriptors in which a higher number equals superiority is one way to handle this, and is one weakness of more systems than one would think at first. WoD Storyteller, for instance, suffers from a statistical anomaly that makes higher descriptors a liability at high difficulties. Without an unambiguous way of deciding superiority, the system boils down to someone's fiat, which defeats the whole "impartial conflict resolver" aspect of RPG rules.

NPC Whymme

01-08-2002, 04:21 AM

First, this does come close to freeform gaming. I used that method often to show people what roleplaying games was. They already know about the game part; when freeforming, I showed them the story part. First roughly establish world and character by asking questions and shaping things according to player input, then quickly think of a plot and start with the story, often asking "What do you do?" and adapting the story according to their answers. It never failed to enthuse people.

Second, I'd like to refer to my game "Legend" that I presented in the old forums. No stats, just character background. Players would use a hundred words to describe their characters, and then underline ten traits (in answer to Spiral, in 'Legend' "Very skilled at chess" would be one trait, not three).
The game has dice, though; you take a number of dice from a pool and roll them, counting successes. Your descriptions determine what the target number for success is. I put that in because I wanted to have some game element in, something challenging the players. This pool of dice could be replaced by a pool of pebbles without too much trouble, though, giving you action points instead of dice.

I still have to rewrite the game; I have some ideas that I want to incorporate in it. But 'Legend' is one of the games that comes very close to Levekius' ideal, I think.

Whymme

AndyGuest

01-08-2002, 05:08 AM

Not sure if this adds much to the conversation but it seems worth mentioning (and also has a certain irony attached to it due to S John Ross's indifference to the thread).

There is a mid-way between the two styles discussed so far and it is shown best (IMHO) in the Risus RPG (free on the net somewhere). It does assign values (in the form of a number and a type of dice) to abilities but instead of giving a set list of attributes/skills/etc it uses cliches to describe a character.

So your barbarian isn't Strong 4D6, Tough 3D6, Sword, 5D6 he's described as Dirty Great Barbarian 4D6. He has a value of 4D6 when doing anything that applies to being a dirty great barbarian. Your barbarian can have as many cliches as you are willing to assign dice to, he could also be Cunning Thief 3D6, Terrific Lover 2D6 and Gourmet Chef 2D6.

This means that characters are described more naturally and means the GM has to judge how cliches interact/oppose each other but it does nicely fill the gap that seems to separate the two viewpoints.

GB Steve

01-08-2002, 06:11 AM

I don't really understand why going diceless and/or statless is such a big deal.

Playing a role is something we do naturally in many everyday situations: the breakfast table, church, the football field, at work etc.

We only have a vague notion of what our own capabilities are so why does a PC need to be tied down to the n-th decimal place? This will not make the experience any better. It will not make it any worse either for that matter, it will just be different.

Free roleplaying is not something to be scared of, it's an experience to try. If you like it, go with it. If not, where's the loss?

Jack Spencer

01-08-2002, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by Sjohn
Of course, you're correct. It's super-popular, and has been taking the hobby by storm. How silly of me not to notice it before you enlightened me.

If all you have is sarcasm and sly put-downs, this will simplify things.

leviathan

01-08-2002, 07:27 AM

Ahhh... What progress you all have made. I'd like to say a few things though. (;

First of all. Why must people insist on insulting each other? Grrr.. it's counterproductive and all around annoying. Blarg. *puts on the brass knuckles and braces for impact* (:
~~~~

GB Steve: "I don't really understand why going diceless and/or statless is such a big deal."

It's is quite a big deal. It acts as a way to get more interesting stories and plots. When there are no stats to be earned or refered to, characters are fleshed out more. Players get into their characters more. They start using them as extensions of themselves, and this improvised fantasy game becomes that much more immersive.

"Playing a role is something we do naturally in many everyday situations: the breakfast table, church, the football field, at work etc." 

...however, we do not pilot futuristic spacecraft or conjure energies so that we might shoot fire from or fingertips. Roleplaying is about filling those roles that we cannot fill physically. When was the last time you saw someone have a gunfight with a mob of mercenaries who steal magical items to gain influence in their domains? When was the last time you crafted a sword enchanted with the strength of the gods? Mmm? Or do you have hobbies that we don't know about? (; These are not just 'everyday roles'.

~~~~

Andrew Martin: "Difficulties so far (as I interpret Tim Kirk's message): Players knowing the odds; Modifying odds -- How does one do this?; Situational modifiers -- need to be spelled out?; Favouritism and fairness;" 

The odds shouldn't matter. What advances the plot in the most interesting way is what matters. Now... deciding who wins a battle or a contest of somesort should be decided by.. well.. roleplay. Roleplay it out and let the chips fall as they may. Let the players decide what happens to their character, taking into consideration the situation at hand. If the resolution is unfair.. then the other players should give input or the DM should take it over. It's a negotiation process. I'll explain later in this post.

"Obviously, the player of the potter has the goal to achieve 100% success, but doesn't know where that point is. This is just like real life. The real test of the potter's desire to impress the merchant with a pot comes when the pot meets the merchant. Only then is the comparison made between the pot's descriptors and the merchant's artistic sensibilities." 

*nods* I agree. The potter's only desire is to make or find a good pot and impress the merchant. The result of making the pot and impressing the merchant should be settled through roleplay.

It's kinda like how they have charisma stats in RPGs. But really matters of charisma should be settled with roleplay. Take a look at the precepts in 'the window' for reference. www.mimgames.com/window/

~~~~

Okay... time to put my 2 cents in....

What you all are trying to do here has been done for years. Infact, I've done it for a while. However, this method of roleplaying is in the form of online content text-based roleplaying. MUXen and MUSHes. These are the types of games I learned about freeform roleplaying from.

Action resolution in these games went as follows. Every player in the game wants the most interesting plot possible. To gain an interesting plot, they can afford to be cut in battle. They can afford to have their character to get a little dirty inorder to advance the plot.

For example, say Arazel of the "Black Guard" is protecting his lord's estate. A simple description of Arazel would be, "A tall man with bulging muscles who's features suggest dark aliance." You have your descriptors right there. Tall with Bulging muscles. That would give the impression of strength but not the impression of speed. His dark appearances would also work in his favor, since his look instils fear in certain people.

Now.. A young woman by the name of Erial rides up to the Lord's estate. A simple description of her would be, "A woman with a lean figure and alluring appeal. Frail but with a hint of strength. She appears to be of elvish decent." Now.. You have your descriptors for Erial. Lean (on the frail side), alluring, slightly strong with elvish decent. The lean part would give the impression of agility/speed... and the slightly strong part would make Erial at least able to wield a bow/dagger/light sword, ride a horse, and other things. Her elvish decent would make her able to sense life force, have infared vision, or whatever 'special ability' elves have in this campaign. For the purposes of this scenario, let's just say that elves have better vision than others.

So.. back to the scenario.. Erial rides up to the dark lord's estate, which Arazel is guarding, stopping 15 maybe 20 ft away from him. She says to him in a soft voice, "Might I ask of your help?" Arazel doesn't respond and reguards the elvish woman with a cold gaze. "I am looking for the dark lord.. I have a message for him. It's urgent," she pleads. "I have no business with you," Arazel says in a tone as cold as his gaze. "Very well then," she says as she slowly places one hand on her shortbow, the other hand loosening on the reigns of her horse as to reach for her quiver. Seeing the elf's actions, he places his hand over the handle of the flail on his belt and speaks once more, "If you wish death so easily, a high cliff might be more convenient. Otherwise, you've come to the right place."

Now! Something like this would be easily handled in a text-based gaming situation. They would start roleplaying with the following in mind: The elf is quicker and more focused, has the mobility advantage of a horse, and the distance advantage of a bow. The black guardsman has the advantage of strength as well as combat experience, but he is not mounted, and is skilled in close range combat. If he plays his cards right, he could suceed in this battle, but it is most likely that the elf will immobilize Arazel with a few quick arrows in the shoulder or something.

The players would have to just negotiate what happens with the help of the GM. In text-based situations.. this is done without the help of a GM. You would just roleplay until you got to a point where your skills would come in handy for you and settle it as you go. It still takes a lot of responsibility to play this way, as you know... but in ideal situations, it works WELL. Most of the munchkins leave after finding out that they have to write sentances (*gasp!*) to describe their character, so the problems weed themselves out. But is it that easy in real life to weed out munchkin players? I could imagine that, "I don't wanna play... I have to READ!" I know some people are admittedly anti-reading... but around a group of 'creative' people who love to read and write, peer pressure insues. Blah blah blah.. more social BS.

So lets apply this to the scenario. Erial swiftly pulls an arrow from the quiver on her back, placing it in on the bow and pulling back, aiming for arazel's shoulder. "Underestimation is the downfall of all of your kind, you misguided soul," she says in retort, returning a scolding gaze. In anger Arazel charges at Erial with flail in air. She lets two arrows fly one is nullified by his plated mail.. one sinks right into his shoulder. Blood drips down his side. But being resiliant he charges foreward. The horse panic and backs up. Arazel swings his flail striking Erial in the thigh... The horse backs even more, panicing under the stress. That gives erial more distance... so 2 more arrows fly... both missing completely. Arazel catches up and swings his flail again, this time it hits the horse. The horse bleeds but stands resiliant, only trying to make distance between it and the black guard. The players agree that Erial should win this one, but not without some sacrafice. Two more arrows spiral across the distance; one striking him in the torso, the other missing completely. So Arazel falls in pain... one arrow in his abdomen... one in his shoulder. Lying on the floor, he catches his breath. Erial climbs down from her horse, limps over to arazel and aims her bow at his face, his cold visage still present. "Never underestimate. Maybe it was you who should have sought out that high cliff?" she taunts as he looses blood from his injuries. Arazel smiles a mocking smile. But suddenly a large hand unsheaths a dagger and thrusts upward, leaving a bloody gash on Erial's calf. She falls under the pain... and arazel faints from blood lossage.

In traditional games, this whole scene would have been tacked on top of die roll after die roll... after die roll... With HP calculations and such.

So basically, a consistant character creation is needed, not a form of action resolution. Action resolution in this 'system' should just be inforcing the analyzation of character descriptions to come up with interesting resolutions to actions. Resolution is a philosophy/guideline, and not set in stone. Just as life is never set in stone. The descriptions of the characters should serve as the action resolution. However, these descriptions need to be consistant and the players need to be responsible anti-munchkins for this to work.

I hope this gave ya'll a few ideas. (:

Whoaaa... 10000 words almost. Wheee. I could write a midterm on this subject! (;

~Lev~

Jack Spencer

01-08-2002, 07:56 AM

hmmm the discussion here is on a track that I'm not particularly fond of.

I do not like the scale of modifiers (amasing, etc.) because that's just the FUDGE scale and the FUDGE scale is just barely hidden numbers. Look at the scale Tim came up with. Start with the top and start counting them. Now imagine those numbers are right next to each word. See. Numbers.

Square one.

May I suggest using a method that doesn't key on the typical items that a RPG keys on. Namely character abilities, chances for success/failure and so on.

I wish I could explain this further but its one of those concepts I have but don't have, if you follow.

I suppose it's like the climax to that old Danny Kaye movie. The Court Jester, if memory serves. He was hypnotized into thinking he was an expert swordsman. The problem was he would switch back & forth whenever someone would snap their fingers. The sword fight with the main bad guy had a lot of finger snapping. "I'm going to finish you just like *that*" The thing is, Kaye the non-swordsman was just as effective if not moreso flailing around his sword in panic.

This may not be realistic, but it is fun and with all the other silly stuff that goes on in a game I see no reason to not want something like this.

So what we need are a set of rules that key on a sense of timing, a sense of drama.

And we will need some form of device, I think. Be it plot points or something similar. Without something like that, we are dealing with just freeform because there's nothing much to write rules for.

or such is my opinion on the matter.

Jack Spencer

01-08-2002, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by leviathan
First of all. Why must people insist on insulting each other? Grrr.. it's counterproductive and all around annoying. Blarg.

Quite right. I let my temper get the better of me. Appologies to all.

JELEINEN

01-08-2002, 11:25 AM

Am I the only one who thinks that the systems beind described here sound more complicated than ones that use numbers? Sitting there and figuring which descriptor is better would take longer and require judgement that might possibly faulty than just comparing a couple of numbers. Plus, I don't see it adding anything of real value to the roleplaying experience.

Take, for instance, when I run Talislanta. I am very familiar with the core mechanic and I know what all the numbers mean. When my player wants his character to do something, it takes very little time and effort to determine the results. After, I just describe what those results are. The system fades into the background, and no one doubts my judgement on the matter or worries about if the character's description is good enough. And what's more, I'm sure everyone here can say the same thing about a system they like and know well.

GB Steve

01-08-2002, 12:57 PM

I've done quite a bit of free roleplay GMing. It has ranged from Rune Quest where the only mechanism was POW and Rune Magic through diceless Over The Edge (in a number of genres: Buffy, CoC, Aliens) with PCs having 4 traits written in plain English to just plain background notes.

I have never had any problems with players not accepting the lack of dice nor resolution through GM fiat, albeit tempered by player expression, even at conventions with players I don't know.

You can complicate matters as much as you like in with or without dice. What it really boils down to is the players trusting the GM to make a good game (which doesn't necessarily mean being reasonable) and the GM trusting the players enough to let them have their moment of self-expression.

I've also never been accused of railroading a diceless game. Railroading isn't really about what system you use, it's about how much freedom of action you allow the players. Even if it's illusory freedom of action it doesn't matter - the whole game's an illusion anyway, as long as the players can't tell.

I like diceless because it removes the focus from the "dice game" that also happens with rpgs. Players focus on rolling a number rather than acting out the character. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it's just personal preference.

I also find that dice and mechanisms tend to slow down action. I prefer an exchange of descriptions of what the player is attempting and what the GM lets happen. This can be at several different levels to a blow by blow description of every action in a fight to the player mentioning their goal and me describing how it is achieved.

A great strength of diceless is that scales are not a problem. With most games you have a method of resolving actions which have a short duration, such as combat, or a long duration, such as looking for a reference in a library but there is no particular way of mixing the two. One that does spring to mind is the Battle mechanism in Pendragon in which the Battle skill roll influences the encounters a PC makes during the fight. However there is no general way of dealing with this.

Also it is hard to model the way in which contests can have a complete reversal of fortune. Mostly in RPGs, if you are winning you will win and vice versa. Hero Wars comes close but is too abstract, descriptive gaming gets round this difficulty by making the description of what is happening not only the point of the game but also the mechanism.

I guess that's why I'm so drawn to Over The Edge. Traits are defined to do whatever you mean by them, not what somebody else has limited them to meaning.

Ian Absentia

01-08-2002, 01:29 PM

Jack wrote:
I do not like the scale of modifiers (amasing, etc.) because that's just the FUDGE scale and the FUDGE scale is just barely hidden numbers. Look at the scale Tim came up with. Start with the top and start counting them. Now imagine those numbers are right next to each word. See. Numbers.

Square one.

May I suggest using a method that doesn't key on the typical items that a RPG keys on. Namely character abilities, chances for success/failure and so on.

[...snip...]

So what we need are a set of rules that key on a sense of timing, a sense of drama.

And we will need some form of device, I think. Be it plot points or something similar. Without something like that, we are dealing with just freeform because there's nothing much to write rules for.
Okay, you're echoing my sympathies very clearly. This is a topic with which I have been wrestling for some time now. The solution toward which I'm working is to shift the focus away from a literal description of the characters' abilities and onto a subjective perception of their abilities -- their reputations. What this entails is a game where the players do not portray the characters so much as they portray storytellers relating the characters' stories. In the course of relating accounts of the characters' actions, all players in attendance cast votes for or against the claim by casting lots -- either they support a character's reputation and cast a lot in his favor, or they don't support it and they cast a lot against it. The storyteller in question then draws a random lot to decide whether or not his character was successful. Thus, there are no set and fixed numbers on the character sheet -- abilities are gauged on an instance-by-instance basis according to the assembled group's support or rejection of a character's reputation.

So, is that getting closer to the sort of thing you're postulating? I'm eager to hear of other attempts people have made to truly eliminate ranked scaling (i.e. numbers) from RPGs without going totally freeform.

~Ian

GB Steve

01-08-2002, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Ian Young
In the course of relating accounts of the characters' actions, all players in attendance cast votes for or against the claim by casting lots -- either they support a character's reputation and cast a lot in his favor, or they don't support it and they cast a lot against it. The storyteller in question then draws a random lot to decide whether or not his character was successful. Thus, there are no set and fixed numbers on the character sheet -- abilities are gauged on an instance-by-instance basis according to the assembled group's support or rejection of a character's reputation.

You are talking about mechanism which are similar to those in some of the New Style games. Baron Munchausen uses betting and duelling (scissor paper stone) for personal disagreements and voting for group decisions (weighted against those that loose bets), Pantheon something similar too but with vetoes. Your version weights the probablity of the decision towards that which the players favour. Of course neither of these games has a GM.

BM's mechanism has the added attraction that it is integrated within the style of the game which adds to the atmosphere.

Mithras

01-08-2002, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by blackguard
Games have variability, which is the reason nearly every game pits one person against another or requires some form of input variability in the form of dice

Where's the variability in Scrabble? Or Chess? Or Draughts or Poker?

They are games, are they not. THey rely on skill. A good diceless game relies on the skill of the players, not on the vagueries of the GM

Ian Absentia

01-08-2002, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by GB Steve
You are talking about mechanism which are similar to those in some of the New Style games.

Good eye, and I humbly bow to Hogshead in general, James Wallis more specifically, and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen most specifically for the inspiration for my reputation-and-lots mechanism. Where I diverged is in attempting to create a randomising mechanic, rather than just waiting for one player or another to trip up and admit he's run out of ideas. In essence (and gross terms), my proposed mechanic asks the assembled players to tally up all the positive and negative modifiers bearing upon the immediate task, and then generate a random result based on those odds. Of course, those odds are in turn based upon the players' subjective perception and opinion, rather than upon fixed quidelines. I also propose the declaration by players of their characters' purported reputations (whether or not they meet with the agreement of the other players), rather than the no-holds-barred bullshitting of BM -- not that that's a bad thing within the context of that particular game.

As far as the role of GMs go, my proposal includes a player with a role that closely mirrors one, though with much more parity with the other players.

BM's mechanism has the added attraction that it is integrated within the style of the game which adds to the atmosphere.

As I intend to do with mine. I believe it can be tailored quite well to a variety of different settings, though I've been designing it with one particular setting in mind.

~Ian

Tim Kirk

01-08-2002, 03:48 PM

Part of my problem with "generic" descriptors is, they require you to have immense amounts of information in order to value them--something a set number in a scale doesn't really do.

If I say John Criminy is VERY Strong.

What do you see? Someone rippling with muscles?
A giant?

If I say John Criminiy is very strong for a skinny teenager.

What do you see?

If I say John Criminiy is very strong for a skinny teenager who is permanatly shrunk to the size of a Cricket, hence his superhero name "The Cricket" what does that tell you? He can lift a penny? He's so "very" strong. All this could have been relegated to me as a GM as "J. Criminiy aka the Cricket, has a Strength of 2 in the standard scale we use for the game."

Now "very strong" is still true, for him being 3 inches tall.

On the other hand.

Richard A. Johnston is very strong, he's tall, has a wonderful physique, and is noted as the strongest of his race.

Richard A Johnston (is Americanized name) is really Ricca Ajonnsa
the Third, High Imperial Guard of the Kiuda peoples, and he is 12 foot tall.

The problem with descriptors is, they don't say very much, but use a lot of words to do so--sure it's evocataive at times, but having a scale with which to compare them, as well as understanding directly how they relate to one another, helps significantly.

Knowing RAJ has a STR 20 in the same scale as Cricket. Tells me far more than "very" "amazing" "impressive"

nearly any descriptor you use, because language, all language is an oprational referent. You say "Tree" and we who speak english all can imagine a tree, but we all don't imagine the /exact same tree/ just the same as "might" "very" "highly"
don't get us to envision the same levels of ability.

Andrew Martin

01-08-2002, 04:01 PM

Spiral wrote:
> First off, let me say I really like the idea of descriptors et al.

Me, too. :)

> There are, however, a few things that I'd like clarified. E.g. how does a "Very skilled at chess" descriptor compare to "Amazing chess-player"? Very+skilled+chess should by rights equal 3 desriptors; this seems somewhat counter-intuitive when amazing+chess-player equals 2 descriptors. See my point? This is where my efforts always strand when I try to go the descriptor route. Solve this, and I'm a happy man. ;)

First off, try to write the descriptors as a complete sentence, part of a paragraph of description. For example:

Alphonse is very skilled at chess.

and:

Beatrice is an amazing chess-player.

Now we can see that from these descriptions that Beatrice is a chess-player -- in other words, professional. Alphonse happens to be very skilled at chess, but clearly is not a professional, otherwise this fact would have been in his descriptors! So therefore Beatrice wins virtually every chess-game with maybe a 1% chance of failure if you want to be picky. Now let's say:

Alphonse is a very skilled chess-player.

Now we can compare Alphonse and Beatrice as they are both professional chess-players. Alphonse is very skilled, Beatrice is amazing. I'd say that Beatrice will win most games as "amazing" sounds better to me than "very skilled".

As to what odds "most" is, it depends upon the players and how far apart they see "very skilled" and "amazing". I'd do a quick poll of all players, and work out the average of the odds based on all players input, then roll a dice.

Naturally, if this chess game was important, then things like tactics would come into play. If the game wasn't too important, just go for the most likely probability.

Andrew Martin

01-08-2002, 04:54 PM

Tim Kirk wrote:
> Part of my problem with "generic" descriptors is, they require you to have immense amounts of information in order to value them...

With sufficient structure of the setting, this doesn't need to be that way. Plus we get the advantage of being able to use real world experience.

> ...something a set number in a scale doesn't really do.

But a set number in a scale only measures ability within that scale, not ability outside that scale. Descriptors handle any range of abilities and skills in terms everyone is familiar with from real world experience, books, plays, television and movies.

> If I say John Criminy is VERY Strong.
> What do you see? Someone rippling with muscles? A giant?

I can see that John Criminy is obviously very strong. If he's rippling with muscles or a giant, shouldn't that be described?

> If I say John Criminy is very strong for a skinny teenager. What do you see?

I see a skinny teenager who's obviously very strong.

> If I say John Criminy is very strong for a skinny teenager who is permanently shrunk to the size of a Cricket, hence his superhero name "The Cricket" what does that tell you?

Exactly what it describes. No more, no less.

> He can lift a penny?

That depends, because being shrunk to the size of cricket is just being shrunk to the size of the cricket, does this affect the character's strength? I don't think so, because the character description doesn't specify this. So provided that a skinny teenager could lift this particular penny, so could John Crimminy. Of course in your game setting, perhaps size does affect character strength, in which case, this fact needs to passed on to other players.

> He's so "very" strong. All this could have been relegated to me as a GM as "J. Criminiy aka the Cricket, has a Strength of 2 in the standard scale we use for the game.

With "2" as a Strength score, how can player's interpret it? What does it mean?

> Richard A. Johnston is very strong, he's tall, has a wonderful physique, and is noted as the strongest of his race.

> Richard A Johnston (is Americanized name) is really Ricca Ajonnsa the Third, High Imperial Guard of the Kiuda peoples, and he is 12 foot tall.

These descriptions are far more evocative than merely specifying 2 or 20 on a numerical scale.

> The problem with descriptors is, they don't say very much, but use a lot of words to do so--sure it's evocative at times, but having a scale with which to compare them, as well as understanding directly how they relate to one another, helps significantly.

Most definitely. With normal humans there's the scales of normal human ability. For example, tall and short refer to differences from the average height of a race, building, tree, monument, leg length, and so on. Clearly a tall person has an advantage in things like looking into high windows, and looking impressive. While a short person avoids bumping into low doors, and needs some aid to look into a high window.

> Knowing RAJ has a STR 20 in the same scale as Cricket. Tells me far more than "very" "amazing" "impressive".

Along with a special strength scale, one also needs a weight scale. Can Cricket lift the penny with his Strength: 2 attribute? I don't know. What's the weight of a penny? Some one might reply it weighs about 4 grammes, will that do? No, it's got to be in game system speak. This leads to arguing about the rules. Instead let's go back to the descriptor:

"John Criminy is very strong for a skinny teenager who is permanently shrunk to the size of a Cricket,..."

Can a person pick up a penny? Easily. 100% success. Even a child and a novice player can agree on this and even play it out in real life. So clearly Cricket can pick up the penny as any teenager can pick up a penny.

What about RAJ, who's 12 foot tall? Normally picking up a penny would be pretty easy for anyone, but RAJ is 12 foot tall. So while the picking up part is easy, what about finding it? I think he might have a little difficulty, that can be easily overcome by roleplaying action.

> Nearly any descriptor you use, because language, all language is an oprational referent. You say "Tree" and we who speak english all can imagine a tree, but we all don't imagine the /exact same tree/ just the same as "might" "very" "highly" don't get us to envision the same levels of ability.

Whenever there's difficulty in interpreting an action, go back to the description. Feel free to expand on the description to clear things up. If necessary, describe separately, what the effects of been shrunken to the size of a cricket does in your setting. Does it just affect size, or does it affect strength as well?

leviathan

01-08-2002, 05:54 PM

*sigh* This is what happens when the rule makers look for freeform games. Probability, modifiers, and scales. But do we have any of these things in real life?

We can say, I can benchpress 150.. or I am 6'2.. but really, do we have any way of determining how well someone does in a fist fight? Do we have a way of determining how well we can fence? I think not. We only have clues.

Hell.. we don't know how much better we are on a scale compared to others until we start comparing ourselves to others. And even then, we only have hints as to what our aptitude is. People try to solve this with ranks, standardized tests with percentiles, grades, etc., etc. But do we REALLY know? No we do not.

For example... I was an F student in high school (seriously). But I graduated early. Am I an idiot? Hahaha, I would hope not. (; Does that mean that an A student could write better than I? No. It only presents a chance that he might do better than I would. He could just be doing the grunt work and sucking up to the teachers. He could be getting someone else to do it for him. He just be really good at grunt work. That A GPA is just a point of reference.

However, traditional games try to settle things with a consistant method. I hit you, you hit me back. I roll and hit you, you roll and hit me back. Whoever has the better weapon, the better stat, and the more HitPoints will infact win the battle. It's pretty defined. No questions about who won or didn't. If you don't roll the specific target.. you fail. If you do, you succeed.

But in my opinion, life doesn't work like this. There are more conclusions to actions than pass and fail. There are a number of possibilities that present themselves when you act a certain way, and there are a number of possibilities that vanish when you do so also. Stats and Rolls can't handle this. (;

I said it before, and no one seems to have listened to me. So listen. Action resolution should be handled as you go. You act, negotiate, act, negotiate, act. You just need good in-game reference points, consistant descriptions, and responsible players. It works for MUSHes and MUXen, why can't it work here? So I propose setting a nice method for character creation and guidelines for action resolution and overall play. Like the window ( www.mimgames.com/window ), without the die mechanics.

But, what do I know?

~Lev~

Tim Kirk

01-08-2002, 06:10 PM

With sufficient structure of the setting, this doesn't need to be that way. Plus we get the advantage of being able to use real world experience.
---
But only /your/ real world experience, it doesn't impact anyone else, because they've not live /exactly/ the same life as you so don't have exactly the same perceptions--games set values so that we all have a common easy to understand reference to which we can refer.

> ...something a set number in a scale doesn't really do.

But a set number in a scale only measures ability within that scale, not ability outside that scale. Descriptors handle any range of abilities and skills in terms everyone is familiar with from real world experience, books, plays, television and movies.

---
Not true, descriptors only handles abilities within their scale you have to add more descriptors to explain the differences, and that is /no different/ than adding numbers.

> He can lift a penny?

That depends, because being shrunk to the size of cricket is just being shrunk to the size of the cricket, does this affect the character's strength? I don't think so, because the character description doesn't specify this. So provided that a skinny teenager could lift this particular penny, so could John Crimminy. Of course in your game setting, perhaps size does affect character strength, in which case, this fact needs to passed on to other players.

---
Size /always/ effects strength in anything resembling the physical laws most of unders, because of leverage.

but that's not the issue.

---

> He's so "very" strong. All this could have been relegated to me as a GM as "J. Criminiy aka the Cricket, has a Strength of 2 in the standard scale we use for the game.

With "2" as a Strength score, how can player's interpret it? What does it mean?

--
A Player interprets it, based on that being the standard measure of the game--the game sets a common reference point of value--2 means this, 20 means this. While you may have some confusion, that confusion isn't any more likely or recurring as using common english words that each person percieves differently...again "Very strong" what does that mean to you? can a Very strong person lift a car? can they lift a boat? or can they merely lift 100 lbs?

--

These descriptions are far more evocative than merely specifying 2 or 20 on a numerical scale.
--

But evocative isn't the end all be all of gaming, it's an elementl.
Eventually it gets more boring..how many times have you seen slowed bullets since the Matrix? Has it become cliche' yet? Isn't the reuse of common cliche's again and again, in order to keep people on the same level of understanding of "very" bothersome?

---
> The problem with descriptors is, they don't say very much, but use a lot of words to do so--sure it's evocative at times, but having a scale with which to compare them, as well as understanding directly how they relate to one another, helps significantly.

Most definitely. With normal humans there's the scales of normal human ability.

--
Yep and when you apply a /scale/ you apply a measurement.
So why not just assign a valuation--we all know that the valuation is simply a referent we've chosen to make use of, but by describing the referent, we give everyone the same language.
Which even though you and I both speak English, you being from where you are, and I being from where I am, use it differently--so instead of having problems with words because you percieve "Very Strong" as lifting 100 kilos, and I see Very Strong as lifting 200 kilos (or in my mind "around 450lbs) now you can say very strong is 100 kilos lift in your game/setting but I'm always going to think that is dicongruous to what I see as "very strong" if you assign Str 12 to mean lift 100 Kilos--and 14 to mean Lift 200, then both of us can use the same scale without confusion.

--

For example, tall and short refer to differences from the average height of a race, building, tree, monument, leg length, and so on. Clearly a tall person has an advantage in things like looking into high windows, and looking impressive. While a short person avoids bumping into low doors, and needs some aid to look into a high window.

--
I'm 6'2 inches? Am I tall?

From my home city, no, most my friends were around 6', I had short friends, and tall friends, and some around my exact height.
I visited New York (the state not the city) and met people approximatly my age, now I've never considered myself tall, but when compared to a large number of New Yorkers in the area I visited, I was a giant! Sure there were a few taller than me, but /most/ were significantly shorter. My own family had people shorter than me, but it wasn't a significant enough number in comparison to all the other people I knew to call myself "tall"

So you see descriptors are "vague" inexact, but you and I can both go look at the measurment "Feet" and get a perception of how tall "6" "feet" are..now you use meters correct? that's fine I'm just over 2 meters tall....

Look numbers, scale we can both refer too...
Isn't that easy--those number exist outside us, we both get a perception of 2 meters. Because we use a measure that exists outside us, it doesn't matter how fictional/real that measure is as long as we can refer to it.

Along with a special strength scale, one also needs a weight scale. Can Cricket lift the penny with his Strength: 2 attribute? I don't know. What's the weight of a penny? Some one might reply it weighs about 4 grammes, will that do? No, it's got to be in game system speak.

--

Not necessarily 4 grams is a number I understand, since I buy my lunch meat in 500-700 gram packages, Now I can say Strength 2 = the ability to lift comfortably up to 4 grams, knowing that, I can simply make an assessment of weight of a pencil, and decide if he can lift it at 3" tall.

But "very strong for three inches tall" doesn't give me a valuation I can use in the real world..

---

Can a person pick up a penny? Easily. 100% success.

--
Can a 3" Person pick up a penny? What if he's also superstrong for his height?
What if he's merely shrunk but his strength remains the same for his scale?

--
Even a child and a novice player can agree on this and even play it out in real life. So clearly Cricket can pick up the penny as any teenager can pick up a penny.
--

Really even though the penny is an object the size of his head?

Can you lift a safe the size of your head?

--

Whenever there's difficulty in interpreting an action, go back to the description. Feel free to expand on the description to clear things up. If necessary, describe separately, what the effects of been shrunken to the size of a cricket does in your setting. Does it just affect size, or does it affect strength as well?

---

Look at it this way--How many times do you want to hear the same words used in a desctiption in a novel?
How many words mean the same thing?
How many times can you stand to hear "very, highly, amazing" to refer to the /same/ thing?
Eventually all description gets boring, repetitive, with a number, rather than a descriptor we can use descriptors which do not have to mean /exactly the same thing/ instead they refer to the value in comparison to the world.

Describe Fog, Describe how hard it is to see through without using the same description incessently, and do so without relying on cliche's we've all heard a hundred times before.

Andrew Martin

01-08-2002, 08:01 PM

Tim Kirk wrote:
> But only /your/ real world experience, it doesn't impact anyone else, because they've not live /exactly/ the same life as you so don't have exactly the same perceptions--games set values so that we all have a common easy to understand reference to which we can refer.

With sufficient description of the setting and characters, this doesn't matter.

> Not true, descriptors only handles abilities within their scale you have to add more descriptors to explain the differences, and that is /no different/ than adding numbers.

Descriptors build upon descriptors in a way that's obvious to all. If the descriptors for a character, situation, place or tool are vague, then clear them up, using real world values and being more descriptive.

> Size /always/ effects strength in anything resembling the physical laws most of unders, because of leverage.

If you're running realistic supers where characters can shrink to 3 inches tall, then you must describe how strength is reduced. And this is a far easier task using descriptors. For example:

The Shrink's diminishing ray reduces opponents to 1/24th of their original size, reducing a 6' tall man down to 3". It also reduces their strength to insignificant amounts.

It's easy to follow the written description. How does it work in conventional game mechanics, say, Champions or Saga? I've got no idea.

> > With "2" as a Strength score, how can player's interpret it? What does it mean?

> A Player interprets it, based on that being the standard measure of the game--the game sets a common reference point of value--2 means this, 20 means this.

Most games don't do this. Only a very few do.

> While you may have some confusion, that confusion isn't any more likely or recurring as using common english words that each person percieves differently...again "Very strong" what does that mean to you? Can a Very strong person lift a car? Can they lift a boat? Or can they merely lift 100 lbs?

You're confusing differences of strength with superhuman levels of strength. To casually lift a car requires superhuman strength. Just saying your character is very strong, isn't going to make a difference, unless your character's race can easily lift a car.

> But evocative isn't the end all be all of gaming, it's an element!

People read books. The description I'm proposing is exactly similar to the way an author describes a character. The example I used came from a historical reference, not a RPG book.

> Eventually it gets more boring..how many times have you seen slowed bullets since the Matrix? Has it become cliche' yet? Isn't the reuse of common cliche's again and again, in order to keep people on the same level of understanding of "very" bothersome?

I propose to use ordinary words to describe things, people and places, and to use the meaning attached to the words to determine success/failure of actions.

> ... when you apply a /scale/ you apply a measurement. So why not just assign a valuation--we all know that the valuation is simply a referent we've chosen to make use of, but by describing the referent, we give everyone the same language. Which even though you and I both speak English, you being from where you are, and I being from where I am, use it differently--so instead of having problems with words because you percieve "Very Strong" as lifting 100 kilos, and I see Very Strong as lifting 200 kilos (or in my mind "around 450lbs) now you can say very strong is 100 kilos lift in your game/setting but I'm always going to think that is dicongruous to what I see as "very strong" if you assign Str 12 to mean lift 100 Kilos--and 14 to mean Lift 200, then both of us can use the same scale without confusion.

If one wants to closely define one's strength, then simply writing, "I can lift 100Kilos." is sufficient. Does this need to be written as STR: 15 or Strength: 20 in the game system of your choice? Which one is more clearer to the novice? One can use "I can lift 100Kilos" as a descriptor or one can use "very strong human." Either one works.

> > Tall and Short...
> I'm 6'2 inches? Am I tall?

That's a descriptor that's based on real world information. Feel free to include it in the character description. It's far better than writing in game system terms: SIZE 12 (RQIII), or Size: Good (Fudge). Knowing your character is 6'2" tall, it's easy to see whether or not your character can see in a window that's 6' from the ground.

> So you see descriptors are "vague" inexact, but you and I can both go look at the measurment "Feet" and get a perception of how tall "6" "feet" are. Now you use meters correct? That's fine I'm just over 2 meters tall...

Descriptors include real world numbers as well. It's OK to have 6'2" tall or 1.96 metres tall, blue eyes, or 12' long hair, with 6" toes, or 100 gallons of milk, 40 litres of petrol, 60 miles to go, or 4 light years to the next star, or 50 cubic meter of volume, or a fireball that expands to 20 meter radius.

> But "very strong for three inches tall" doesn't give me a valuation I can use in the real world.

Of course this descriptor doesn't. But then you've changed the descriptor to something that doesn't mean anything! :) "Very Strong" for what? The "very strong" descriptor has to be connected to something, because it modifies the thing to the right. Earlier you wrote: "very strong for a skinny teenager." So we know that this skinny teenager is very strong. Then you've had the teenager being shrunk, clearly implying comic book physics, to a height of 3" and _not_ describing the change in strength. If the game setting physics demands that size change affects strength, then this affects characters who have their size changed. This should be described and considered. Just saying "very strong for three inches tall" is in itself meaningless. The "very strong" part applied to "skinny teenager". The "three inches tall" part applies to the character's height. Joining them together just makes it meaningless.

> Describe Fog, describe how hard it is to see through without using the same description incessently, and do so without relying on cliche's we've all heard a hundred times before.

Simple. Just give a visual range in meters or yards and it's done. For example:
The fog is so thick, you can't see more than an a arm's length.
or:
The fog is light, things further than about 100 yards/meters are indistinct.

That's all that's needed, unless the fog is special, for example, being a evil supervillain's creation or a mystical fog from another dimension. If no one can decide, then simply roll a D100 to determine visual range in yards/meters.

Lunamancer

01-08-2002, 08:03 PM

Now let's imagine I'm trying to pursue this car. What speed do I have be at to match the car? I think 60 miles per hour is a better descriptor than the traditional game attribute of MOVE: 194

Who says 60 MPH can't be a "traditional" game attribute? I've seen it used in vehicle stats for at least a couple of RPGs. Some RPGs use percentile numbers to represent level of ability in skills--that plainly says the character succeeds that many times in 100, on average. All things considered, every possibility will eventually boil down to some probability of happening, some percent chance.

Now how does a GM apply (modify) that percentage during game-play? That's a matter of common sense, just as it is in your "system". The difference is, with a straight-up percentile, we have a much better idea of the degree of an ability, skill, situation, what have you, than we would with simple word descriptors. And a straight-up percentile-check system (any check-system, for that matter) has the final advantage that no judgement on the part of the GM is ever required, just roll unmodified.

While it's true a GM should always exercise judgement, there are times when we just want to get on with it and not be bothered with any sort of calculation (such as when I GM for very large groups of players).

Andrew Martin

01-08-2002, 09:32 PM

Lunamancer wrote:
> Who says 60 MPH can't be a "traditional" game attribute?

I don't believe it's in AD&D, which is pretty traditional to me. It's not in quite a few systems. Typically most RPGs have a special movement related stat, based on wargaming scale.

> Some RPGs use percentile numbers to represent level of ability in skills--that plainly says the character succeeds that many times in 100, on average. All things considered, every possibility will eventually boil down to some probability of happening, some percent chance.

The percentile system breaks down as soon as characters become competent in a skill. Consider a driving skill of 50%. Does one crash occur every second journey? This is what's implied by a skill of 50%, because in combat, a 50% skill can cause you to die! Compare that to the descriptor:

"I can drive."

This clearly implies automatic success or 100% success. It's only in exceptional circumstances that this 100% level of success is not enough. Now you might counter by the almost standard RPG designer's argument of: "don't roll the dice for every occasion." Then, why bother to measure a skill which is automatically successfull with a special game system number that doesn't match that reality?

> ...with a straight-up percentile, we have a much better idea of the degree of an ability, skill, situation, what have you, than we would with simple word descriptors.

Why does the character have a better idea of their success to the exact percentile, when in reality and in the game setting, the player and character wouldn't have that information?

> ...there are times when we just want to get on with it and not be bothered with any sort of calculation...

Isn't "I can drive." easier to understand and use than: "Drive: 50%"? It's far more easier for a novice player to see who's more skilled at driving, as the character with "I can drive" is automatically successful, where the character with "Drive: 50%" crashes on average every second journey.

Jack Spencer

01-08-2002, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by Ian Young
[
Okay, you're echoing my sympathies very clearly. This is a topic with which I have been wrestling for some time now. The solution toward which I'm working is to shift the focus away from a literal description of the characters' abilities and onto a subjective perception of their abilities -- their reputations

...

So, is that getting closer to the sort of thing you're postulating? I'm eager to hear of other attempts people have made to truly eliminate ranked scaling (i.e. numbers) from RPGs without going totally freeform.

Well, my idea is linked earlier in this thread. It's a quite a bit differnet from your idea, although I do use a Baron Munchausen/Soap-like mechanic.

But reputations is good. SOrt of like Tala in Orkworld. Were I you I would pursue it.

leviathan

01-08-2002, 11:36 PM

Is anyone listening to me? Why continue to go back and forth about probability of success when a mere guideline of "if it advances the storyline in a logical way with all of the factors present in mind, it will be sucessful" can be applied here. If it's not logical, then it doesn't. Players have to make sacrafices in order to comphensate for other circumstances. All one has to do is define what's logical and what's not. :P

What I'm trying to say is that these problems can be solved by playing it out. Now.. Why doesn't anyone tell me what's wrong with doing it that way???

~Lev~

Jack Spencer

01-08-2002, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by leviathan
Is anyone listening to me? Why continue to go back and forth about probability of success when a mere guideline of "if it advances the storyline in a logical way with all of the factors present in mind, it will be sucessful" can be applied here.

Actually, this is the basic idea I've been working with in my game The Wheel (see link on page one of this thread)

leviathan

01-08-2002, 11:44 PM

Actually, this is the basic idea I've been working with in my game The Wheel (see link on page one of this thread).

Indeed! I love the wheel. Good stuff, Jack. ^_^ But no one else seems to have been paying attention to it either. They're going about this whole diceless/statless idea like they would go about... editing D20 rules. :P

~Lev~

Jack Spencer

01-08-2002, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by leviathan
Indeed! I love the wheel. Good stuff, Jack. ^_^ But no one else seems to have been paying attention to it either. They're going about this whole diceless/statless idea like they would go about... editing D20 rules. :P

Thanks.

Perhaps we should start a new thread? ;)

leviathan

01-09-2002, 12:43 AM

"Perhaps we should start a new thread?" 

Why bother?

~Lev~

Mithras

01-09-2002, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Jack Spencer Jr
I suppose it's like the climax to that old Danny Kaye movie. The Court Jester, if memory serves.

Danny Kaye the RPG? That's pretty surreal...!
What has been suggested here, a diceless (randomless) roleplaying game that resolves actions based on the thrust of the plot and the dramatic necessity of the game being played, the story being told, is a worthy goal. A number of diceful games already do this, don't they, that's what Plot Points and Inspiration Points are all about, but to replace the rolling of dice with these dramatic levers would be quite a feat.

Could it be done? I'm torn between the two faces of diceless: numerical rating and descriptors. But I like the way that Risus has almost combined the two (but I have other, not very serious, problems with Risus). Perhaps the way to go forward with this dramatic diceless concept is to look at Hong Kong Action Theatre! for inspiration.

There the pre-game work involves selecting the character not based on 'what I want to play' but on his role within the story. So there is a lead, a support - that kind of thing. The GM will probably also have sketched out a brief description of the characters for the game (remember that, like most movies, HKAT! games are one shots too). So we might have Grim Cop with Kid Brother Always in Trouble, Young Kid getting involved with Triads, Love Interest trying to get Kid away from Triads - and so on.

That's as far as HKAT! goes with this concept (but it does have some cracking nifty little extras!) but we could envisage a character described not by his education and skills, but by what he is dramatically capable of in the game being played.
So our Grim Cop might have (say): Fight To Protect Brother, Drown Sorrows in Beer, Hatred of Triads, Fall in Love with Love Interest and so on. Add numbers to these if necessary and (somehow, how??) use them to adjudicate the flow of the story.
In otherwords (and this kind of thing is not my strong point I hasten to add) characters are described purely by their IMPACT ON THE PLOT. Most will be goal-orientated motivations, others will be crucial skills (defusing bombs at the last minute).

In a game like this, though, I would have thought that it would be essential to be able to change these descriptors before a new game based on what has gone before. Not adding new ones, but, as we see with lots of movie sequels, the goal posts have moved and the character has a new set of challenges to face. Obviously he will have a whole new set of reactions and potential impacts to the plot. Not more, but different ones. Exactly how many he has may develop on the characters importance (back to HKAT!'s separation of characters into lead, support etc.)

blackguard

01-09-2002, 10:15 AM

Mithras,

Where's the variability in Scrabble? Or Chess? Or Draughts or Poker?

Scrabble: the bag you draw your tiles from and the moves of your opponent.

Chess: the unpredictability of your opponent

Draughts: I assume you mean checkers (which is what we call it here) - see chess above.

Poker: the shuffled deck of 52 different cards.

Perhaps it would have been better to use the term 'uncertainty' than variability.

Jack,

Let me clarify.

I would personally call diceless, statless roleplaying a game. Most of my friends consider this idea ridiculous, though, and so I was playing a bit of devil's advocate.

What I really want to know is how the games work to keep everyone honest? Perhaps I just have a terrible group of gamers, but the dice help ensure that the players in my campaign actually role-play. What I mean is that most of them have their favourite classes or occupations and they tend to stick with them if they can. When they roll their characters, sometimes the dice make it so that playing Ragnar the Barbarian is impossible, and so they are forced to take on a different role than they prefer - in other words, actually role-play.

If I didn't have these dice and stats, then the small guy with a chip on his shoulder would *always* play the bulky, psychotic fighter, and the guy who is intelligent but never went to University would *always* play some mage with incredible skills. In other words, they would fulfill their fantasies rather than enjoy playing a 'role' that may or may not be what their psyche needs.

Jack Spencer

01-09-2002, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Mithras

What has been suggested here, a diceless (randomless) roleplaying game that resolves actions based on the thrust of the plot and the dramatic necessity of the game being played, the story being told, is a worthy goal. A number of diceful games already do this, don't they, that's what Plot Points and Inspiration Points are all about, but to replace the rolling of dice with these dramatic levers would be quite a feat.

I would say it can be done and I would like to think I've done it with The Wheel, or that I had taken a decent step in that direction (I'm sick of plugging that thing. Are you sick of me plugging that thing?)

My thinking goes like this:

Persuing story is a nobel goal as it ensure that what happens in a game is at least interesting. I've dealt with games were mundane details bogged stuff down to the point that, well I lost interest. I was still sitting at the table rolling my dice like a good soldier, but my mind was elsewhere.

I like the idea of a GM-less game (or collaborative GM game) since I've long believed that one stumbling block to get people to play is to get one of them to run the darn thing. GMing takes a lot of work (and no small ego) Not everyone is up to the challenge. Some GMs I know often complain that they never get to play anymore since their always GMing. It may not be much of a solution, but hey, it's an attempt.

Another reason for this is to make the game more "active." You see, most games are played passively. The GM sets up the scenerio and the players merely react to the stimulous.

There is nothing especially wrong with this way of gaming, but it is easy for the player to lose interest (see above)

All of this has an interesting side effects that I personally didn't think they would have. The collaborative GM effort retains player interest even when their own character has no stake since as a co-GM, they can have an effect on the scene, not just sitting back and watching. Story pursuit has a similar effect of retaining player interest. Also, the need for a group of characters to stick together is no longer necessary. PCs can be completely separated by space, time or dimension and it can still work. (Although I haven't heard this being experimented with as much as it could be)

The difference between what Leviathan and I are thinking of and, well, most of the rest of this thread and the dicefull story games is the way the story gets made. The dice mechanics, much like the diceless concepts in this thread, sets up a contrivance to create a story. But a contrivance like this is no substitue for a human mind and its sense drama. Probably why all such games have an overiding factor like Everyway's Law of Drama.

My thinking is , rather than setting up a system and hoping it makes a good story and then fixing it if it does go astray, simply make a good story and the random factor, as it were, will come from the other players, and their own sense of story interacting and altering you original vision.

This is how The Wheel works. It also has the deck of cards, partially for inspiration when you get stuck (like the Edgar Wallace plot wheel) and partially to force another bit of alteration into a players story.

I rather like this, but it isn't the only way to do this, I suspect.

Jack Spencer

01-09-2002, 10:56 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blackguard

What I really want to know is how the games work to keep everyone honest? Perhaps I just have a terrible group of gamers, but the dice help ensure that the players in my campaign actually role-play. What I mean is that most of them have their favourite classes or occupations and they tend to stick with them if they can. When they roll their characters, sometimes the dice make it so that playing Ragnar the Barbarian is impossible, and so they are forced to take on a different role than they prefer - in other words, actually role-play. [QUOTE]

Keep everyone honest? I suppose that doing that would simply be required of the players themselves. In a game where you can basically make whatever you want happen simply by saying it, the challenge for munchkins to "break" the game evaporates, and similar dishonesty, I suspect. In either case such a game would not appeal to someone of such a persuasion, so they won't play it and probably bad mouth it every chance they get. Such is life.

As to the dice forcing players to play different characters. On the one hand, I think that a person should stretch themselves where possible. However, I don't think it's an issue that should be forced and in some cases probably shouldn't be forced.

By way of example, some players are like character actors. They can play a certain type of character really well, but they can't go outside of that character type very well. Like, say Harrison Ford. His character in The Devil's Own was a weaker character. In the scene where the IRA guys came to his house and took his family hostage, the character was supposed to cower. But it was Harrison Ford. No one would believe he would sit and cower when his family was in danger. So he kicked their ass. (Brad Pitt is a little ticked at how Harrison's presence altered his pet project)

In any case, this sort of thing probably doesn't matter in the games you play, so random character creation works. But the sort of game I wish to make, and the sort of players I want to play it, random character creation, worrying about cheating or to even attempt it are not concerns as they just shouldn't happen since the spirit of the law is the letter of the law.

Think different, as they say.:)

Tom Fitzgerald

01-10-2002, 09:52 PM

... What I've just been writing. Ideas for a dinky little storygame about forgotten heroes that uses;
-A narrative style- players are recounting the deeds of distant centuries.
-A codified story structure (in an attempt to emulate the foreshadowing of prophecy)
-Broad, Mythic scope, Each game session represents the lives of one generation of heroes.

No dice, No game terms used in play, just a simple little diceless system that should (ideally) be able to be resolvable without game terms protruding into the story.

It's in it's embryonic stages at the moment but I just posted a whopping great post on this forum called Antediluvian Earth.

Take a look.

Jack Spencer

01-10-2002, 10:15 PM

Interesting. I just took a brief glace at it, but I'll read it a little better later.

I find it interesting that you also have some form of token/coin mechanic in your game. It seems when someone does away with dice in a game they immediately stick in a coin/token/bidding mechanic of some form.

The idea, I guess, is to purchase control over what happens in the game, since you're no longer relying on dice or cards to simply tell you.

Makes the radical in me wonder if there's another way.

Anyway, thanks for posting, Tom. I'll look at it when I get the chance. (And you might be interested in
The Wheel (http://www.geocities.com/greencatgames/WHEELrd1.htm) as in some ways it's similar. Some ways it's different, but similar in some ways)

Tom Fitzgerald

01-11-2002, 04:07 AM

This game is funky, and yes, quite similar in several ways to my own idea (as yet unnamed- Antediluvian Earth is a working title).
I went thru a period of obsessing over GMless games and wouldn't mind having another crack at it one day. I'll have to dig up some of my old ideas.
I dig the Fifth Wheel rule and really think the idea of players shifting between characters (as GM's are required to do)is one that has been underused. Supporting Characters are cool, not to mention necessary elements in the vast majority of stories.

I'd like to see a collaborative game (p,raps a setting for the Wheel?) set in Dickensian England in which the plot takes place at different social levels, requiring players to switch characters continuously as the plot moves in and out of different social circles.

It is interesting to note the different value placed upon PC's and NPC's in most games. NPC's are merely a means to an end while players are encouraged to cultivate and protect their character as the most important thing in the world.

Is this an atavism? A throwback to the time someone said " Yeah, and if that miniature survives, you can bring him back next time and we'll call him George". Why does this attitude persist?

Anyhoo,

Seeya

GB Steve

01-11-2002, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by Mithras
What has been suggested here, a diceless (randomless) roleplaying game that resolves actions based on the thrust of the plot and the dramatic necessity of the game being played, the story being told, is a worthy goal. A number of diceful games already do this, don't they, that's what Plot Points and Inspiration Points are all about, but to replace the rolling of dice with these dramatic levers would be quite a feat.

Could it be done? I'm torn between the two faces of diceless: numerical rating and descriptors. But I like the way that Risus has almost combined the two (but I have other, not very serious, problems with Risus). Perhaps the way to go forward with this dramatic diceless concept is to look at Hong Kong Action Theatre! for inspiration.

I think a lot of what we are discussing here comes down more to GM style and player capabilities than the game system.

If you played in any of my games you'd probably realise that whether it be 2300AD with dice, diceless Buffy or Dying Earth that I run the game in a similar way.

The dice don't resolve the drama!

The events are dictated by player and GM choice and all the dice do is resolve individual actions. The drama is resolved by the reactions of the PCs and NPCs to the outcomes of the events.

Given that I don't bother with NPC stats as such and use mood to judge when things should come to a close, what the dice actually say is often irrelevant and quite often bypassed. This also allows the players to get in on the act because not everything goes through me.

In my game of 2300ad last night, one of the PC whose players has decided he is henpecked was summoned home by his wife. He made this event up. I was resolving some other conflict with two other players.

The hen-pecked PC rang up a policeman PC and got him to come and arrest him (he is acually a criminal so this is nothing new) so he could escape his wife and get back with his buddies to the job at hand (tracing some misssing robots). I came in half-way through this and played the wife for a bit crying out about the shame he had brought on the household (again!) and going to stay with her mother.

Instant drama, no dice, no numbers, no descriptors as such. 2300ad characters are all numbers, the usual hard SF fare of combat skills and technical know-how so we just roleplayed. You are the character - what more do you need?

There was no real need for a GM either, somebody else could easily have filled in for the wife character. In fact we somtimes do this - the GM just instructs players to play the NPCs in a scene so he can deal with something else. This also ensures that everyone has got something to do.

Cheers,

Ian Absentia

01-11-2002, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by Jack Spencer Jr
It seems when someone does away with dice in a game they immediately stick in a coin/token/bidding mechanic of some form.
I think it's unfair to suggest that the desire to find an alternative to dice randomisers automatically leads to the substitution of a token/bidding mechanic. It isn't simply a substitution at all. The use of tokens and bidding is a decision to create a different kind of game, one where the players themselves assume control in determining the odds of randomised resolution.

What rubs my fur the wrong way in your statement above is the assumption that those of us developing token and bidding mechanics started with dice mechanics then looked for a novelty substitution. In fact, many of us started with the intent of creating a different mechanic that emphasises a different style of play, but doesn't eliminate random probability entirely. Being a "radical" doesn't have to dictate a response at the polar opposite of prevailing trends.

~Ian

Jack Spencer

01-11-2002, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Ian Young

I think it's unfair to suggest that the desire to find an alternative to dice randomisers automatically leads to the substitution of a token/bidding mechanic.

...

What rubs my fur the wrong way in your statement above is the assumption that those of us developing token and bidding mechanics started with dice mechanics then looked for a novelty substitution...

You know, this was a comment that I thought twice about posting because maybe someone would read some form of sentiment in it I don't personally and probably isn't there and go off on it, really. But I thought, what the hell. Who'll do that?

Gad, I hate being right. Or is it wrong? Eh, who cares.

Anyway, I did not mean to suggest that those who use a token/bidding mechanic start with a dice mechanic and take it out to put in the tokens.

I just found it interesting that a game that doesn't rely on or even have a standard-style dice mechanics running it tends to have a token mechanic of some form or other in it's place. Or more accurately, used instead of?

And I did say "seems to" that is, from I'm sitting that's what it looks like. It most likely isn't, but most non-diced games I've run across tend to have tokens, and it was just a funny coincidence.

And for those who wish to look, some of these games are SOAP, Baron Munchausen, Pantheon, Wyrd, and The Pool.

The Pool is a little weird in that the tokens in this case are dice, so there you go.

Lunamancer

01-11-2002, 10:37 PM

> Who says 60 MPH can't be a "traditional" game attribute?

I don't believe it's in AD&D, which is pretty traditional to me. It's not in quite a few systems. Typically most RPGs have a special movement related stat, based on wargaming scale.

I don't know that's something that is at all "typical" of "most" RPGs. The lesson to be learned here is, use a unit of measurement that's convenient--if you're talking vehicles Miles Per Hour (or Kilometers Per Hour) are likely the best units of measurement. If you're talking about movement in combat, then feet (or yards or meters) per second (or per turn) will be most convenient.

When miniatures become involved, table scale is a whole new convenience issue. Tell a novice RPGer that his or her D&D character has a move of 12", and that might not make much sense. Tell that same novice that on each turn, you may move your game piece 12 inches on the table, and now there is no confusion there.

The percentile system breaks down as soon as characters become competent in a skill. Consider a driving skill of 50%. Does one crash occur every second journey? This is what's implied by a skill of 50%, because in combat, a 50% skill can cause you to die! Compare that to the descriptor:

"I can drive."

This clearly implies automatic success or 100% success. It's only in exceptional circumstances that this 100% level of success is not enough. Now you might counter by the almost standard RPG designer's argument of: "don't roll the dice for every occasion." Then, why bother to measure a skill which is automatically successfull with a special game system number that doesn't match that reality?

Eh, two problems with your point here. One, relatively minor and very debatable, is that driving shouldn't be a skill. Vehicles are created by humans to be used easily by humans, and your typical human can drive--ergo, it should be assumed all characters can drive without error under normal circumstances. No drive skill is necessary. Most non-humans would simply lack the proper anatomy to drive at all (automatically unable to drive). A modern human who has never driven before, it is simply a matter of overcoming one's own uneasiness and remaining calm (16 years living in the modern world is generally garners enough common knowledge to know basic traffic rules).

Now suppose one transported a caveman through time to the present day. He probably would have a lot of trouble driving but could improve with practice. This sort of thing is so rare, it's best not even considered by the rules. However, if the sort of RPG is that of the traveller kind, then some sort of "on the job self-instruction" rules could be justifiably included in the text.

But, all in all, this particular example is bogus simply because most people can drive under normal conditions without any significant chance of totalling the vehicle.

Second point is that you're not taking into account some of the other advantages of a percentile system--such as, it's not just something you roll against. If one must include a "Drive" skill in their game, "Drive: 50%" could (would, should?) be read as "Drives 50% better than normal"... and could also be interpreted as "Can drive safely at 50% greater speeds than normal". Normal can be defined as typical road conditions, normal speed being the speed limit of the particular area, moderate traffic density, et cetera.

Why does the character have a better idea of their success to the exact percentile, when in reality and in the game setting, the player and character wouldn't have that information?

Shame on you for allowing your players to let their characters peek at the character sheets! But, seriously, the level of use of OOC information is always subject to limitations (and penalties when those limitations are ignored) from the GM. Regardless of whether you use words or numbers on the character sheet, the player is bound to gain some information at some point or another that the character should not have. To what extent the player may use that information is for the group to decide, not for the game system to dictate.

Isn't "I can drive." easier to understand and use than: "Drive: 50%"? It's far more easier for a novice player to see who's more skilled at driving, as the character with "I can drive" is automatically successful, where the character with "Drive: 50%" crashes on average every second journey.

Eh, it's far more easy for a novice player to see that someone who drives 50% better than normal is about... 50% better than normal :D

Ian Absentia

01-11-2002, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Jack Spencer Jr

You know, this was a comment that I thought twice about posting because maybe someone would read some form of sentiment in it I don't personally and probably isn't there and go off on it, really. But I thought, what the hell. Who'll do that?

Gad, I hate being right. Or is it wrong? Eh, who cares.:eek:

Well, in your defense, I was reading your post and thinking, "Okay...did he really mean it the way it read?" In my own defense, it wasn't difficult to read it the way I did, and I didn't particularly go off on it (at the very least, I didn't intend to go off on it, but perhaps my post ended up reading that way -- and there you have it). As you wrote, though, who cares about that issue? The real point is that you've begun to put your finger on the philosophy and intent of alternate resolution mechanics.

I think we can all agree that dice mechanics have ruled the market. Eventually, tiring of the repeated permutations of various dice rolling methods, people began to experiment with other methods of resolving conflicts in games. "Diceless" was perhaps the primary reaction to dice-dominated gaming. Diceless gaming has many, many merits to it (which have been discussed at greater length and done better justice than I'm able or willing to go into here), but have suffered a number of criticisms from roleplaying gamers of all persuasions. The central argument has consistently been unease with Determinism taking precedence over Randomness.

I believe that token mechanisms began to develop in response to the criticisms levelled at the diceless response. There was a desire to let players take more responsibility for the outcome of a conflict or contest, yet retain the random element of chance. As I stated previously, this wasn't just swapping one randomiser for another, but rather creating a different kind of gaming mechanism that relies in part on random chance, in part on active storytelling, and in part on strategic bidding. It's something fairly new in roleplaying, and I think the reason you're seeing rather a lot of it recently is that it has a lot of untapped potential -- people are tweaking the idea in all different ways to see what kind of game can be squeezed from it.

One thing Jared put his finger on recently is that there's a vast expanse of potential for roleplaying games, only small corners of which has been explored -- one small corner with dice, ano