From: fts5792@cs.tamu.edu (Frank T Sronce)
Subject: net.rpg
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:33:34 GMT

Since most of the net.rpg discussion seems to be about diced role
playing, could I open up the discussion for diceless role playing.

Here are some questions :-

1. Does diceless give more opportunity for misuse by the pcs?

KIZ> Yes AND No. Diceless, probably more than any other kind of RPG, depends
upon the referee. In Amber (which I've run for a year now), the GM needs a
very good understanding of what the powers are supposed to be able to do. IFF
(if and only if) the GM understands the genre well, he can keep minmaxers in
line simply by saying "It doesn't work that way."  You don't have as many
rules to doublecheck. It's up to the GM to make sure that powers of equal
cost are about equally useful. 
  Alas, if the GM is clueless, or easily browbeaten by a clever PC, things can
go bad. The Amber mailing list occasionally gets the "if I can open a portal
to another shadow, I open one to the heart of a star and produce a sheet of
plasma that shoots out the other end of the portal (aimed away from me) and
disintegrates anyone within ten miles" thread. This doesn't (IMHO) work, but
the reasons are IMPLIED in the rules rather than clearly stated.
  So, on the whole, diceless does allow for more misuse, but on the other hand,
the GM can eliminate many screws just by using a reasonable interpretation
instead of the player's interpretation(!). 

2. Does it take longer/shorter to create a diceless character than under
   traditional systems?

KIZ> Depends upon the traditional system! Building a character in HERO takes
days (for me, at least) while building an AD&D character can consist of 6
3d6 die rolls and picking a race and character class. Oh, and a name, too. 
  But diceless games (especially statistic-poor ones like Amber, where your
character has few stats and powers and skills are sort of optional) are
generally pretty quick. You can make a decent Amber character in a couple
of minutes; the long part will be bouncing it off of the GM and working up
your background, since Amber is really campaign oriented.


3. Are there any more diceless games apart from Amber?

KIZ> Apparently, there are scads of homebrew systems. Amber is the only
"published by a company big enough to afford advertising" one that I know of.
It will probably inspire copycat systems, of course. 

4. Are dicelss rpgs suitable for one off games?  Or are they best for
   campaigns.

KIZ> I'd say campaigns, but this is not necessarily so. I've tried to 
interest people in AMBER one-shots like throne wars, but have so far not
succeeded. I have run a one-shot for a convention here (the playtest went
great, the actual run so-so), so it should be possible. Amber is a bit too
free-form (the players can go almost anywhere and do nearly anything- hard
to come up with a limited objective that HAS to be solved in a session), 
but a limited objective mission can be done (my one-shot was a team of
young amberites sent to rescue Martin).
  I just don't have the experience to give you a really confident answer.

5. Is it easier to `wing it' since npcs are simpler in statistics,
   though more comples in character.

KIZ> I suppose so. Diceless usually requires the GM to be "winging it" with
everything, from combat down to negotiations. Since the deciding factor is
almost always GM judgement (no rules to look up), yes, it is a lot easier to
wing it, but you have to wing it *constantly*.


6. What tips are useful for GMs and players?

KIZ> Huh, my players never leave ME tips after a good game... Oh, you mean
advice? Hm... First off, don't try to run while half-asleep; GMing diceless
games is usually quite exhausting and requires you to be able to think 
clearly, because you have few rules to fall back upon. Have a good idea of
what each character's stats and abilities and equipment are; in my Amber
games, PCs rarely need to dig out a character sheet: we can play without
any obvious gaming materials whatsoever (except crazed, maniacal grins for
the GM- an essential gaming item). 
  The GM's word is law, but the law should be reasonable. Keep rule arguments
to a minimum (always good in any game) and preferably outside of actual play.
Players should trust the GM. If you don't trust your GM to treat you fairly,
you are looking for trouble. If the GM can't be fairly impartial, get a game
with more rules, so when he gives unfair advantages/disadvantages to specific
players, you can show him where he's wrong. Or a new GM. Whichever is easier.
The GM should know the genre (if it's important) REALLY well. It helps if he
knows it better than any of the players (it cuts down on rule arguments).

7. Where do diceless really WIN over dice based rpgs?

KIZ> In giving a "real-life" feel. When I try to hit someone in fencing class,
it seems like there are a zillion variables affecting my chances- diceless
confers this better (usually) than rolling dice. It helps a lot if the GM
can describe things really well. Also, it tends to be fast; combat loses a lot
of its thrill when you pause for 2 minutes to examine your modifiers and see
if you really hit or not.
  Diceless also works well for games in which a PC who is good at a skill can
just about always beat someone merely proficient in that skill. And (at least
Amber style diceless) works well when PC abilities are spread over a huge
scale- NO PC can outduel the person with first rank in Warfare, so they 
cheat: they try to break his blade, or tackle him, or lead him into a trap,
or attack magically, or whatever. 
  When the PCs are "merely" human and occasionally screw things up for no
particular reason, it comes back to GM judgement, and if you don't trust your
GM to be fair and reasonable about it, you're in trouble.


8. Where do diceless really LOSE over dice based rpgs?

KIZ> In being suitable for novice GMs (if you've never done anything like this
before, I wouldn't recommend Amber, but some people have a lot of talent for
this sort of thing). 
  The GM needs really good descriptive skills, or the game may get dull.
"I attack!" "You fight him for awhile, and um... you win." "Oh."
  They won't satisfy people who love to roll dice. 
  They require good, impartial, and reasonable GMs more than most games, and
for most games that's already very important.
  Some people want a rule for everything, so that you know exactly how the 
universe works; in a diceless game, you just have to study how the GM runs 
it.
  The GM needs endurance- you'll be talking a LOT. And combat, which normally
gives the GM a chance to rest his voice, requires even more description from the
GM.

9. Would a net diceless rpg be possible - or would each GM end up
   producing their own incompatible version?

KIZ> It ought to be possible to produce a single system, but the simpler
and more generic it is, the less useful it will be. The purest form of 
diceless role-playing is the GM tells you what is going on, you tell him
what you want to do, and he tells you what happens. This can be applied to
any genre, anywhere. It's also next to useless.
  A diceless system is generally pretty generic- you describe a character
suitable to the genre being played and play it. The rules will mostly govern
ways to keep the characters balanced. Amber does this by assigning point 
values to the various powers and attributes and describing what sort of 
things each power can do and gives guidelines on how to run combats
with a fair bit of realism.
  The genre is very important in a diceless system- combat (unless you 
know your feints and parries and special maneuvers really well) won't be
very detailed. The limits of what your character can do are pretty fuzzy. 
The genre has to be able to hold the player's interest, since the rule
mechanics won't. Diceless games make lousy wargames. 

Just a start,
  Andy Stratton.


KIZ> I'm currently leaning towards a "low-dice" system, somewhat similar
to the "Tapestry" game someone posted (thanx, whoever you are!). This lets
you simulate "human" level games, where random chance seems to be a factor,
but can be expanded up to Amber-like levels ("You've challenged Benedict.
He's the best swordsman in existence, you he'll probably take your head off
in one swipe." [clatter, clatter] "Hm, he rolled rather badly. Instead, he
only cuts off your weapon arm and demands your surrender.").

Kiz aka Tommy Sronce
Newsgroups: rec.games.design