From: cscott+@CS.CMU.EDU (Curtis Scott)
Subject: Re: Joys of Dice
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:42:01 GMT

In article <RATINOX.92Aug12142700@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>, ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat) writes:
|> >>>>> "CS" == Curtis Scott <cscott> writes:
|> 
|> [role-played combat example]
|> 
|> CS> My question is this: Wouldn't roleplaying a scene like that in so much
|> CS> detail leave the other players rather bored? I mean, if the GM has to
|> CS> describe the length of the grass, the location of trees and rocks, and
|> CS> the details of every thrust and parry, that pretty well consumes his
|> CS> time.
|> 
|> Not really, no. Diceless combats tend to run much faster in real time than
|> diced combats do (with the exception of nuking the site from orbit :-).
|> [From an example I posted the other day, a 15 minute game time fight only
|> took about a minute or two to role-play through; there are diced combat
|> systems where this fight might have taken hours to resolve]. If the combat
|> does run long, then the other players can use that time to interract with
|> each other. Or, if the fight does go on and on, it's usually quite
|> entertaining as a "spectator sport" for the other players.

How is this possible? Is it because you don't pay the "overhead" costs
of dice rolls and interaction ("What's your sword skill?", "Roll your
damage," "What's your armor class?")? Or is it because (as you indicate
below) you abstract combat down to choice scenes?
 
|> CS> Based on the above (which was written by an admitted non-diceless
|> CS> player), I would expect diceless RPGs to go in cycles of interaction.
|> CS> Each player would get a period of time "in the spotlight," getting his
|> CS> questions answered and his interactions handled, then the GM would have
|> CS> to turn to the next player. In a "diced" system, these cycles go pretty
|> CS> quickly; the GM abstracts the player's behavior into a series of system
|> CS> actions and implements them using the rules. The old-style "round"
|> CS> structure, while it has lots of disadvantages, acts to keep the GM
|> CS> talking to all the players more or less evenly, at least during combat.
|> CS> In a diceless system, I can see these cycles getting slower, and that
|> CS> could lead to boredom for players not in the "spotlight."
|> 
|> Not if the story is kept interesting to the "inactive" players. But again,
|> this is a GM problem, not a "system" problem.

This makes a strong implication about the relative ability required to GM
a "diced" and "non-diced" combat. I can put up with an uninspired GM in a
diced game running a combat because he can usually put enough color in to
keep me awake and at the same time I've got something to fiddle with (dice).
From your statement, I would think that a GM would have to be significantly
above average to make every moment entertaining.
 
|> CS> You get an analogous effect in dice-based games when you have too many
|> CS> players, or when the combat system is too complex (where "too complex"
|> CS> is a function of how skilled the GM and players are in the system, not
|> CS> an arbitrary standard). However, without the (admittedly artificial)
|> CS> structure of the "round," have diceless GMs encountered this problem?
|> CS> How many players have you had when you did?
|> 
|> It's a trade off; keeping everyone active almost constantly vs. resolving
|> each individual's encounter quickly. Within Amber, if the PCs encounter a
|> group and a fight ensues, the opposing party will tend to be either all
|> "grunts," or the opposition is grunts lead by a powerful enemy. In the
|> first case the PCs will mop up the floor very quickly and move on to more
|> important things. In the second case, a one on one duel between the villain
|> of the piece and one of the PCs will develop, while the other PCs mop up
|> (you're locked in mortal combat with your evil twin brother; the rest
|> quickly finish off/incapacitate the guards; back to you and your evil
|> twin...). From a dramatic standpoint, the duelists should be nearly equal
|> in ability as far as the means of the duel, which should (hopefully) be
|> entertaining to the rest of the players.

I have two pictures of combats, based on the above. The first is an unequal
combat (say, for example, the Warriors Three from Marvel vs. a group of
lower-level types). You get scenes of Volstaag smashing two heads together
(or just sitting on a group of people), Hogun (the guy with the mace?)
smashing a whole mob with one blow, etc. The fight lasts a half-dozen
panels at most, and forty people are lying around stunned. Meanwhile, the
Warriors Three are sitting down to a fresh mug of beer.

The second is a long slow fight (for example, the end of Ben Hur). There
you've got lots of excitement, and a battle drawn out for a tremendously
long period of time (I think the chariot scene in Ben Hur is more than 10
minutes of screen time). Of course, the supporting characters haven't
much to do (except stand in the arena and gasp appropriately), but you
don't care. The hero is doing something truly amazing, and defeating the
great nemesis.

I will confess that diced RPG combats have never felt like either of those,
much though I would want them to. Have I got a correct image of the
goal (if not the reality) of diceless combat?

Curtis