From: eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu (Dave Bonar)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Diceless or Senseless?
Keywords: this is getting long
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:00:17 GMT
Reply-To: eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu
Organization: News and Views from LSU
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-2635]: sn01.sncc.lsu.edu

In article <1992Aug11.183531.25783@newshost.unh.edu>, dqk412@kepler.unh.edu (David Q Kennard) writes...
>In article <1992Aug11.155925.15706@cs.tulane.edu> eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Aug10.204651.8549@newshost.unh.edu>, dqk412@kepler.unh.edu (David Q Kennard) writes...
>>>In article <1992Aug10.190845.11658@news2.cis.umn.edu> thornley@deci.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
>>>>In article <RATINOX.92Aug5144823@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat) writes:
>>
>>	As I've said before, I like setting up the world and the situations.
>>	But the feel I want in my game is that the characters are real.
>>	In a sense it is an impartial, random universe.  The characters
>>	are heros.  They are better then the norm and generally have
>>	better ideas (at least partially due to the fact that as a GM I'm
>>	running so many things).  The world is even tilted a little into
>>	their favor (since they are PCs).  But there is no overriding spirit
>>	controlling what happens every detailed step of the way.  
>>
> 
>And there is nothing inherent in diceless roleplaying that requires an
>"overriding spirit controlling every detailed step". Note that a stated
>goal in the Amber rulebook is ultimately to do away with the need for a GM
>and with rules altogether. This is certainly an extreme position, and is
>an attitude that some posters have derided (even in less extreme examples)
>as not being a game at all (which I won't address here), but it *is* 
>certainly an example of the attitude toward "controlling GMs" that is held
>by Eric Wucjik, author of Amber.

	Two points:	I'm not specifically saying anything about Amber.
		Early on in this thread there were a couple of comments 
		that diceless play is superior to play with dice in any
		RPG setting.  I don't believe that you hold this view.
		However, it is what I initially responded to.

			Secondly, as long as a diceless game has a GM
		deciding the results of actions, his spirit or ideas 
		will appear in every outcome.  I'm going to use combat
		as an example.  There is no real reason for this but 
		combat does involve many decisions in a short space of
		time.

			Assume that a enemy thug fires on our PC hero.
		In a diceless game I am forced to decide if he hits and
		how serious the hit is.  Similarly, in a sword fight I
		have to decide if the hero's feint is enough to fool the
		target or not?  In most genres and worlds I see no need
		for this level of control.  

>>>>Not really.  Any GM who lets the dice run things is a bad GM.  Therefore,
>>>>the GM should keep an eye on the acceptable results and fudge as necessary
>>>>to keep the game within those results.  
>>>>
>>>In other words, use the dice as long as you like the results, and toss any
>>>results you don't like. If you're making decisions without the dice, then
>>>why make the rolls in the first place?
>>
>>	First, one general comment.  I dislike criticals.  Thus, unless
>>	impossible I tend to throw them out of the system.  This goes a
>>	long way towards removing outragous results.
>>
>>	Beyond that, sometimes there are situations that beg for GM 
>>	intervention.

>Hence, diceless roleplaying games...   :)

		Sure, by now it should be obvious that I'm not rabidly
	pro dice in all situations.  There is no way I could run any 
	game (except maybe a 4 color comics game) and always follow the
	dice.  Or even always roll the dice.  But I don't want to run a 
	game completely without dice either after thinking about GMing them
	and playing in a couple.  

>>	Similarly, I'll tend to work around
>>	any dice results that lead to an ultra-quick, un-exciting 
>>	resolution of the entire problem at hand.  I won't rule them out
>>	entirely but I'll modify them.
> 
>You're making the diceless decisions, at least implicitly, that results A
>are okay while results B are not okay while results C don't need dice at all.
>This is all fine (I fudge rolls when I GM, too), but I know that for myself
>I need to keep aware that *I am making a statement about the nature of the
>gaming universe*. This is at the heart of any "impartiality" and "consistency"
>that I might try for. The decisions I make as a GM, from setting up the
>world to describing things to the players to fudging the die rolls, I make
>for a reason. They may sometimes seem arbitrary, and sometimes seem to lead on
>or even control the characters, but they are not and do not. I hold to a
>sense of the player characters and their place in and interaction with their
>surroundings, but I do not control them. And I like the "real world" feel 
>to it all (diced or diceless).

		Yes, the GM automatically makes a statement abut the nature
	of the gaming universe.  That is the level I refered to before as
	the strategic level.  

		However, for what I call tactical decisions, the everyday
	application of characters (both PC and NPC) skills, I prefer to 
	let things fall as they may unless the results are going to be
	in opposition to the strategic decisions I've made on.

>>	Basically, my theory is that dice add an element to a game.  As the
>>	GM I can turn any system into a diceless system at any time.  But
>>	in a system that starts out diceless it is more difficult to 
>>	add in reasonable dice resolution for the times when I feel no
>>	need to dictate the results.
>>
> 
>I'll certainly agree with this last point. A game with robust diced mechanics
>can always have those mechanics ignored, while coming up with robust mechanics
>on the fly in a game with no such systems is quite difficult. I currently
>run (PBM) for a friend who has what amounts to a CoC character written up
>in Hero. I haven't used any dice or Hero system mechanics yet, but if I feel
>the need they do exist. If he had written up his character without using
>any system I would have no backstop if it turned out some system was useful.
> 
>Dave Kennard
>DAVE@UNH.EDU
> 
>Oh my God! I've agreed with both Dave Bonar and Axly in the same afternoon!

	:>

Dave
__________
Dave Bonar
eebonar@lsuvax.sncc.lsu.edu
__________
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy