I was browsing my copy of the Amber Diceless RPG, and started thinking about different ways you could resolve conflict without using dice. Amber uses a non-random method - if my relevant stat is 35 and your relevant stat is 20, I will win unless you fake me out and I run away not realizing I had the upper hand.
That's one way to do it, but there must be tons of random resolution mechanics, or negotiation based systems.
 
What diceless systems are there out there, what mechanics do they use, and just as interestingly, what resolution mechanics can you think of that hasn't been used (yet)?

Depends on what you value as Diceless.  There are some games that use playing cards instead of dice.  But that's still just a different randomizer.  The fun thing about playing cards is that they can fit a setting more interestingly.  Deadlands inparticular.  The other neat thing about playing cards is that there is a limited random factor since the number of cards are fixed.  You know there are only 4 kings per deck.  If you play them early you know you may be losing out later.

The other mechanics I've seen mentioned is the use of counters.  You start out with a fixed ammount of counters and you an spend them to augment your stats.  Once your counters are gone you are stuck with your stats.  Until your counters refresh.

Quote from: kryystDepends on what you value as Diceless. There are some games that use playing cards instead of dice. But that's still just a different randomizer. The fun thing about playing cards is that they can fit a setting more interestingly. Deadlands inparticular. The other neat thing about playing cards is that there is a limited random factor since the number of cards are fixed. You know there are only 4 kings per deck. If you play them early you know you may be losing out later.
 
The other mechanics I've seen mentioned is the use of counters. You start out with a fixed ammount of counters and you an spend them to augment your stats. Once your counters are gone you are stuck with your stats. Until your counters refresh.

Yeah, I guess I'm more interested in non-random systems, but playing cards are fine too, especially if they're not just used as "draw a card, read the value". Maybe the suits do entirely different things in a negotiation situation, maybe the nine of hearts scores you points toward using your charms to resolve the situation, while the nine of clubs give you points towards intimidating your way towards a victory in the conflict. And if you're not willing to use intimidation (it's your girlfriend you're in a contest with, and you're not the type of guy who beats up women), you'll suffer a penalty to your result.
 
I think in particular currency-type systems are interesting, where the player has the power to decide how important success is. If you think you're about to run out of currency (or counters), you might choose to intentionally lose a contest to make sure that you have some resources left when the villain suddenly but inevitably betrays you. Or perhaps you think it makes for a better story if you do it the other way around. It gives power to the players, which I think is cool.

I like playing cards, but I like them because of the random factor.  My dislike from diceless systems isn't because I don't like roling dice.  But rather I like having that random factor.  If I fail because I didn't bet enough that's just annoying if I fail at a task because random fate has brought missfortune I can except that easier.  

Another issue I have against diceless is that the gm really has the advantage and you must have a great GM.  He knows exactly what the NPC's have and also what the players have.  He has the ability to act on all the knowledge of the game.  He also knows that a given NPC is only going to be around for so long and he's free to play them with that knowledge.  A PC on the other hand not only has to worry about how many points he's spending on this action.  But has to worry about how many points he'll have left to spend on an undetermined ammount of actions to come.

Which is why I really love card mechanics.  There is that limited urgency becasue you know what cards you have in your hand but no one else knows who's got what.  So you can choose to play a low card and most likely fail.  But even your low card could be better then someone elses.

The biggest problem we have with diceless systems like Amber is that they cater to the worst impulses of human behavior.  Yes, GMs can cheat with dice, but with a diceless system, it takes far greater self control for them not to cheat.

We might be interested in a diceless system if it somehow introduced the concept of fairness.  But we have not seen such a thing.

Quote from: RedcapThe biggest problem we have with diceless systems like Amber is that they cater to the worst impulses of human behavior.  Yes, GMs can cheat with dice, but with a diceless system, it takes far greater self control for them not to cheat.

We might be interested in a diceless system if it somehow introduced the concept of fairness.  But we have not seen such a thing.

I don't think it's hard at all (and I agree completely that Amber doesn't do it, it doesn't even try). If the GM tells you "Your opponent feels that humiliating you verbally in front of the court is worth spending 20 tokens", you know exactly what you need to spend in order to upstage him, but is it worth 21 tokens to get a marginal victory, and as much as 40 tokens to score a decisive victory? You might need those tokens later. As long as everyone plays with open cards, there's no problem with fairness. You could do it rock, paper, scissor style if you like a bit of uncertainty, just knowing how big pool of tokens the GM has to draw from is enough to ensure that he doesn't cheat. Obviously a rough idea of a system, but it wouldn't be hard to refine. You could determine the size of the GM's pool of tokens by deciding the importance of a specific npc (Major Plot Movers get 25 tokens, Grunts get 5 tokens, and so on), for example.

Theoretically, one of the interesting things about diceless systems (that have some replacement such as cards) is that you can disentangle uncertainty and randomness.
 
By uncertainty, I talking in the decision making sense, when you make a choice, you're not certain ahead of time what they outcome is.
 
If you choose a card or whatever without knowing what card others have chosen, there's uncertainty in the sense that you don't know what will happen until everything is revealed.  But the outcome for any given card combo is certain.
 
This would be a way to handle things if you wanted a game with very little randomness.  Like, suppose everyone is a god and there is a great deal of fatalism and pre-ordained things.
 
I haven't played around with it much because I usually like some randomness.  It takes things in directions that I didn't expect and keeps things fresh.

Quote from: NicephorusTheoretically, one of the interesting things about diceless systems (that have some replacement such as cards) is that you can disentangle uncertainty and randomness.
 

That's exactly what I find intriguing. Plus, I am very interested in any mechanic that empowers the players. If for example you're dealt a hand of cards (it could be that everyone gets one suit, 1-13) and any conflict you have to pick a card to reflect how important "winning" is for your character, you get a chance to influence the story in a way that dice doesn't allow. I like that, a lot.

I'm with Redcap on this one.  In order for diceless systems to work at all you need a really good and honest GM.  Also I think its a matter of personal choice, diceless just doesn'yt appeal to some people.

Quote from: Knightcrawlerdiceless just doesn'yt appeal to some people.

And vice versa, naturally.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheAnd vice versa, naturally.

I would say that anyone who is completely against rolling dice is in the wrong hobby.

I think the big issue is how you play the game.  Diceless style systems (and I'm not talking about swapping playing cards for dice) dont' work in a D20 style game.  Where every action is based on a die roll.  You can't just subtrac that die roll and insert a diceless mechanic.  It doesn't work.  

For diceless to work you have to be willing to play a game where you are really narrating the outcomes and not all the minor steps on how to get there.  A combat is a round by round breakdown of dodges and parries it's got to be more abstract to the ultimate conclussion of who won and what happened to the other guy.  

So really when you talk about diceless we aren't really arguabling about the dice.  It's back to the whole Gamist/Narratist debate.

So for me I like Gamie games.  I like to roll dice, I like to have varried random outcomes and I like to know the play by play.  Otherwise I feel like I should either just be writing the story or reading the book.

Quote from: kryystFor diceless to work you have to be willing to play a game where you are really narrating the outcomes and not all the minor steps on how to get there.

Diceless doesn't have to be pure narration. Some systems amount to doling out resources, deciding which things are important. Instead of random cards, a character can have a fixed set and has to decide when to use the good cards and when the bad ones will do. You can also use token pools which are functionally similar.
 
But yea, it's an entirely different game that's likely to be more abstract and converting a dice game to diceless isn't likely to work well.
 
 
I wonder if you could mix dice and diceless - some things are pre-ordained or chosen to definitely work and the rest is left to chance. Hero points or action points are sort of like this, you have a small pool if almost definite successes or failure erasers.
 
Here's an example of mixed dice/diceless that might work. I have a seed of an idea for a setting that takes place at the court of a mad king that is isolated on a dream like plane. A possible rule is that characters of a certain level or type can choose to have lucid dreams that become part of the fabric of reality - if the conditions can be set up, the dream comes true.
 
Mechanically, each player would write their dream on a card/scrap of paper, 10 words max. There would be uncertainty in that you wouldn't know what other players and NPCs have dreamed. Then, if the right situation comes up you can play your dream card which comes true in some way.
 
Example: A player dreams "I kill Duke Buko in a duel." If they can manage to duel Duke Buko, they automatically kill him. If the duel never comes up, then the card can't be played. However, if Duke Buko had also dreamed he killed the player, then they die simultaneously. Or if, someone had dreamed that the first person to kill someone that day would burst into flame, the player would win the duel but find themselves suddenly on fire.
 
When dreams aren't coming into play, some more normal method would be used to resolve actions.

Quote from: NicephorusDiceless doesn't have to be pure narration. Some systems amount to doling out resources, deciding which things are important.

Exactly. Marvel Universe was completely diceless, with no randomizers at all (unlike Marvel Super Heroes, which used a deck of cards). To quote an RPGnet review:

QuoteInstead, the system is based on the concept of effort. All characters have a certain number of Stones in their Energy Reserve that they can spend on doing actions every given round, or Page as the game color names them. If the action seems easy, like riding a bicycle, then a player may only wish to spend one or two stones that round on the action. If the action seems more difficult, like catching a person in a fall from a ten-story building before they hit the ground, they may want to put some more effort into and spend their entire Energy Reserve on it.

Expending effort can be tiring though. As such, you only regenerate so many stones into your energy reserve per page based upon how healthy your character is. Stones may also be spit up to try and do more than one action per turn, or panel as the game calls them.

RPGnet

Quote from: KnightcrawlerI would say that anyone who is completely against rolling dice is in the wrong hobby.

Which hobby would you suggest then? :confused:

Just because the roleplaying hobby has become virtually synonymous with D&D like games doesn't mean that people that doesn't like randomness in their games aren't roleplayers.

Shit, I'm used to "my" side of this argument to be elitist about their hobby...