I've heard about "diceless" systems, bu I've never looked into one.

 I've also heard of "GM less" systems, but have no desire to learn how one might work.

 I guess I'm a gaming traditionalists. I think a RPG should have rules, a system, a GM and die rolling.

 Does this make me a dinosaur gamer? Or does it make me someone who likes things that work fine and don't need to be fixed?

 Maybe some people will call me a dinosaur gamer because I don't have interest in the latest fad or fix for something that already worked fine, I prefer to think of myself as an original gamer.

 Anyone else just not interested in things that seem to be major changes to RPGing that don't really make it better, just...different? I like rolling dice, I like having rules I can understand and make a decision based on and I like having a good GM. Things that change those had better make a real, notable improvement or I'm ust not interested.

I think you'll find that the majority of people on this site will agree with you.  I try to evaluate games on a more individual basis.  Diceless works sometimes, GMless works sometimes.

Quote from: theuglyknight;375843I think you'll find that the majority of people on this site will agree with you.  I try to evaluate games on a more individual basis.  Diceless works sometimes, GMless works sometimes.

Recently someone on rpg.net got banned over an argument about hit points and whether or not they were unrealistic and should be used in games.

Again, I like hit points for the most part. Sure they may not be clinically realistic and even a single hit point to the carotid artery can kill someone, but those are special circumstances for a GM to work out. In most cases they work fine, like GMs and dice.

I'm reminded of what Michael Renee said near the end of the day the earth stood still: "We do not pretend to have achieved perfection, but we have a system, and it works."

By and large, I think dice, GMs and hit points come close enough to fulfilling that standard, and it's good enough for me.

My favorite RPG (Marvel SAGA) is diceless.  It still has a randomizer, but its diceless.

In my experience, it utterly blows away every supers RPG I have played (and I have had more fun with it than any RPG I have ever played, hence the "favorite" part).

That said, I tend to really dislike every Forge-ish game I have bought, read, borrowed or traded for.

And I sure don't like the idea of ditching the GM or handing players plot immunity or what have you.

I just don't think dice are 100% necessary.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;375869My favorite RPG (Marvel SAGA) is diceless.  It still has a randomizer, but its diceless.

In my experience, it utterly blows away every supers RPG I have played (and I have had more fun with it than any RPG I have ever played, hence the "favorite" part).

That said, I tend to really dislike every Forge-ish game I have bought, read, borrowed or traded for.

And I sure don't like the idea of ditching the GM or handing players plot immunity or what have you.

I just don't think dice are 100% necessary.

Ah, c'mon. They're fun to roll.

I wouldn't say my choice of rolpelaying games is totally unsentimental or pretend and there aren't a few ugly duckling rpgs I am nonetheless very fond of. Still,  by and large there is nothing sacred about the traditional roleplaying game format for me. What matters is what works and makes things easier on me.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;375869My favorite RPG (Marvel SAGA) is diceless.  It still has a randomizer, but its diceless.

Most genuinely diceless RPG simply substitute something else for randomizers. The systems might have all the mechanical complexity of their diced counterparts, but they just don't rely on random chance.

Quote from: Cylonophile;375874Ah, c'mon. They're fun to roll.

No, you're right, I agree.  I totally dig random tables...I love just rolling crap up and making it make sense.  It is literally something I enjoy immensely.

Although, I have drawn up more than a few random tables for Marvel SAGA using their Fate deck that I can do the same with.

As a rule, I'm more interested in what does interest people than what doesn't.

If a guy wants to tell me why GMs suck, that doesn't interest me.  If a guy wants to tell me why GMless rocks though, that does.  I want a GM, that's my play preference, but I enjoy hearing about what someone else enjoys and why.

Hearing about what they don't like, that interests me less.  Of course, I'm no saint, I post more about what I don't like than what I do, but fuck it I don't claim to be a role model here.

So, you like dice, GMs, clear player/GM delineation, all that shit?  Well, me too.  If someone likes something else, well that's cool and I'm interested to hear them talk about their fun but it doesn't make me any less happy with mine.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;375938No, you're right, I agree.  I totally dig random tables...I love just rolling crap up and making it make sense.  It is literally something I enjoy immensely.

Although, I have drawn up more than a few random tables for Marvel SAGA using their Fate deck that I can do the same with.

I wasn't talking random tables like encounters, I meant roll to hit, roll to damage.

Quote from: Balbinus;376033As a rule, I'm more interested in what does interest people than what doesn't.

If a guy wants to tell me why GMs suck, that doesn't interest me.  If a guy wants to tell me why GMless rocks though, that does.  I want a GM, that's my play preference, but I enjoy hearing about what someone else enjoys and why.

Hearing about what they don't like, that interests me less.  Of course, I'm no saint, I post more about what I don't like than what I do, but fuck it I don't claim to be a role model here.

So, you like dice, GMs, clear player/GM delineation, all that shit?  Well, me too.  If someone likes something else, well that's cool and I'm interested to hear them talk about their fun but it doesn't make me any less happy with mine.

I think I like you. You don't want to hear someone run down the other side, you want to hear them promote their own side without running down the other side.

I like that kind of debate. Just wish more goddam politicians used that sort of argument.

Quote from: Cylonophile;376080I wasn't talking random tables like encounters, I meant roll to hit, roll to damage.

In non-superhero games, I guess I agree.  When I find a superhero game that I enjoy as much as SAGA, I'll agree with that, too.  'till then?  Eh.

Quote from: Cylonophile;375829I've heard about "diceless" systems, bu I've never looked into one.

 I've also heard of "GM less" systems, but have no desire to learn how one might work.

Meh. Me neither.

I'm kinda curious about Amber, but it just... doesn't interest me enough to want to check it out. I don't know. Doesn't get my juices running, if you see what I mean. I like to roll dice, and talk to a GM. "If it ain't broken, don't fix it." You know.

I've never heard of a GMless RPG. Are there any free examples that I could try out?
As far as playing with no dice, I've never tried before but for me I get a lot of enjoyment out of rolling dice for some strange reason. I even like how they look laying on the table with the rulebooks, pencils, character sheets, and mini's. I'm willing to try most things once though.

Generally speaking, any group with more than 3 people in it will eventually stratify into 3 layers. This applies to religion, politics, fhandom of various things and of course gaming.

I'd say you have your 3 layers of gamers now. I guess I'd a traditionalist. I like dice, GMs and conventional thing like that.

You also get the guys who try any and everything new just because it is new, so they go with diceless, GM less gaming and anything else that's non traditional.

Then you get the middle of the road types who will at least look at something like a diceless or GMless system, but will not necessarily go to to because it's new, nor will they stick with older systems simply because they're traditional.

Meh, just people's nature to form a group, then divide the group into about 3 strata, I suppose.