IDLE HANDS…

We’ve rolled dice for as long as we can remember. Playing our beloved games and hoping for that great roll. Sometimes fate shines upon us and sometimes it leaves us in a dark cave. The element of chance is incredibly exciting. How could we live without it? Some game developers have said you can. I’ll enter one contestant. Marvel Universe Role-playing Game. I use this example because I have experience with it. In the game you start off with points to put in to your character to flesh out abilities, skills, powers, etc. Pretty standard. Once that is all done, one of your abilities will determine how much energy you have to spend each round or page. Marvel Universe Role-playing Game does not use the standard round but panels and pages like in a comic book. The goal was to give the feel of being in the comic book that you write as you play. Back to the energy pool. The Game-master explains the situation to you. Say you have arrived at an abandoned chemical factory and you are searching for clues to a villain. If you have a power or skill that would allow you to do that then this is the time for energy allocation. Let us say you have 10 energy. You have a 4 in Infra-vision and a 6 in Force Field. You can allocate your points to max out those two powers so if you find something and it triggers and attack, you will be prepared. However, you have no points in movement. Moving will not be something you can do this page. This is just a small example. It seems like it gives you a new experience with great freedom and control. The time I ran it, it seemed clunky and slow. This was years ago. I am considering giving it another chance. The questions is, what do you guys think? Is a dice-less game possible? Are we too rooted in the roll? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

I think a dice-less game is absolutely possible, though I can't help but feel pulled back by the need for something to replace them. For example, cards from a shuffled deck are a great way to get more or less the same randomized experience as dice. That being said, if you're thinking of whether it's possible to have a game without randomness as an element, then I'd give a tentative "yes" given that either a series of other kinds of calculations regarding player stats and pre-determined event stat requirements or simply have the players respect the in-game scenario and react realistically like on these forums (maybe with a voting system for in-person games, i.e. "No way could you have dodged that arrow. Overruled.").

Either way, it puts a lot more responsibility on the GM's shoulder to determine the outcomes of each of those actions. For instance, in your Marvel example, it sounds like the action point system is pretty cool, but from your description, it seems like the results of every action the players take is completely up to the GM to determine. That's where the dice are helpful, because it helps the GM point to an external force when something bad happens, i.e. "It's not my fault you died, the roll was clear!"

In video games, you're actually moving an avatar around, so it's easy to see when something hits you why you react the way you do, but in an RP, it's usually all just talk. But video games still take a lot from role playing games, because they take a lot more setup. My first thought for a non-random role playing game would probably be your best bet. You can allocate and earn stats (through level ups, items/equipment, etc.), and the outcomes of certain events with required minimum stats would be determined by simple math or the presence of specific kinds of items. The drawback of that would be that it requires more preparation of the various maps you'll be playing on (which of course is rarely bad)... And unless you're particularly good at improvisation and can decide on numbers and calculate quickly in your head, there's less room for improvising as a GM.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject. TL;DR, dice in games simply exist to make everyone's lives easier while still offering some enjoyable complexity.

Just to add to the discussion, there's a diceless horror game called Dread that uses a jenga tower instead of dice. Actions cost pulls from the tower instead of rolls, and collapsing the tower tends to result in death (you can also punch the tower to sacrifice yourself heroically). It's heavily gm driven though.

Then there's also fiasco which still uses rolls for what results and events are but it is very heavily driven by roleplay. There are good dice and bad dice assigned based on the groups consensus of how an rp interaction went down. The thing that interests me about it though is that it's entirely GMless and could probably be modified to be diceless as well.

I feel like people can figure out diceless systems with some effort, but you need players who don't get defensive about their characters and are more interested in seeing the story play out than their characters succeeding.

(Both of these games were played on wil wheaton's tabletop on youtube btw.)

I'm actually making a diceless RPG, right now. And it gets around the issue of chance by just having a lot of possible bonuses and penalties, so you work things out in combat through planning, tactics and technique instead of sheer dumb luck. In fact, that's the reason why it's diceless. So it can be all about skill, where a game involving dice is often more chance than anything else.

@Avianmosquito
Would you mind elaborating a bit more on how your system works? It sounds interesting, but I can't think of how it would work without a lot of GM input. Who determines what needs to be done in order for a plan to work? And how are the outcomes decided on? Is it kind of like the "lots of pre-planning and calculations" idea I had in my post? I'd love to know more.

@Alamantus
Frequently, it does come down to GM input, when I didn't think of something. That's true of every game, though. You can't play an hour of any tabletop game without the GM having to decide if something the party did works or not because the game designer didn't think of it.

Okay, so I'm going to use a single example. Something very basic. Somebody is trying to evade getting stabbed by your halberd. Which they tend to do. It looks simple at first. If your attack is equal to or higher than their evasion and you're close enough, you stab them. If their evasion is higher they evade it, if you aren't close enough you can't reach (and shouldn't be trying in the first place). However, there's actually a lot of depth here.

So, what if your attack is lower, and you can't hit them? Then what? Well, obviously you need to raise your attack or lower their evasion. Raising your attack can be done in a number of ways. The simplest is to aim, which makes the attack take more action points but also raises your attack massively. But there's other options. You could change weapons, use something that's either smaller or is of a different weapon type with better attack. If your halberd isn't hitting, both a knife and a spear might have a better chance. You might also try shedding some weight, since encumbrance penalizes attack (amongst other things).

The other option is to lower their evasion. The simplest way is to change attack types, and use something harder to sidestep. If you switch from thrusting to swinging, you'll face half the evasion and be much more likely to score a hit. Sure, swings are (usually) less lethal and (usually) more hindered by armour than thrusts, but they're a LOT easier to hit with. Otherwise, you could try having your mate help, because evasion has a limit on the number of people it can defend against per round, and that starts at 1, so if you and your mate both attack, one of you can't be evaded. Or, you could chase them into a place where they can't move as easily. Evasion is lower on slopes or stairs, and it's lower if up against a wall and especially in a confined space. This also helps keep theme in you reach, too. Attacking by surprise would also help, because by default evasion only kicks in *after* somebody has taken their first turn, and if you attack by surprise you go first in the first round regardless of initiative. You might also try attacking them from behind, as evasion doesn't work on enemies behind you by default. Lastly, attacking during their turn also works, since people don't get evasion during their own turns, and this can be done as a reaction to their actions, which is a whole other system for another time. (Basically, I'm talking about what D&D calls "attacks of opportunity", though they work differently here.)

On the other side, what if an enemy is trying to hit you and their attack is higher than your evasion? Well, if you would rather not be stabbed, then you can try moving away from them. Reactionary actions here can include movement, so moving backwards as much as is allowed will force them to either follow and take an attack penalty for movement and possibly miss, or stay still and almost certainly not be in reach anymore anyway. Another option is to move into a place where they simply can't use their attack, like going into a narrow corridor or between a pair of trees or something if they're trying to swing. Alternately, get behind something. You can also try hitting them first, if their attack is big enough to allow a reactionary action of that size, in an attempt to impair their attack. And another easy one, you can just get closer. You might try stepping inside their minimum range, so their swing or thrust can't connect. They'll try to move away, though, so this doesn't always work very well and should be reserved for enemies with a long minimum range you are already close to. Grappling is also an option, though that takes just as long as attacking, as if it works it gets you very close to the enemy and if it doesn't it still wastes a LOT of their action points. Or, you can just guard. It costs an action point, but if your guard is higher than their attack you can intercept their weapon before it reaches you. (Just don't do it without a weapon, that's an easy way to lose a hand.) And once again, you can ask your mate for help, since they can guard attacks for you, and even if their fail their attempt will make yours easier.

These are very basic examples, of course, but ones that are very important since combat is often a big part of the game and a part of the game that's about as forgiving as a stand-up gig at the Nuremberg Trials and good luck completing a campaign if you're bad at the combat. If those aren't good enough examples, though, you'll have to clarify because I don't know what you're looking for.

That's very true. I suppose the GM is kind of the way you progress through a game, directing motion and painting scenery... I've been thinking too much in terms of video games. :P

Interesting! That makes a lot of sense and sounds like it helps with theme/location because it requires a lot of spatial awareness. It sounds like there are lots of number checks involved (though that's no different than DnD, I suppose). How do you keep track of all the numbers? Do you just use stacks of paper? Or would you recommend like a whiteboard or something for the players?

Also, are there specific weapon types that players can use, or can they improvise weaponry and just use logic to determine how they act? Or is that up to the GM, too?

Well, I've had everything written up on my laptop so far, character sheet wise. I can PM you copies of what those look like, if you want, since our last campaign ended so abruptly. And actually, we should probably be having this conversation through PM. I don't want to hijack this thread. As for improvising, we *used* to have rules for that, but since I changed how crafting works, the rules for improvised weapons haven't been updated, so we effectively don't have any right now.

Good point. I'll PM you, but I think we didn't hijack the thread toooo much... You have a functional example of dice-less play, so I think what we wrote is still within the topic's space. Anyway, yeah, I'm definitely curious!