Dice: Necessary or Not?

[The Hive Custodian]

I've been thinking about this recently. How necessary are dice in a roleplaying game? For years, I've played Dungeons and Dragons, which usually relies heavily on dice to determine the results of actions. However, I'm starting to wonder if dice are necessary or even desirable. On one hand, they are impartial, and they do create that feeling of unpredictability and risk, and of a game of chance. On the other, I highly doubt most authors of stories dice up their plots. After all, a die is as dumb as a rock--in fact, it is a rock. It doesn't know what's going on; only you do. Unfortunately, I've hardly participated in any diceless games at all.

So, I'm curious. Those of you who have participated in both diced and diceless games (EDIT: Whether D&D or not; I intended this to be a discussion of dice and roleplaying in general, not just D&D, just to make that clear. You can still, of course, discuss D&D here.): What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? Which do you prefer and why?

[elmer_jok]

In all the diced games I've ever played, I've found this to be true: Dice Gods hate me. I am consistently gonna fail the worst save I could have possibly saved, at the most inoportune time. Who cares that I have the best save, AC,attack, hp total, or precautionary method I take for the given situation. My cleric in the f2f 2edition game I used to play would always lose his boots in the dungeon (or one time his feet), always failed his save vs. fire on his bag of holding with all the loot. That I was only engaged with one enemy rather than five or six while that one enemy always seemed to get the better of me in some way. I always got caught up in the worst traps, rolled the most 1's in my saves, and always had the worst luck with melee. No matter how much my character and the party as a whole sometimes invested in my protection vs. harm, I was always the unconcious one we were toting back to town to have someone heal our only cleric.

I figured that when I stopped playing that character my bad luck streak would end. But, no, of course not. I continue to have bad luck with my characters to this day. I'm puling for my half-orc in Flaggs scale of the ages, but last battle I got pretty beat up, and I'm fearing the worst for him as well. My dwarven wizard in my current 3.e f2f campaign, despite having toughness with a high Constitution Score and a good set of saves as well, has almost bit the dust a few times so far and we're only 3rd level. He's fallen in pits filled with a hoard of dire rats, contracted a disease from those rats, been pin-cussioned with stirges, and has had all his equipment except his spell-book destroyed by an ooze that nearly killed him too. My elven archer that I run as well (I run two characters in this campaign) has been marked as a religious zealot trying to cause discension in the keep we use to rest and re-equip (the only close place to the caves of chaos where we adventure), has been approached by a guard wanting to charge 500gp for protection, and subsequently had an assasination attempt in the keep since he refused the guard. Now he's marked a complete outlaw and deemed a most-wanted fugitive of the keep. This caused alot of discension in the party and such that almost led to the death of many of our party members, and did cause a conversion of faith in our parties cleric (his second such switch!). We're now hiding out at a farm under fake names in the country-side from seekers of our group from the keep.

I've never played a diceless game, but am liking the idea. It would take out that extreme randomness that pops into some players careers. No matter how much of an expert you are in any such thing, you will always have that 5% failure chance (except 3.edition's which at least have no automatic failure on a natural 1 in their skill usage)

[Linklegacy77]

Oh come now, Rathius hasn't had that bad lcuk yet.

To answer your question, I think dice are needed. Otherwise, it becomes a case of who can speak the fastest and can best describe what he wants to do. The dice also limit your character. Without them, you can just say: "I do this ridiculous thing" and it happens.

[Mercutio]

I'm with Link. When I write, of course I don't use dice because I control every aspect of the plot and the characters. When you are playing a game, which necessitates more than one input into an environment, you need some sort of mechanic to determine whose version of reality wins. Face it, you're never going to agree on every aspect of a story with someone else, especially if that other person objects to his character being injured just because you said so. The only way to fairly arbitrate in that situation is through adding the element of random chance and rule that says what the outcome of that chance is.

That said, I'm not married to the idea of dice as always being the adjudicator, but without allowing each participant some measure of control (and without limiting that to prevent god-modding), the game becomes either boring, a struggle of wills, or otherwise no longer fun.

[akiko]

Elmer, you have to realize you are the victom of Murphy's Law and the fact that it extends well beyond your dice.

"If anything can go wrong, it will." -M'sL

"Usually at the most inopportune time." - MacGillicuddy's Corollary

"Murphy was an optimist." -O'Toole's commentary

[elmer_jok]

I disagree with doing away with dice-rolling completely. On the contrary, I have always and will always continue to use dice of some sort. I was just stating that the dice gods hate me. You're right akiko, I'm just a victimto murphy and his laws.

I have too had bad luck with Rathius, my first battle - knockout. Haven't encountered something like a saving throw yet *knocks on wood*, but my time will come (if I can actual stay up during a battle.)

My character in Coffee Sucker's Quick Post Scenario hasn't faired much better, having been held up in the entire last battle in a Web Spell, but hasn't been or dropped or even hurt as of yet *knocks on wood again*

I have been thinking of some easy-to-apply rules to cut down on the 3.5 editions dice rolling system while still leaving some kind of random game mechanics in the game. A simplified version of some sort. Not that the system is too complicated, just that some things in the current system don't have to have constant rolls. Ah hell, I should just take a closer look at different gaming systems rather than set out to create a system for this system-within-a-system, it seems too me to be quite a monumental task. Or maybe it's just the roleplayer in me that sees that D&D has now turned into pretty much a war game, it seems like nearly 90% or more of the gaming mechanics are designed towards doing battle of one kind or another. How many different rules apply to combat skills compared to rules related to roleplaying skills. I'd like to see more things like Takkaryx has done with the diplomacy skill (http://online-roleplaying.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6726) in his games. Similar rules for intimidate maybe? How about information gathering or knowlege skills?

[LynMars]

Actually, in Amber Diceless, and in other diceless games, there's still some form of resolution system. In freeform games I've played online, even, there's a significant amount of etiquette that takes the place of dice. Everyone gets a turn, sometimes in specific posting order, sometimes not. But one action between GM resolution, and everything is an attempt until the GM says it works.

In Amber, the karma rules help determine some things, but mostly, it's up to the GM, whom the players have to trust to be arbitrary and fair to story--but that's the same in any game. Even with dice, I've seen GMs fudge in favor of their sig-o's.

Diceless games do work, they just require a slight shift in mindset and an understanding of shared storytelling and etiquette. There are oftentimes still rules and restrictions on what a character can do, the random dice element has just been removed. The random people element is still there, and interaction is what determines things more than die rolls. A GM has to be more careful of perceptions of fairness, and more focused on story and description than in a dice game many times.

MEHSV has been running for years, with no dice involved. We succeed or fail as much as in any other game, all based on the needs of the story--which in a good dice game is also often the case, if the GM isn't enslaved to letting the dice "fall where they may". I've found I enjoy those games less, as story ends up less cohesive as players swap chars in and out due to random deaths or other circumstances, plot holes have to be scrambled to be filled or covered, and players put less care or thought into background and characterization due to the mentality of "Well, I'm too likely to die, so why put in the effort?"

I do like a combination of the two forms; dice-with-fudging-for-story is a good time, with some impartial resolution for normal stuff, and an attentive GM with his characters and plot in mind more than that natural 1 determining everything. And if you can get a good group of folks interested more in story than twinking to get the max amount of dice bonus, than freeform or diceless can work very well.

[Mercutio]

Let's be clear - I wasn't implying that diceless games don't work, or that there shouldn't be fudging on the part of the DM. However, with D&D 3.5 the goal was to make it more of an interactive story than it had been in the past. DM's told stories in other editions, and used the characters to help weave that story. In the games I played in, there was a lot more fudging going on than in the games I play now.

With the shift to a communal storyline, driven by the characters and facilitated by the DM, the need for above board honest dice rolls became more important.

I have no experience with a Diceless system like Amber. My experience has been with freeform roleplaying in general. I haven't been impressed. With Amber, it might be something else altogether, so I won't comment on it.

My thought is that a fair adjudication system relies on rules that all parties have to live up to, and ultimately it's up to the judge to make the final ruling - hence the need for a DM.

[Shutter]

To answer your question, I think dice are needed. Otherwise, it becomes a case of who can speak the fastest and can best describe what he wants to do. The dice also limit your character. Without them, you can just say: "I do this ridiculous thing" and it happens.
I think this highlights the difficulty of going diceless. If the above happens, then something has gone terribly wrong with the interpretation of dicelessness.

Edit: The point being, diceless requires a lot more work than letting dice make the decisions. If done well, it can be well worth it, but it can also be done very poorly.

[Black Plauge]

As one of the long time players in Eidilon, I must say that I appreciate both kinds of games.

Using dice means that you have a fair an impartial judge to determine the outcome of any action that you try. This is especially true if you have a well codified rule set (which D&D and d20 are for the most part). In a dice based game, the DM's job is not to determine whether you succeed or fail, but how difficult the task is and what the appropriate abilities/skills/whatever are. The dice then determine whether you succeed or fail.

However, since dice are random, you can have events where your character fails that critical saving throw, miss that critical attack, get hit with a critical hit, or countless other things where it would serve story purposes much better to succeed (or for your enemy to fail) but the dice randomly come up the other way. Of course, given the way the human mind works, you are more likely to remember these high emotion events, rather than all the successes you had, so it can seem that the dice hate you, but they are random and impartial to a fault. In fact, if the dice aren't completely random, some one is cheating.


In a diceless game everything that happens, happens because someone (be it the player, or the DM/Storyteller/Arbiter/whatever) deems it necessary to advance the story. You don't have the random setbacks that you do with dice, some of which you can never recover from.

However, in a diceless game, it's very easy for things to get out of hand. Without the impartiallity of the dice, players or DMs can run amok, showing favoritism or otherwise controlling the story in a way that reduces the role and fun of everyone else.


In Eidilon, we're lucky to have a fairly good group of players who respect each other and make it so that everything goes smoothly. As a result we don't really need dice (or even a DM) to keep the game going. However, we've also seen the potential problems that this kind of system can have. Nestro was evidence of that.

[Linklegacy77]

Actually elmer, Rathius has been extraordinarily lucky. He had a very good chance of being killed 3 or 4 times in that battle, but dice rolling on my part saved him. I don't fudge dice ^^.

Let's be clear - I wasn't implying that diceless games don't work, or that there shouldn't be fudging on the part of the DM. However, with D&D 3.5 the goal was to make it more of an interactive story than it had been in the past. DM's told stories in other editions, and used the characters to help weave that story. In the games I played in, there was a lot more fudging going on than in the games I play now.

Exactly!

However, in a diceless game, it's very easy for things to get out of hand. Without the impartiallity of the dice, players or DMs can run amok, showing favoritism or otherwise controlling the story in a way that reduces the role and fun of everyone else.

Again true.

[LynMars]

In the freeform games I'm in, people are sticklers for the rules that don't have to do with dice--actions are only assumed until the GM says so, one combat action at a time, don't godmode other characters, etc etc. There have been cases where someone would break these rules, by trying to run amok in a thread, or even as a GM. Because it is going to happen, same way one's going to find dice-fudging players or minmaxers to try and get around dice to as much as possible to succeed and be badass.

A good example would be a thread on the other forum now where a newbie GM, who's never RPed before ever, is trying to run something...and railroading players left and right in increasingly ridiculous circumstances. The players have really, really tried to work with this kid--and finally said forget it and removed their chars from play. Due to his behaviors OOC as well as in his own thread, he's pretty much unwelcome in anything anyone else runs, as no other GMs will tolerate that.

Same for a player who tried to tell me in a thread I ran that my ruling was "impossible" and it didn't happen. I never had to say a word, the other players swooped in, reminded the player of the forum rules regarding how threads work, and proceeded to not deal with her anymore ICly when she tried to cause a public fuss over the matter. She ended up with the reputation of a difficult powergamer who tried to pull things out of "ass-space" to succeed, and eventually left when no one would deal with her again.

In a decent freeform community/group, the players police each other, and sometimes the GM. And I'm still of the opinion the GM in a diceless/freeform game is pretty much exactly the same as a GM in a dice game; they both set the difficulty and what it will take to succeed, the difference is the method of resolution (in d20, it's making the DC check. In Amber, it's using your chars' abilities descriptively, then comparing traits and circumstances). Both must be fair and impartial to their players, putting the needs of the group and the story before individuals.

I've seen players and GMs run amok in dice games as much as in diceless or freeform in my time RPing; it has far more to do, I think, with the people themselves than what form of resolution is or isn't used. People are people no matter what, and RPing in general requires a level of cooperation, socialization, and maturity.

[nightinverse]

It all depends on what you value in the game, and the relative maturity of your players.

You can have a diceless game, or for the purposes of this discussion, a freeform which lasts much longer and is far more interesting than a dice based game. It just takes a certain amount of mutual respect, ability, and dedication.

If you value story and have an active imagination, diceless is highly effective. However, if your player base cannot function without dice due to mutual disagreement, the inclusion of dice to sort decisions rather than reliance upon writing itself does allow for a less well-synced group to play.

As a GM, I have taken particular games off of dice without telling my players - it's worked great! And no, not Lemphyr - I'm not prepared to fairly manage a group of that size without a random element.

[Linklegacy77]

It has probobly worked great for you NI, becuase your player base still believed that they were following the standard rule set including dice. Sure you just decided of the outcome without rolling dice, but the players thought there was dice as a random element. If they had thought or known otherwise, it would have likely turned out otherwise.

[Oneiros]

I believe that dice are required only if and only if your GM isn't up to being impartial.

I've played a million different games, both with and without dice, and with expert and unskilled GMs.

I've discovered that dice more or less help the GM stay impartial. In the Nobilis game I run, there are no dice. There are attributes and statistics and all that jibber jabber, but they exist to remind us who our characters are and what they can do.

The very nature of dice makes them unrealistic. When a riflemen shoots a rifle, he will hit his target barring extraordinary circumstances. Sometimes a game will use dice to represent those extraordinary circumstances. I don't think that works very well, at least not for me.

I used to play a game that used a diceless task resolution system that involved the amount of energy a player was willing to expend vs. the target number the GM set. Both parties selected the numbers secretly, and revealed them at the same time.

In this way a player could potentially succeed at anything he had the skill to do, but only if he put his heart into it.

I've rambled. The statistical difference between using a dice oriented mechaninc and a diceless mechanic is very small. After all, they are two systems designed to do the exact same thing: resolve conflict.

[Mercutio]

Here's my final thought on the issue - you can go diceless, provided there is a mechanic in place to ensure impartiality. I think what I really don't like are games without mechanics. Then it's not a game anymore and becomes pure make-believe.

[elmer_jok]

I didn't think about the results of that battle as being good luck. Wow, to think that was good luck. I'd hate to see my bad luck come out in this adventure. I'll be thankful for whatever good luck I can get though, I guess that guy was more badass than we thought initially.

[Linklegacy77]

To tell the truth, you were supposed to lose ^^.

When the players do something honestly in my games, I don't screw them over. For story purposes, I had planned on him winning, but I adjusted.

If it hadn't been for dice, the story would be on a much different tangent. (Not that any of you will notice.)

[LynMars]

Dice are good for that sometimes. In a diceless game, though, it's more often my players' actions changing things radically. My current co-GMed thread is a good example; we've had to adjust story every other GM post cuz the players pull something neat outta nowhere, and we decide to go with it or not.

[elmer_jok]

Wow, we were supposed to lose. I was thinking that it was a pretty hefty challenge when you said that I got lucky that he didn't outright kill me. I was going into that thinking the normal adventure, go kill the bad guys and such.

Now I kinda wish we lost to see where your story was supposed to go.

[nightinverse]

I believe that dice are required only if and only if your GM isn't up to being impartial.

At which point I have to honestly ask if that person should be GMing at all.

I have run games in person and elsewhere that have publicly moved away from dice as well, but due to differing formats I considered them less relevant to the case at hand. That said, it has been met with differing acceptance in different groups. The less secure the players are with the mechanics, each other, and the GM the less support the initiative is.

Of course, here I have to ask why you would play under a GM you can't trust to be fair, if even only superficially?

With players who may not trust me, I seldom if ever decide to make a transfer without asking their input. However, if they clearly trust me, I have no compunctions of tossing the dice down behind the screen and weighing their characters' actions against those of other elements actively.

[Flagg Thornington]

I think as a DM you walk a fine line with the dice you roll behind the screen.
You want to let the fickle nature of randomness reign, but sometimes you just have to ignore that critical threat you rolled against a wounded party member.
At the same time a game without dice could be really cool, it would be more like a dramatic performance.

Ever heard of the High Fantasy Society? I onced ventured to Pease Park and stumbled across a group of chaps fighting with a vast assortment of foam covered weapons. They let me play for a bit and it was quite exciting.
You should have heard the dialog between these obvious theatre buffs.

[hedgeknight]

I use an online dice roller. :)

But still.....it's all in the dice.
-g-

[itches]

In the games I GM (which are only online these days) it's a standing joke that I only pretend to use dice.

In the beginning of the only one still running (Bards) I used to at the beginning, but over time I found that I was re-rolling the dice several times or flat our fudging them to get what I wanted to happen. Gradually over time it increased to the point where I started making jokes about how I only pretend to roll dice.

In a game where there's very little combat and only a little more in the way of skill checks, I've found that not only weren't dice necessary, but I like the game better without them.

[Wired*Nun]

I agree with everything above :P . Seriously, just about all make good points, true observances.

Overreliance on dice, or any mechanic, makes an RPG into a first-person wargame. The heart of roleplaying is immersion, acting, fantasy (whatever the setting), character identification. The mechanics of the "game" support structure and fairness. The vast power given to GMs mean the number one determination of the success of the RPG is the GM.

So, the debate over dice is not central to whether an RPG is good or not. I know I am a good GM, so I favor dice lite/rules lite games. I have a friend who is also a good GM but favors meticulously worked out numbers on everything - and he delivers on his end, with hugely organized files, fully worked out sheets for every NPC, etc.

I think the difference tends to be between art and craft. Inexperienced and/or nontalented GMs (i.e., mediocre ones, whether or not they will become better) must have heavy structure, usually including dice, to run a workable game. The structure and dice make up for their lacks. This is akin to most other skills - say, carpentry. The beginner uses a lot of instructions, plans, markings, established techniques.

As the GM gets better and/or gains experience, it becomes easier and easier to take shortcuts, wing it, play by ear or by eye, just like the carpenter. The emphasis shifts from process (doing it right) to outcome (achieving the goal).

If the dice assist the outcome (a good story), so be it. If they interfere, don't use them. If the GM is good, he can use dice to mollify weak players who haven't "gotten" the whole roleplaying thing. There are also occasions when it seems appropriate to give someone that one ridiculous shot at doing something that seems almost impossible, so that the player is satisfied when it fails, but delighted if it succeeds.

I like the idea of weaning players off dice, even if they don't realize it at the time.

But then, I like the idea of anything sneaky aimed at players. :devious:

[Linklegacy77]

I recently played in a campaign run by somebody 20 years my senior. He is an old 2nd edition guy, loves storytelling, and that's what he expects his game to be. I tell you honestly, I showed up for 2 sessions and did not return. The game was absolutely terrible. Firstly, we rolled for ability scores. My total modifier was -3. I had one 13 in dex, a 4 in con, an 8 in str, and 10's in the other 3 scores. I was utterly pathetic. He would not let me reroll for a playable character. Secondly, he didn't even really use dicerolling, he just said to everything: "You are first level characters, you can't suceed at that." It just so happens that my rogue had a really good bonus at that time, and could have easily passed. He wanted to tell a story, and rail-roaded us the whole way through.

Without the rules and without dice to be impartial, the game turned into a DM gratification period, where we just sat there to make him happy. I'm sure he was fun to hang around with in 2nd edition, but he never really made the transition to 3rd and 3.5 edition.

[LynMars]

That guy just sounds like a jerk no matter what, and maybe he's played for years, but I don't think he's GMed much unless his buddies all like humoring him and goofing around during games.

That has nothing to do with lack of dice or rules (especially since he did have you guys roll up the chars according to the rules, hardline-style to a ridiculous degree), and more with dude being a total dip.

[Linklegacy77]

Not to a ridiculous degree, because according to the rules, if your total modifier is negative, you get to reroll. He wouldn't allow it.

His excuse was: "It is a challenge to play a character who isn't super-heroic." My guy isn't even close to super-heroic, he was weaker than a commoner!

[jedric]

I'd like to second the point that A GM's use of Dice or lack thereof has nothing to do with them being a good/bad GM

Firstly let me say I started RPing in the 80's (I'm in my forties), with the Basic and Expert D&D set, and yes I'm one of these old 2nd ed guys at heart too. Plenty of number crunching, cringemaking RP opportunity there.

I currently play mostly Diceless games because with a Good GM, such as WiredNun, you don't need them.

However I've played in games run by very crappy GMs indeed, here's an example of one, let's call him Nevil:-

Nevil liked to lord it over the PCs, put them in impossible situations, no matter how good the PCs were Nevil'd dump on them big time.

In one game GM'd by Nevil a first edition game I think (yes I am that old) my PC was a Fighter, a tough cooky. However whilst exploring the ubiqitous dungeon he fell into a chute/pit trap, Nevil smirked slightly and asked.

"What are you doing?"

I looked at him and smiled, "I suppose I'll try slowing myself down, look for any hand holds, you know?"

Nevil shook his head, "Sorry there aren't handholds and the sides of the chute are too smooth to brace yourself on, your PC falls into a vat of acid, he's dead."

Not surprisingly I asked what the hell was going on, Nevil shrugged and answered.

"Well, you should have searched for secret doors on the way down..."

Diceless or not, if your GM is crap so is the game.

[itches]

"Well, you should have searched for secret doors on the way down..."

Well duh. Everyone knows that when you're plummeting to your painful death in a vat of acid, you should stop and take the time to search for secret doors. It's common sense! ;)

[akiko]

Hey that was the first rule that my Nevil taught me when I started playing too. What a coincidence. In fact before he even handed me dice to make my first PC he said: "akiko, always be sure to check for hidden doors whilst falling."

[LeadPal]

I ran one game back in 3.0 without rolling a single die. It was later called one of my best games with that particular group. About a year before that I created an adventure completely by-the-book for a new group, and afterwards I couldn't pay them to let me DM again. The first game was in-depth and engaging, giving everyone something to do and think about for the entire session, and allowing a nearly infinite free choice (since the game was mostly improv on my part). The second game was a railroading piece of crap that I wrote several hours before the session, based entirely on preconceptions about what would be cool to force the characters to do, in rules-legal ways.

It's all in the DM, I tell you, because even with dice and fair rulings the DM is still in a great position to make everyone's lives a living hell. I know, I've done it. (not intentionally, but still... :tsk: )

[Linklegacy77]

The fact remains though, that many players feel like they have more control and are actually playing a game if their are an impartial factor like dice involved. If none are involved, some players may feel as if they are getting the short end of the stick.

[nightinverse]

By many players, you refer to your own opinion. Yes, there are some, but you cannot say whether they constitute a majority or even a plurality among experienced roleplayers. However, newer roleplayers in my experience do indeed require the toss of a die to remove responsibility.

[itches]

Yes, there are some, but you cannot say whether they constitute a majority or even a plurality among experienced roleplayers.
Sounds like a poll idea.

Some players do prefer dice and some don't. I prefer dice in some situations and prefer not to have them in others, for instance I'd be spitting chips if someone tried to run a dungeon crawl with me and didn't use dice. Both using dice and not using dice are valid preferences and neither one is inherently better then the other.

[Mercutio]

By many players, you refer to your own opinion. Yes, there are some, but you cannot say whether they constitute a majority or even a plurality among experienced roleplayers. However, newer roleplayers in my experience do indeed require the toss of a die to remove responsibility.
Actually, that's Wizards of the Coast's opinion too, and you can't convince me that they didn't do in depth market analysis to determine what would be the best way to proceed. I'd be willing to bet the "majority" of roleplayers who play D&D prefer an impartial die toss because it gives the players some measure of control.

That said, since most of us are more experienced than "most" gamers and have played other systems, I don't think we are wholly representative of the roleplaying subset. Simply by playing PBPs, we've separated ourselves from the masses.

[akiko]

Simply by playing PBPs, we've separated ourselves from the masses.
You mean even further?!?! We have deviated from the mini RPing masses to become a micro PbPing mass?

[nightinverse]

On a side note, remember that D&D is not the only system, it is merely the most prominent. Arguably freeform is the most prevalent form of roleplaying, and that seldom if ever incorporates dice.

And yes, we've become a minority within a minority.

[akiko]

And am I an even further subset because I am not a young caucasian male?

[Linklegacy77]

You are an even further subset because you are a little bird.

As Merc has said, it is the very same opinion of those who made the game in the first place.

My answer to the question: are dice strictly necessary? No. Do they give some control to the players to make the game feel more even? Yes.

If you all trust explicitly in your DM and like the way he DM's, then by all means throw dice to the wind. More often than not though, this is not the case.

[Uranium - 235]

The entire 'Dice vs. No Dice' seems to swing on what you believe a proper RPG is.

Diceless supporters think an RPG is a game where the DM is there to tell a story with the characters as participants.

Dice supporters prefer to think that their characters aren't just pointless little pawns and are actually PROTAGONISTS in the story and help shape where it goes.

Really now, the difference between one and the other is the difference between a novel and a 'Choose your own adventure'. They're VERY different. In a novel, the character is going to fail at task X not for any real reason, but because the GM declared it to be so. Why would I play an RPG where the outcomes of my actions were determined days ahead? Without dice, you hardly even need rules, and without rules, what the hell are you doing?

In a good RPG, the characters will surprise the GM as much as the GM surprises them. They give the characters the chance to do something that is possible, but not PROBABLE. In addition, they acutally give the characters the will to survive and find their way, by any means, out of any situation.

Are there times when the GM could fudge a roll or toss out the dice entirely? Sure. But if my GM threw out the dice entirely I'd quit the game in a heartbeat. I don't play RPGs for the GM's benefit.

[nightinverse]

Your opinion is predicated upon two chief generalizations, both of which I have no compunctions with disputing. In addition, you discuss roleplaying as if it only occurs between two distinct forms of people, players and "GM/DM" individuals. This is not the only state of affairs. In most diceless games I have been in or observed there is no formal hierarchy, and nobody spins a story for the rest. Each contributes to the world, and to character relations, from an equal or nearly equal basis.

However, in the context of D&D and other formalized systems, this distinction passes as a given. However, this leaves me with two generalizations and the implications they have for traditional players and GMs.


Diceless supporters think an RPG is a game where the DM is there to tell a story with the characters as participants.
So, by removing dice, you remove the agency of the player? In balanced games, players and their characters retain agency regardless of dice rolling. It is roleplaying, not rollplaying, after all. Characterization is the most relevant element of roleplaying, not the ability to fling a die. Decisions though communication are, traditionally, more complex and involved than decisions through chance. Thus, the implications of this generalization (Which are reinforced in your next line) are simply short-sighted.

Dice supporters prefer to think that their characters aren't just pointless little pawns and are actually PROTAGONISTS in the story and help shape where it goes.
Here you imply that the supporters of diceless roleplaying, as addressed above, give up agency in favour of the story - whereas diced players favour actual participation. Dice grant no inherent agency or ability to shape - it still remains in the court of the GM. Even in traditional diced D&D, the GM has the last word on all decisions, regardless of what the dice say - this is a core element of the social system implemented to organize play.

The polarization of concept between a novel and a choose your own adventure is hyberbolic and somewhat naive. Do you assume that just because you have dice the GM doesn't have a plan that you are fulfilling with your every action? The dice grant you an illusion of choice in a poor roleplay, and are essentially irrelevant in a strong roleplay. If you are playing with a GM who is scripting you into his story, he will do so regardless, and he is not a good GM. If you are not, and the story is effected by you, there is no inherent need for dice in the first place. The good GM will rationally weigh the effects of your actions and incorporate them into the emergent plot that the players are spinning.

The fundamental difference between diced and diceless has nothing to do with the agency or ability of players to act within the roleplay, or the primacy of the motives of the GM. The fundamental difference is that you are trusting an arbiter rather than a die to be impartial and accomodating and to aid you in the promotion of your play.

[LynMars]

Why would I play an RPG where the outcomes of my actions were determined days ahead? Without dice, you hardly even need rules, and without rules, what the hell are you doing?
This is probably the most common misconception about diceless and freeform games I see. As I stated earlier, all diced games, and even freeform, have rules, of conduct between GMs and Players if not in mechanics as much as in diced games--and that really depends on the diceless system. Nobilis, for instance, is far more structured in many ways than Amber.

In a good RPG, the characters will surprise the GM as much as the GM surprises them.
This I will agree to.

I have found that in diceless as much as in diced games, players will surprise the GM just as often. No outline of a session plan survives first contact with the players, in any game. A GM in a diced game can blink and call for a roll if they need a chance to think about it another moment, while a diceless GM needs to be a little more quick on the draw in some cases when the players pull an idea and attempted action out of left field they must react to.

I have to agree with nightinverse on all his points stated directly above. Whether there are dice or not, it's the players who decide where the story goes, in conjunction with the GM. If the GM wants to script a plot and railroad players, dice aren't actually going to change that. In the freeform RP thread I'm co-GMing with llemaire on another forum, we've had to change our plans with every GM post due to player actions, and we've not used dice at all.

[Linklegacy77]

So, by removing dice, you remove the agency of the player? In balanced games, players and their characters retain agency regardless of dice rolling. It is roleplaying, not rollplaying, after all. Characterization is the most relevant element of roleplaying, not the ability to fling a die. Decisions though communication are, traditionally, more complex and involved than decisions through chance. Thus, the implications of this generalization (Which are reinforced in your next line) are simply short-sighted.

This of course assumes that the DM is impartial enough and willing to bend what his idea of the story is. I've had characters before with really high skill bonuses that could not have possibly failed at something that the DM said they failed for the story, which annoyed me to no end because I built the character specifically to do that. I, the player, lost the ability to decide what my character at what my character can do, because I can't possibly know what the DM is going to decide will happen. Dice on the other hand, have a set limit. 1-20, and will never be lower or higher on a single die. With no critical failures or sucesses, I know exactly what is going to happen much of the time when I attempt something. With the DM deciding arbitrarily what happens, skills become irrelvant. I suppose this isn't a problem if you aren't playing D&D, but it is just an example. The issue stems mostly from DM's who don't have an enormous amount of experience.

[LynMars]

This of course assumes that the DM is impartial enough and willing to bend what his idea of the story is.
This can happen in any game, dice or no dice, forum or tabletop, structured or freeform. People want to keep arguing dice make a difference, then I'll continue to contend dice are an illusion of control, and it's the GM who makes all the difference.

I've had dice games where I made a stupidly high rolls, and still failed because of "story." The most recent example I can think of was a d20 Modern game where the GM asked me to make a series of drive rolls to escape pursuit. All my rolls were well above 20, which for a low level char (and I'm talking like 4th or 5th level) was impressive enough. At least one of the rolls was a natural 20.

So we get jumped by an attack helicopter that suddenly pops up out of nowhere that fixed on our location from communication with the cars that had been pursuing us. That I'd lost. The GM just wanted there to suddenly be a helicopter, and it didn't matter how well I'd done on my series of escape rolls.

So I had my character face off against the thing, died, and made a second character that I didn't care about too much either, cuz it was apparent by then, due to that and other reasons, the GM wasn't trying to tell a character-driven story. It was an exercise in die-rolling, and even then, results were arbitrary a lot of the time.

When I play a dice game, I do expect the dice to have an effect on the game, yes. When the effect of the dice stop mattering cuz the GM is going to make me fail anyway, no matter how well I roll, and be obvious about it, I may as well be playing diceless (though likely not with a GM who railroads despite mechanical results).

[Linklegacy77]

Sounds like the DM I had a while back. When you play D&D, you need to realize that the game is no longer 2.0, and in 3.5 and 3.0, the game is meant for the players to have much more control than they did before, which is why there are set DCs and the conditional modifier suggested is a minimum or maximum of + or - 2. That way, no matter how much the DM wants the story to go one way, unless he is willing to screw over the players, he has to accept that you have succeeded. This is why I prefer dice. I've tried DMing both ways, and I've found that the players enjoyed it much more when dice are involved. I've played in both cases, and I prefer dice to be involved. The issue essentially comes from that it is easier to be impartial with dice than it is without.

[LuneMoonshadow]

I personally choose not to use dice for most things in most of my games. In my Question of Fate game I have a general idea how the battle should go and I use the modifiers of the players and enemies to judge what should happen on average. I then slap it into a post, throw in some gorey detail, and call it a day. It seems to work pretty well, or so I think.

However, on the other extreme my Faction at War game I have to use dice in. Having players square off in a massive battlefield doesn't give me the liberty to just pick who wins and who loses. That just wouldn't be fair.

So in the end I think it depends just as much on the campaign as it does the GM. While having more experienced GMs does help, I still think certain things will always need to hear the gentle clicks of the d20 on the tabletop.

[LeadPal]

That way, no matter how much the DM wants the story to go one way, unless he is willing to screw over the players, he has to accept that you have succeeded.Ay, there's the rub. A good diceless DM isn't going to force the story to go in any direction at all; he's just going to simply come up with a reasonable and dramatic outcome for the decisions of the players. A bad dice-using DM is going to set unfair challenges against the players ("an ancient red dragon teleports in to attack your level 7 characters, roll initiative"), or tailor monsters against the party ("this monster is immune to every single attack form you have, except one... guess which"), or design his own special rules ("see, I created a spell that negates your defences a while back. No, it's just coincidence that I decided to use it with this BBEG"), or force the party down a specific path ("look, Hextor will kill you if you disobey, he's like fifty HD above you, so do as he says"), or, heck, just outright cheat behind the screen ("Uh, nope, you missed the DC by about three. Secret circumstance penalties, you know"). After all, it's pretty easy to get away with, even in 3e...

And I know this personally, because most of the above are exaggerations of real mistakes that I myself made in my inexperience, especially in late AD&D. (If mistakes are the best teachers, then I've got PhD in RPGs. ;) ) An experienced diceless DM is every single bit as good as an experienced dice-user; and, conversely, either one is a recipe for trouble. Comparing a poor diceless game to a well-done dice game is an injustice to both.

[Linklegacy77]

I'm not saying diceless doesn't work, on the contrary, it works well, but whether or not you use it depends on how all the players feel. If you go diceless, you aren't playing D&D anymore really, since the entire game is based upon dice rolls.

[LuneMoonshadow]

Going diceless doesn't mean you're throwing out the foundation of D&D. The system is built a certain way and certain things are expected. Level 1 wizards don't cast fireballs. Going diceless doesn't change this fact. Level 1 fighters don't slay red dragons. Diceless doesn't change that fact either.

Going diceless isn't changing the game, just how it is played. It is the same as playing in two different worlds. The society changes, the available classes change, the races change, etc.. The framework for the system is still there and is usually still followed. This is how I choose to run my game - following the basic principles just with a more theatric flare thrown in for good measure (aka no dice).

[Linklegacy77]

Unfortunately, it does change the game. Going diceless essentially eliminates the DC system, and the DM just decides whether your pass or fail, not as determined by a DC with modifiers, but by what he/she feels should be the difficulty. The issue arises when you assume that a first level character can/can't do something only to find that in a dice involved game that it is possible for the character to pull it off. A first level character typically can't open amazing locks (DC 40 open lock). I've played a first level rogue who could open it.

[LuneMoonshadow]

While that's all well and good, I think a level 1 character opening a DC 40 lock represents a failure in the system to uphold balance. Going diceless shouldn't be discounted because D&D is an unbalanced system.

[Linklegacy77]

It isn't unbalanced, that +20 to open locks at level one was because my character had spent his whole life as a thief on a team and was the one who disabled devices and opened locks. As a result, he focused entirely on it. A +20 to open locks is not unbalanced, it is merely an example of how characters can defy the norm that you would generally consider, and that diceless can't accurately represent this nearly as well as dice can.

[The Hive Custodian]

After re-reading the original post of this thread, I have realized, albeit belatedly, that my original question could have been construed as relating to only or mainly D&D, in contrast to my intention that it be related to roleplaying in general. (That explains much about the direction of this discussion...) Sorry for not making that clear to begin with; I've edited the original post to better reflect what I meant.

At the same time, I must commend you all for a fascinating discussion.

[AoM]

D&D without dice is bad.
Diceless RPGs are good.
Diceless RPGs, when designed properly, do not come down to the GM picking favorites (unless you have a bad GM who is inclined to pick favorites anyway).

[LynMars]

You mean like the Immortal RPG GM whose wife never ever rolled below the median, let alone ever failed a roll, or got into serious trouble versus any of his NPCs? Yeeaahhh...

The first couple games I ran specifically didn't include my boyfriend at the time in them, cuz I wanted to learn how to run first, and be comfortable doing so, before throwing that into the mix. Glad I did, too.

And yeah, D&D without dice isn't D&D anymore. D&D characters translated and played in settings without dice end up either really lame (rarely), or overpowered as the player feels he can ignore all the restrictive rules now (I've found this happens with mages more often than not, or that could just be the freeform setting I'm in where this occurs).

I like D&D, d20 in general, and other dice games, just fine. I just refuse to believe it's inherently more impartial (or superior) than a structured diceless system such as Nobilis (Amber does not have a good structured system, no matter how much I love the setting and playing in those sessions; when every single game in existence requires extensive houseruling to work at all, and end up being guidelines more than anything else, something's wrong).

The main mechanic of a roleplaying game isn't the system, though, it's the people playing the game, and how they choose to interpret and interact with the rules. And like most forms of government looking good on paper, many RPGs can look balanced and impartial up until you get a GM and group in there who plays and makes rulings a certain way.

[LuneMoonshadow]

D&D without dice can and does work, though. My F2F campaigns actually usually include very little dice rolling and my Question of Fate includes no rolling. I pick a general story and try to follow it, adapting it and letting it evolve as the player plays through. The modifiers in D&D work just fine for playing the game without dice, so long as you understand the system. I'm not saying this isn't for everyone but I just hate to see everyone discredit something that is so fun to play.

Does this mean that my players are invincible? No. Players still die when they do stupid things, get into certain situations, and what not. I don't think my Question of Fate crew think they are overpowered, though the game has indeed just begun. Playing diceless D&D does have its own pros and cons, but it is still D&D, still fun, and still viable.

[LynMars]

It's easier in a forum game to get away with little to no dice, even in D&D. I think someone else said they did the same thing, and just didn't mention it to the players. I've just found a lot that if players know there are no dice, sometimes it gets a little crazy, especially if they aren't used to more freeform or diceless types. It could be a generalization on my part from what I've seen some players do when they've taken D&D to diceless. Especially if they translate the characters from the original setting and into another game that is more freeform.

I've gone a lot of sessions with little to no rolling, but they tend to be mostly social games with no combat or anything else like that involved. And I've ended up with people who say if they wanted to play a diceless game, they'd be running something like Nobilis or Amber instead of D&D or what have you. I just find D&D's structure to work better when using dice and battlemaps, since it was written for use with both in mind.

[omni-roach]

I haven't played any RPGs, except for D&D, so I've gotten used to the idea of playing with dice. I used to play a few freeform games, but I don't see how things like combat could possibly work in a setting like that, it just seems too easy to abuse to me.

[zachol]

Aside from one very failed experience (some guys are just the stupidest munchkin powergamer...), I haven't done any diceless gaming.

Unless you count "diceless" LARPing, which depends more on physical fitness and speed than anything else.
It could be considered "gaming," but only in the most general sense.
Unwritten rules and a sense of full immersion, but otherwise not really.


To elaborate on the miserable failure... perhaps with some practice, it would work, but the problem is that my friends don't work well with apparent rules that have very easily abusable 'loopholes.'
They do, but... they don't.
It would've been better to have a total freeform game than one with actual rules that happen to not need dice.