Lots of roleplaying games use dice-rolling with modifiers to settle who wins a challenge. Most of the rest use straight comparisons between stats with the highest winning (and are thus, basically dick-size competitions). Anyone ever tried anything else?

Examples:

When I was 14, I used to play a bunch of RPGs with a buddy of mine who was one of those guys who could never remember the rules for anything. So, rather than guide him through how to make THAC0 or whatever, I pretty much just handled combat by getting in a scrap with him, and whoever won the scrap won the combat.

Many board games involve capturing your opponents pieces by moving into the space they occupy after they do, or occupying spaces around them through tactical skill. Chess and Go do this.

LARPers use rock, paper, scissors to settle confrontations, IIRC.

Another resolution mechanic is to use darts if you've got a dartboard (I used to have a shitty one for those rubber-tipped darts). Any time there's a dispute about what happens, you form two sides and take a shot. Whoever gets closest to the bullseye wins (ties mean another shot). You can combine this with drinking for an experience/damage system, where whoever loses has to take a number of drinks equal to the number of rings between the shot and the edge of the board (thus, your opponents get shittier and shit-faced while you remain sober and thus more likely to win in future).


Anyhow, I thought about this recently because I've wanted to write a game for a while that involved non-random conflict resolution that involved a degree of skill on the player's side but that didn't ignore the character's traits as well (which the darts game does). I've got some ideas, but I'm curious about whether anyone else has thought of this previously?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineWhen I was 14, I used to play a bunch of RPGs with a buddy of mine who was one of those guys who could never remember the rules for anything. So, rather than guide him through how to make THAC0 or whatever, I pretty much just handled combat by getting in a scrap with him, and whoever won the scrap won the combat.

Let me get this out of the way: WTF?

No back to actual content: Cards are rather popular and depending on the way yout hand them out can strike a nice balance between skill and luck. Also they're readily available. Keeping something in hand just for the crucial moment is a great gaming experience

One of the simplest solution (which I've never seen actually used) would be simple one-card bluffing. One of the participants (which one could be determined in some semi-meaningful way) says what card they have, if the opponent doesn't believe it but gets it wrong, it's something like a critical success...

There are probably countless other ways to include cards, especially if you make your own.

Finally I'd like to add that I generally dislike the "how much is it worth to you" method of dice-less playing, i.e. you have a fixed resource pool and have to decide how many points you wager for a certain outcome. Meh.

A lot of diceless - and supposedly randomless - systems allow bonus/malus according to the situation. Which basically means that the most persuasive player wins, and the laziest player (or GM) loses.

There was even a diceless rpg written on this basis, called Argument. Well sort of... it's more of "augment" than "argument" - if one trait's better than another, the better wins, but if they're equal, then other traits can augment it; absent any traits, roleplaying will do it. And that's where the arguments would appear at the game table. Fun!

Scrabble. Each player gets a certain amount of random letters based on the relevant skill, picked from the bag. Traits either allow you to pick more random letters or a specific letter. Strong might allow you to pick up an I whilst engaged in a fight, for example.

Highest point word wins.

A bit far out, i admit.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine.................
When I was 14, I used to play a bunch of RPGs with a buddy of mine who was one of those guys who could never remember the rules for anything. So, rather than guide him through how to make THAC0 or whatever, I pretty much just handled combat by getting in a scrap with him, and whoever won the scrap won the combat.................

 So was that resolving combat by proving who had the bigger dick ?
 -OR-  
just who could act more like a dick?

Either way - the guy should've just learned how to read for pity's sake!!
(either that or switched to a nice game with NO THACO - like GURPS or HERO )


- Ed C.

Generally, player-skill seems to be an underused resolution mechanic. You could use anything where skill is neutrally to determine and that doesn't take up to much place in the room: Darts, dexterity games like card house building (Dread uses Jenga, btw), and of course the good old riddle (although you might run out quickly of them).

You could also use a kind of energy mechanic: You get a limited supply of points and must decide how much you want to use for each conflict, a bit like a MURPG where your stones don't regenerate each round.

Quote from: SkyrockGenerally, player-skill seems to be an underused resolution mechanic. You could use anything where skill is neutrally to determine and that doesn't take up to much place in the room: Darts, dexterity games like card house building (Dread uses Jenga, btw), and of course the good old riddle (although you might run out quickly of them).

A couple of former WOTC guys made a collectible chip game that was along these lines.  On top of deck building aspect liks any CCG, you tossed poker chips onto the battlefield to determine where things happened.

But the game never really took off.

Some card based games are cool in that you can choose when to use your good cards for when you reall want to win.

The game Kriegspiel (wargame but still interesting) had a card mechanic where the defender would choose a defense card then the attacker would call out and attack option.  Those and the combat odds determined the results.  It was like rock-paper-scissors but the situation still counted and you could discount some choices based on other factors (like knowing whether or not they are likely to withdraw).

I think skirmish/individual combat could be done this way with cards secretly chosen for maneuvers and the outcome determined by card choices and relative ability.  I think the trick would be to not go too fine scaled and make it take too long but have enough detail to be interesting.

Quote from: SkyrockYou could also use a kind of energy mechanic: You get a limited supply of points and must decide how much you want to use for each conflict, a bit like a MURPG where your stones don't regenerate each round.

Then you'd probably end up with something like Nobilis, in which your point pools are only automatically refreshed between stories/scenarios/adventures.

Any time you use a map or other means of taking positioning into account, you're inviting the use of player skill.

"Dirtying up" rock-scissors-paper also allows the exercise of skills. This is basically what's behind the Burning Wheel combat/social combat system.

There were these booklets - some of you have mentioned them before - where you were a character, say a knight in armor, or a barabarian with two swords; and the whole things was based on what attack you chose and what defense the person with the other book chose.  I'll dig up the name, but I know you guys know what I'm talking about.  C'mon..I'm at work..somebody throw me a lifeline...

Over the Edge has that sensational cut-ups mechanic from Weather the Cuckoo Likes. For however many dice you would roll for a task, you draw random words (cut from the newspaper, magazine, whatever) and make a sentence that describes your effort. Your wordplay skills determine the outcome. Personally, I like using numbered shot glasses with incrementally larger shots. You want the bigger numbers, you take the bigger shots. It's all about consequences.

edit--The booklets were called Lost Worlds, and they worked like Ace of Aces. Pretty slick.

Quote from: stu2000Over the Edge has that sensational cut-ups mechanic from Weather the Cuckoo Likes. For however many dice you would roll for a task, you draw random words (cut from the newspaper, magazine, whatever) and make a sentence that describes your effort. Your wordplay skills determine the outcome. Personally, I like using numbered shot glasses with incrementally larger shots. You want the bigger numbers, you take the bigger shots. It's all about consequences.

edit--The booklets were called Lost Worlds, and they worked like Ace of Aces. Pretty slick.

Yeah, I've got a couple of really old ones at home.  I just took them out again a few months ago.  They might even be in my "at-hand" gaming case - which, of course, is not at hand....

And I think you can still get them...let me see...ah yes...here!

Polaris has dice sometimes, but the core mechanic is about attaching prices to things.

So, like "Okay, you're going to kill the demon, sure. But, if you're going to, the demon's blood is going to burn you and scar you for life. Are you sure you want to?"

This is a technique I got a lot of use out of in other freeform games, too.

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: KoltarSo was that resolving combat by proving who had the bigger dick ?
 -OR-  
just who could act more like a dick?

Either way - the guy should've just learned how to read for pity's sake!!
(either that or switched to a nice game with NO THACO - like GURPS or HERO )


- Ed C.

It was wholly consensual. My friends were pretty rough and tumble. I'm still pals with the guy.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineAnyhow, I thought about this recently because I've wanted to write a game for a while that involved non-random conflict resolution that involved a degree of skill on the player's side but that didn't ignore the character's traits as well (which the darts game does). I've got some ideas, but I'm curious about whether anyone else has thought of this previously?

PIG's Active Exploits Diceless uses effort, which is a resource allocation mechanic--you have a number of points that can be applied to tasks during an adventure.  What I like most about it is that it still _feels_ like you're playing a "real" role-playing game.  It's free, so check it out.  

Pete