The Scarcity of DRPGs

[Kyle Aaron]

Excuse me, but this shocks me. A chef would completely fuck up one out of 36 burgers??? Even I wouldn't!!!

I didn't say that. I said,

, if I have to make 36 burgers, it's basically all the same thing, in a game system we'd make it one dice roll. But if I were a temp chef and went to 36 different restaurants, it's fair to say I'd fuck up completely at one of them.

A temp chef is someone who shows up to a place entirely new to them and just has to cook, cooking a menu entirely new to them. That's distinct from someone in a place familiar to them where they're cooking a menu they know well.

The regular chef, as a character, might only need one dice roll a month to show the overall trend of their performance. The temp, as a character, would need a dice roll for each new place. That's because each new place is a new challenge - the menu is unfamiliar, where do they keep the salt, how fast does the other chef work so when you try to get the 12 minute steak and the 2 minute pasta out to the couple at table 6 together at the same time what happens, and so on.

Successful performance as a chef isn't simply about whether the food tastes good. It's organisation. Ever been to a restaurant, ordered say the porterhouse steak, then 15 minutes later the waitress comes back and says "sorry, we've run out?" Every been with a group of 20 people, and one end of the table had gone through their entire meal and was eating desserts while the other end hadn't even got their entrees yet? And that happens fairly frequently, more than 1 in 36 times. Those were all failed Chef skill rolls - someone was poorly-organised.

But in the end, the real reason we roll dice in most rpgs is that players like rolling dice. The feel of the dice in your hand, the clatter as they roll on the table, the moment's excitement as you wait to see the result, the shouts of triumph for a great result, and the moans and laughter at a poor result - these are fun.

[Hieronymous Rex]

In [diceless] games drama is driven by player interactions and 'narrative' and not by overcoming a series of obstacles through a mix of skill tactics and luck

But this isn't necessarily true. Why don't more diceless games, which are driven by "skill, tactics, and luck", published?

[jibbajibba]

But this isn't necessarily true. Why don't more diceless games, which are driven by "skill, tactics, and luck", published?

Because you take away the luck.

(note I use the term diceless to indicate any random process, cards, chits etc etc. Games like Amber that have luck expressed as 'stuff' do not fall into this category because once luck become sa known variable it is no longer luck )

[flyingmice]

Because you take away the luck.

(note I use the term diceless to indicate any random process, cards, chits etc etc. Games like Amber that have luck expressed as 'stuff' do not fall into this category because once luck become sa known variable it is no longer luck )

Exactly. In place of luck you have to use some other mechanic. The problem with just using skill and tactics is that the players know what their characters can bring to bear, every time. There is no drama inherent in that. The third component is a variable, like luck, just not a random variable.

-clash

[jibbajibba]

Exactly. In place of luck you have to use some other mechanic. The problem with just using skill and tactics is that the players know what their characters can bring to bear, every time. There is no drama inherent in that. The third component is a variable, like luck, just not a random variable.

-clash

Amber achieves this with the GM. They set and track the other variables and determine how that affects the outcome.

[Nicephorus]

The problem with just using skill and tactics is that the players know what their characters can bring to bear, every time.

You can kinda mess with that with nonrandom uncertainty* along the lines of cards or rock/paper/scissors as the third factor. But it's hard to pull off well and it's not necessarily more realistic, but it can be an interesting game in itself. To this, you can add uncertainty about the options of the opponent: You might have 6 in one ability and 8 in another but don't know which to play until you find out the opponents abilities through play.
 
There was a WWI dogfight game Ace of Aces. If I recall, you both made choices such as roll left/right, climb, dive. Based on that and the current position, you turned to a page in a book that showed the new position. I've heard of a fantasy dueling game with a similar mechanic.
 
 
*by nonrandom uncertainty, I mean the opponent didn't choose randomly but you don't know what they chose until you make your choice.

[arminius]

Lost Worlds.

There's also a great game called Football Strategy by Avalon Hill that uses a simple matrix for every play; the defender chooses a defense, the offense chooses a play, and you look up the result. It works surprisingly well and it's a lot of fun, although it's strange that a penalty always happens on a slant vs 3-4-3 (or something like that). It doesn't stand up to close scrutiny but it plays quickly & enjoyably.

I think I've mentioned Magic Realm; in that, if a combat only involves players and their allies, there's no randomizer. Players secretly allocate resources and maneuvers and the result comes out of the procedure. Main issue from an RPG
perspective is that some combats are "solvable", e.g. the Black Knight will always kill the Dwarf in single combat.

I think I may have mentioned Warp War. Also uses hidden commands/allocation; you might be able to find the rules online.

A general issue with all of these is the complexity of the decisionmaking. Also, you have to accept a lot of abstraction and lack of flexibility.

[jibbajibba]

Yeah my first post outlines a system I had designed for Amber that worked on a SPS kind of a model but with 20 + choices and a series of 4 steps that stack up. Makes for a great subgame when you are dueling or whatever but is a bit rigid. The Amber game does it with its open flexible system in a more useabel way I htink.

[flyingmice]

Amber achieves this with the GM. They set and track the other variables and determine how that affects the outcome.

Yep. This works great but requires high trust between GM and players. Not that that's a bad thing!

-clash

[Klaus]

*by nonrandom uncertainty, I mean the opponent didn't choose randomly but you don't know what they chose until you make your choice.

I believe the game-design term for that is "double-blind" decision making.

[gabriel_ss4u]

Yep. This works great but requires high trust between GM and players. Not that that's a bad thing!

-clash

When all them elements come together... Amber can be a beautiful thing.

[Nicephorus]

I believe the game-design term for that is "double-blind" decision making.

Good to know.  I'm familiar with double blind experiments but had never seen the term applied to games.

[arminius]

Double-blind usually doesn't encompass simultaneous hidden decisions that are then revealed. It's usually applied to refereed games or others that use a mechanic for extended hiding of unit placement/movement until contact with the opposing side. Often used in games about carrier warfare.

[Trevelyan]

So at last for once we have the answer to an OP.

There aren't many emulative DRPGs because a lot of people like to use dice to simulate events as its easier and more fun than trying to compute every little variable.

Diceless systems work well when the protagonists are generally judged in relation to each other and to similar exceptional beings as opposed to being judged agains the environment or other mundane challenges. In these games drama is driven by player interactions and 'narrative' and not by overcoming a series of obstacles through a mix of skill tactics and luck

Agreed (surprise!)

The problem with just using skill and tactics is that the players know what their characters can bring to bear, every time. There is no drama inherent in that. The third component is a variable, like luck, just not a random variable.

*generic stuff about the GM and opposing difficulties*

Yep. This works great but requires high trust between GM and players. Not that that's a bad thing!

True on both counts.

Of course the same might be said about even diced games - a dick GM is still a dick GM and can screw you seven ways from Sunday even if the system does use dice.

[flyingmice]

Of course the same might be said about even diced games - a dick GM is still a dick GM and can screw you seven ways from Sunday even if the system does use dice.

You can have a great GM and great players, and if they don't *know* each other, trust will be lacking even though neither is at any way at fault. I would never attempt playing or running Amber at a Con, for instance, unless maybe it was specifically an Amber Con. Once trust is established, though, you can really rock with diceless. Diced games are possible to play without trust. It's the bedrock of many Indy games.

-clash