Shadowrun
Off-topic => General Gaming => Topic started by: Boomstick on <05-26-13/0825:42>
-
Hello Folks,
I have been playing to RPG since Dragon warrior and SR1, experienced a lot of systems,
and while I still like playing my favorite game with dice,
I would like to try more diceless systems.
But it seems there are not really good ones around, or not related to interesting settings
(cause it has to be well integrated to the setting for it to be relevant).
So, what are your experiences about this? Have you names to drop, or philosophy of these systems to tell about,
or mechanics to describe?
What were the things you liked and disliked?
Thanks a lot for your help
-
My group isn't big on diceless play. but I do know someone who enjoys Amber, which is based on the series of books.
We played diceless with World of Darkness way back and liked it more actually than with the dice. The fluff was good, but the system was unplayable back then as a dice based game.
-
Thanks for your answer.
Made some try at Amber, too, but we stopped at character creation, because nobody could manage to
negociate with other instead of being free to do the character they wanted.
They felt it was so frustrating to have to be "ranked" in so way compared to others that it did not work.
But the books are indeed interesting.
How did you played WOD diceless? They had a system to do so or something you home made?
-
How was being ranked different than how characters are created normally? Eventually, when all the typical roles get filled, someone is the strongest, someone else the smartest, toughest, etc.. The thing about Amber is that it requires all the players to work together to create the gaming group's characters. No one acts within a void, not even in more standard game systems. Amber just makes everyone realize what is needed up front. No one can lone wolf it in Amber (or any game for that matter).
WOD diceless likely worked similarly. Whomever's attribute or trait was highest won unless someone used the environment, their knowledge of their opponent, and their own inventiveness to skew modifiers in their direction.
-
Though the KS is now over, you might want to follow this game:
Lords of Gossamer and Shadow: Diceless Role-Playing (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/937759598/lords-of-gossamer-and-shadow-diceless-role-playing?ref=live)
-
Negoti-whatnow? In Amber? O_O
-
What surprises you, Michael?
Thanks for the link, AJ. I am curious, now...
-
I'm in a >50-sessions-so-far conflict Amber game and ran several short teamwork campaigns with a simpler version of the system, and I can't really recall negotiation involved on either side.
-
Well, character creation states that you share points in a few attributes, if I remember correctly.
And so, my PC discussed to know who would be the strongest and so on, because the first round
of non disclosed choices ended up in frustration for almost everyone.
And then, their interest died. It was an interesting concept of game and setting, but the
fact that it is a lot up to GM and that some situations like character creation did not went
well, killed their mood.
A pity, by judging the books. But most of them were and still are ten years later usually gamists,
and even narrativists are quite bent on pushing the envelope when it comes to having
a character whose concept is to kick ass in some way.
So they are a perfect playtest group.
On the first game session of any game, they could found loopholes like if it was clearly stated in BIG RED LETTERS
that the rules were flawed.
So much great stories shared, but they made me mad, clearly, at times.
-
I'm not sure what you mean with sharing, has been a while since I checked into the auction system. We had a secret bid, then public auction after people are told the current highest value. Most kept out of the public bids. Then, in our first few sessions we had characters trying to test others to see whether they could handle the others. Later on this pretty much died down because people were too chicken, with the occasional heavy fight (mostly including me, often me losing) every now and then.
-
It was basically just storytelling. We made characters with the real rules, but only used them as a guide. Basically, it was up to the GM how combat came out...and there wasn't a ton of combat. It only worked because we played along and the GM was a fantastic one. It certainly wouldn't have worked if combat was the main agenda.
BTW there are text games online called mushes that are pretty diceless. Never tried them though because I like some crunch.
-
How attribute generation works in Amber diceless is a little different than other games. Players get a pool of points to buy abilities, knowledges, and mystical items to start the game with. They can also use that pool of points to improve their base stats (which all start at the baseline "Amberite" level, but can be sacrificed for more points, if one wishes). Players don't simply "buy" a stat, but bid on who will be the best representative of that stat. Who is the strongest, the smartest, the toughest, etc.. The bidding is somewhat intense, but rewarding, as even if you don't "win" the bid to be the best in that stat, you are still better than anyone who hasn't put as many (or any) points into that stat.
The nifty thing is that, although the GM mostly just compares a player's relevant stat to another's stat (PC or NPC), the player can modify the situation in their favor by describing how the character manipulates their environment or their opponent to give them an advantage. One can even change the relevant stat being used (to one the PC is strong in) by inventive and clever descriptions of how the character acts. It is really imaginative and fun.
-
Sounds more like a recipe for the kind of arguments like the ones between children playing 'cowboys and indians' to me.
-
Sounds more like a recipe for the kind of arguments like the ones between children playing 'cowboys and indians' to me.
It's one of those game styles that's VERY sensitive to the sort of table you're at.
-
Sounds more like a recipe for the kind of arguments like the ones between children playing 'cowboys and indians' to me.
It's one of those game styles that's VERY sensitive to the sort of table you're at.
Definitely sounds like it. Personally, I prefer codified rules that can be pointed to in the event of a disagreement. The fewer rules, the more likely disagreements can end up shattering a group and the less likely any fun will be had--in general.
-
It really depends on how well the GM runs it. Amber is rather free so the GM has to be able to adjust and make fair calls. If I go with Warfare 20 against Warfare 26, it will be a battle that takes some time. If I go on the defensive and my opponent doesn't go on the full-offensive, it will take him some time to realize he's better and I can buy time for someone to help me out (or for me to spot a way out).
The rules DO describe how certain styles would work out in a clash if you're better, much better, worse, much worse, etc, so there's intel on how things will go in a confrontation. All you're then doing is trying to influence the relative score with tricks, if you're in need of those. If you're fighting defensive vs defensive, or offensive vs defensive, or normal vs defensive, that's all described on how it works out at the different relative power levels.
I went Advanced Trump, which involves Trump traps that try to suck people through without the need of concentrating on the Trump, once their trigger is activated. Rather than using them on the offensive (would only work on people with a lower Psyche), I used them defensively: Had some on me, activated them with a verbal command. Let me trump out of a fight without having to concentrate for several seconds. That way, no opening left for the opponent to stab me.
-
Amber also works very well for email games. I am in one that has lasted 15 years.
There is also a sneaky sneak way of dealing with points. If you save your points You can secretly buy up to whatever rank of individual you want to. Face-to-face game that lasted two school years one character secretly bought all of his stats to be rank 1.5 it could have easily beat almost everybody. He was planning on being equal and try to take over. My character saves the day by being a drunken, womanizer and warmonger.
-
Actually I feel like All4BigGuns there, and as RHat pinpointed it, it is very dependent on the way your players accept storytelling and so on.
Indeed there is a system, but there is a lot of room for interpretation and GM take.
I should precise that I am looking for something diceless, but not really rule light or rule less. In this regards, my "low limit" for how much rules you can have for running a game would be Unknown armies. It is just that I am looking for different resolution mechanics, using dice has its charm but I would like something less random and a little more dependent on the player involvement and skills.
I remember deadland used Cards along with dices but never got into it. So, if you do know this kind of thing, well, I will be glad you share this knowledge. Thanks.
-
It was basically just storytelling. We made characters with the real rules, but only used them as a guide.
Sounds like a very interesting one to me - the first forum games I played were freeform roleplay where the intent of telling a story was more important than netting a zillion hits and killing Acceptable Targets. I think this concept is easy to work when all involved parties are focused on a narrative, and combat was never a primary focus. In fact, I think the breakdowns were all when one player wanted to get into a fight and 'be awesome'.
Never heard of Amber before though, I might want to check that out in a few weeks when I have some extra time.
-
It was basically just storytelling. We made characters with the real rules, but only used them as a guide.
Sounds like a very interesting one to me - the first forum games I played were freeform roleplay where the intent of telling a story was more important than netting a zillion hits and killing Acceptable Targets. I think this concept is easy to work when all involved parties are focused on a narrative, and combat was never a primary focus. In fact, I think the breakdowns were all when one player wanted to get into a fight and 'be awesome'.
Never heard of Amber before though, I might want to check that out in a few weeks when I have some extra time.
The dead tree books are hard to find, but both books are on RPG Drive thru.
-
In fact, I think the breakdowns were all when one player wanted to get into a fight and 'be awesome'
.
Yes, storytelling does work better when your primary focus isn't combat, but it doesn't mean none will happen. It just ultimatedly means the GM has more control on outcomes. However, player input can lead to the player gaining some control. (With a clever idea for example) And in our games the stats weren't completely ignored. I for example was a wizard with Force 3 (From Mage:Ascension as whatever edition it was in the late 90's) This means I could throw lightning bolts, within Paradox rules, and the GM wasn't going to take my ability away to do this or make the lightning bolts miss. However, the rules also confined, just as they would in a typical dice version. I couldn't summon a big storm with Force 3. Nor could I do some other power from some other school of magic (I forget if they were even called schools, arg)
I've heard there is actually quite a bit of combat in online mush games, which are like muds, but with out mechanics and such. Usually what happens is a referee has to oversee combats and a winner is picked based on things like creativity and the skill of the words used to describe combat actions. (Keep in mind it's a text only game. Yes people still play those. I played muds until a few years ago)