[Boomstick]

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

[GiraffeShaman]

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.

[Boomstick]

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?

[The_Gun_Nut]

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.

[AJCarrington]

Though the KS is now over, you might want to follow this game:

Lords of Gossamer and Shadow: Diceless Role-Playing

[Michael Chandra]

Negoti-whatnow? In Amber? O_O

[Boomstick]

What surprises you, Michael?

Thanks for the link, AJ. I am curious, now...

[Michael Chandra]

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.

[Boomstick]

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.

[Michael Chandra]

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.

[GiraffeShaman]

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.

[The_Gun_Nut]

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.

[All4BigGuns]

Sounds more like a recipe for the kind of arguments like the ones between children playing 'cowboys and indians' to me.

[RHat]

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.

[All4BigGuns]

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.