This one goes out to all you Roleplayers out there...

[ruralrage]

Role playing games are very addicting to some, and to others very stupid. Some turn out interesting, while others become a drag. Some people enjoy the dice system on some games, while others prefer to narrate their character's existence. It can even be said that some choose to play over a LAN.


My question is, how real do you want roleplaying to be, and would you be interested in playing if it seemed realistic enough?


The reason i ask, is because i am designing a role playing game of sorts where all you do is narrate your character's existence and a game master decides the outcome to your actions based on realism.

[Rubystreak]

I don't roleplay for the sake of "realism." Wait, let me modify that. I enjoy realism in a fantastical setting. In other words, while the normal laws of science may be suspended due to the use of magic, the existence of weird creatures, super powers, etc., I still want the characters to behave in a logical, consistent manner. Willing suspension of disbelief is crucial for the success of a game; in order for an imaginary world to become a consensual reality for the gaming group, the people playing and the NPCs should all behave in ways that seem realistic.

I'm not sure what you mean by "The reason i ask, is because i am designing a role playing game of sorts where all you do is narrate your character's existence and a game master decides the outcome to your actions based on realism." What is the setting of your game?

[ruralrage]

well...my main problem with many roleplaying games today is that they have cool premises, but none of the outcomes seem to work. The setting to my story is in the not too distant future, in the crumbling of modern society. It is a story about an end. But its also not a game where you know your objectives or goals. Think of our societies today, but just expand them to many different planets (ala sci-fi) and imagine what a our nation might look like in a degraded state.


I would say post apocalyptic role playing, but there has been no apocolyptic as of yet.

Hope that satisfies you a little. As for the realism part. I mean exactly what you said. the players have to behave realistically, according to their characters, and so do the NPCs....


I hope that was more clear....

[Lynn Bodoni]

I play for fun, NOT for realism. Make fun your first priority. Also, I don't mind unrealism, as long as it's logical and selfconsistent.

[Rubystreak]

Ruralrage, the older I get, the harder it is to find decent roleplaying games. The setting isn't even that important-- if the storyteller can realistically evoke a fantasy universe and create compelling people to populated it, that's a great start. Then (and this seems to be the hard part), you have to find people to create characters who are internally consistent, interesting, and who play well with others. This is where things usually go south, b/c people'd egos get involved and it gets stupid.

I am interested in hearing more about your game world. Does it take place on Earth? Are there any fantasy elements in it, such as magic, super powers, etc.? What system do you plan to use (ie., d10, d20, diceless)?

[ruralrage]

logical is my main ideal in the game. Can one not have fun, while being close to real?

[Lynn Bodoni]

Sure, it can be realistic AND fun. But sometimes the realism gets in the way of the gameplay, in which case I say to tilt the table in favor of fun.

My most recent example...I'm currently playing Arcanum, which is an interesting game...but the lighting level inside the sewers, dungeons, etc. is HORRID, even when I'm using a light source. I have the options set at the brightest level, but I still cannot determine whether that's a wall or an open area without trying to actually bump into it. That's realistic, all right, but it definitely interferes with my fun. I am spending entirely too much time trying to feel my way through the areas, and not enough time advancing the story/leveling up my character.

[Arden Ranger]

I demand a certain amount of realism in my games and I get ticked off when I don't get it. Especially when we're playing diceless and narrating actions like in Amber

As most of my game play in recent years has been online by email, the pace can be slow, so it may take a month to play through a game day. I don't care. If what happened at 8 AM of game day 4 pissed off Portia, it is still pissing her off 3 real time weeks later when it's only 1PM in the same game day. Cheeses me off no end when people act like I'm nuts

"But that was almost a month ago!"

"Yeah. For you. Not for her."

I also believe in logical consequences.

No, you can't charge through a dense, unknown forest unscathed at your horse's top speed.

I'll go look stuff up on the net to make my character actions more realistic. I don't just pull stuff out of my ass that makes no logical sense for my characters to do/suggest/act on or to be sure that what I think should happen, actually would.

NO, you cannot treat your sword like that and expect it to keep an edge.

I expect the same realistic behavior from my players when I run a game and I certina deliver the consequences when they don't do it.

You suddenly remember you haven't slept or eaten in two days... you feel light headed, dizzy.... SURPRISE ATTACK!

Let me get this straight. It's 3Am and you're about to wake up the angry, foul tempered king who has been exiling people right and left-when he hasn't been killing them-and telling him there's ONE strange ship that just sailed into port? Right. Just checking


So, yes. I want some logical consequences when I roleplay.

[Menocchio]

Realism (after bending to allow magic, powers, or super-technology) is great, until it gets in the way.

Some systems, in an attampt to be realistic, make their rules too damn complicated and clunky.

At other times, some cinematic stuff may be appropriate. The PCs run through a hail of bullets uncathed while cutting down enemies with their katanas in singe strokes. Kinda dumb? Maybe, but also potentially fun.

Observe Toon.

I'm with Lynn, fun is first. If realism ever gets in the way of fun, drop it.

[soulmurk]

I by no means mean to belittle your aspirations at designing a new game system, in that respect I wish you nothing but good fortune...

however, a purely narrational system with no mathematical or statistical means to determine possibilities and probabilities seems very open to abuse.

Actually, it sounds a bit like a bunch of guys sitting at a bar bragging about their conquests, and the others determining whether they believe them or not based on their personal bias towards that person...

Or perhaps more like a group of people sitting around a table talking about how cool it would be if this happened, or how they always thought it would be awesome if that were to take place, with one person accepting or denying the fantasy.

I just don't see it working as a gaming system, it's entirely too open, and there are plenty of RP chatrooms where people can go online and do that exact thing, only without someone vetoing their stories.

As to the OP's original question, I'm with the rest; it's about fun. They're called role playing games because games are about fun. If realism need be tossed for the sake of fun, so be it, so long as there is continuity.

[Podkayne]

Personally, I value realism in human interactions over realistic mechanics.

If the mechanics of the system are very unrealistic, well, that's a distraction and it's irritating, but I can go with the flow.

If the mechanics of the system are extremely realistic, but, as a result, you spend all your time rolling dice and consulting charts, then I will grow bored quickly.

If you somehow invent the perfect set of game mechanics which are very realistic but yet not intrusive, but the plot is artless and focuses only on hack-n-slash and absurd puzzle-solving, then, forget it.

I prefer my mechanics to be light and inobtrusive. You need a good GM in that case. If something seems unrealistic to you as a player, you can say, "Hey, wait a minute, shouldn't it really work like this?" and the GM then has the freedom to adjust the result without "breaking the rules." Of course, you have to abide by the GM's final decision, but I usually have more faith in my GM than the yahoos that wrote the system. ;) A lot of players don't like the GM to have that freedom, of course. It's a matter of preference.

[Podkayne]

soulmurk, do you usually play with people who are likely to abuse the system?

I play with people who enjoy creating an interesting story. I don't play with cheaters or munchkins--I've got better things to do. ;)

I've never seen an abuse-proof system--or the need for one. If the player or GM is trying to abuse the system, it's the person that needs to be adjusted, not the system.

[soulmurk]

Podkayne, perhaps abuse wasn't the correct word.

I generally do not play with people that would deliberately abuse a system, and you're right in that all systems have fallibilities and potential for abuse, but an open system such as has been suggested would remove any core skeletal system a GM must at least pretend to follow and allow them complete freedom to accept or deny a players wishes based solely on their personal beliefs and biases and mood.

It just doesn't seem a role playing game so much as a moderated discussion about what would be cool for the participants characters to do, which, I'll not deny could be fun, but more as a casual chat over a lunch break than as a complete gaming system.

[ruralrage]

I agree on a lot of points and disagree on a similar amount. Personally, the freedoms are quite enjoyable. Cheaters and the like try to abuse the freedoms of a narrational system of play, but that is the GMs problem if it isn't fixed. And when i roleplay, i trust my GM only because he knows where he wants things to go generally. He is more of a guide than an actual player.

[Podkayne]

Originally posted by soulmurk
I generally do not play with people that would deliberately abuse a system, and you're right in that all systems have fallibilities and potential for abuse, but an open system such as has been suggested would remove any core skeletal system a GM must at least pretend to follow and allow them complete freedom to accept or deny a players wishes based solely on their personal beliefs and biases and mood.

Well, the GM never has complete freedom. If the GM just rules according to his whim, it's going to piss the players off, and they won't stand for it. They'll argue, or they'll leave the game. In any game, the GM must follow some reasonable set of rules. In the case of ruralrage's proposed system, instead of having a book to tell you what's possible or what isn't possible, the GM has to make those decision based on common sense. If he isn't being fair and sensical, the players will call him on it.

It just doesn't seem a role playing game so much as a moderated discussion about what would be cool for the participants characters to do, which, I'll not deny could be fun, but more as a casual chat over a lunch break than as a complete gaming system.

It's not idle chat, though, it's roleplaying. There are other game rules that are just as important as mechanics.

The GM must be prepared. He must have the pertinant detials of the world worked out. He must be ready to play NPCs. In most game, he has an over-reaching plot in mind. Some events that will affect the characters will be happening on a timetable. Some events will happen in response to player actions. It's a rare GM who can just make this stuff up on the fly, even if he doesn't have to look up all the releavnt rules in the rulebook and have the NPCs statted out.

The players must act in character. They must choose their characters' actions based on a knowledge of the characters' strengths and limitations, and, more importantly, the characters' personalities.

The GM has to respond to the characters' actions in a fair, realistic, and consistent manner. Player's actions have results. Even in mechanics-heavy games, GMs often make decisions like this without the aid of rules. In a mechanics-light game, the GM has to decide based, not on die roles and formulas or charts, but based on what makes sense, moderated by a heapin' helpin' of what's dramatically appropriate.

If the player says he wants to do something that is beyond the character's abilities, the GM has to say, "No, sorry, you're not that strong/fast/good/etc." If the player wants to do something out of character (which is rare among good roleplayers), the GM, and often the other players, will usually question the action. Sometimes they convince the player to change his action, and sometimes the player will reassure them that he actually does have a good reason. This is something that cannot be adjudicated by mechanics (despite clumsy attempts at alignment rules in D&D and other systems). This is a rule that can only be enforced socially, by the GM and other players determining who's a good roleplayer and who's not, who they want to play with in the future and who they'd rather not.

I've seen the "but diceless roleplaying is not a GAAAAAaame!" debate about a million times, and I've never seen a slam-dunk argument against it. All I can say is that I certainly consider it a game, in the sense that it's an amusing passtime that you participate in along with other players, there are rules to follow, and none of the participants know exactly how events will unfold. If you want to say it's closer to improvisational theater or group creative writing, I can't argue against that, except that, because there isn't an audience, and because it's the doing that's important, not the record of what's happened, I think diceless roleplaying is still closer to the random-number dependent role-playing games from which it evolved. Equating it with a a casual chat, as you have, seems to miss the importance of the roleplaying element which is, obviously, the most important part.

[Podkayne]

Oh, and ruralrage, I'm interested in how you hope to impliment your idea, rules-wise! If you need playtesters, let me know!

[ruralrage]

interested, Podkayne? Well...i don't want to give too many details away but e-mail me at jbhardesty@hotmail.com and i can give you information.....if that helps any...and yes..i do need some patient playtesters to an extent....

right now i am just setting up the locations and getting it message board safe...so it doesn't irritate those who play....


My thought about diceless roleplaying is that each person contributes to a grand epic story that doesn't seem to have an end. I have seen it done quite successfully and it is a crap load of fun for all involved. It's a personal thing, why i like diceless only.

What makes one better than the other tho?

[Arden Ranger]

ooh. Play testing. If you need another, let me know. arden_rangeratyahoo.com.

[soulmurk]

Originally posted by Podkayne
Well, the GM never has complete freedom. If the GM just rules according to his whim, it's going to piss the players off, and they won't stand for it. They'll argue, or they'll leave the game. In any game, the GM must follow some reasonable set of rules. In the case of ruralrage's proposed system, instead of having a book to tell you what's possible or what isn't possible, the GM has to make those decision based on common sense. If he isn't being fair and sensical, the players will call him on it.

That's true of any gaming system, hopefully, but it doesn't change the fact that without a mathematical or probability based system, everything is up to the GM's particular mood.

For a moment assume that your GM is angry with you for some reason outside of the gaming world. Even the best GM cannot be so objective as to not allow that to influence their decisions. Not the greatest example, I admit, but in my mind a conceivably major flaw as there would be no core statistical based rule system to failsafe against the GM having a bad day.

Granted, bad GM's tend not to keep campaigns going for long, but even the best ones can't be great all the time. They're only human too.

Equating it with a a casual chat, as you have, seems to miss the importance of the roleplaying element which is, obviously, the most important part.

Yes, but it isn't the only part. If it is reduced to just that then you might as well call it what it is, improvisational theater or group creative writing.

[BioHazard]

Originally posted by ruralrage

My question is, how real do you want roleplaying to be, and would you be interested in playing if it seemed realistic enough?


Give me a holodeck with the safeties turned off baby!


Seriously, I prefer the realism, but Ive noticed for games like AD&D the more "realistic" the gameplay is, the longer it takes. Its also hard on my Rolling Hand.

[Podkayne]

Originally posted by soulmurk
For a moment assume that your GM is angry with you for some reason outside of the gaming world. Even the best GM cannot be so objective as to not allow that to influence their decisions. Not the greatest example, I admit, but in my mind a conceivably major flaw as there would be no core statistical based rule system to failsafe against the GM having a bad day.

Granted, bad GM's tend not to keep campaigns going for long, but even the best ones can't be great all the time. They're only human too.

If my GM is angry enough at me out-of-game that he is willing to take in-game retribution on my character, this tells me two things:

1) The GM needs to get therapy, get back on his meds, or, quite possibly, just grow up.
2) I need to find a new game.

I played with a GM who did that . . . in high school. And she did it in good ol AD&D. Randomization is not a "failsafe." The GM can always create a situation that will punish or kill the characters and have it be completely within the rules. And if they did that maliciously, they'd get mad, right? And if they persisted in doing that, you'd leave the game, right? Diceless is no different.

I play with people who play for the love of the game. If any member of the group, including the GM, doesn't seem to be enjoying himself, there's something wrong, and we stop and try to work it out. Sometimes somebody has a headache or something, or they're just tired. So we take the rest of the day off, or we take a break and have some pizza, but we are playing for fun. If fun isn't happening, play doesn't continue.

I feel sorry for you if that's not how it works with the people you play with. If that's the case, maybe you should look for some new gamers. But rules will not protect you from a GM who won't stay objective.

I've been gaming for 'bout twelve years now, with lotsa different people in lotsa different systems and genres, and I've never been in a game where randomization stood in the way of the GM doing as he damn well pleased--which is as it should be. If random events are threatening to take the game in a direction that the GM isn't willing to let it go, he will (and should) introduce nonrandom elements to put it back on course. Randomness only occurs where the GM permits it, within the boundaries that the GM has chosen. The wise GM knows where to set the boundaries, regardless of whether the source of the randomization is humans alone, or humans and a random number generator.

Yes, but it isn't the only part. If it is reduced to just that then you might as well call it what it is, improvisational theater or group creative writing.

Is "Cowboys and Indians" improvisational theater? Is "Let's Pretend" creative writing?

If the term "game" can embrace chess, and Twister, and basketball, and Super Mario Brothers, and Pictionary, and D&D, and a V:TM LARP, why is diceless roleplaying so emphatically not a game?

It's obviously not theater or writing, so until somebody invents a new word for it, I think "game" is a big enough term to handle it.

[soulmurk]

Originally posted by Podkayne
Is "Cowboys and Indians" improvisational theater? Is "Let's Pretend" creative writing?

No, those are fantasies that children, for the most part, act out.

If the term "game" can embrace chess, and Twister, and basketball, and Super Mario Brothers, and Pictionary, and D&D, and a V:TM LARP, why is diceless roleplaying so emphatically not a game?[/i]

The common factor that all of those games have in common is a prop of some kind, be it a piece of plastic with colored dots or identifiable pieces.

Several people making up fantastic stories they'd like their characters to experience while another tells them if their story is good enough based solely on their discretion is not a game, it's merely a group of people being creative, in essence no different than a few co-workers communally fantasizing about their companies growth and their impending wealth, etc.

[quote]If my GM is angry enough at me out-of-game that he is willing to take in-game retribution on my character, this tells me two things

I would agree entirely, but that wasn't the exact situation I was trying to impress. Even normal, stable, average, intelligent humans have bad days. While that may not necessarily translate into a vindictive assault on your character, it could, in a system based entirely on his/her whims, subconsciously affect their decisions. Again, I admit it isn't the best example of what I'm trying to express, but it'll have to do.

Diceless is no different

But it is different. If my character were to be slain or maimed or otherwise harmed in a system based on statistics and probability, I can accept that things didn't go my way, regardless of whether the GM seemed to be out to get me or not. In a system based on one person's discretion, barring my attempting something competely ridiculous or dangerous, how could I accept the same?

This discussion is obviously never going to be resolved and has completely gone off of the original OP. Neither of us will ever convince the other of our views, so let's just agree to disagree and call it good.

Good luck with your system.

[ruralrage]

I would agree if the system was a live action role playing game. I have done a few of those and statistics seem to be the only way to do things. Perhaps what helps me as a GM more than not is that i won't know anyone in my game save for username. I can be more objective that way, given that i have no ties to anyone.

What also might help is that i am all for the story's advancement and how each player fits into that....

[kiz]

I do Free Form (FFRPG) in a couple of forums. I'm somewhat of a novice, but from what I've read in this thread plus what I know from a couple of RPG'ing friends, FFRPG is one of your better bets.

Yes, it's basically group creative writing.

You create your own characters, plotlines, and such, all within the framework of the forum "kingdom" itself. One forum I'm in has bans against any sort of god-like character (except for a NPC and it has to relate directly to the plot), as well as any character who's totally villianous. Nobody has ever complained. It works because you, as the writer/RPGer, have to use your wiles to create a multi-dimensional character.

What's even more interesting is the creative process it entails. You can post a plotline of your very own, but it's more advantageous to IM with others in the forum and create your own storylines. I've been in a chatroom with 4-5 other members/writers discussing plot while one of us is simultaneously posting the story.

FWIW, I've never done D&D nor Final Fantasy-type games. They're interesting in their own right, but I wonder if my creativity would get the same kind of workout...

[ruralrage]

I may actually design a second game in the near future using Free Form so to speak. It will require a lot more creativity than not. The story would deal with each character being a god. Now the thing is...there is only one domain for all the gods to control so there would be some neat things to play with so to speak.....


but that will come much later after i get my first game up and running

[Podkayne]

*sigh*, fine. I really don't understand why some people are so . . . threatened by diceless games.

I still disagree completely with the idea that it's all about fantasizing, like, "Oh, gee, it'd be soooo cooool if my character did this." That's not playing in character, and the GM doesn't resolve actions based on what's cool. But, yes, I don't think either of us will ever convince the other.

Next time I get into this debate, I will demand, upfront, a definition of what constitutes a "game." As a side note, not something to continue the debate, but something you might want to ponder: your requirement that a game have tokens would eliminate charades, Mafia, twenty questions . . .

[tracer]

I don't engage in roleplaying games to play them, I engage in roleplaying games to win them!

MUNCHKIN POWER!! WOOOOO!!! <hack>

[Drastic]

I really don't understand why some people are so . . . threatened by diceless games.

Inexperience with them, primarily, I think.

Still, I suspect there's a lot of talking-past-each-other going on. soulmurk seems very concerned about lack of statistics that generate probabilities, and I haven't actually run into a diceless system that doesn't use light ones if only to express relative levels of character abilities.

soulmurk, if you're interested in diceless systems set around being gods, of a sort, check out Nobilis. It's between publishers currently, I gather, so it's somewhat hard to track down a copy, but worth the effort.