Big Skills

[Miniature Colossus]

Part of it comes from a desire to limit bias as the GM. If I know what my players abilities are, if the results are entirely deterministic based on what they have selected, when I am designing a scenario I must constantly confront the question of whether I want the PCs to find some thing or not find some thing. Do I want them to be able to convince the king to help, or not? Do I want them to find the secret entrance, or not? As a GM, I don't really have a preference - I want the players to choose what they'd like to do. But I am subject to bias, whether conscious or unconscious. Choosing a 'reasonable' challenge and knowing that the party might not be able to overcome it actually makes the design process easier. Further, it can be done in a generally party agnostic way - if I write a scenario but don't end up using it, as long as the ranges make sense I can use it for another group with completely different abilities without having to adjust the challenges to ensure they could be beaten by the party.

Thank you for making the only coherent argument in this thread for dice rolling empowering the players. Okay, it doesn't exclude the possibility the possibility of having a completely deterministic game full of player agency, and randomness certainly doesn't prevent GMs hellbent on railroading from doing so. But for a large portion of GMs I can buy that the game having dice rolling makes them focus less on planning how the game will play out and keep more of an open mind for different solutions.

[Omegonthesane]

Uh... what the fuck? If you don't use impartial dice, your abilities operate as per the fickle whims of the MC. That's all there fucking is. You use an RNG to resolve edge cases of you have the MC rate your felatio. There is no option three.

-Username17

Uhmmm there totally is an option 3. To give a shitty but clear example. You can just have an open lock ability that allows you to open any and all locks in 2 rounds. No need to use dice and no need to felate the DM to gain a +x lockpicking bonus. In fact no need to felate the DM at all.
Now sure, you're still depending on the whims of the DM in encounter design, but that is true no matter what resolution system you use.

No. There is no option 3. In the case where your lockpicking ability "just works" there will still be edge cases. Maybe you come across a giant door or a magic door. And then we are back to either Mother May I or Rolling Dice because those are still the only two options. Declaring that normal locks aren't an edge case in your system in no way tells you how to resolve things when you do hit an edge case. And there will be edge cases, because unlike computer games or board games a table top RPG is truly open ended and you can and will find the edges however they are defined.

-Username17

If the MC is deeming "magic" or "giant" to disqualify a door from qualifying as a member of the set "any and all locks", then they are defying the rules. The described ability wasn't "open all normal locks", it was "open all locks full fucking stop".

[Kaelik]

Well, my take on the player agency and dice argument is that, while technically you can have a diceless game with players having lots of agency, it wouldn't be a game with a GM at all. A normal diceless table-top game, like chess or checkers, is like that, and they work pretty well.

But a game with GM, and in a system that contains things without rules or rules that contradict each other (and table-top RPGs will always be like that, because of their sheer scope), player agency very much depends on having some kind of buffer that would allow to smooth-out these problems in a way that doesn't invoke direct conflict between people - and dices are good for that/

Here, let me help you out.

This is the list of people advocating diceless RPGing in this thread:












































Okay good, now you can go on arguing with no one.

[Sergarr]

Well, my take on the player agency and dice argument is that, while technically you can have a diceless game with players having lots of agency, it wouldn't be a game with a GM at all. A normal diceless table-top game, like chess or checkers, is like that, and they work pretty well.

But a game with GM, and in a system that contains things without rules or rules that contradict each other (and table-top RPGs will always be like that, because of their sheer scope), player agency very much depends on having some kind of buffer that would allow to smooth-out these problems in a way that doesn't invoke direct conflict between people - and dices are good for that/

Here, let me help you out.

This is the list of people advocating diceless RPGing in this thread:

Okay good, now you can go on arguing with no one.

I thought I had made it pretty fucking obvious that I was targeting the people who said/implied that "more dice rolling is always good" with this (because I don't remember them ever admitting that dices are a necessary evil and not an unquestionable good), but apparently I've failed my Write-a-Post check.

Anyone knows what's the DC for "writing a post in TGD without people misinterpreting it"?

[Lokey]

Beats being ignored

There's decades of bad blood that has to spew all over some thread, might as well be one that was headed to lockville by post 3.

[K]

Well, my take on the player agency and dice argument is that, while technically you can have a diceless game with players having lots of agency, it wouldn't be a game with a GM at all. A normal diceless table-top game, like chess or checkers, is like that, and they work pretty well.

But a game with GM, and in a system that contains things without rules or rules that contradict each other (and table-top RPGs will always be like that, because of their sheer scope), player agency very much depends on having some kind of buffer that would allow to smooth-out these problems in a way that doesn't invoke direct conflict between people - and dices are good for that/

Here, let me help you out.

This is the list of people advocating diceless RPGing in this thread:

Okay good, now you can go on arguing with no one.

I thought I had made it pretty fucking obvious that I was targeting the people who said/implied that "more dice rolling is always good" with this (because I don't remember them ever admitting that dices are a necessary evil and not an unquestionable good), but apparently I've failed my Write-a-Post check.

Anyone knows what's the DC for "writing a post in TGD without people misinterpreting it"?

The DM assigns a DC for each post, so it's "Mother-may-I" to even have a chance to succeed.

[Aryxbez]

I'm a DC 15 myself, so it's not too hard, sometimes it might require Frank-fixed Skill Challenge however.

1) I am saying this yes but a bit more than that. I've been saying that there are skills that only exist to lock out content (Search/Knowledge/etc) and that they are not important enough to deserve a roll. Instead, if players decide to use the gate unlocking skills that they put resources into having there is no good reason to not give it to them.

If you have the 3-clue Rule going for "Major-level" content, then them getting skipped out on this based on a failed roll wouldn't be bad, as you have other ways for them to get to the Content (though this way to do it had to be discarded).

Frank has been on some bizarre tangent where he seems to be claiming that rolls are necessary for player empowerment.

It's actually not that bizarre, as in general, the dice/cards/whatever serve to allow for basic, Objective, task Resolution. That isn't made by you, your friends, or the DM at the table, but the rules we all agreed to play on. Not all abilities have to be dice rolls obviously, nor should they, but it's probably good to have them its opposed against a creature or conflict of some kind that would be contested. At this point, it's been said pretty good by deaddmwalking, and DSMatticus on These, Two, Posts.

Player agency comes from player decisions being applied to a concrete set of rules. Those rules can (and almost certainly will) include dice rolls for some thing, but they can also not include dice rules for other things,

I agree on these points, and the others made in that post. I appreciate the clarification, well put.

[MGuy]

The "locking gated content behind multiple different gates" thing has been mentioned and covered. I just talked about how I'm not opposed to opposed rolls and how and why the act of rolling is not, itself, player empowerment and PL and kaelik have done the same. Kaelik even pointed out how no one is talking about getting rid of all rolls. Even you bringing up the 3 clue rule doesn't tell me why any of that should be rolled.

[deaddmwalking]

It is possible that you're getting hung up on static DCs versus opposed checks. When we're using 3.x as a basis for discussion, we all agree that there are areas that could be improved. Search could be an opposed check (like Stealth). If something is hidden, it most likely the result of deliberate action. Asking about how we would resolve the players attempting to hide something was not without a point. We might need to know how difficult it is to find something the party has hidden. This could be Search versus Search - your 32 let's you find a loose brick that is almost impossible to find - if they want to find what you've hidden they might need to equal or exceed your check....

This is outside of the rules as written, but I think that most of these types of checks could be and probably should be thought of as opposed checks.

I've been watching all of the Bond films and Dr. No (first movie) illustrates what I'm talking about when Bond tries to 'Gather Information' about the titular villain. While several people could give the information he wants, they are more afraid of what Dr. No will do to them. Effectively his Intimidate becomes the TN for the Gather Information.

Even within the rules, conflicts will happen. If both people have an ability, it may matter who is better. In a Scavenger Hunt, anyone with the ability to 'find things' will find everything. Do they all take the same amount of time? Maybe 90 times out of 100 you don't care, but Frank is right that a role-playing game will go right up to those edges. Having 'divide by zero' failures is bad design.

[Kaelik]

we all agree that there are areas that could be improved. Search could be an opposed check (like Stealth).

I would describe that as "not an improvement."

[MGuy]

dead I want you to describe to me a situation where the use of a character who has invested in Search, Gather Info, Knowledge or some similar check against an unknown, off screen, target is improved by a forcing them to roll for success.

Edit: And let me add that I want you to consider what happens if they miss mentioned roll(s if given a chain of such checks).

[K]

Part of it comes from a desire to limit bias as the GM. If I know what my players abilities are, if the results are entirely deterministic based on what they have selected, when I am designing a scenario I must constantly confront the question of whether I want the PCs to find some thing or not find some thing. Do I want them to be able to convince the king to help, or not? Do I want them to find the secret entrance, or not? As a GM, I don't really have a preference - I want the players to choose what they'd like to do. But I am subject to bias, whether conscious or unconscious. Choosing a 'reasonable' challenge and knowing that the party might not be able to overcome it actually makes the design process easier. Further, it can be done in a generally party agnostic way - if I write a scenario but don't end up using it, as long as the ranges make sense I can use it for another group with completely different abilities without having to adjust the challenges to ensure they could be beaten by the party.

Thank you for making the only coherent argument in this thread for dice rolling empowering the players. Okay, it doesn't exclude the possibility the possibility of having a completely deterministic game full of player agency, and randomness certainly doesn't prevent GMs hellbent on railroading from doing so. But for a large portion of GMs I can buy that the game having dice rolling makes them focus less on planning how the game will play out and keep more of an open mind for different solutions.

Rolling the dice doesn't force the DM to be open to different solutions, but having abilities will.

It's too easy for a Climb check to just always be a few points higher than you can roll, but a goddamn fly spell is going to always get you to the top of a fucking wall 100% of the time unless the DM is willing to admit he's railroading you.

[Miniature Colossus]

Rolling the dice doesn't force the DM to be open to different solutions, but having abilities will.

It's too easy for a Climb check to just always be a few points higher than you can roll, but a goddamn fly spell is going to always get you to the top of a fucking wall 100% of the time unless the DM is willing to admit he's railroading you.

And I'm not disagreeing with this; as I said you could have a completely deterministic game full of player agency. It might take a pretty extensive rule's framework though so that every scenario the DM conjures up is covered in an adequate way (for a more traditional style of game at least, alternate solutions like a resolution mechanic for narrative control like Munchausen can work to but will deviate more from the 'traditional' experience).

Regarding your example I think the point being made is that if players have access to fly and the GM knows that they have then the GM can prepare for that. If there is no reason why the players would go bash down the door when they have fly then the GM pretty much knows they will fly over the wall and the encounter he or she would have put behind the door had they not had fly can instead be put on the wall. The whole thing risks turning into quantum bears even if the GM never had any intentions of doing so. The GM was just trying to make a fun adventure, but because some of the players actions could be accurately predicted beforehand some parts of the adventure was almost certain to play out like the GM wanted.

If there is no dice rolling I would think the GM has to be more careful with how he or she sets up the incentives of an adventure so there is no obvious path, as then the GM can pretty much write the story beforehand and have a good chance that it will play out that way. With dice rolling this is less of a problem as even if the incentives are very clear the randomness will push the players of the path eventually and the GM will have to take this into account. Of course the players can always try to throw a wrench in cogs of the plot if they want to and in this case I will not argue that dice contribute anything special. Deterministic abilities may very well be better when it comes to this type of player empowerment.

In general I think we could agree that not having it be obvious what choices the players should make is superior adventure design, but this is also harder and a lot of people are content with running simple 'save the princess' games.

Small disclaimer though: I haven't GMed enough myself to accurately tell how much of this actually happens, and it's mostly armchair reasoning from my part.

[deaddmwalking]

Rolling the dice doesn't force the DM to be open to different solutions, but having abilities will.

Nothing 'forces' the GM to be open to different solutions. How many published adventures have you read that begin by explaining short-range teleport 'doesn't work' because 'fuck you, that's why'. The Dungeon designers want the players to go through the Dungeon 'in order' so they say 'that ability doesn't apply'. Solid fog or anti-magic can stop someone from flying over the wall. A roof can make it so that doesn't actually help in any significant way.

If you're using dice, and the GM will reveal the DC before the roll, it is highly unlikely that the GM will be able to block the party from succeeding. While it isn't a perfect solution, it certainly helps - especially in cases where an ability could apply, but circumstances are less than ideal so the GM might rule that it does not - like flying in a hurricane.

dead I want you to describe to me a situation where the use of a character who has invested in Search, Gather Info, Knowledge or some similar check against an unknown, off screen, target is improved by a forcing them to roll for success.

Edit: And let me add that I want you to consider what happens if they miss mentioned roll(s if given a chain of such checks).

I don't even know what you mean by 'improved'. I think that success and failure move the game forward in different ways, and as a result, the sum of successes and failures help define what players remember.

This could be fun:
Step 1) Find Bad Guy
Step 2) Kill Bad Guy

This could be more memorable:
Step 1) Fail to find Bad Guy
Step 2) Fail to find Bad Guy
Step 3) Fail to find Bad Guy
Step 4) Guys - we're going to fuck this guy up when we find him.
Step 5) Find Bad Guy
Step 6) Kill Bad Guy

Not only does it mean that more content is likely used (players interacted with 'search for tracks' content; 'gather information' content, stealth/perception content, etc), it could mean that it is more satisfying in the end.

Part of running the game is building tension, then resolving that tension. If you create a situation that the players cannot 'win' the tension becomes an illusion (similarly if they realize that they cannot lose). We expect setbacks in some form or another - they don't all have to be combat.

[MGuy]

Here's what your scenario looks like to me:

Step 1-3) The Princess is not in this castle
Step 4) Damn tired of going through these castles
Step 5-6) Found the right castle -> Defeat Bowser.

Now that might or might not be fun, I don't really know, but your task was to tell me how any of that is improved by rolls. All you did was give me a situation that could happen but you forgot to add in the part where it is improved (at all) by making players roll to use their gate unlocking skill(s).

[PhoneLobster]

Step 1) Fail to find Bad Guy
Step 2) Fail to find Bad Guy
Step 3) Fail to find Bad Guy

Wow... did... you just not manage to come up with anything better than "the bad guy hides from you"?

(players interacted with 'search for tracks' content; 'gather information' content, stealth/perception content, etc)

Oh for fucks sake you actually literally did not manage to come up with anything better than "the bad guy hides from you".

But you know what. You god damn idiot your plan of "fail to track bad guy", "fail to get rumors on bad guy", and holy shit fail to see bad guy hiding behind you because fuck you you actually presented that as a fucking Search, Gather Info, Knowledge or some similar check, oh, and etc... since you ran out of actual ideas at 2.

Its a stupid story of FAIL.

You know what is a better "tension" building story? The players decide to gather some rumors and succeed, this leads them so hot on the trail that they can successfully track, and THAT leads to an encounter that may or may not involve actual hiding because fuck you for pretending that was an example of a knowledge skill equivalent check.

And it's a better story your story was made worse by the failures. Your story stopped and had to start from scratch multiple times instead of progressing. And holy shit your entire fucking premise is players getting annoyed with you translates into a memorable revenge combat.

But even aside from fucking that. You were asked that question in relation to your opposed checks bullshit. What about even your story of multiple false start failure deliberate frustrations incorporates the opposed check aspect of your argument at all? Fucking none of it. Its just the EXACT FUCKING SAME "well fuck it the checks are meaningless if they fail constantly we just hand the same content to them eventually anyway" story we have been hearing repeated since the beginning of the thread. And the opposed rolls never got a look in as having an impact, it could have been arbitrary coin flips for the same result. Even the rolls at all didn't impact the scenario, because hell, it could have just been "GM says no".

[ishy]

Part of it comes from a desire to limit bias as the GM. If I know what my players abilities are, if the results are entirely deterministic based on what they have selected, when I am designing a scenario I must constantly confront the question of whether I want the PCs to find some thing or not find some thing. Do I want them to be able to convince the king to help, or not? Do I want them to find the secret entrance, or not? As a GM, I don't really have a preference - I want the players to choose what they'd like to do. But I am subject to bias, whether conscious or unconscious. Choosing a 'reasonable' challenge and knowing that the party might not be able to overcome it actually makes the design process easier. Further, it can be done in a generally party agnostic way - if I write a scenario but don't end up using it, as long as the ranges make sense I can use it for another group with completely different abilities without having to adjust the challenges to ensure they could be beaten by the party.

Thank you for making the only coherent argument in this thread for dice rolling empowering the players.

The problem with his argument is that it is wrong. Deaddmwalking claims he wants players to choose what they'd like to do, but instead of actually allowing his players to choose, he lets his whims as a DM and the dice gods decide what they can and can't do.

[Jason]

The problem with his argument is that it is wrong. Deaddmwalking claims he wants players to choose what they'd like to do, but instead of actually allowing his players to choose, he lets his whims as a DM and the dice gods decide what they can and can't do.

That is only true if all you look at are ad hoc decisions and desires and completely disregard long term investments and ressource allocation. Player agency is not solely defined over direct actions, but also investment into success and success probability.

The player agency in deaddm's excemples comes from resource invesment, not the dice rolls. The player decides that he would like to be more capable at gathering information, so he invests skill points into said skill to perform better at it. So, when the time comes that said skill is needed he has a batter chance at succeeding.

Where the dice argument comes in is challenge resolution. Does he know the right people to talk to? Does he know his way around the criminal underbelly of city? Can he remain under the radar while gathering information? You can simply decide the outcome if you want to but who will decide? The gm? The player? A static value? Will it simply auto-suceed every time? Will it simply fail every time?
Dice rolls allow for a measure of chance, keeping things interesting and unclear until the resolution, while allowing the player to directly influence the outcome through long term investment. More importantly, a die roll allows for an objective challenge resolution, independent of personal bias.

You could argue (and some already have) that the GM could simply manipulate the difficulty of the roll to make only the outcome he desires possible and that ist true but he can do that with any other resolution mechanic as well. There isn't really much you can do about a dick GM other than not play with him or her.

[Kaelik]

The problem with his argument is that it is wrong. Deaddmwalking claims he wants players to choose what they'd like to do, but instead of actually allowing his players to choose, he lets his whims as a DM and the dice gods decide what they can and can't do.

That is only true if all you look at are ad hoc decisions and desires and completely disregard long term investments and ressource allocation. Player agency is not solely defined over direct actions, but also investment into success and success probability.

The player agency in deaddm's excemples comes from resource invesment, not the dice rolls. The player decides that he would like to be more capable at gathering information, so he invests skill points into said skill to perform better at it. So, when the time comes that said skill is needed he has a batter chance at succeeding.

You are the cancer that is killing the universe.

Wholly shit. I can't wait for 500 more people to tell me that you have to have dice rolls because if you invest resources in an ability that doesn't have a dice roll, that's not player agency, but if you invest resources in a dice roll, you have all that player agency.

[virgil]

Wholly shit. I can't wait for 500 more people to tell me that you have to have dice rolls because if you invest resources in an ability that doesn't have a dice roll, that's not player agency, but if you invest resources in a dice roll, you have all that player agency.

I thought the conclusion for wanting dice (even tangentially through Concentration checks, saves, etc) stems from the established track record of failure from diceless systems is sufficient prior to err on that side of the argument.

[Kaelik]

Wholly shit. I can't wait for 500 more people to tell me that you have to have dice rolls because if you invest resources in an ability that doesn't have a dice roll, that's not player agency, but if you invest resources in a dice roll, you have all that player agency.

I thought the conclusion for wanting dice (even tangentially through Concentration checks, saves, etc) stems from the established track record of failure from diceless systems is sufficient prior to err on that side of the argument.

Oh goody, the lie everyone says instead of the dumb thing everyone says! Wanting any possible thing to happen without die rolls is exactly like claiming that no dice rolls of any kind should exist anywhere!

Thanks Virgil, you showed me I sure was overestimating the honesty of people who argue that all actions ever must have dice in order to give players agency.

[ishy]

That is only true if all you look at are ad hoc decisions and desires and completely disregard long term investments and ressource allocation. Player agency is not solely defined over direct actions, but also investment into success and success probability.

The player agency in deaddm's excemples comes from resource invesment, not the dice rolls. The player decides that he would like to be more capable at gathering information, so he invests skill points into said skill to perform better at it. So, when the time comes that said skill is needed he has a batter chance at succeeding.

Part of it comes from a desire to limit bias as the GM. If I know what my players abilities are,<snip>

He was specifically talking about desigining encounters after he knows what abilities his players have. And creating encounters based on those abilities, so no previous player choices don't matter in this specific case.

And more importantly, long term investments and resource allocation have nothing to do with having an RNG or not. You even state that yourself in the next sentence. So it is fucking irrelevant for this conversation.

Where the dice argument comes in is challenge resolution. Does he know the right people to talk to? Does he know his way around the criminal underbelly of city? Can he remain under the radar while gathering information? You can simply decide the outcome if you want to but who will decide? The gm? The player? A static value? Will it simply auto-suceed every time? Will it simply fail every time?
Dice rolls allow for a measure of chance, keeping things interesting and unclear until the resolution, while allowing the player to directly influence the outcome through long term investment. More importantly, a die roll allows for an objective challenge resolution, independent of personal bias.

You could argue (and some already have) that the GM could simply manipulate the difficulty of the roll to make only the outcome he desires possible and that ist true but he can do that with any other resolution mechanic as well. There isn't really much you can do about a dick GM other than not play with him or her.

Dice rolls don't actually give you the answer to the questions you are asking. They don't tell you if you know the right people, your way around the underbelly, or if you can remain under the radar.

The one who'll decide the outcome is determined by your action resolution system, it can be any number of things.

while allowing the player to directly influence the outcome through long term investment.

Have to quote this again, because you even stated yourself that dice rolling has nothing to do with this.
Also dice rolling does not allow for objective challenge resolution, you're still beholden to the whims of the DM.

---

No. There is no option 3. In the case where your lockpicking ability "just works" there will still be edge cases. Maybe you come across a giant door or a magic door. And then we are back to either Mother May I or Rolling Dice because those are still the only two options. Declaring that normal locks aren't an edge case in your system in no way tells you how to resolve things when you do hit an edge case. And there will be edge cases, because unlike computer games or board games a table top RPG is truly open ended and you can and will find the edges however they are defined.

-Username17

If the MC is deeming "magic" or "giant" to disqualify a door from qualifying as a member of the set "any and all locks", then they are defying the rules. The described ability wasn't "open all normal locks", it was "open all locks full fucking stop".

This.

[virgil]

Oh goody, the lie everyone says instead of the dumb thing everyone says! Wanting any possible thing to happen without die rolls is exactly like claiming that no dice rolls of any kind should exist anywhere!

Yeah, hyperbole is totally conducive to constructive discussions; because people wanting dice to happen outside of combat scenarios is exactly the same as asking for dice to go farther down than turtles.

[Kaelik]

Oh goody, the lie everyone says instead of the dumb thing everyone says! Wanting any possible thing to happen without die rolls is exactly like claiming that no dice rolls of any kind should exist anywhere!

Yeah, hyperbole is totally conducive to constructive discussions; because people wanting dice to happen outside of combat scenarios is exactly the same as asking for dice to go farther down than turtles.

Uh... hey you idiot. You are the one full of hyperbole. You are literally arguing that every action ever must have at least one die roll and that no possible action can act without dice because Amber Diceless is bad.

Now, I'm a nice fucking guy (Well not really, but there are so many failures in these arguments that I limit myself to addressing only some of them), so I've been avoiding pointing out that the entire concept of claiming that Amber Diceless has no agency therefore no action without dice can ever have agency is basically like arguing that no dice system can ever have agency because Bear World exists. But let's be clear here. The fact Amber Diceless sucks is in no way relevant to the question of whether certain actions can have agency without dice rolls.

So when you argue: "I thought the conclusion for wanting dice (even tangentially through Concentration checks, saves, etc) stems from the established track record of failure from diceless systems is sufficient prior to err on that side of the argument."'

You are basically the lyingest of liars.

[virgil]

Uh... hey you idiot. You are the one full of hyperbole. You are literally arguing that every action ever must have at least one die roll and that no possible action can act without dice because Amber Diceless is bad.

You are basically the lyingest of liars.

I will answer both of these statements. No, I'm not.