Hybrid Gaming

I just thought about this topic recently given how RPG topics of late somehow point to some innovation or other in terms of game mechanics or fluff content. It was a thought that was niggling in my mind when I recalled an old issue of Videogaming Illustrated in the 80's. That magazine was published during the height of old school consoles like the Atari 2600, Intellivision, Colecovision and PC gaming was still in its infancy with machines like the Apple II, Commodore 64 and Sinclair computers. Arcade gaming was pretty much a mainstay even till now but the current generation gaming consoles have games which port over from its arcade machine siblings. I read an article in that magazine, unable to recall that particular issue, there was a way to use console games to support, augment or assist visualization for a tabletop RPG, whether it be an off-the-shelf RPG system or a homebrew. The article mentions how an enterprising GM would use the console game as an alternative to task resolution via die rolls or as interactive aid to get the player more immersed into the setting of the game as well do the needed resolution.

That article was back in the late 80's. Fast forward now to 2005 or soon-to-be 2006. The current generation of console games are pretty much interactive and a game unto itself to grab the imagination and attention of the player as compared to before since imagination doesn't fill in the blanks compared to its cruder ancestors. The thought of adding a new generation console game into the presentation process would be either a enhancement or a distraction, depending on how the enterprising GM would intend for the use of the game in question, whether it be for visual references, to better illustrate the task involved for the campaign or just adding a touch of fun for it. Its just quite a thought to ponder. It might also bring some life back to some of those old games gathering dust somewhere in your own home. It is an avenue t further interactivity to be considered.

Diceless RPG

What is diceless rpg?
“Diceless” is roleplaying without the use of any sort of dice or randomizers such as cards. They are “minimalist systems where the GM decides on the results of actions without the help of randomizers, tables, or explicit quantified mechanics.”There are already diceless systems out on the market, among them is the well known Amber Diceless RPG.

What I find interesting about them is their way of dealing with situations you would normally use dice. The most obvious is combat. It may be very descriptive or brief; it may involve a few game mechanic or none at all and sometimes a bit of railroading. But the way it’s done or presented is sometimes dependent on the spirit of the specific game world, its mechanic, game reality and the individual GMs style. Here’s part of John Kims’s FAQ for a better explanation:

"2) Does it work?
Yes. There are plenty of people who have been playing without dice even long before the above systems were published. At least for these people, it can be just as exciting as diced gaming, and at least competitive in realism with many diced games. It generally results in much more emphasis on player and GM descriptions, and much less emphasis on rules.

3) How does the GM make decisions?
That varies with the system, the GM, the group contract, and so forth. In general, action resolution can be based on a great variety of input factors. What follows is an outline of some of the factors which can go into action resolution -

[A] Reality/Genre: This is just the GM's judgement of what is the most reasonable outcome given the understood "reality" of the situation - including genre and setting-specific laws (like magic). This is actually the most common form of resolution in any game - if a character tries to walk through the woods, the GM just says it happens.
[B] Mechanics: This is game-mechanical constructs (which may represent the genre-reality, but which are more than just a general understanding).
Note that this does *not* have to involve dice. CORPS and _Vampire_ both use some diceless, mechanical action resolution. Spending Plot Points (or Hero Points, Willpower, etc.) is also a mechanic.
[C] Description: In this case, _how_ the player describes his character's action has a big effect on the outcome. This involves the player heavily in the action -- but it also tends to emphasize player skill rather than character skill (i.e. if a given player is very good at describing combat tactics, then his character is better at combat).
[D] Plot: As _Theatrix_ describes it, "Does the plot require a given outcome?" The GM sets up a plot beforehand, and if a given result is required for the plot to work, he chooses that result. This is the factor most often associated with "railroading".
[E] Drama: This is a free-wheeling sense of drama or comedy/fun, as mediated by the GM. For example, a chandelier swing in a swashbuckling game may naturally succeed because it is dramatically appropriate. It has nothing to do with the written plot, but it fits.
[F] Meta-game: This is a catch-all category for concerns of the GM and players. A gamble may succeed because it is getting late in the evening and people want to go home. Certain issues may be avoided because some players find them offensive. A PC may disappear because the player can't show Etcetera.
[G] Group Consensus (from Sarah Kahn): This is a sort of combination of Reality and Description resolution, in which the entire group combines efforts to determine what the "expert swordsman's" best strategy really would BE when the player of the swordsman knows nothing of combat. It is often use to counteract the problems of "description" resolution. It often takes the form of "he who knows the subject best is empowered to define the reality."
[H] Dice: Technically dice will not be used in a "diceless" game, but I included them to be completist, and to show how they are just one among a large number of factors. Dice can be used as additional input into any number of resolutions. Mechanics often call for die rolls, but a mechanicless game can also use dice to represent random factors (The rule being, say, "High good, low bad").

Besides the variety of input, action resolution can be different in method or style of handling -- like how the results are presented. For example, even if two GM's use the same mechanics and die rolls: one might describe to players using only descriptive terms, and he keeps the character sheet and die rolls to himself.

4) Is this fair to the players?
Well, that depends. The advantage of diceless role-playing on this front is that it encourages greater feedback and communication with the GM. Yes, in principle, a diceless GM can shoot down whatever player plans he doesn't like by ruling that they fail. However, the idea is that it will be very clear to the players that he is doing this -- since the GM decides everything, he also takes all the blame.
Diceless play requires a large amount of trust in the GM -- but the theory is that it also makes it more clear when the GM has broken that trust.

5) Can it simulate "realistic" randomness?
Well, that depends on the GM and the situation. Theoretically, a die-roll can certainly provide a more statistically random sequence than GM whim. However, within the context of the game, there are very few runs of statistically-analyzable events.

The GM can take into account a wide variety of in-game factors for each individual decision which will differentiate them. Of course, unless he is a skilled expert in that field, common sense only carries you so far -- some of the choices will either be arbitrary, or be based on meta-game factors like Drama...
As an example: the PC's fire a volley of arrows at a distant enemy. The GM has to decide if they hit any vital spots, taking out some of the enemy. At a detail-by-detail level, the GM's choice is arbitrary -- but he can try adjust things to make sure that overall, the archers are about as effective as they should be.

Using dice is better able to simulate the randomness that often occurs in real world. However, the mechanics are only able to take into account a few of the relevant variables. In dice-using or diceless games, the GM can take into account far more of the actual (i.e. game-world) situation.

6) What difference does it make?
Well, I'll defer at this point to Alain Lapalme, who described in an article what he considered to be the diceless "paradigm shift" for him...
It is clear to me that I don't understand the dice/diceless paradigm shift (I used tothink I did, but I'm no longer so sure).
To summarize my views on the diceless shift:

1. explicit trust in the GM
2. can't hide behind bad/good rolls
3. forces players to take responsability for their actions
4. changes the player/gm communication style from mechanistic to more descriptive
5. increases subjectivity
6. changes the whole nature of combat

But of course this is different for every person..."

Gaming Style

You scored as Storyteller. You're more inclined toward the role playing side of the equation and less interested in numbers or experience points. You're quick to compromise if you can help move the story forward, and get bored when the game slows down for a long planning session. You want to play out a story that moves like it's orchestrated by a skilled novelist or film director. Storyteller 92% Method Actor 83% Butt-Kicker 67% Tactician 67% Power Gamer 50% Specialist 50% Casual Gamer 17% Law's Game Style created with QuizFarm.com