Deterministic RPG Systems

What are your opinions of RPG systems/mechanics with no random elements in them? No dice, no cards, no flipping coins, nothing of that sort. They could be mostly freeform (although that might be stretching the definition of "system"), based on resource management, discussions between players, push ups, acting or what have you.

Good? Bad? Could be better? Do you know any good games of the style? Etc.

>no random elements
It's less of a game and more of a collective story telling system then.

The website Storium works like that. It's like RPG in the form of writing prose.

>Chess is not a game

>Chess is a RPG system
Can my bishop multiclass into rook?

Look up fire emblem heroes, not rpg per say but it should give you an idea how it can be done correctly for combat.

WANG system, posted on Veeky Forums somewhere. Impossible to read, torturous to absorb, ideas actually not too bad.

Got any examples of such systems?

Without actually ever having played such a system, i think it'd work best for a very low-powered game, with no 'fights' and such.
But to be honest i can't think of a reason to even use a system at all if you don't have an random element.

Dic less system usually substitute dice rnd with player input, like (blind) betting chips and such

>i think it'd work best for a very low-powered game, with no 'fights' and such
Think again. The first proper system with no random elements was Amber Diceless Roleplay (where the characters are nigh omnipotent) and the most famous nowadays is probably Nobilis (where they play on a scale where "gods" are mooks to be discarded).

It sucks. May as well write a book with your group

The point is that it is a game. It is possible for a game to be exciting without having a random element, because you're still playing it with other people whose input prevents it from becoming just a "matter of your own decision".

Okay, fair point, if you can do anything you can do anything, haven't even thought of that.
Honestly, the only thing that came to my mind where Murder Mysteries, Horror and Slice of Life.

The point in Amber was that the Amberites are so powerful that the only thing that can truly challenge them is another Amberite, and they're each defined by the things that they're good and bad at. Hence the whole bidding system for getting the highest attribute scores. The Amberite with highest Strength will ALWAYS beat anyone else in contests of strength, ever. So how do you beat him? You find someone whose better than him at something else.

Nobilis is a resource management system. If a Noble wants something done, they can probably do that, the question is whether they want it more than the other Nobles around and how much each of them is willing to sacrifice.

Resource management mechanics are fine, but everyone definitely needs to be on the same level. I'm also impartial to systems where you succeed or fail automatically based purely on trait levels, although those are best used for very slow paced games like investigations.

Either way, games like these don't lend themselves well to a huge focus on combat mechanics as they're traditionally represented.

My main experiences with that sort of thing would be all of the dozens of times people used Amber diceless to play as alt universe 40k primarchs,

Dread (Which was fun actually! Jenga should be a resolution mechanic in more systems.)

And "The Skeletons", where mechanical outcomes are decided by your ability to sit in the hotseat and rationalise your own backstory. Which also had some unique ideas.

My overall opinion is that none of these had actually hit on a single resolution mechanic capable of carrying a whole game, and I would really like a game with more varied and diverse resolution mechanics.

Again, WANG, if you can get through the creator's obnoxious hipster "if I pretend I put little enough effort into this I could look like Vincent Baker" bullshit.

I love Amber Diceless and Lords of Gossamer and Shadow.

But people are addicted to RNGs.

Innocents has a surprisingly decent resource management based mechanic. A lot of it is presented as being tied to the themes and realities of playing a child but honestly, if you just change the presentation a little bit (i.e. use tokens instead of candies, make "Physical/Mental Age" into "Physical/Mental Strength", turn "Imagination" into "Conviction", etc.) you could translate it into a generic system pretty well.

I really can't find any evidence that this is a real thing that exists.

Hifumi is very cute.

Saved for exactly such occasions. Note that the alternative resolution mechanics are spread throughout the supplements, the core mechanic is still a dice roll (although I guess you could grab any or all of the alternative ones and build a game around them).

...

...

...

...

>Dread (Which was fun actually! Jenga should be a resolution mechanic in more systems.)
Two things about Dread:
1) I personally would call the Jenga Tower random, or at least non-deterministic
2) For quite a bit i thought the game was called Dredd because i first heard about it mentioned in passing in a Podcast and in relation to a Cyberpunk game they ran...

But what if you want to play a regular guy instead of a superbeing?

Play Dread. Or if you're looking for a more generic experience, the version of Diceless Unisystem which doesn't use cards. Straight up comparison of scores, if your skill is high enough you succeed, if not you don't, GM may decide to give you a bonus based on your description.

The Jenga tower is intended to *feel* random, but ultimately there are only ever going to be about 3 tests per tower where the outcome isn't necessarily obvious ahead of time. I for one know the exact point at which I am no longer capable of playing a Jenga tower any further. The game largely encourages you to remove the uncertain elements as well, since you at least get to die heroically if you smash the tower deliberately.

Anyone mind extracting the good ideas for resolution mechanics so we don't have to wade through the unreadable bullshit to get to them?

Jenga isn't even fun on its own.

And not having randomity at all sound boring. Imagine sneaking across a room. A clumsy guy is less likely to do it quietly. But if he is super focused he could pull it off. A roll to see if he manages to stay focused is natural to me.

>But if he is super focused he could pull it off
Spend more of your "Focus" resource then. Or argue that to the GM. Or describe it as such. Are you that terrified of your own decisions, roleplaying or narrative abilities affecting the game, rather than a bit of plastic on the floor?

Its a common misconception among people who haven't played it, but being good or bad at certain things is a thing in Dread. It's easy to miss a lot of the depth in the game if you only skim it, or only read up to the point that you think you know how to run it, but Dread actually has a lot of meat to it if you read the whole way through.

There are rules like "every player's worst fear must make one appearance per session as part of a description of something" etc.

Oh, and to clarify, some scrub with a pistol takes 3 draws to shoot the ayylium, whereas the master sharpshooter takes 1. That is the difficulty/skill mechanic at its most basic.

It's been a while since I've played the game, but isn't the rule that if your questions say you'd be good at an action, you don't need to draw at all?

>my own ability to describe things decide how successful my character is
I am not my character. Also, I describe things from the viewpoint of my character, but things external to him can affect his success

But if I am shit at jenga and the people I play with are not, doesn't that mean that they will have much more narrative control than me?

If you have bad luck with the dice, doesn't that mean the same thing? At least you can improve your Jenga skills if you work on it.

Luck doesn't exist. Your dice can be worn in a way that makes them roll bad, but that's about it. So buy new dice. But if you have sausage fingers of if you are just clumsy you must practice at a game that in itself is boring just so you can play an RPG?

Sorry but what really what? What

Xp penalties are too high man. Knight is the one you want multiclass into from bishop, although it's not that much evident, the features well complement bishop.

Yes, but it involves a really difficult class change quest in which you have to travel to the other side if the map despite a complete army blocking your way. People have pulled it off, though.

>Luck doesn't exist.
Then this discussion is moot and there's no point rolling dice.

That luck doesn't exist does not mean that randomity doesn't.

Cont.
Luck is (would be) a way to make random chance less random by magically affecting it in some way.

"Luck" certainly does not exist as a fundamental force in the universe, but through the veil of ignorance that is humanity's bounded perceptions, luck influences everything. In this case, luck refers to the minutia that influence every action in the universe which we cannot perceive: the weathering of a die, the angle of a roll, the force (and direction of force) applied to said roll, the die's height from the surface of the table, etc. Every roll may have a predetermined outcome, but we cannot accurately measure all the factors which lead to that outcome with our naked senses, leading to an apparent randomness. We can't measure these things; we can't rationally deduce an outcome; we must have a mechanism to understand randomness, being human; we believe in luck. Luck exists in the human mind to explain this seeming randomness in the universe, and therefore, in one sense, luck does exist. It exists because we are not omniscient.
TL;DR Luck doesn't exist, but we can't determine everything, so luck appears to exist to humans and that's what matters.
Replace "luck" with "chance" if you want to. I'm not talking about bad luck/good luck, just randomness inherent in dice rolls.

But luck and chance are actually different things. You seem to think that the meaning of words is in itself meaningless. Also
>things exist because I think they exist
Belief in X is generally not X itself.

Anyone tried the recipes?

You know full well what he meant. Someone who ends up rolling badly throughout the game. They lose their narrative power, too.

I admit I didn't understand the statement and assumed that "luck = randomness" in my reply.
As for belief, "Luck exists in the human mind" =/= "luck exists in the universe": if a concept has a name, it exists, not necessarily in reality but in the mind. I can think of Luck. It has a name. It has a definition. It exists to me even if it has no power over my life, even if I do not believe in it, because it has been defined. Give it a name and it exists to you.