Yes, you read the title correctly, you don't need dice to play Dungeons and Dragons. Now, let me clarify that by explaining what I mean by it. In this day and age, it seems that its all about the accessories to some people. Who has the most books, who has the best dice (don't get me wrong, I love my dice, and have far more than my fair share of them), the coolest miniature, or the most accurate battle mat. Several new people on the boards have asked questions on this sort of thing, "Do I really need miniatures?" or "Which books do I need to buy?", and people answering that yes they need minis, or suggesting splatbooks. You do not need these to play Dungeons and Dragons.
All you need to play D&D is some friends, that’s all. If you trust your DM, and the DM trusts their players, dice never need to be rolled. The DM can simply decide what the best outcome for the game should be, and then makes it happen. The character hits, the character misses. The rogue opens the lock, the rogue fails. However, this is actually much closer to freeform roleplaying than it is to playing Dungeons and Dragons, as D&D has always had dice to ensure that random events could be random, and to keep the sense of suspense up. However, the players and the DM still do not need actual dice to achieve the same effect. A deck of common playing cards are already numbered and color coded. By shuffling the cards and drawing at random from the deck, you have a viable alternate to dice. Or, torn bits of numbered paper drawn at random from a hat also work. Are dice far easier and more fair to use? Yes, they are, but I hope I have pointed out that they are not 100% needed. There are always alternatives.
The next step up for D&D 3e are the Core Rulebooks, the PHB, the DMG, and the MM. These have the rules for the game in them, the spells, all the stuff you need to run the basic D&D game. While these are important to have for new players, they are not required for those that already know the rules. When the DM has a firm grasp on the rules, and the players know how their classes and feats work, its quite easy to run a game without any books at all. It is far more likely to find bad rulings or confused rules this way, but it also means no slowing down the game to look up rules, and ensures the DM stays on their toes. Again, this is doable really only when everyone knows the rules, and there is no one at the table trying to "win" as opposed to just having fun.
For the sake of this article though, lets assume that dice and the core rulebooks are needed to play a normal game of D&D. What does that leave? It leaves out miniatures, it leaves out maps and battle grids, and it leaves out expansion books. Miniatures, the new 3.5 books strongly push the idea of miniatures, including reverting back to some older edition's habits of referring to distances as squares. But, do we need miniatures to play D&D? No, we don't. The biggest objections to this idea that I have seen is how heavily 3e combat relies on things like flanking and Attacks of Opportunity. I will admit, that miniatures and some sort of a map grid do indeed make combat with large groups and multiple tactics easier to fairly adjudicate. However, again, they are not needed. It is entirely possible to keep track of positions either in your head, or simply writing down "Bob the Wizard is on the hill, 20' from monster" as reference notes. Area of effect spells are judgment calls by the DM, but as long as you have a good mental image of what’s going on, it is often a reasonably simple call. Attacks of Opportunity can be reduced down to "Monster is in melee with fighter, gets hit by arrow, and turns to charge the archer. Fighter gets AoO when it runs off" for simple situations. Larger, more complex battles do almost require some sort of miniature to keep everything straight. But even then, the use of actual miniatures is not required. Lego men, colored rocks, dice, even gummy bears can be used to represent characters and monsters. A battle mat can be reduced down to nothing more than a sheet of notebook paper with a general shape drawn on it for the battle area (granted, this requires small minis), or can be ignored completely and have the minis sitting directly on the table. Remember, miniatures are nothing more than physical representations of the situation going on in your mind. You don't need fancy pewter miniatures from Reaper to know who your character is. You don't need $50 color coded battle mats with plastic and foam terrain on it. All you need is your imagination.
Now that everyone is up in arms over the "you don't need dice or miniatures" parts of the articles, I'll close it on something many can agree with, the splatbooks and campaign settings. Simply put, splatbooks and settings are crutches. They contain many good spells, and monsters, and feats, and classes, but the DM doesn't require these things to run a game. Given a little time and imagination, any good DM can come up with a new setting in the form of a homebrew world, new PrC, new feats and skills. The splatbooks are merely the ideas the developers have put out there. They aren't required to play, and a fair number of DMs don't use them at all, favoring a totally homebrew game. These books are official, and they come pre-made with a lot of background and flavor premade for you as a DM or as a player, but they are nothing you yourself could not have come up with given time. In some cases, the versions made by players and DMs are just as good, if not better than the "official" ones.
Remember, all you really need for this game is yourself, and a few friends. Dice and rulebooks are almost required, but not quite, as there are ways around them. Other than that, everything else is just extra tools and add-ons. Don't fall into the trap of "needing" this or that in order to play the game, you only need to play and then see what would make playing easier, and make sure that whatever you pick to help you play is actually worth the price you pay for them. If the official material is too expensive for your taste, just remember there are always alternatives, from gummi bear miniatures to homebrew campaign settings. And one advantage of the alternatives, at least when you kill the orc, you get to eat it's green gummi bear mini. I wouldn't suggest trying that with the high priced pewter minis though, as it tends to cut up your gums pretty badly.
Basically in an RPG you need two conditions 1) a standardized rule-set that the game must adhere to and 2) some method of settling contests in a random fashion.
Without these conditions you are not playing an RPG. Without rules you have chaos and without randomness you have simple storytelling.
Otherwise you make an interesting point as to the materialism of DnD. Of course you don’t need miniatures, and you don’t ‘need’ the latest supplement either. Many people do get obsessed about having it all or rate their gaming ability based on the amount of stuff they own.
So in conclusion; Of course you need dice and of course you need the rulebooks. You do not need anything else, though it is useful to have these extra things
Originally posted by stembolt
Basically in an RPG you need two conditions 1) a standardized rule-set that the game must adhere to and 2) some method of settling contests in a random fashion.
Actually, no you don't. Its called Freeform Roleplaying, and to some extent LARP is also rules free without artificial method of randomness (LARP does have rules, but they are nowhere near as extensive as pen and paper).
Freeform is just as valid as structured, its just... well... less structured. Just because the rules aren't written down in stone doesn't mean it isn't an RPG. You are still playing D&D if you don't roll the dice, you just have to realize its going to be a bit more of a story oriented than hack and slash game.
I have always been a role player. I have been one on and off for years. That’s what I did with my time in my pre-internet days. I did it to socialize in a quiet atmosphere in my youth. Now I have shifted those energies, but it’s all the same, I still quietly have fun communicating about a hobby that I like, now with folks all over the world.
I role-played a character for two years under a system that had absolutely no dice and absolutely no rules. It can be done. I did it. I have a journal of the life stories of two-dozen characters from the past two years sitting on my computer. I was simply a player in that game and had very little to do with the mechanics of how it was run.
The only thing determining the outcome was a committee. Which worked out well for a while, they discussed what would be good for keeping things running smoothly. Everybody was onside and many of the characters were represented. But with some small online communities, one thing leads to another and the committee was reduced to one person. So that person was determining the fate of this entire RP world that was created. That person effectively became the DM. Unfortunately the view of what that person found cool was not shared by the views of others and things became fragmented for a lot of people.
That’s the day that I wanted the dice back in the game.
From my experience in that realm, dice remove the bias they allow for an objective way to determine the effect of some outcomes. The dice were needed to remove the favoritism that started to run rampant. The dice were never needed to play the game itself.
Same story goes with the rules. Nobody needed the rules. The rules were only required to protect people from getting hurt when there was an abuse of power. Everybody had fun making up the rules as they discovered what was the most enjoyable for the group as a whole.
Simple Storytelling is one directional, role-playing is being interactive with the story being told and having the ability to change the surroundings. Using rules and rolling dice is a great way to clear up any non-negotiated expectations that have to do with the game, but are definitely not required to play a role playing game, even D&D.
Originally posted by stembolt
but it also demonstrates your basic ignorance of the nature of Role Playing Games in general.
If that's what you think, then I must humbly suggest that it might be you who is ignorant. In fact, there are several diceless systems, with many thousands of players.
I used to be highly dubious of such systems, but then I went and read a lot about them. Now I'm only slightly dubious. I now believe it's possible to play a game in that manner, although I've known very few people who I think would be able to pull it off.
Basically in an RPG you need two conditions 1) a standardized rule-set that the game must adhere to and 2) some method of settling contests in a random fashion.
Without these conditions you are not playing an RPG. Without rules you have chaos and without randomness you have simple storytelling.
Diceless systems have well-defined rules. They simply have a different method of outcome determination from that used in diceful systems.
In each case it's simple storytelling. In D&D, you just tell random stories.
The only rules where the rule of the character, the lay of the land, and the DM owned your ass if you did not roleplay properly. I say this because I was the DM, and my number one pet peeve was have fun but keep it within reason, in other words roleplay intelligently. An RPG is just that, role playing, by bloody self definition, THATS WHAT IT IS. You don’t need a pair of dice to decide things for you; you have a brain, as does the DM your playing with, as do the rest of your friends who join you to play. Dice are just the easier way of doing things, they are by no means required. Imagination is the only thing you really need.
I say this from years of experience, as a DM, player, and writer.;)
Basically in an RPG you need two conditions 1) a standardized rule-set that the game must adhere to and 2) some method of settling contests in a random fashion.
This isn't quite true. I find the statement to be very closeminded. Your definition of a role playing game doesn't seem to be the same as mine. What about Amber, the diceless roleplaying game? What about Sorceror with it's rules that can fit onto on side of a piece of paper? What about the countless other Indy roleplaying games that use innovative, unique methods of conflict resolution?
It accurate to say that without dice and standard rules you're not playing DnD, but to say that you're not role-playing is just wrong.
It's true that certain people need rules to keep from dominating the game and I certainly wouldn't advise for everyone to start playing without rules and dice, but the fact of the matter is that a diceless extremely rules light game produces some immensly gratifying roleplaying. you just have to have people that into that sort of thing.
I need the dice to fuel the addiction....
Though, I would be interested in reading about whatever fun and success...and maybe a few lessons, you've had using your method.
While it is much easier to play with rulebooks, they really aren't necessary. As long as everyone agrees on basic things, there are no rulebooks needed. Besides, the DM is the ultimate authority on any ruling, so using rulebooks to settle disputes isn't really an issue.
It's easiest to go without rulebooks when everyone in the group has played D&D for awhile, so that have a basic understanding of the rules, and a general idea of what will/might happen if they do a certain thing.
I remember going to the Toronto Trek convention (TT15, I believe) one year. After the con was over, our group took a trip to Canada Wonderland (an amusement park). While we were waiting in lines for rollercoasters, we played D&D. It was probably one of the best adventures I'd ever played, and there were no minis, no rulebooks, no pencils or paper or dice...just the four of us with our imaginations. Also, only two of us (the DM and the DM's girlfriend) had any real knowledge of D&D. I had just barely begun playing (3e box set), and the other person in our group had never played before. The adventure was exciting enough that the lines would stop moving because the people around us were listening in on our adventure rather than walking. :D
By the way, Edymnion, nice article. The gummy bear idea doesn't really work though...I tried it once, and when the orcs were supposed to come out, I realized I was six orcs short...and that the player sitting next to the minis was chewing contently on something green
My poor orcs...And about playing with cards, isn't it easier to play with dices? If 'luck' and 'random' are still in the game, why to put then in the hardest way?
P.S.: english is not my first language, so apologize me for the mistakes...
Actually, no you don't. Its called Freeform Roleplaying, and to some extent LARP is also rules free without artificial method of randomness (LARP does have rules, but they are nowhere near as extensive as pen and paper).
I never commented as to the necessary extent of the rules. “Freeform roleplaying” always has some kind of rules and LARPs (as you indicate) have rules as well. My point still stands. Also every LARP I have ever seen uses a random determiner (rock paper scissors) or an unseen stat randomizer (the outcome is determined randomly because you do not know each others stats).
you just have to realize its going to be a bit more of a story oriented than hack and slash game.
There is no causal connection to having less rules and being more story oriented. I have seen/played/run very story oriented games that adhered very strongly to the rules. I have seen/played in very rules loose games that were non-story oriented. There is no reason that if you throw away the rules your story will magically improve.
The only thing determining the outcome was a committee. Which worked out well for a while, they discussed what would be good for keeping things running smoothly.
Actually, that’s storytelling. If you come at this from the other direction there is a kind of storytelling where everyone participates to put together the story.
Actually I am kind of amused by this post because it is very ‘pro-dice’ yet tries to claim dice are unnecessary.
I used to be highly dubious of such systems, but then I went and read a lot about them. Now I'm only slightly dubious. I now believe it's possible to play a game in that manner, although I've known very few people who I think would be able to pull it off.
This isn't quite true. I find the statement to be very closeminded. Your definition of a role playing game doesn't seem to be the same as mine. What about Amber, the diceless roleplaying game? What about Sorceror with it's rules that can fit onto on side of a piece of paper? What about the countless other Indy roleplaying games that use innovative, unique methods of conflict resolution?
Actually I know several diceless systems very well. The common factor is that they determine outcomes using methods that are effectively random (at least to the players) (including Amber).
Note, I did not say you needed dice, I said you needed randomness.
You see I am pretty much giving exactly the definition of an RPG as compared to group story telling.
The difference between a story and an RPG I that the RPG gives a random way to determine the outcome when facing challenges.
AND
There is an overriding set of rules that everyone involved must adhere to.
As for me being close-minded that is simply an attack against me personally. I challenge the reader to be open-minded enough to see my point.
I mention cards because you can buy a deck of playing cards for fifty cents at one of those low price bargain outlets. Its harder to use cards, but if you don't want to/can't afford to invest in RP dice that often cost 30-70 cents each, one deck of cards can substitute. Also means you have an alternative if everybody forgets their dice, as almost everybody has a deck of standard playing cards in the house somewhere.
However, I think once you get into the realm of rules-free "freeform" roleplaying, you may have the R and the P, but you don't have the G. If there are not agreed-upon rules of *some* kind (however brief), it isn't a game. It's still roleplaying, but it is more akin to improv theater than a contest of some kind. And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as everyone understands what they are looking for out of the experience. It does not, as is often implied, automatically mean more and better roleplaying than with rules, and it is wrong to imply that anyone not interested in trying freeform roleplaying is incapable of it. It is unforgivably wrong to imply that anyone who does use the D&D rules runs a hack-and-slash game.
Originally posted by Giant in the Playground
Part of the problem here is that the original post says "D&D" when it really means "medieval fantasy roleplaying experience." D&D is a specific game, in the way that Monopoly is a specific game. Without the rules and dice, you're not playing D&D
Thats not true. If I play with all the skill ranks, feats, spells, monsters, classes, everything else but the dice, I am still playing D&D. Just like I'm still playing D&D if I only allow commoners in my game and just completely ignore all the normal PC classes. Not using the dice is just a variant form of play, and is no more wrong and no more right than any other form of play, its just differant. And just because something is differant from the way you play does not make it any better or worse than your style of play.
Originally posted by Giant in the Playground
Part of the problem here is that the original post says "D&D" when it really means "medieval fantasy roleplaying experience."
Originally posted by Edymnion
Thats not true. If I play with all the skill ranks, feats, spells, monsters, classes, everything else but the dice, I am still playing D&D.
D&D is often played without dice. Take the situation where a player will role-play a negotiation with an NPC. Technically, it shouldn't happen, as the whole encounter should be reduced to a Gather Information or Diplomacy skill check. Solving puzzles/riddles should be left to an Intelligence check. Deciding a course of action would be based on a Wisdom roll. And so on...
However, we role-play it, as it is fun to do so. Some of the best sessions in my campaigns are those without a single die-roll.
What Edymnion is saying, is that we can go beyond these simple examples, and apply our own decisions - and the DM's judgment of what constitutes a reasonable outcome - to all aspects of the game. It is still D&D; just taken to an extreme.
On the other hand, Giant in the Playground makes a valid point, and at some stage, it stops really being D&D, in the spirit in which the game was designed. However, in both extremes, the game continues to work, and this flexibility is one of the game's assets. As Giant in the Playground later points out, the "G" in "RPG" drops out. What it is replaced by, be it "A" for "Art", "T" for "Theatre" or "S" for "Storytelling" depends on the group and their playing-style.
Dice offer a means for escaping the limitations of the players, whether it be their inability to reason or their weakness at expressing themselves. This is not to detract from the players, and I don't want to suggest that using statistics and dice are a substitute for role-playing, although they can be. On the other hand, dice do offer impartiality and randomness - both of which can offer a lot to the game.
I would like to ask why there is actually an argument going on, as each person seems to arguing basically the same side, and the opposing side is so incomprehensible that I doubt anyone who would hold such an opinion would be reading this message right now.
Thats not true. If I play with all the skill ranks, feats, spells, monsters, classes, everything else but the dice, I am still playing D&D.
If you play monopoly but exclude the use of the dice are you playing monopoly? (While this is a rhetorical question I will give people a hand here, the answer is in fact “no”.)
If I take car parts and use them to build a boat, do I have a car or a boat? If you take some of the concepts from a game and use them is some other fashion, are you playing the original game?
D&D is often played without dice. Take the situation where a player will role-play a negotiation with an NPC. Technically, it shouldn't happen, as the whole encounter should be reduced to a Gather Information or Diplomacy skill check. Solving puzzles/riddles should be left to an Intelligence check. Deciding a course of action would be based on a Wisdom roll. And so on...
I see this kind of thing all the time. People have been playing the game wrong or misunderstanding the rules for a long time, and then they complain about them. This little statement is in fact, according to the rules of DnD, false.
Diplomacy alters (or fails to alter) someone’s attitude towards you. Or in a specific circumstance allows you to persuade someone to do (or not do) something.
All that storytelling you (and I for that matter) love to do is actually very well suited for core DnD.
Most of the time people ask the question “How should I change this game?” when they should in fact ask themselves “What have I been doing wrong?” When I think that there is some thing I should change about D&D I usually post it on these boards. Most of the time someone says “hey dumbass the only reason you might want that change is because you have been doing it wrong.”
But dice rolling (even if it is just for a skill check, which would come in many times even in a very pure "roleplaying" session) and combat are integral parts of D&D. D&D just ain't the same without them.
I will point out that a grid can be made by hand, and that coins, pebbles and other cheap items can substitute for figures. But combat really needs the grid and something for "figures".
I know the rules pretty darn well, but I still NEED my rulebooks. Anyone without an eiditic memory does, also.
There are other games that don't need a grid & figures (in fact in 2nd Ed they are very much optional, altho "nice to have".) and even a few "diceless" games out there. None of them are as popular as D&D.
I know the rules pretty darn well, but I still NEED my rulebooks. Anyone without an eiditic memory does, also.
No. GM long enough and you will know enough to run games without the books. I did it for 2e.
Maps are useful, but ones drawn on scraps of paper will do. Grids are not necessary, and miniatures are still optional, despite the efforts of the authors of 3.5. It is quite possible to run complicated combats without either.
You can play RPGs without dice, but I'm doubtful about calling it D&D at that stage. I've played Amber, but did not like it, and am running MURPG which seems to be going well.
You might be on to something.
Originally posted by stembolt
Basically in an RPG you need two conditions 1) a standardized rule-set that the game must adhere to and 2) some method of settling contests in a random fashion.
Let's break down the term "Role-Playing Game". "Game" is defined as "A form of playful activity." Playful activity, last time I checked, does not require rules or any form of randomness. "Role-Playing" means when you adopt a fictional (or sometimes non-fictional) persona and play out his or her (or it's) actions. You are thinking of a pen-and-paper RPG, a more specific type of game.
Many's a time when I recall having played "Mind D&D" with my friends, often when we didn't have access to dice or rules. I was usually the gamemaster, and had the players tell me what setting they wanted to play. I would tell them the starting conditions, and they would describe their characters. You are right though. It is simple storytelling. But it is storytelling where every participant has a chance to weave the threads of the great tale the way they want to.
However the disadvantage to this system is how little control a player has. It's my opinion that whenever you take away random elements like dice, and standard rules to define play, you have to give more power to the DM figure and less to the players.
The only way I see around this is a rather disorganized system wherein there is no controlling figure and everyone makes it up as they go. At that point you’re more engaged in a second grade playground game than in an RPG.
My two cents,
Arkonth
Let's break down the term "Role-Playing Game".
Wait, first lets break down the word “Hotdog.” Hot means of a higher than average temperature. And a dog is a mammalian quadruped. So a hotdog must be a high temperature mammal.
Of course not.
When defining a term you do not just look up the root words that compose it.
Dice, rules, these things are just crutches. Ways of resolving disputes, more than anything else. But if you've got a group that doesn't run into many disputes, I recommend you try just sitting back and seeing how it goes without dice.
Originally posted by DragonsArt
You are wrong. You need to dice to play Dungeons and Dragons. You may use D&D as a basis for your own freeform system, but keep in mind, it's not D&D. What you SHOULD have said is, “You don't need dice to roleplay and to have fun.”
Did you actually read my initial post, or did you just read the thread title and then skip directly to the Post Reply button?
To quote myself, from my first post:
However, this is actually much closer to freeform roleplaying than it is to playing Dungeons and Dragons, as D&D has always had dice to ensure that random events could be random, and to keep the sense of suspense up. However, the players and the DM still do not need actual dice to achieve the same effect.
I then went on to explain how you can use a deck of cards as a replacement for dice. Or scraps of paper in a hat.
You don't strictly need dice to play a game of D&D. But for fairness's sake, you do need some kind of random number generation. Anything that can give you random results in the range you need can do this, however. Deck of cards, scraps of paper, right down to a game of Spin the Bottle with chalk numbers written on the pavement.
I imagine it wouldn't work for everybody. But it works pretty well for us.
And a die by any other name wouldn't roll as sweet.
Sure, you don't need dice or figs or character sheets or any of it. You can play the game in an utterly abstract manner, but I don't think that's D&D. Not in the long run, anyway.
It is a great change for a session or two. A "diplomatic" run in which you're navigating through courtly shoals or maybe one in which you investigate a murder. It's role-playing in its purest form. And it's fun as hell because it doesn't get bogged down by combat and rules lawyering and all that.
But it's not D&D.
Nothing beats a bag of dice emptied onto the mat for a Red Wyrm's breath weapon. The moans of failed saving throws, the triumphant shout of rolling that desperately needed 20. Flushing that d20 that always rolls a 2. The girl who stacks her dice. The guy who puckishly knocks them over.
And character sheets...what marvelous things they are. A life in 8 1/2 X 11. Sucktastic character sketches. Adding and erasing HP and XP till the sheet wears thin. Fudging skills. Tweaking stats. Wine stains and Doritos smudges and the memories that go with them.
That's D&D.
Let's break down the term "Role-Playing Game". "Game" is defined as "A form of playful activity." Playful activity, last time I checked, does not require rules or any form of randomness. "Role-Playing" means when you adopt a fictional (or sometimes non-fictional) persona and play out his or her (or it's) actions. You are thinking of a pen-and-paper RPG, a more specific type of game.
Well that’s not quite right either.
Role-Playing is taking on a role. A game has rules, it has to have rules otherwise it isn't a game. Play in an of itself does not require rules, but a game does. For example playing with blocks does not have any rules, this is unstructured play. But as soon as one kid says "hey lets build the tallest block tower" we have just added a rule and thus made a game.
Now, true freeform (ie no rules) is improv theatre using a medieval fantasy setting to set the tone and characters. This is collective storytelling.
Either way you play its all good, lets just keep our terms clear.
Beyond that I like dice and I like people who collect dice and fetishize them. It’s just part of the gamer mystique.
Originally posted by iamjimdavis
Your definition of a role playing game doesn't seem to be the same as mine.
&
It's true that certain people need rules to keep from dominating the game and I certainly wouldn't advise for everyone to start playing without rules and dice, ...
Originally posted by Gadodel
Hmmm...your thesis may be too idealistic and radical for this old Gamer. The first reason that I was attracted to RPG's was the Dice.
Originally posted by Jagyr Ebonwood
I'm going to have to disagree with stembolt here.
&
I remember going to the Toronto Trek convention (TT15, I believe) one year. After the con was over, our group took a trip to Canada Wonderland (an amusement park). While we were waiting in lines for rollercoasters, we played D&D. It was probably one of the best adventures I'd ever played, and there were no minis, no rulebooks, no pencils or paper or dice...just the four of us with our imaginations. Also, only two of us (the DM and the DM's girlfriend) had any real knowledge of D&D. I had just barely begun playing (3e box set), and the other person in our group had never played before. The adventure was exciting enough that the lines would stop moving because the people around us were listening in on our adventure rather than walking.
Originally posted by Giant in the Playground
However, I think once you get into the realm of rules-free "freeform" roleplaying, you may have the R and the P, but you don't have the G. If there are not agreed-upon rules of *some* kind (however brief), it isn't a game. It's still roleplaying, but it is more akin to improv theater than a contest of some kind.
Originally posted by Edymnion
Thats not true. If I play with all the skill ranks, feats, spells, monsters, classes, everything else but the dice, I am still playing D&D. Just like I'm still playing D&D if I only allow commoners in my game and just completely ignore all the normal PC classes. Not using the dice is just a variant form of play, and is no more wrong and no more right than any other form of play, its just differant. And just because something is differant from the way you play does not make it any better or worse than your style of play.
Originally posted by Trydan
D&D is often played without dice. Take the situation where a player will role-play a negotiation with an NPC. Technically, it shouldn't happen, as the whole encounter should be reduced to a Gather Information or Diplomacy skill check. Solving puzzles/riddles should be left to an Intelligence check. Deciding a course of action would be based on a Wisdom roll. And so on...
However, we role-play it, as it is fun to do so. Some of the best sessions in my campaigns are those without a single die-roll.
Originally posted by stembolt
I see this kind of thing all the time. People have been playing the game wrong or misunderstanding the rules for a long time, and then they complain about them. This little statement is in fact, according to the rules of DnD, false.
I hope that's enough to make some points. Here goes.
What makes D&D, well, itself, is incredibly varied among gamers. Do you mean to tell me that you've never changed groups, only to find that they didn't play "D&D!, they're not using X rules, and they do X!!"
Step back for a moment... didn't your last group use homebrew rules? Didn't your group do X a certain way?
This is an all to common type of argument. One in which persons are attempting to prove that they are "right" while discussing something that is so open to variation. Not to offend, but it's the same thing as discussing religion. Two persons of differing faiths are never going to view things the same exact way, are they? No. Why would you expect differing gamers to view D&D the same way, then?
I'm having trouble finding a group of players that I enjoy playing with. Why? Is it because they're doing things wrong? Or that they're "bastardizing" D&D? No. It's because they play differently than I like. (Although I may say otherwise ;) )
All of you are right, and none of you are wrong. Some people in this thread are arguing their viewpoints and methods as fact. That's absurd. And to tell someone they "aren't playing D&D because they ignore some rules? Ludicrous. Flip through and find the section about ignoring and changing rules to suit your tastes. It's there, I assure you. :D
Look back through some of the posts I've drawn quotes from. Do you see a pattern?
"I think..." "We play..." "In my experience..."
Nothing says that to play D&D you have to do, or say, or use X. (Well, I know in the preface under "what you need to play" it lists things, but that's part of my point.)
The only "hard fact" involved when discussing things RPG, is that you're going to have different views and opinions than other gamers. Everything else is interpretation, views, and opinions. And that's a good thing! There would never be any variation if you didn't have these. But by the same token, it's nice to sit back every once in a while and remind yourself that no matter how fervently you hold to your opinions and views of what D&D "is or isn't," they are still just your opinions.
I mention cards because you can buy a deck of playing cards for fifty cents at one of those low price bargain outlets. Its harder to use cards, but if you don't want to/can't afford to invest in RP dice that often cost 30-70 cents each, one deck of cards can substitute. Also means you have an alternative if everybody forgets their dice, as almost everybody has a deck of standard playing cards in the house somewhere.
If you're that hard up for spare change, just buy a d12 and a d20. The d20 does double duty as a d10 (just use the last digit if the result is > 10), and the d12 can act as a d3, d4, and d6--just divide by 4, 3, or 2 respectively. Much less hassle than shuffling and drawing cards. Plus, how exactly do you get a d20 result out of cards? You have to be careful how you do it or you skew the distribution.
However, I also disagree with Edy because you cannot play D&D without dice and the books. Yeah miniatures and other supplements you don't need, but the core books and dice are essential. You made it pretty clear that the people must be familiar with the rules, that requires the books and the rules of the books state that the use of dice is needed. Yes, you could play some homebrewed D&D-like RPG using your non-dice + book methods, but then it just becomes some other RPG and isn't D&D. So with that said, I politely disagree.
Next, I'd just like to add that you presented a nice article to show both the past of RPGs, an alternative method to playing a D&D-like RPG, and also showed how materialistic D&D has become.
Finally, materialism of D&D has been increased with the newer editions since it has been taken up by Wizards. I’m not bashing them but stating professionally that they are a business and are trying to make a profit. They make goods and we buy them, the more stuff they sell, the more money they make, so the more stuff they make, so more or less they control the market and dictate some of the stuff needed to play the game. A good example is, what are the core books? PHB, DMG, and MM, there isn't just 1 but 3, which equals 3 times the profit, also you need dice to play, so you have to buy dice which is more profit. The game can get boring so they add supplements to enhance the game which leads to more profit, since some people have crappy imaginations they provide miniatures for more profit. The story behind this is that they are maximizing their ability to make money.
Even now when I play D&D with 3.5 rules, I use dice but for many scenarios my group and I role-play the situations instead of resolving it with a dice roll, all to keep the spirit of role-playing alive which is what D&D is.
FACT: I want to use the D&D game (battle and other) Mechanics.
FACT: I want to use low-powered things (level 1-8) out of their books.
FACT: I want to use my ideas to make the rest.
I must also state that I do not need their (WotC's) book to tell me what to do I just need a book that will help me use my ideas to make a campaign that my PCs will enjoy. Now I am not saying that they (WotC) should not make a book about Yuan-Ti. I am however saying that I want that book to be about how to put it into your game and not about "this is what Yuan-Ti have for stats" and "this is how they live". I want to make that part out of my own ideas about the race and how I'm going to fit it into my homebrew D&D game.
Serpent Kingdoms is not meant to be a houseruling "how-to" book, it is a sourcebook on the serpent kingdoms within the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. [/QUOTE=LordofIllusions]
How about you tell me they couldn't have left it up to me how to put Yuan-Ti into my game without adding all these things and spells and whatnot. They could give me descriptions of spells the Yuan-Ti use rather than TELLING me what the Spell does. I as DM am not going to "Ban a Book" my friend just bought. He paid $30 for it. I don't want my players to buy books with powers that I have to ban. As DM it is bad to ban. I can however improve with ease the low-power things that they tell you to use in those books and in the process of doing so I also create a version that will work in my campaign. The Quality of my campaign will be based off of how well I make it rather than how well WotC makes all their books work together for all DM campaigns.
The REAL point I want to make is that I want a book that gives me the power to decide how it works without flooding the players minds with things that I don't have time to double check. I cant tell you right now that the Savage Species book will work with my game but if It were up to me to read the book and make my own spells/ feats(/ classes/ Stats) then I can Guarantee it will become a great addition to my game.Why do they have to start again ? Because you don't like it ? Since when did you become the authority on what D&D should be ? [/QUOTE=LordofIllusions]
Ever since I DMed my first game I made the final rules when I DM, so why don't the books back me up by letting me customize my own campaign? The books back up Mr. "I wanna play a PRC" with stats and feats for PCs! And if I think that my players will enjoy the game more and have more fun I don't want to "ban" anything when I can just put in some effort and tailor it to fit any size with the help of a book that describes it to me in a way that I can base my campaign on it however I wish! What is wrong with wanting that instead of a book that tells you what a Paladin level 20 has for Bab and special attacks?
Don't think I'm attacking D&D. I just think that the books we buy should have more value for the DM campaign than for the PC's looking to know exactly what their Wizard should get at level 20.
How can WotC balance the game in my Campaign that they have no idea about? They can't but I can.
If you're that hard up for spare change, just buy a d12 and a d20. The d20 does double duty as a d10 (just use the last digit if the result is > 10), and the d12 can act as a d3, d4, and d6--just divide by 4, 3, or 2 respectively.
I've always prefered mod 3, mod 4, mod 6, etc. But, you don't have a d8!
Also, you can do it all with a d20. (Example: d12 simulated on a d20; keep rerolling anything 13-20. d8 on a d20; 1-8 normal, 9-16 minus-eight, 17-20 reroll. etc.)
Heck, I've used 3 coins for d8s. (penny=1, nickle=2, dime=4. heads=*1, tails=*0.)
Plus, how exactly do you get a d20 result out of cards?
Use 1-10 of two suits (one red and one black would be easiest); shuffle. It also works as your d10 (or d4). Use the other 2 suits for your d12 (which doubles as your d6 or d4 or d3) and d8 (which can also be your d4). If your clever, you can even find a use for those 12 face cards and 2 jokers.
If you're really clever you'd just get 60 cards (either buy two identical decks or use index cards; probably only need 30. Cut them in half) and write what they are for each die type on their face.
Now, let's fast-forward a bit it to age 13 when my neighbor across the street got his own books. Suddenly I learned there were rules, numbers (AC, HP, THACO, etc), dice, and more involved. It was a whole new game!
Which was better, more fun, more authentic to the game's rules, or its spirit? Well, to me D&D has gotten nothing but better as the game and I have grown up together (bit of a crisis there when WOTC took over, but that's what adolescence is all about, but I digress). As my understanding of the rules grew along with my ability to borrow and eventually purchase rulebooks of my own, it's obvious that my gaming became more authentic to the rules of the game, but the spirit of adventure was no less alive back in grade school than it was when I took up the pencil and DMG for my first whirl at creating a world of my own. It was all fun from day #1.
Enough reminiscence though, down to brass tacks. In 5th grade with no knowledge of the rules beyond vague concepts and names for things, were we playing D&D?
Yes, I think we were. We had a DM whose house rule was to eliminate everything he didn't understand about the game. Since he was only about 11 and had never actually read his brother's books, that amounted to a LOT of rules and game mechanics getting tossed out the window, but the basics were there: Characters joining in with DM to tell a heroic fantasy story with exciting combat, the promise of future wealth and power, and a touch of romance.
And often, we don't use dice. Or rather we don't do anything during a session that might require dice. We've managed most of a weekend without combat, or dice roles of any kind. Not that we're trying to prove anything, it just that sometimes a game is about combat and dice rolls, and sometimes it isn't.
It's entirely possible to play games without dice, or with dice. It's also entirely possible to play without rules - you just have a GM committee to give decisions on a case-by-case basis. You could try and argue that x is roleplaying and y isn't, but that's just playing with definitions.
The point to remember is that AD&D isn't typical, as role-playing games go. It's one of the most rule-intensive and dice-heavy game systems in the world.
It is entirely possible to play it basically as a tactical wargame - you move miniatures on the map, you fight things, you get treasure. There may be some interaction between personalities going on, but you can get that in wargames too.
Or you can play it as a freeform with a bolt-on combat system, using the rules to get a very firm idea of what people can and can not do, but leaving actual dice roles and tactical maneuvering very much in the background, as supporting reference rather than an actual mechanic.
Or you can go somewhere in between. It's always very tempting to label someone else's style as 'not proper roleplaying', but it's not ultimately very sensible, or supportable. I'd encourage everyone to try a style they aren't familiar with. Ultimately, as with all role-playing, the game is what you make it.
If you tell me that your gaming group has never had a period of time in a game session (which I'll call a scene, from my other gaming experiences) where not one of you, DM or player, rolled a single die, and yet, still had a great scene, and a great time, then either your lying, or (in my not-so-humble opinion), you are seriously missing out.
A more stable point can be made from the posit that you need rules of some sort, but even that breaks down when seen from the angle of a group that really, in my opinion, "gets it". Now, I have to use an example here from another game, as D&D, as written, does not have this option.
I have been LARPing for quite some time, and while the system I use (Mind's Eye Theatre) does have rules, and a resolution system (Rock-Paper-Scissors), the first step of any challenge is that of mediation (this is more of a suggestion in the old World of Darkness setting, but reportedly a "hard-wired" step in the resolution process in the new WoD). If you and whomever else you are opposing can AGREE on an outcome for the challenge, then nobody ever throws a single challenge, and roleplaying simply continues, without being held up for a while (because, quite frankly, rps can be quite clunky, especially in a group combat - which should be rare anyway, but I digress).
The point is - you don't *need* the dice, etc, to play this game - not in the same way you *need* food, or air, or water. Rather, you need dice much like a driver's license - useful to play the game as written, but not necessary in the actual application of playing.
strider
Do you need any of the following to roleplay?
Dice?
Core Books?
Miniatures?
Maps?
Splat Books?
Campaign Settings?
Of course not.
Do you need any of them to play D&D?
Yes, you need the Core Books to play D&D, even if you just look through them once and leave them on your shelf. You can get away with not having the other stuff if you like the freeform style, but anyone who expects to run any combat with stats and dice is in for a world of argument--even with mature, experienced players.
Your arguments are spot on as far as "necessity" goes, but playing D&D without those things that make it faster, easier and more accurate is more work for no gain. It's sort of like asking, "Do you need your car to get to work?" The answer is no, we could walk or bike or carpool or take the metro, etc; but the point is, it's MUCH easier with the car (Metropolises like NYC excluded), so why not use it?
I run homebrew settings 99% of the time, but I still own Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk (previous editions), Planescape (previous editions) and Eberron as reference books. Those are the ones I read through once and shelf until I need something specific--same thing applies; why make up my own rules if someone else has done it for me?
This is not meant to be offensive, let me clarify that before I start since you can't judge intonation from text...but your suggestions are sort of like "Amish D&D." If you choose not to use all the modern conveniences, you very well may be perfectly happy, but it's not going to make sense to a lot of people, and you can't expect many others to give them up and join you.
Basically in an RPG you need ... some method of settling contests in a random fashion.
I don't think the last four words are essential. Plenty of diceless games assume that if character X has an advantage over obstacle Y in situation Z, the outcome is predetermined - including when obstacle Y is an NPC.
What a group needs, in place of dice, books, etc. is trust. The players must trust that the DM will run the game fairly while allowing for meaningful input from the players. The DM must trust that the players will play their characters within the framework of the game - not only the system but also the flow of events and the conventions of the campaign.
You can get away with not having the other stuff if you like the freeform style, but anyone who expects to run any combat with stats and dice is in for a world of argument--even with mature, experienced players.
Did it recently. No argument occurred. People had fun.
but playing D&D without those things that make it faster, easier and more accurate is more work for no gain.
Ak, its much much faster to play without stats and dice, and much much easier. That's gain enough for me to not worry about inaccuracy.
It's sort of like asking, "Do you need your car to get to work?" The answer is no, we could walk or bike or carpool or take the metro, etc; but the point is, it's MUCH easier with the car (Metropolises like NYC excluded), so why not use it?
Very much so. Being in Europe, I, like most people, don't drive to work. The reason is because it's much easier not to. You can get to where you want to go more easily, without having to fuss about what to do with the car when you get there.
On a more fundamental level, that's simply the way things are done around here. Some places people drive to work, some places people don't.
This is not meant to be offensive, If you choose not to use all the modern conveniences, you very well may be perfectly happy, but it's not going to make sense to a lot of people, and you can't expect many others to give them up and join you.
No offence taken. But since I'm in a role-playing society of some hundred or so members, it does seem to make sense to a lot of people, and many people do join. As I'm sure they join groups you get involved in.
It just strikes me that you aren't saying anything more fundamental than you are used to playing a certain way, enjoy it, and don't see any good reason to change. And fair enough, but that works both ways.
I'd still encourage you to try a different style, assuming you can find people who can do it well. You may not be able to see the attraction, but rest assured people do enjoy it.
Isn't admitting that you need some sort of random number generator admitting that you need dice?
No, you're missing the point. The point of this thread was that you do not need things like miniatures and expensive dice to play D&D. That you do not have to buy every little thing that comes out like it was some computer game.
Plus, how exactly do you get a d20 result out of cards? You have to be careful how you do it or you skew the distribution.
Deck of cards for a d20 is easy. Pull the Ace and 2-10 from any black suit. Pull the Ace and 2-10 of any red suit. Ace-10 Black becomes 1-10, while Ace-10 Red becomes 11-20. Whenever you want to get ready to roll, just flip shuffle them, dice 'em a few times, then have somebody cut the deck and draw. Not as easy as rolling dice, but I guarantee you that I can find a deck of playing cards for a lot less money than I can a full set of polyhedral dice. Heck, I've seen decks of cards going for 50 cents, and around here at least, a polyhedral dice typically runs 15 to 35 cents each. So even with just buying a d10 and a d12, it could still be cheaper to just get a deck of cards.
I think what Edy was trying to say (or, rather, said it flat out, and people didn't get it), was that too many people focus on the dice, books, etc, without remembering that the game can be played without these things.
Yup, you've got it!