[Michael Chandra]

It really depends on how well the GM runs it. Amber is rather free so the GM has to be able to adjust and make fair calls. If I go with Warfare 20 against Warfare 26, it will be a battle that takes some time. If I go on the defensive and my opponent doesn't go on the full-offensive, it will take him some time to realize he's better and I can buy time for someone to help me out (or for me to spot a way out).

The rules DO describe how certain styles would work out in a clash if you're better, much better, worse, much worse, etc, so there's intel on how things will go in a confrontation. All you're then doing is trying to influence the relative score with tricks, if you're in need of those. If you're fighting defensive vs defensive, or offensive vs defensive, or normal vs defensive, that's all described on how it works out at the different relative power levels.

I went Advanced Trump, which involves Trump traps that try to suck people through without the need of concentrating on the Trump, once their trigger is activated. Rather than using them on the offensive (would only work on people with a lower Psyche), I used them defensively: Had some on me, activated them with a verbal command. Let me trump out of a fight without having to concentrate for several seconds. That way, no opening left for the opponent to stab me.

[Cranstonvm]

Amber also works very well for email games. I am in one that has lasted 15 years.

There is also a sneaky sneak way of dealing with points. If you save your points You can secretly buy up to whatever rank of individual you want to. Face-to-face game that lasted two school years one character secretly bought all of his stats to be rank 1.5 it could have easily beat almost everybody. He was planning on being equal and try to take over. My character saves the day by being a drunken, womanizer and warmonger.

[Boomstick]

Actually I feel like All4BigGuns there, and as RHat pinpointed it, it is very dependent on the way your players accept storytelling and so on.
Indeed there is a system, but there is a lot of room for interpretation and GM take.

I should precise that I am looking for something diceless, but not really rule light or rule less. In this regards, my "low limit" for how much rules you can have for running a game would be Unknown armies. It is just that I am looking for different resolution mechanics, using dice has its charm but I would like something less random and a little more dependent on the player involvement and skills.

I remember deadland used Cards along with dices but never got into it. So, if you do know this kind of thing, well, I will be glad you share this knowledge. Thanks.

[Mithlas]

It was basically just storytelling. We made characters with the real rules, but only used them as a guide.

Sounds like a very interesting one to me - the first forum games I played were freeform roleplay where the intent of telling a story was more important than netting a zillion hits and killing Acceptable Targets. I think this concept is easy to work when all involved parties are focused on a narrative, and combat was never a primary focus. In fact, I think the breakdowns were all when one player wanted to get into a fight and 'be awesome'.

Never heard of Amber before though, I might want to check that out in a few weeks when I have some extra time.

[Cranstonvm]

It was basically just storytelling. We made characters with the real rules, but only used them as a guide.

Sounds like a very interesting one to me - the first forum games I played were freeform roleplay where the intent of telling a story was more important than netting a zillion hits and killing Acceptable Targets. I think this concept is easy to work when all involved parties are focused on a narrative, and combat was never a primary focus. In fact, I think the breakdowns were all when one player wanted to get into a fight and 'be awesome'.

Never heard of Amber before though, I might want to check that out in a few weeks when I have some extra time.

The dead tree books are hard to find, but both books are on RPG Drive thru.

[GiraffeShaman]

In fact, I think the breakdowns were all when one player wanted to get into a fight and 'be awesome'

.

Yes, storytelling does work better when your primary focus isn't combat, but it doesn't mean none will happen. It just ultimatedly means the GM has more control on outcomes. However, player input can lead to the player gaining some control. (With a clever idea for example) And in our games the stats weren't completely ignored. I for example was a wizard with Force 3 (From Mage:Ascension as whatever edition it was in the late 90's) This means I could throw lightning bolts, within Paradox rules, and the GM wasn't going to take my ability away to do this or make the lightning bolts miss. However, the rules also confined, just as they would in a typical dice version. I couldn't summon a big storm with Force 3. Nor could I do some other power from some other school of magic (I forget if they were even called schools, arg)

I've heard there is actually quite a bit of combat in online mush games, which are like muds, but with out mechanics and such. Usually what happens is a referee has to oversee combats and a winner is picked based on things like creativity and the skill of the words used to describe combat actions. (Keep in mind it's a text only game. Yes people still play those. I played muds until a few years ago)