A Diceless Resolution System using Resource Management

[Big Simon]

Okay... I've been thinking about how to work out non-opposed events (meaning contests against a given target number instead of an opposed skill check, such as picking a lock or performing a high wire act).  

Applying the notion of complete disclosure to the players, the GM could simply tell the person what the target number is for the action they are trying to perform.  This goes back to what M.J. was suggesting - that a person skilled in a certain area will have some idea what they're dealing with when they approach a challenge.  

Have skills rated at 1-10, and target numbers set anywhere from 1 to 30, so that it's not so easy for the GM, by choice, to make it impossible for the player to complete a task... just very difficult.  Some tasks – those that are more taxing, for instance, might even require multiple skill checks (effectively made over the course of several "rounds") that would slowly drain the amount of Action Points the player had available for his character, since each round that APs are spent deducts 3AP from the character's total AP pool.  So, an action that takes five rounds would reduce a character's AP pool by 15 points, which would then return at a rate of 3AP per 10 minutes of game-time.

And going back to GM-fiat within combat, especially in terms of GM/player Contests, I favor the notion of the GM stating the number of AP he's going to spend for an NPC openly (just the APs, not the total value of the action), since the story is generally about the PCs, not the NPCs.  Let the players decide, then, if the story is better served by success this round or next.

I'm still workin' on it.  *chuckle*

[simon_hibbs]

I think there's a generic system called ACTION! that's based on similar ideas.

My problem with this is that you may end up in a trap where you're neither modeling what the characters are realy doing (simulationist), and you're not serving the needs of the story (narativism). In your example you describe what the characters are actualy doing each step of the way, except for during inititive determination.

Does the initiative mechanic actualy map to character choices and actions? Perhaps to some extent because presumably it's all about how much effort the character is putting into moving first, but if so how come the loser of initiative retains any points they bid? Surely they still put in the effort, but were beaten?

Also I think there are plenty of situations where the characters will put in maximum effort all the way through a contest, but the players are conserving points. Human physical activity isn't always zero-sum game in the short to medium term because our bodies are constantly generating new energy from our metabolisms. In some cases putting in more effort earlier pays dividends by 'warming you up', in others it hurts your later performance through over exertion.

This seems narativist to me because the players are determining the pacing of the contest and not realy simulating character activities, where at other times maybe they are modeling actual character choices such as when a character might spend time psyching themselves for a jump, at the cost of jumping after someone that just leaps instantly.

One approach that might ameliorate these problems is limits to how many points you can boost an ability or action by.


Simon