New Diceless RPG System

[rhat]

I'd suggest converting the single roll into one roll for each column at the end of each round. A simple d100 for each column, and a simple translation of the refresh rates into a probability that that column will refresh (do refresh rate of N into P(Refresh on this turn| Rate=N) = 1/N), so the 3/5/8/13 refresh rates turn into 33%, 20%, 12%, 7% (if you take the floor of each). That's a small difference in the number of rolls (+3), and you're guaranteed to get similar behavior as if you were doing the book keeping by hand.

Actually, now that I'm looking at this, you can actually get he exact same behavior as the normal (book-keeping) refresh rate if you do this roll once per trait that needs refreshed per turn. Assuming that the number of actual traits that people are working with is not particularly large, this might not be a bad substitute. Any thoughts?

[Chronologist]

To respond to Rhat,

Rolling d% sound good, but I still prefer laying out attributes in the 10/8/6/4 style and using a d20. It seems... cleaner to me. Of course, d% is easier if you have more than 20 traits. As I said before, if you have a graphic calculator, you can roll dice with any number of sides, plus I think there are some apps. on the internet that let you do that too.

I have figured out a way to solve the problem when you "recover" traits from a group you haven't used yet. Well, two actually. The first is that the roll is wasted. This encouraged players to use traits of all types during a fight.

The second way is that every time you would restore a trait from a column you haven't expended yet, you put a counter on your character sheet. When you have 3 counters, you can restore any trait you like. You can do this only as soon as the recharge roll is made (aka the beginning of each turn). So this way, it's a lot less efficient to play a character who only uses one or two types of traits, but it isn't impossible.

I have a few questions. First, can players "level up" and get more traits? Can some traits become more effective over time (giving them "ranks" or something)? I've toyed around with the idea, and I think it would be good if traits had "levels" of effectiveness.

For example, someone could have "Boxing 3". When Boxing is bid in a situation that it would excel at (like a fist fight), the player's bid would increase by 3. In situations where Boxing could be useful, but not directly related (like jumping across a chasm, a physical activity), you'd add 1/2 of Boxing's value, rounded down, to the player's bid (in this case, 1). If Boxing is bid in a situation where it is useless (a test of wits), no points are allotted.

This way you could set DCs in the game, and have a method of rewarding players by increasing the rank of their traits. It seems complicated, and it WOULD make the game harder to run, but you wouldn't have to assign arbitrary values to Traits anymore. Also, players could have a scale of how good their character is at something. This means of reward could replace increasing the number of traits (which would get really complicated after a while).

For your consideration

[rhat]

I've been musing on different ways to model refreshing traits, and here's some of the ideas I came up with:

1) Direct Expiration: in this model, which is the default one from the Quick-Start guide, each trait is simply unavailable for bidding after being bid for a set amount of time. Pros: simple, requires no randomizer, correctly models scarcity by making things unavailable when they would like to use them; Cons: lots of numbers to keep track of, players may not take "dramatic" liscence without breaking the rules.
2) Approximate Expiration: in this model, we replace the set timer based expiration discussed above with a probabilistic timer. For this model, at the end of each round, the player rolls a d100 for each trait that is not currently available for auction, and if the roll is less than some number (determined for the column, so there's only like 4 numbers to keep track of), then that trait is refreshed. Pros: only 4 numbers to track, very simple, accurately models scarcity; Cons: lots of potentially tedious die rolling (O(n)--it grows linearly with the number of traits spent, and is done every round), introduces dice into an otherwise diceless system.
3) Exact Buyback: in this model, we do away with the whole expiration model, and we replace it with a point-based refresh system. After you spend a trait, it does not naturally refresh, unless you pay a certain number of points for it. These "points" are abstract units only used for the buyback system (this may involve dice). You get a certain number of them each round, and you can spend or save them as needed. The cost is associated with the column, so there are only 4 numbers to track. Pros: simple, no repetitive die rolling; Cons: introduces new mechanics that are not used elsewhere, may allow for the RPG version of button-mashing because it does not properly assign a higher cost to more desirable traits.
4) Inexact Buyback: in this model, as the Exact Buyback model above, you have a cost and all that, but you don't get to choose which trait comes back when you pay the normal rate, one at random from the column refreshes (based on a die roll of some sort), but they can also buy back a particular trait at a higher cost. Pros: can be managed entirely by players, penalizes button-mashing; Cons: requires strange dN die rolls, still has dice involved.
5) Probabilistic Blind-Auction Buyback: in this model, instead of having a set price for a particular trait, we have a Uniform Random Variable in a range indicative of the relative difficulty of refreshing (basically, you have a die-roll and the refresh rate, and some formula that turns the two into a number). What the player does is, as he gets more points back after his round is over, he has the option of buying back any traits he has listed as spent. However, the way that he does this is by bidding a number of his points on each of them, and for each trait, you roll a die, and come up with a cost. If his bid is less than the cost, he loses those points and gets nothing, if it is equal or more than that cost, he gets the trait back. Pros: great way to model cost--with more valuable traits costing more, can be done by players without the ST doing the rolls (provided that they don't cheat on the rolls); Cons: requires 1 roll per trait, may just annoy players.

and, to respond to Chronologist:
I like how simple the counter system sounds, but there's probably a better way to represent scarcity in the refresh system. Of the ones I've mentioned above, I'd guess that 3 or 4 is the closest, though there isn't a direct mapping between "points" used to purchase a refresh on a trait, and the "counters" because the actual "cost" of the trait is not taken into account by the "counters". That's just my $0.02, though.

As for the  idea of assigning ranks, it works pretty well in the Marvel Universe RPG (they basically have the difficulty system set up so certain tasks are impossible without sufficient ranks in the relevant skill or attribute--it's very close to what you're describing), but I'd like to keep the premise that "Traits" are a brief description of something that the PC is capable of doing or a quality of the PC, rather than just a number. That way, the mechanics are based on the context (setting, scene details, PC details, and auction circumstances) of the challenge taking place. While it does add an additional burden on the ST, it also allows for a greater correspondence between the logical actions occurring and the results of those actions than just having some numbers move around.

For instance, if we have a Cthulhu Mythos setting, and a PC needs to make a check to avoid going insane after seeing something he shouldn't we have two different ways to do it. In most RPGs you lose a sanity point, or get a minus to your social rolls, or something like that. In this system, you'd get a note on your sheet that "Can't sleep, it'll kill me if I sleep" as a Disadvantage under the Mental column. Now, this gives us an immediate idea for later when the character does something where this particular brand of crazy will come up (like when he goes to nap on the couch). It really adds some meat (that is it gives people more to Role-Play with) to what would otherwise be a rather dull and annoying mechanic.

As for how to "level up", I think another example is in order:
Let's assume that we've got a character who has done something worth rewarding. How about a Samurai who has just won a duel using a Physical Trait called "Iaido: Quick Draw" (the classic pull-out-your-sword-and-cut-something attack from so many movies and TV shows). If the player wants his character to do his leveling up by replacing his existing technique with a more refined version of the same thing, he does the following: think up a good style for the replacement; come up with a good name for it; and then check to see if the ST is ok with what you've designed. So, lets say the player above wanted to replace "Quick Draw" with a version of the same thing that involved hitting the enemy harder than normal, but at the same speed, then he wanted to call it "Falling-Tree Quick Draw". If the ST thought that was a good upgrade, then great! You've "leveled up"!

However, adding additional traits gives you more things to bid, so upgrading Traits should either be easier to do, or should give you a comparatively larger advantage when using it.

Maybe it would be helpful to keep track of the revision history of the Trait? It might not be the same thing as a rank number, but it would at least tell folks how big the advantage should be at a glance. (I'll have to ponder this later).

[Vulpinoid]

...unless traits have a standard mechanical effect, but techniques are treated differently.

A trait might give a specific mechanical benefit of +1 to a task...the specific task being given the bonus depends on the nature of the trait.

A character can only spend one trait at a time unless they have a technique that allows the expenditure of multiple traits on a single task for increased benefit.

"Iaido: Quickdraw" may allow a play to play a +1 speed trait and a +1 swordplay trait simultaneously to combine their effects. The upgraded version may allow a player to add in a +1 strength trait to get the "Falling-Tree Quickdraw".

This has the benefit that all traits a worth the same amount, it keeps things simple. If you want to do something really fancy then you spend more traits to activate the technique effect. A secondary benefit is that trait regeneration can be kept simple, with single traits coming back one-by-one, so a player can quickly resume their activities with the single traits, or they can build up their energy reserves for the big flashy effects later.



As for trait refreshment, an older (and many would say superior) version the miniatures game Confrontation had an interesting system for magicians to regain their magical energy.

Basically they have a pool of magic points that are depleted through casting spells. Each of these points are flavoured by the elements mastered by the magician (spells may cost one point to activate, multiple points of the same element, and some cost points of different elements). Spent points are put to the side and have a chance of regenerating in a certain phase of the game. These simply return by rolling a d6 per expended point, if the roll meets a threshold score, the point returns for the next round. Otherwise it stays unavailable.

Thus magicians could go all-out on a spell but risk rolling badly and not have any magic available for the next turn, or they could play more cautiously and have a steadily regenerating pool that never seems to run dry.

No tables to worry about, no variable costs between different types of tokens...if you have more traits of one type, and you spend more traits of that type, then you simply get more dice at the end of turn to regain traits of that type. If you were to use this sort of system, you'd probably expand the regeneration time-frame from rounds to 'scenes', hours or even days. The major con of this system (and many of the others on this thread) is that it introduces dice to a "diceless" system.

V

[Chronologist]

I like the idea of traits specifying what they're good at (+1 Strength, +1 Speed). This could replace my idea about ranks.

More later, I'm still considering these ideas. Some of these are really good.

I still like the idea of ranks to traits, not gaining more traits, and I like the idea of random recharge. It adds a sense of chaos to the game (plus, with 20 traits, you only need to roll a d20). If instead you want to roll for each trait, if you gave a 4 6 8 10 distribution, you can just roll d4, d6 etc. and regain up to 4 traits a turn, one of each column.

[Chronologist]

I've been thinking... is the purpose of this game to be fun? Competitive? Balanced? It seems to lean towards a cinematic-style game. If so, and the purpose is to have fun (and not to tie characters to lots of rules and such), I'd go for a faster recovery system. If it's a casual game, XP doesn't matter, just assume that players get better over time.

An early character, say, in a fistfight with an experienced brawler, would get thrashed after comparing his 3 traits versus his opponent's 4. Later on in the story, though, after considerable seasoning, if he bid 1 trait versus that guy's 4, he'd pound him flat with almost no effort.

The GM just has to assume that the players get better over time. That, or give the PCs better weapons and such that increase the value of their bids under certain conditions (like a sword that gives a +1 to your bid while you're bleeding, or a bow that inflicts harsher wounds when it hits).

That was an idea of mine. Every point you lose by in a fight inflicts "wounds". It's based off the original idea of having "Bleeding gash in the side" as a temporary complication. Basically, each character has a number of boxes, and each point they lose a Bid by in combat reduces these boxes. This either represents getting tired, being injured, running out of spells/ability to focus in combat, or just running out of luck. For now, let's call it Destiny (something from a game of mine).

Characters start with, say, 10 boxes. Each point they lose by in a bid, they check one box. At certain intervals, they start to gain complications OR modifiers. A thief being "hit" by an arrow. Low "damage" means it narrowly grazed him; his luck is holding out. Good damage could mean that he's cut and thrown off balance and gets the "Shaken" complication, giving him a -1 to his balance, acrobatic, and dodge bids. Severe damage could mean he's shot in the leg, and he gets the "Wounded Leg" complication, giving him a -2 to balance, acrobatic, and dodge actions, as well as moving at half speed.

Eventually, everyone can be killed, but in different ways. I'll use Lord of the Rings as an example. Fighters usually need to get shot or cut a lot before they die (ie. Boromir, Gimli). Some characters just get fatigued (most soldiers), some characters are lucky until they finally get "whacked" (Merry + Pippin, though they technically get captured), some die at critical plot points (Smeagol/Gollum, Saruman). They all die because they run out of Destiny, what fuels their character to survive.

I think it represents damage pretty well, as well as a method of advancement (increasing boxes over time, say, one per 2 sessions). Any feedback?

[Vulpinoid]

It's similar to what I use in the 8th Sea.

Everyone has a card rank with Ace(1) being low and King(13) being high, this is their Coherency (how strong their presence is in the story/timeline).

Everyone risks something when they go into a challenge. The attribute they use is literally on the line. If they are physically attacking, then they risk being wounded, if they are socially arguing then their ego is at risk, if they are thinking a way through an obstacle then their knowledge is put to the test, if they are dealing with unknown forces then their very soul could be at stake.

If the player loses the challenge, their attribute is literally dropped by a point (they have 10 points to spread across the four attributes). It becomes harder for them to achieve something similar in the future due to their injury, lose of face, or other negative that was applied through the combat.

Once a scene is over, a character has the chance to regain their strength. They spend the points of their coherency to regain the attributes they lost through challenges. In this way, a character with only 1 Coherency (Ace) has a single "Hit Point" before they are at the mercy of their opponents. A character with 13 Coherency (King) might get beaten down quite a few times, but they'll be coming back for more quite often.

If a player wins a conflict against an opponent, they may choose to either strip an attribute point from their opponent, or apply a penalty of some type (in much the same manner as you've described). These penalties can likewise be bought off with coherency points between scenes. The more substantial the penalty, the more costly the purchase to eliminate it.

Characters refresh their coherency in this game by fulfilling their own goals, staying true to their inner selves and asserting their place in the story/timeline. It's a system that rewards active play in a cinematic style.



Applying this back to the system at hand though (especially noting that this is a diceless system), comparison of traits could work off a combination of the relevant attribute and the coherency/destiny pool. Players compare a total of their base traits, plus a hidden number of additional traits from their relevant pool. When even players face off against one another, the player who goes all out on the first round will have less bonus points to play with in subsequent rounds. When playing with two character who have similar techniques, but one has more experience (both have the same regular traits, but one has more bonus traits), then the experienced character will show their strength as the conflict progresses.

In this way, the destiny pool could be stripped of points temporarily to fuel powerful actions. Or it could be expended in a more permanent fashion for healing and overcoming long term effects.

Points spent temporarily could be regained at a rapid rate (one per round), or could be regained in different ways by different types of characters (a pacifist might regain a point every round as long as they are defending and don't attack...a cleric might regain a point every round that they pray to their deity...a berserker might keep scoring points every round that they successfully inflict damage on someone or something...)

Points spent in a more permanent manner might only return after a full night of rest, or after a solid contribution to the storyline that gives a character a renewed sense of self worth.

It all depends what the game system is trying to reward.

V

[Chronologist]

Cards seem a little... odd to me. They're objects of chance in a game whose purpose is not to have dice.

Sure, you need a d20 for my idea, but that's it. Also, cards DO seems little.. klunky. They might work, I don't know, but I think having a Destiny pools is a cinemagraphic way to go. Also, it doesn't inflict as harsh penalties as being reduced a card value or two. Plus, you can take Destiny "damage" to modify the plot of the story.

I thought up a new distribution (7-5-5-3) and the idea of having 4 different stats:
Physcial: Your strength etc. and physical abilities
Mental: Your mind, smarts, knowledge, wits etc.
Supernatual: Your supernatural powers, defences, or resistance to those things, also your Plot powers
General: grab bag of other things, like blacksmithing, driving, riding, etc. Also your Alacrity, if you have it.

Plot powers are basically powers you bid to change the plot of the story. The more you bid, the less Destiny you lose for the outcome. Bidding one on a major event might make you take 4 Destiny loss, while bidding 3 on something minor would be free. DM's discretion to the cost, but it almost always works.