Two possible randomization mechanics

[RandomCitizenx]

I have been kicking around a few different game design ideas and have finally come upon a conflict resolution system I like. I am now faced with the problem of how to kick the desired randomness into it. My initial idea was to have players play blackjack instead of rolling a die. Each hit would be bought by expending a stamina related resource, and the risk of going bust was there to act as a critical failure. The problem I had with this system was there is something appealing about rolling dice. To combat this problem I wourked out a system where you start with 2d10, and after rolling you can buy additional die in the same way you would buy more cards in the blackjac version and if any number came up as a double you could add one to the die to replicate an Ace in blackjack. Once again going above 21 total on the die would be a critical failure.

Which of these two is more preferable? Should I go with cards or die?

[Ar Kayon]

In my opinion, the meta-game elements of the card game resolution are bound to overshadow the actual gameplay, i.e. the suspension of disbelief will be broken; there will be a distance between the player and the story.  For fun, action-packed single-session gameplay, however, cards may have their niche.

[FetusCommander]

Honestly, I like the blackjack idea a whole lot.  The only thing I might say is to have some chance of partial success- maybe something with a Split?- since having to spend for hits might quickly become costly and it would kinda suck not being able to judge chance to succeed against an opponent.  Not sure I'd have the bust be a crit fail either, maybe that could be what a dealer blackjack is.  That's just a matter of personal taste though, I'd like to hear more about what you have.

What role would "chips" have in all this?  Do you plan to use those? 

Also, is there any situation where a player (as opposed to the GM, which is what I'm assuming it is) would be able to deal, or is the GM always the dealer to run conflicts?  If so, how would multiple conflicts between player characters work- or are those allowed?

Is card counting allowed?

[Vulpinoid]

I've gotta disagree with Ar Kayon on this one.

I think that if you're going to use a mechanism like blackjack, then you might as well use cards. Many people know how blackjack works and this actually makes the system more intuitive an instinctive...which in turn allows the mechanism to blend further into the background, so you can focus on the story.

If you create your own blackjack-dice hybrid, people have an additional hurdle when trying to get into your game. It something new they've got to learn, and this can be distracting.

I'd certainly consider the notion of using chips to represent how much effort is put into a task, while the cards represent the elements of luck surrounding the situation.

V

[RandomCitizenx]

Basically instead of bidding, you gain fatigue based on the type of conflict to get a hit. (i.e. a mental conflict means you are gaining mental fatigue)

so I get dealt a 8 and a 6, and decide I want to hit I gain a point of fatigue and get another card. I get dealt a 4 so I end up with a total of 18. Not wanting to press my luck I stand. The dealer gets a hand that totals out to 19. Neither busted so we start adding any modifiers from circumstance, gear, or character attributes to see our final totals. Character traits and tricks let you manipulate the cards. Maybe you have a trait that lets you give an ally one of your cards because you are all about the team work or something that lets you see the dealer's pocket card because you are good at reading people.

[FetusCommander]

Basically instead of bidding, you gain fatigue based on the type of conflict to get a hit. (i.e. a mental conflict means you are gaining mental fatigue)

so I get dealt a 8 and a 6, and decide I want to hit I gain a point of fatigue and get another card. I get dealt a 4 so I end up with a total of 18. Not wanting to press my luck I stand. The dealer gets a hand that totals out to 19. Neither busted so we start adding any modifiers from circumstance, gear, or character attributes to see our final totals. Character traits and tricks let you manipulate the cards. Maybe you have a trait that lets you give an ally one of your cards because you are all about the team work or something that lets you see the dealer's pocket card because you are good at reading people.

That's a fucking interesting system.  I think you should continue with Blackjack honestly.  I'd also disagree that it would take away from disbelief, since the rounds could potentially be fairly short and certain mechanics you've mentioned actually integrate into the fiction.  You'd gain a lot from the fact that players would really feel the stakes at all times.

[Excalibur]

I like the idea of blackjack as well (and have posted about it in another thread).

I would stay away from the 2d10 idea simply because you have 13 cards in a suit and 2d10, i assume, represents 2 cards of values 1 (ace) through 10. The interesting thing about blackjack is that there are quite a few face cards to contend with in addition to the 10. So the whole distribution of probably draws is pretty different from a 2d10 roll (where are 13-sided dice when you need them?)

There's not much else to say about this other than altering the blackjack rules a bit. How? Well, instead of going to 21 for an average contest, what if the limit were 31 for an easier task or 12 for a near impossible one? You don't have to stick with the standard rules at all.

I do like the idea of a stamina/fatigue pool where your first card or two are free and for each card afterward (woe to those who split!) is a cool addition.

[Jeff B]

I've noticed most posts about randomization techniques neglect an essential issue -- the intended in-game effect and atmosphere.  Randomization with playing cards in a Wild West game makes sense.  But regardless of the system in question, the system should simply be the most appropriate to the game in question.  So rather than trying to compare between cards and dice, I would ask the question back to you:  "Why not d20?  Why not 3d6?  Why not a series of 50-50 chances, like in Mouse Guard?  Why does your game want cards or 2d10?  What mechanical features are you trying to improve, overcome, or invent that require new types of randomization?"  That will help define the best randomization technique.

Jeff

[Ar Kayon]

Jeff's questions are well-aimed.

[RandomCitizenx]

The game started with being a modern spy game with a genre twist. This is why I started with blackjack. It is a card game that most people already know, and I associate card games with spies in no small part thanks to Mr. Bond. As I was working on the game itself I began to worry about the metagame disconnect with cards that Ar Kayon mention as well as the tendency to just love dice. Thats when I thought up the d10 idea as a way to keep a similar feel and repackage it in a way that is more familiar to an rpg.

[Vulpinoid]

Are you targeting this at established gamers?

Or new gamers?

New gamers probably won't have the preconceived notions of RPG = Dice.

Avant Garde gamers will have trascended the notion of RPG = Dice.

Traditionalist gamers will think RPG = Dice, but how are you going to lure these players away from their D&D or other traditional games?

If the game already has a basis for casino-style card play, then it probably makes more sense to use this randomisation method.

Just my 2 cents.

V

[Callan S.]

Do the mechanics change numbers that eventually effect an end game?

Or does it just produce some sort of pass/fail result, then pretty much that only means something at a fictional level? Ie, if you fail climbing the cliff, it doesn't rack you up 7 endgame your girlfriend leaves you points or whatever and whatever fictional outcomes you come to as a group, there are only fictional outcomes?

[Brendan Day]

Can the players place bets to determine how much as at stake during each conflict?  That seems like the simplest way to have the rules affect the end game.  If the player doubles down while climbing the cliff, the cliff turns out to be much taller, and the reward for reaching the top much bigger.

I really like the system as a whole, and I could see it working with either dice or cards.  What interests me is not so much the connection between James Bond and casino games, but the way that the system deals with risk.  As a player, I'm not just rolling dice or drawing cards to accomplish tasks or resolve conflicts; I'm choosing what risks to take, and when to raise the stakes.

If my character has an advantage, how does that affect the resolution of the conflict?  Does my character have aspects, skills, or powers that let me split pairs or double down, or do other things that would normally count as cheating, such as drawing two cards (or rolling two dice) when I hit and then playing whichever one is more advantageous?

[RandomCitizenx]

There are traits that manipulate the meta game such as a hit getting multiple cards or the choice of multiple cards. The traits are still a work in progress since I did not want to develop mechanics tied to the cards if I would end up ditching blackjack. I am going to start a new thread to describe the other mechanics now that I have settled on the card.

[Silverwave]

I had a similar system in the game I've designed (was using d10s) and on paper it looked good but at the table it didn't worked well.

Blackjack require too much time to make a single check than rolling dices and it ended up slowing the game too much. Also, the maths turned too be not that randomized because players tend to mostly play it safe and not risk busting, or always "hit" another card/dice if they are under a certain threshold.

If you're interested, I think I still got an older version of my system (that have now moved away from this blackjack system) if you want to take a look.