I've been pondering this for sometime, and have been playing around with an RPG system that has no base stats. (I mean like traditional abilities: strength, intelligence, blah, blah)

Your character starts out at 0 in everything. It costs nothing to be an average joe. So you have no stats - unless you buy them.

You get points, I don't know, they could be any number let's say 10 for an above average character, maybe 100 for a heroic character, 500 or so for a super-hero. Whatever.

All Traits in this game cost points. So if I want a strong guy I pay a point per point of bonus strength. Of course you can take weaknesses to give yourself more points to spend elsewhere - this appeals to all you min/maxers out there (like me!).

Then there would need to be Aptitudes - this is a skill focus mechanic. For example you have an aptitude for hand-eye-coordination. Now certain skills are cheaper for you. Aptitudes are general and expensive, skills are specific and cheap.

Skills could just be alphabetically organized. Not arranged by "category" or any such artificial construct. But, we would give each skill an Aptitude modifier. So this creates synergy between the skill and the aptitudes. Using hand-eye-coordination (we'll call it hec for short) above, skills like shooting, mincing garlic and basketball hoop shooting would all have the "hec" modifier. But then basketball would also have the "athletic" modifier, mincing garlic would have the "good cook" modifier, etc. This allows us to create endless streams of skills, easilly adding more as the system builds, yet fully compatable with previous stuff. This does create a need for a pretty comprehensive Aptitude list.

I would dump everything - psionics, magic, and mundane abilities into the skill system.

Okay, we need a resolution mechanic. I'm impressed with Godlike's one-roll-engine. We need to solve a variety of problems:

initiative - who goes first has a huge impact on strategy.
success - there are two kinds either yes/no, or varying degrees of success: aweful, bad, okay, good, outstanding.

Then there are two possible circumstances to resolve under:
opposed or static - is my attempt opposed by someone else? or is it against a static thing like lifting a dead weight, or opening a stuck door?

We all like dice. Actually, I hate dice. I hate randomness, as a game designer I feel using dice is a cheap out for not coming up with a compelling resolution mechanic. I much prefer resources that must be allocated, and used strategically for best effect. This gives the players control, dice take control away from players.

So lets get back to points. We need points that will be fluid - you gain some, you lose some. This gives the GM a tool to punish and reward players with. Points that are spent on permanent things (like the traits discussed above) should be expensive, since you are getting a permanent benefit from them. Points spent on temporal things like "I need a bonus to my pursuade attempt right now!" should be cheap. We need a cool name for these points, lets call them prestige points for players and gm points for gm's.

So I'm thinking a simple bidding or auction mechanic would do well. Let's see I have persuade +1, and good looks +2 for a total +3, in addition I secretly auction 5 prestige points. The GM had an NPC with stubborn +2, and he secretly auction 5 gm points. We reveal our hands: I have 8, he has 7, I win!

Okay, cool, that kinda works, but we have all sorts of other things we wanted to solve with this resolution mechanic. Like who goes first? How well did I win? and what's the result?

Maybe each prestige point will equal a die. So each point I win by I get a die. I roll those dice and thats how well I do. Interesting. But what if instead during the auction my points were literally dice in may hand and I rolled those when revealing. We each roll, and duplicates cancel each other out. Okay, hang on, I'll finish this post in a bit.

Thoughts so far?

Random thoughts:

Diceless sounds cool for this.

Initiative could be determined by a skill like initiative ( I am imaginitive today!) or quickness, or something. Make bidding hidden with simultaneous revelation. Degrees of success would be by how much you beat or are beaten.

Maybe have two rounds of bidding, with some cap to how much prestige you can spend each round.

Would this be a "generic" system (as in, adaptable to any genre?)

Neat concepts to play with, overall.

Thank you for your time,
Nathan P.

Nathan P. wrote: Random thoughts:

Diceless sounds cool for this.

Would this be a "generic" system (as in, adaptable to any genre?)

Not all generic is bad. Look at D6 Star Wars. It started out as a stand alone setting specific dice pool system, but it has been adapted (at least by the internet community) for all tons of stuff. There are all kinds of Generic settings too, but this has been the subject for numerous Forge debates so I must digress.

May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron

tldenmark:

I, too, favor Karma. It's hard to divorce yourself from designing with dice, IME. A grail for me is some model of Rock, Paper, Scissors. That means distinct units.

Something I'm working on right now involves bidding. It becomes important to determine when pools refresh. This gets back to insuring opportunities for strategy.

It sounds like you like to explore design mechanics for their own sake. I'm glad to hear you talk of system serving setting. It must be used to produce something, after all. In my efforts, I find that clarifying what I'm trying to feature, in terms of play, attracts the more relevant of the novel mechanics that intrigue me.

Which I'm thankful for. Then, more often, I end up with something workable for my efforts.

Eric J.:

I also appreciate the ideal of a generic system. I mean, one that does everything would probably be called Staring at Infinity: the Weight of Rules, and play would drive editing like a prison sentence, but if you have specific concepts you want to portray through play, and you commit to a focused design, you can end up with something that is useless for everything else. And therefore perfect.

I suppose the ideal inspires that process and if successful, cannot be what you actually end up with.

Diceless is hard to do in RPG's, you pretty much end up with Amber diceless no matter how much you try to mix it up. But, I would like to try!

tldenmark wrote: Diceless is hard to do in RPG's, you pretty much end up with Amber diceless no matter how much you try to mix it up. But, I would like to try!

tidenmark wrote: The setting I was thinking of would be something like Greek gods and goddesses mettling in the affairs of mortals.

Eric J. wrote: Not all generic is bad. Look at D6 Star Wars.

Lxndr wrote:

There are a lot of ways to do Diceless that don't "end up with Amber." Look at Nobilis (Miracle Points) and the new (and now, apparently, defunct) Marvel Roleplaying Game (which is resource-based through "stones"

I've heard Nobolis referred to as "Amber with flowers", to which I must agree. Sure there are some flavor differences, but I think at it's heart it's the same game with different art.

I haven't played the new Marvel game, though it sounded interesting.

td

Nathan P. wrote: Cool. Maybe developing the setting in more depth will help direct exactely where you go with the system. Are the players Greek heros being pulled into and out of the schemes of the Gods? Normal Greeks striving to become heroes? The Gods themselves, meddling with the affairs of mortals?

bcook1971 wrote:
It sounds like you like to explore design mechanics for their own sake. I'm glad to hear you talk of system serving setting.

tldenmark wrote:
I've heard Nobolis referred to as "Amber with flowers", to which I must agree. Sure there are some flavor differences, but I think at it's heart it's the same game with different art.

td

Actually, I'd like to know upon what that opinion is founded. What makes you think that Amber=Nobilis?

Have you played Nobilis and found it much like Amber in Actual Play?

Having run games of both Nobilis and Amber, I've found them to be completely different style of play. Nobilis is a resource-based diceless game more like the Marvel Universe RPG than Amber. Both Amber and Nobilis are excellent games but to call Nobilis "Amber with flowers" misses out on what is a much different and in some ways superior game.

Shreyas Sampat wrote: Actually, I'd like to know upon what that opinion is founded. What makes you think that Amber=Nobilis?

Have you played Nobilis and found it much like Amber in Actual Play?

tldenmark wrote: At any rate, any time I've played "diceless" I can't seem to escape the feeling I'm playing a variant of Amber. Which I love by the way.

Hey, have you considered some of the alternatives to getting "paid" to take flaws that some games have today? Have you seen www.faterpg.com?

Also, what if I have two abilities that seem to apply to a situation, is there any way for one to help the others? Or is resolution one skill at a time?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Hey, have you considered some of the alternatives to getting "paid" to take flaws that some games have today? Have you seen www.faterpg.com?

Also, what if I have two abilities that seem to apply to a situation, is there any way for one to help the others? Or is resolution one skill at a time?

Mike

I suggest this too often nowadays, but check this out and let me know what you think:

http://www.glorantha.com/support/GameAids.pdf

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: I suggest this too often nowadays, but check this out and let me know what you think:

http://www.glorantha.com/support/GameAids.pdf

Mike

Yes, that's HQ.

It does tend to break things down into small abilities, but there are also "Keywords" which are very broad abilites. So you have "Warrior" and in addition to all the abilities that come under warrior specifically, you can do anything a warrior could do at the keyword level. This is really cool, because it means that you never have abilities that slip through the cracks. For example, you want to sharpen your sword before combat, but don't have "maintain weapon" or something like that. You just argue that this is something that every warrior knows, and use the keyword level.

These sorts of broad defaults - culture, occupation, etc - ensure that nothing "falls between the cracks". What I call the GURPS Math Skill problem. In GURPS, Math is a skill, but few players remember to take it. Then when it becomes an issue, the players realize that they didn't take something that's probably key to the character concept, if not really important in play (it's this syndrome that's driven the GURPS movement to templates to ensure that all the "little" skills get taken).

Many games today avoid the GURPS problem by just doing nothing but broad abilities, but this is, IMO, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. By combining very broad abilities with very narrow ones, you get detailed characters who are very complete with little effort. Basically, HQ goes back to selections similar to "Race/Class" in complexity, but does it in a much more functional way.

In any case, in play, then, the augmenting rules mean that you get to really explore the character's abilities in determining your overall TN.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Yes, that's HQ.

It does tend to break things down into small abilities, but there are also "Keywords" which are very broad abilites.

Basically, HQ goes back to selections similar to "Race/Class" in complexity, but does it in a much more functional way.

In any case, in play, then, the augmenting rules mean that you get to really explore the character's abilities in determining your overall TN.

Mike