Having read lots of the RPG theory and come to a novice understanding of Social Contracts and GNS, I've been wanting to play a diceless system for ages now, but have never had the chance to play one.  I love games like Burning Wheel/Empire, Riddle of Steel, The Shadow of Yesterday, Dust Devils, etc. but my inner curiosity still urges me to play a game like Amber, Polaris, Universalis, etc. but I just haven't had the right group/time to play any of the diceless games.  Recently, I was having a conversation with an Amber lover about game theory, and we sat down and developed a game in about 3 hours.

We call it Flashcards.  I'd love to have some input.  Here's what we came up with (minus examples).

FLASHCARDS is a system designed with the idea that all a system truly needs to function is a description of each character, thorough enough to give an understanding of that character's capabilities and limitations. This is a game of grammer, diction and poetry, where a character's life is summarized by a few choice words.

Story Design - (in itself, this part is a fun game and can be used for any 'world building' session for any game)
Each player fills out ten flashcards, numbered 1 to 10, to describe the setting. The description on each of the 10 cards can have as many words as priority points. It is up to the players to describe each category with the words they have purchased.

The categories are Technology, Geography, Physiology, Faith, Population, Politics, Magick, Affiliation, Conflict, and Veto.

The Story Guide (SG) collects flashcards for one category at a time in suggested order. Reads from highest priority card down. Conflicting priorities resolved based on accumulated points. Final consensus may require a player to spend a Veto card.

Once the storycards are collected, each category should range from 15 to 42 words describing the setting. That's an average of 285 words per setting for a 5 player (including SG) group.

Character Design
Number 10 flashcards from 1 to 10. On each card, write an adjective. The number on the card represents the potency of that trait.

Shuffle your cards so nobody knows the number associated with each trait. Then, each player reads his/her traits to the group. Consensus as to the details of each adjective's applicability should be reached. Redundancy and overlap are acceptable means of focusing a character's effectiveness, but can be limiting.

Resolving Conflict
In a given confilct, players involved hold up one or more flashcards. When SG throws, players reveal their flashcards, describing their actions. Player with highest single Trait in play speaks first, describing their intent, but may not necessarily act first. Once points of conflict are assessed, all traits played are added to determine each character's effectiveness, subject to Momentary Modifiers. The highest score wins, and that player describes the resolution of their intent, although SG may allow players to throw more flashcards with more Momentary Modifiers if they can describe a plausible action. The negotiations of the exact game result of victory or failure is adjudicated by the SG to move the story on.

Character Development
Adjective
At the end of each scene, each Adjective used in that scene advances one step up the ladder, replacing the Adjective ahead of it, unless that Adjective was also used in the scene.

Noun
At the end of each game, a player may put in a bid to convert his/her top two Adjectives into a Noun. This Noun encompasses both those Adjectives, in addition to conveying a larger concept or archetype to further describe the character. A Noun, if awarded, counts as a 10-point trait in any situation where it is applicable. As with Adjectives, consensus as to the details of each Noun's applicability should be reached. The SG and other Players then vote as to whether to award the player his/her Noun. If the vote is unanimous, the noun is awarded, and the Player makes a flashcard for it, and two new flashcards for new adjectives, which start at the bottom of his/her list. If the noun is not awarded, the character's 8-point trait advances to 10, replacing the top two traits.

In theory, a given player can earn a Noun every session, but because the vote must be unanimous, jealousy should be sufficient to keep advancement somewhat balanced across a given group of players. (that's right, we encourage jealousy - is that so wrong?)

Proper Noun
If a character already has a Noun, the next Noun they earn will be rated one below that Noun. Nouns do not advance the way that Adjectives do. A Noun is what you are and does not move up or down the ladder. If a character has two or more Nouns, the group may decide to award that character a Proper Noun upon accomplishing a heroic or impressive deed. This Proper Noun represents the character's mastery over a given domain.

In effect, the game is about creative wordsmithing, modern poetry and designing a story with friends based on how they describe their character's, their character's intent, and their character's actions.  No dice, just words and numbers.

is this the kind of game other people would be interested in, or is it just my own crazy drive for a simple diceless game that makes it seem interesting?

Your system sounds pretty cool on first read.  I particularly like the prioritizing that will be necessary when creating game elements - I'd explore inverting your value pyramid, with the most broad (one word) elements having the most power, but also being the most open to interpretation.   

Do you have specific questions?  Here's one for you - you talk quite a bit about the desire for a diceless system - what does that mean to you in terms of actual play? 

we thought about the inverted pyramid idea, but we liked the idea that more words=more power.  it's kind of like 'bidding'.  i bid 10 words worth of technology ... conceptually, it could work either way, but the one-word as #1 power-wise actually limits the world generation in play.  the setting creation was fun, dynamic and challenging to come up with efficient use of your 10 words... 9 words... 8 words ... etc.

Jason Morningstar said: Here's one for you - you talk quite a bit about the desire for a diceless system - what does that mean to you in terms of actual play? 

Well, I feel unqualified to offer aces design advice, as an even newer member, but insofar as I've been kicking around an idea in this vein for awhile, I wanted to throw out a couple of questions relevant to your questions in the previous post.  What I tend to wonder about in the system (specifically traits and resolution) is how the social contract gets enforced to avoid constant arguments about appropriate invocation of traits-i.e. it's always in the player's interest to try to push for traits as broad and generally applicable as possible, and to argue for their use, especially with the advancement system rewarding the ability to, as far as I can tell, invoke as many traits as possible over the course of the game, given how effective conversion to nouns has gotta be. 

I'd also wonder if leaving the ultimate resolution to the SG doesn't simply continue a GM-fiat resolution system that simply allows more room for players to restrict possible outcomes.  You also don't offer much in the way of limits to the scope of narration for the player with the highest priority-I don't see how, for instance, a player with a 10 in "strong" for instance, wouldn't be able to start resolution narration with "I tear off the heads of everyone attacking us" and thereby render much further input from anyone moot (which would contradict my first point, but the only way I see to avoid this as written is pure GM fiat in accepting various momentary modifiers or in pure moment to moment social negotiation stuff).

Also, why doesn't the SG have cards?

I'd imagine, though, that you've got answers for all that, and it's likely to be a matter of refining your system more than simply changing it.

What I really wonder about, though, is the spots where you're saying that you want a system for wordplay and poetry, etc, and I'm not seeing a way to encourage getting that out.  Further, I see one of your clear priorities here as generating really cool things said by players, and the system doesn't help me do that much, or even provide a way to start prioritizing the awesome over the non-just numbers & narration.

Maybe some constraints on style of narration would help do that-maybe players have to rhyme their traits to make valid narration, or use some of the words from the world building in narration in proportion to their priority in narration.  Maybe any action involving harming somebody else needs to be in Homeric hexameter, and any action humiliating 'em in sprung rhythm.  Maybe the player has to state all actions by freestyling to the "The Bridge Is Over" beat.  Maybe initiative goes to the most egregious pun.  Whatever.  All I'm saying is, if the objective is to challenge the players to do serious language fun stuff in the context of creating story, why not build it into the mechanics?

I hope my rambly, brainstormy post offers some help, and I hope that if any of my criticisms seemed harsh, please do keep in mind that I thought this idea cool enough to de-lurk and join to comment on it. 

1. is the system clearly presented? - how much further detail/examples are needed to describe the game mechanics?

It's not as clear on a second reading.  Examples will help.  What value is there in using low-value cards?  If success is all about piling on multiple high value cards, one and two point values are not very important - even though they will necessarily be most broad.

2. does the system tickle the imagination? - can you imagine yourselves sitting around a table, coming up with wordplay for world building, character generation and then character and story advancement?

Sure.  Playtesting would tell if it is too time consuming or restrictive - hard to judge based on the description alone.

3. is there any theoretical design elements missing? - it's obviously a narrative engine, establishes a social contract and allows for player chosen color but is the credibility distrubution flawed? do the reward mechanics seem lacking or misdirected? do the resolution mechanics seem satisfying enough or will they perhaps lead to problems?

There are a few points where you mention veto cards without explanation, straight voting, as well as resolving disputes by consensus.  I'd think hard about what these things mean and articulate them.  Consensus probably isn't the word you are looking for.  You'll end up having a ton of 10-point cards after a few sessions, given the current rules.  Why not use card-value-advancement as a reward, so that you can pump up low value cards over time if you choose? 

4. is it playtestable as written? - what else does it need to make it playtestable by those other than myself?

Veto cards?  Momentary modifiers?  Examples?

thanks for the response.  it really clarifies what i need to do to get the game across to people.  once i get my examples written, i'll post 'em here in blocks.

the system was a quick descriptor to focus my ideas, refining word-choice and description will make it all clearer, hopefully

the idea that i want to focus on wordplay, diction, poetry, etc. is in the modern sense of the terms.  poetry is not a 100% rhymed medium. hopefully i can come up with concrete examples to clarify further.

thanks again for the input. please keep on top of this thread. i'll post more when i have something substantial to show