Here's a mechanic system I've been thinking of. It's already gone through a significant revision based on discussion on RPG.net, but I haven't had much new discussion since.

I'm intending for it to be tactical, so it's more on the side of task resolution than conflict resolution.

A given ability has a speed/time rating, and a max ability rating. The speed time rating is a number 10 or higher. The max ability rating is a number of cards.

For max ability, if the difficulty of a task is more cards than the max ability rating, it simply can't be done.

For speed rating, the 10 plus is because I want it that everyone draws simultaneously, and the person who choses their action first from the cards they have gets to go first.

If the combined value of the cards goes over the speed rating, they haven't been able to complete anything for that "round", and they have to wait until everyone has hit over their speed rating or has completed their action to get their next turn.

In general with equal ability, everyone draws one card at the same time. The number of cards you can draw per "draw" is equal to the 10s in your speed rating.

I was thinking of doing something like 1-10 is 1, 11-20 is 2, etc, but then that gets confusing in having to remember things. If the number of cards you can draw per draw is right in your rating it's simple.

I've dropped the swallowing/busting aspect to it. Right now there's only simple failure, simple success and extraordinary success. Extraordinary failure happens only when the situation calls for it. Nobody likes to accidentally fail a driving check and crash their car. Anything constituting an extraordinary failure would only be caused by the situation.

Each action has a difficulty rating, which is the number of cards necessary for success. If you hit exactly that number you have succeeded. In the case of combat if you only hit that success in the second or third round, it's assumed you were trying to hit in the first couple rounds but were only successful in setting something up with feints and combinations. If you get extra cards, that allows you to narrate extra facts into the action.

In boxing, if the difficulty to hit the other person is 3, and you hit 6 cards within the time limit, you landed a 4 hit combo.

After you decide to resolve your action, your turn for that round is over. If you want to be able to do multiple actions per round, saving things based on what someone else might do, it costs you 2 cards per fact. In the same 3 necessary, 6 total example, you'd get your first action with 3, pay an extra card to throw a jab, and wait to see how he responds. After he responds (assuming he does, if not you just go anyway), you spend another 2 cards for your followup action.

In the first combination you set up a few feints and jabs that didn't land, then did a combo while he was covering up, maybe some getting through depending on how I decide to implement combat damage.

In the second, it was a jab, readying for something, the other guy follows with a body shot and then the second action is spent either blocking it or countering with a cross.

In contested actions, I'm thinking you could spend your successes to lower the other guy's max ability. If he's drawing cards saving up for a powerful attack, say his max ability is 9, the difficulty is 3, and he is at 7 cards - perfectly safe. The other person, also with difficulty 3, is at 6 cards. That's 4 facts, and he could lower the max ability by 4 (or if that's too powerful, maybe 2, but it would also encourage acting quickly, and put the risk in saving up for something really powerful - if someone gets off first you could be really screwed), to 5. Now the guy is 2 over. This would be a critical failure, as I said before, the situation called for it, in this case someone fighting against you so it's not so easy to pull off what you want.

In the original setup I was thinking you could use someone else's cards in a failure in your success. In this case, maybe the number of cards you end up over by, go as successes to the other guy. So with being 2 over, that counts as if you had just failed and the other guy had 4 cards total - 3 necessary for the first success, 1 extra. The critical failure isn't in the nature of you tripping over yourself and falling on your face, it's in the nature of the other guy being in no danger from you and getting to land some free shots.

To have actions with entirely different time frames going on at the same time, the speed rating would be kept low, but the max ability and difficulty would be very high.

Someone picking a lock while two other people are holding off zombies, would have a speed rating of 10, a max ability of maybe 20, and a difficulty of 15. It's a difficult lock. The other party is going to have to fight for several rounds while the other player is drawing cards until they manage to pick the lock. There's definitely some tension there waiting for the right combination of low cards to come up, and possibly having a zombie break through while you have to abandon picking the lock, fight it, kill it and get back to it starting from scratch.

Also, assisted actions. Two people disabling a trap simultaneously, researching something, whatever. They're working together. They're both drawing cards into a pool for the difficulty rating, according to their own speed ratings. They can each only draw as many cards as their max ability, but the total max is for their combined ability.

Ideas, questions, comments, criticisms?

I can't really figure out how this is supposed to hang together.  This looks like a conversation you are having with people already familiar with the idea.

Am I correct in thinking,as regards the time component, that you play out cards (normal playing cards?) and add up their face values; and if the face values total higher than 10, then this runs into the next turn?

Thats about all I have been able to discern so far.

Yeah. That's one situation, 10's the minimum though.

Let's say you have Person A. Their trait is lock picking. They have a time rating of 25, and a max cards rating of 7.

Person B has a trait of climbing. Time rating of 31, and a max cards rating of 5.

(Both of these numbers have been chosen fairly arbitrarily, I haven't gotten to the point of figuring out what's average).

They're trying to get into a courtyard surrounded by a wall with a door in it. There's some treasure of ultimate power in there and whoever gets through first wins.

Actions are resolved simultaneously in game time.

There are 2 parts to an action sequence. Draws (because they involve drawing the cards) and Rounds (because that's what everyone calls them and it makes sense). A round for anyone ends when the total of their cards adds up to more than their time rating. Draws occur simultaneously. Every player has their own deck, and they each draw a card at the same time.

In the above example, A is allowed to draw 2 cards at the same time as B, because of the 25 rating, and B gets to draw 1 more because of the 31 rating (the important number is the tens, the 2 in 25 = 2 cards, the 3 in 31 = cards).

The difficulty rating for a task is determined by the number of cards needed to succeed.

In simplest terms, the first person to draw the requisite number of cards and declares their action goes first.

Let's say the difficulty of the wall is 5 - it's a really big wall. The difficulty of the lock is 4. It's not that hard of a lock.

A draws a 3. B draws a 7. - both are still under their time rating so they stay in the round.
A draws a 9. B draws a 4. - total A 2/12, B 2/11.
B draws a 10. total A 2/12, B 3/21.
A draws an 8. B draws a 2. total A 3/20 B 4/21.
A draws an Ace (1). B draws a Jack (11). total A 4/21 B 5/32 - both have the required number of cards to succeed, but because B hit over the time rating of 31, B doesn't succeed until the beginning of the next round. A is still within the time rating and choses to pick the lock. He gets through the door and runs into the court yard right as B makes his way to the top of the wall.

Does that make more sense?

Yes that makes more sense; am I correct in thinking there is no success/failure here?  What is decided is only when the task is completed, is that right?

Mostly. You could have a time limit of 1 round set in as well (or 2 or 5, or 73... if you're insane), in which case you'd fail if you don't get it done in time. The success or failure is more determined by the situation than by the random results. I am glad you got that impression, as that's actually an idea I had for a different system I was kicking around and I ported it into the card system. I like the concept that you'll eventually succeed at most tasks, it's just a question of how long it takes you, and sometimes you'll give up before you succeed. I figure it should take the frustration out of rolling or drawing a failure. If you haven't suceeded yet you just keep working at it. If you don't manage to get it in the end, it's because someone else beat you to it. Sometimes that isn't going to be much of a difference, but for me it would certainly be relieving.

I'm also aiming for there to be player choice. For instance you'll see that there's a couple card difference between the difficulty ratings and the card limits. I'm thinking of having something like Donjon, where every card you draw beyond the required number of cards for a basic success lets you enhance the success or state an extra fact. How exactly I haven't figured out but that's the concept. I'm also thinking about having a system of being able to spend extra cards in a contested action to lower someone's maximum number of cards - if you decide to act before they do, then you can bump their maximum number down to below the number of cards they've drawn. In which case they automatically fail and you can use their cards against them. Again the exact numbers I haven't figured out, but I want there to be an increasing risk reward system going on as you draw more cards. If you just want a simple success you have it done with right away. If you want to push your limits, you risk having it blow up in your face.

This type of stuff is much more evident with combat, but I'm still trying to work out the basics of the combat system to be able to give a good example. In principle I want the tactical aspects in combat to be similar to Stolze's ORE. You can use the basic system which just works as is, but I also want there to be easily options for more complex tactics without actually bogging play down.

Hi!
  I sympathize with Contra here. I feel like there is a lot to this "idea" that is left unstated.
  First, I don't understand how max cards interacts with this system.
  Second, Seems like the Timing point/Card draw is counter intuitive. Example:
  Timing 5 - Draw 1 - You should (69%) finish it in one turn, based on the avg draw value of 7
  Timing 15 - Draw 2 - Just a little under 50% chance of finishing in one turn
  Timing 25 - Draw 3 - Again, the avg draw on 3 cards is 21. Odds are this is still a one turn action
  Timing 35 - Draw 4 - You max draw is 52, the avg will be 28, so you are just start pushing into the realm of it being a 2 turn action.
  The consequence of the numbers as presented is that timing usually does not effect the duration, but does introduce more randomness. But, that is just a math issue you need to work out, no biggy
  Finally, I don't see how skill level impacts this system. Maybe the timing number is decided based on the character's skill/talent?

  It's not a bad system, I think with some refinement, it may bring something cool to your game. Good luck man.

migo wrote:
Does that make more sense?

dindenver wrote:
Hi!
  I sympathize with Contra here. I feel like there is a lot to this "idea" that is left unstated.
  First, I don't understand how max cards interacts with this system.
  Second, Seems like the Timing point/Card draw is counter intuitive. Example:
  Timing 5 - Draw 1 - You should (69%) finish it in one turn, based on the avg draw value of 7
  Timing 15 - Draw 2 - Just a little under 50% chance of finishing in one turn
  Timing 25 - Draw 3 - Again, the avg draw on 3 cards is 21. Odds are this is still a one turn action
  Timing 35 - Draw 4 - You max draw is 52, the avg will be 28, so you are just start pushing into the realm of it being a 2 turn action.
  The consequence of the numbers as presented is that timing usually does not effect the duration, but does introduce more randomness. But, that is just a math issue you need to work out, no biggy
  Finally, I don't see how skill level impacts this system. Maybe the timing number is decided based on the character's skill/talent?

  It's not a bad system, I think with some refinement, it may bring something cool to your game. Good luck man.

Bossy wrote:

migo wrote:
Does that make more sense?

Oh... Blackjack! :)

More sense yes, but there are things I don't understand.

- Why didn't A and B draw 4 and 5 cards respectively straight away? In other words what happened after B drew 3 and A drew 2, before they start drawing cards again?

- What about the max cards? Is it just a maximum difficulty or it does intervene in the drawing process?

- Finally, what's the rationale for using cards? From my experience, drawing cards is generally slower than rolling dice, so card-based systems tend to slow down the narrative flow. I found that there must be a good reason for using them, generally in tight connection with the setting.

Anyway I like the idea that if an action is possible, the character will succeed, provided it has time enough.

I still don;t think you have given us a proper low level understanding of what you are a6ttempting to do here, the basic version.  What I have so far is this:

Actions are measured by required cards RC and duration D.  I must play a number of cards = RC and try to keep their face values below D to complete an action in one turn.  If I play any number of cards that exceed D my action occurs at the beginning of the next turn.  I can play a number of cards = my draw rating at a time, then my opponent draws and plays.

Like Bossy, I don't understand why you have a max card rating.  Is this just purely a limiter, as in you can't even attempt actions that have a difficulty higher than your max cards?  What doyou do when you hit max cards, and how would you hit max cards if it is just a limiter?

Why not draw all the cards at once, as was asked?  Seeing as you have to play X number of cards anyway, as set by the RC, there is no greater likelihood of exceeding D if you do them all at once.

I find your use of "draw" confusing.  Drawing a card does not necessarily mean it gets played straight away.  Do you mean something more like flip or hit in blackjack, that is you just play the top card on your deck?  Is there a hand into which cards are drawn? 

Anyway,it doesn't seem to me that your "draw" rating needs to be attached to the time rating at all, just split it off and define it by something else, that will allow for a different form of specialisation.

contracycle wrote:
I still don;t think you have given us a proper low level understanding of what you are a6ttempting to do here, the basic version.  What I have so far is this:

Actions are measured by required cards RC and duration D.  I must play a number of cards = RC and try to keep their face values below D to complete an action in one turn.  If I play any number of cards that exceed D my action occurs at the beginning of the next turn.

  I can play a number of cards = my draw rating at a time, then my opponent draws and plays.

Like Bossy, I don't understand why you have a max card rating.  Is this just purely a limiter, as in you can't even attempt actions that have a difficulty higher than your max cards?  What doyou do when you hit max cards, and how would you hit max cards if it is just a limiter?

Why not draw all the cards at once, as was asked? 

Seeing as you have to play X number of cards anyway, as set by the RC, there is no greater likelihood of exceeding D if you do them all at once.

I find your use of "draw" confusing.  Drawing a card does not necessarily mean it gets played straight away.  Do you mean something more like flip or hit in blackjack, that is you just play the top card on your deck?  Is there a hand into which cards are drawn? 

Anyway,it doesn't seem to me that your "draw" rating needs to be attached to the time rating at all, just split it off and define it by something else, that will allow for a different form of specialisation.

Hi!
  OK, Max cards, is still a bit of a mystery.

  So, a player has a task with a timing of 25, he draws 3 cards per round and some how the max cards is 4 (I am still not sure if max cards is a aspect of the task or the character or?).
  The first round he draws 3 cards in turn and ges a total of 21 (avg, btw). The next round he draws one card and gets a 3, for a total of 4. Now he is under his his timing number, but at his max cards. He is technically able to draw 2 more cards and technically not able to. What happens?

  Finally, in all of this, you still haven't explained how the char's skill enters into this equation. Does it effect the timing number or the max cards or how the success is interpreted or?
  Good luck with your game man!

dindenver wrote:
Hi!
  OK, Max cards, is still a bit of a mystery.

  So, a player has a task with a timing of 25, he draws 3 cards per round and some how the max cards is 4 (I am still not sure if max cards is a aspect of the task or the character or?).

  The first round he draws 3 cards in turn and ges a total of 21 (avg, btw). The next round he draws one card and gets a 3, for a total of 4. Now he is under his his timing number, but at his max cards. He is technically able to draw 2 more cards and technically not able to. What happens?

  Finally, in all of this, you still haven't explained how the char's skill enters into this equation. Does it effect the timing number or the max cards or how the success is interpreted or?
  Good luck with your game man!

migo wrote:
A given ability has a speed/time rating, and a max ability rating.

Hi!
  OK, that makes some sense, but I would like to clarify, according to your description of the system, 25 is draw 3
0-9=1
10-19=2
20-29=3
etc...

  So, in my theoretical example, our intrepid player with max cards=4 and 4 drawn cards=24<Timing 25=Failure?

  Maybe you should put in some wild cards, etc. Have you ever played Mille Bornes? Might give you some ideas on how to add a level of card strategy to your race to the timing number mechanic you have going on.

  Also, You said higher timing numbers should finish faster, but the math doesn't agree. Maybe it should be one draw per turn per 5 timing? Assuming A=1, J,Q,K=11, 12, 13 means an average draw is 7. So, some tuning may be required.

  Good luck man!

dindenver wrote:
Hi!
  OK, that makes some sense, but I would like to clarify, according to your description of the system, 25 is draw 3
0-9=1
10-19=2
20-29=3
etc...

  So, in my theoretical example, our intrepid player with max cards=4 and 4 drawn cards=24<Timing 25=Failure?

  Maybe you should put in some wild cards, etc. Have you ever played Mille Bornes? Might give you some ideas on how to add a level of card strategy to your race to the timing number mechanic you have going on.

  Also, You said higher timing numbers should finish faster, but the math doesn't agree. Maybe it should be one draw per turn per 5 timing? Assuming A=1, J,Q,K=11, 12, 13 means an average draw is 7. So, some tuning may be required.

Conceptually this is pretty slick.

Here's a suggestion to cut down on the handling time, however.

Currently, you've got number of cards in order to succeed, and then a time factor that tells you whether the action "goes off" this round or next.

Would it not be faster playing and still hit pretty much all the same points to just have each player draw all at once a number of cards equal to their RC.  Then total the number on those cards with the lower total going first.

So I need 4 cards to pick the lock, you need 5 cards to climb the wall.  I draw 4 and sum, you draw 5 and sum.  If my sum is lower than yours (likely because of the ease of my task) I succeed first.

Relative speed between characters can then be handled by discarding high cards from the deck.  At a certain level of skill I can discard all Kings.  At a higher level I can discard all Queens as well.  Eventually a high enough level character will stand a good chance of being able to draw 7-8 cards to a novice's 4 and still go first.

This seems to have much the same overall effect of your system but be alot quicker to adjudicate.

Also, you have the great added feature of keeping a running time tally.  If my 4 cards sum to 25 and your 5 cards sum to 31 then for our next contest "run and grab the item" I'm starting at T=21 with a 6 point advantage...in other words, I'm already 6 "steps" to the item when you reach the top of the wall.

If you want to have different Skill levels by Skill instead of by character, that's just as easy.  Instead of discarding all Kings out the deck to begin with, you just discard them (or not) as you draw based on the skill you're drawing with.

Thoughts?

Valamir wrote:
Conceptually this is pretty slick.

Here's a suggestion to cut down on the handling time, however.

Currently, you've got number of cards in order to succeed, and then a time factor that tells you whether the action "goes off" this round or next.

Would it not be faster playing and still hit pretty much all the same points to just have each player draw all at once a number of cards equal to their RC.  Then total the number on those cards with the lower total going first.

So I need 4 cards to pick the lock, you need 5 cards to climb the wall.  I draw 4 and sum, you draw 5 and sum.  If my sum is lower than yours (likely because of the ease of my task) I succeed first.

Relative speed between characters can then be handled by discarding high cards from the deck.  At a certain level of skill I can discard all Kings.  At a higher level I can discard all Queens as well.  Eventually a high enough level character will stand a good chance of being able to draw 7-8 cards to a novice's 4 and still go first.

Also, you have the great added feature of keeping a running time tally.  If my 4 cards sum to 25 and your 5 cards sum to 31 then for our next contest "run and grab the item" I'm starting at T=21 with a 6 point advantage...in other words, I'm already 6 "steps" to the item when you reach the top of the wall.

If you want to have different Skill levels by Skill instead of by character, that's just as easy.  Instead of discarding all Kings out the deck to begin with, you just discard them (or not) as you draw based on the skill you're drawing with.

Thoughts?