So, I've gotten a bit further than the base mechanics, I'm not sure how to bring everything together yet but this is what I have in mind.

It's a toolkit game:
I'm not aiming to make a generic or universal system, but I am aiming to make a system that's flexible enough to support a variety of game types in the vein of a "traditional" RPG. I guess everyone has a different interpretation of what traditional is, but I'm not trying to make a far out game like Noumenon, or a very innovative game like Dread or Capes.

It's rules medium:
I guess everyone has a different definition of what this is, but it's going to be in the middle range in terms of amount of rules and crunchiness. There will be plenty of games with more and less crunch and rules.

It will support tactics:
I'm looking at more of a task resolution system than a conflict resolution system. I don't want to restrict narration, but there are going to be rules constraints on how you can do certain types of actions and part of the fun will be succeeding within those constraints. I don't intend for the constraints to be very tight.

It will have easy character generation:
This is still very much a work in progress, so I'm not sure how exactly I will do this, but I'm thinking of getting ideas from HeroQuest, among other systems.

System/Rule wise, this is what I have figured out for components:
Mechanically, 1 type of stat, but categories among them. This is along the lines of OVA, where a supernatural ability, a measurment of strength and a cooking skill are mechanically handled the same. This is for the sake of flexibility in being a toolkit. I like base stats, but different types of games need different base stats, so I want them to be easy to plug in and out.
So far, there will be 3 categories of stats. Base stats, along the lines of Str, Dex, etc. or Classroom Deathmatch or Qin's Fire, Earth, Air, etc. I haven't settled on what they're going to be, but I want them in there. I find in a system like OVA, you'll have people that only deviate from average in what the player thought was important for the character. I'd like to have some variety in the things that aren't thought about as well. Having base stats gives that kind of variety. I'm leaning towards the elements line as they're abstract and can be applied to a wide variety of situations. It also avoids the type of complaints that lead to repeated splitting up of stats and sub stats to the point of getting FATALs 5 base stats with 20 sub stats each.
History stats, I really got the idea from Beast Hunters for this. Things which the character did or experienced in the past that can be applied in multiple situations. If there's a reasonable way to tie it in to an action then it should be allowed. This, combined with base stats, should ideally have most characters having different chances of success at everything, instead of everything being covered with the same default chance of success.
"Other" stats. Specific skills, special abilities, magic, whatever. These are the kind of details that people like to put into most point buy systems.
Essentially the stats go from very broad (base stats), to a middle ground (history stats) to very specific (other stats).

A fatigue/resource system:
I got this idea in one of the discussions of what HP really represents. Basically to do anything which isn't basic, it costs fatigue, or some sort of resource. I haven't decided whether to have one that covers everything, or different types for different types of actions. Anything that's particularly significant will cost some of the resource, that's replenished at a certain rate (not sure what that'll be yet). This will sort of model the idea of being able to use powerful abilities a limited number of times per day. They're taxing so you can't get away with using them repeatedly.

Combat will be based off the stats:
I intend to have the same system for social, economic, physical, magical, etc. combat. If you're attacking someone, you're doing a called shot to one of their stats, and if succesful you deal temporary or long term damage, depending on the nature of the attack.
For instance, if I have base stats like confidence, focus, stamina and power. In a boxing match you could be using your boxing skill to attack any of those base stats, or the boxing stat as well. The target would represent a different type of attack. A taunt might be an attack to the confidence or focus. A jab could do the same, attacking focus, or it could attack the stamina or power. Attacks to the boxing skill could be represented with some dirty boxing using your elbows to block (if it's bareknuckle), or punching the arms so they have a more difficult time attacking afterwards. This idea I got from Sweet Dreams, where you could attack someone's popularity or reputation. It was one of the aspects I really enjoyed so I wanted to work with it.
I also want to have thresholds on some of the stats. Basically, someone needs to have a certain degree of competence to be able to do damage to a stat. If it's not high enough, you basically can't damage the stat.
I also want to take something that's loosely from In Harms Way, where you apparently have the option to chose how a felling blow affects you - do you drop now and recover, or do you keep fighting and suffer a serious injury? - you can chose to redirect some attacks to a specific stat. In the boxing example again, someone will have a threshold on their boxing skill, and they can chose while boxing to redirect all attacks to their boxing skill. If they're boxing someone who's a much lower level than they are, there's no way they can lose, because any damage is negated. The moment someone takes out a knife, that no longer becomes an option (unless they've got a knife fighting skill, but depending on the level of realism desired, there wouldn't be a threshold allowed). Their boxing stat might not suffer from the knife attack, but everything else certainly would.

I want to emphasize the idea of play group and party:
The entire group of players plays the whole party collectively. This solves the problem of what happens if a player doesn't show up, or one of the characters dies and how do you get the player involved again? Obviously, everyone can chose to play it on a player-character level, the system won't restrict that. I'll have to do some work on how to get this to work with a tactical, task resolution type game instead of a narrative conflict resolution game, but hopefully it'll work. Maybe you have some ideas?

The game mechanics:
I've posted them in the other thread, but I'll give the short version here.
Card based. Players act simultaneously drawing cards. Abilities have a speed rating - if the total of the cards played that round is over the speed rating, the player can't draw any more cards until everyone else has acted or gone over their total. They succeed when they draw the number of cards required by the difficulty rating of whatever they're trying. Success can be improved by drawing additional cards. There's a maximum to the number of cards that can be drawn. Normally, nobody goes over, but I'm also thinking of having a combat option of spending your extra cards to lower your opponent's maximum rating, so if they get greedy and keep drawing cards until they're close to their maximum, they could find their rating dropped and end up suffering a serious failure (basically, they lose their action and their opponent gets to use their cards against them).

What I'm hoping with this thread is that some people will give some ideas of how I could make things work, or will ask questions about specific things so I can start working on articulating specific areas instead of having to do the daunting task of articulating all my system ideas in one go.

I think the reason there are no replies is that, while this post is very well articulated, it doesn't pose any questions that are actualy answerable.

This is a statement of the kind of games you like. I might agree with you, or I might disagree inthat I might prefer games that are different, but I don't think that's a very interesting or useful discussion.

This forum is for discussing game desings, but this isn't a game design, it's a wish-list for a game design. If you post game mechanics that attempt to meet thiese design goals we can discuss how well they do that and where they might be improved.

Simon Hibbs

Hi!
  I like the idea that this game is card-based. The way you have described how you feel about real life combat seems conducive to cards.
  But, I feel like you can do something more interesting with the idea.

Example 1
  Based on the classic kung fu movie idea that the more you can see you opponent fighting, the more you can understand their style.
  So, each player constructs a deck out of 20 or so cards, they need a special combo of 5 to win. So, at the start of the fight, they draw 5 from their deck. Each turn, players either play their winning 5 or draw one. In order to draw one you have to display one you are keeping. So, the closer you are to winning, the more the enemy knows about what you are trying to accomplish.

Example 2
  Use a CCG-like mechanic, with each card rated for attack, defense, movement and "special"
  So players take turns playing cards, with techniques, moves, styles and "powers" displayed, changing their offense and defense as the fight progresses.

  Something like that where there is a real strategy to the cards, they aren't just a dice substitue, you know?

  Anyways, good luck with your game man!

OK. Card strategy. I've been thinking about this but haven't posted it yet.

In no particular order, the strategic elements are.

To get the most efficient action, you have to declare what you're going to do at the beginning of the round.
You say what your action is, and you begin drawing cards. Each card is worth 1 card.

If you don't want to declare your action, and just want to wait and act when you have enough cards to do it, you need to draw twice the number of cards. If for attacking someone succesfully with boxing, you needed 3 cards, you would actually have to have drawn 6 cards to be able to spontaneously attack. Your speed rating would always default to whatever your lowest speed rating for any characteristic is. You could also not take any action for which you have drawn more cards than your maximum cards rating. So if a succesful boxing attack requires 3, and your max cards rating for boxing is 5, you couldn't succesfully box someone while holding your action.

If you are in an opposed challenge with someone, instead of making a direct action immediately, you can spend extra cards beyond what is needed to succeed, to temporarily lower your opponents maximum cards rating. You can't lower it below the necessary rating for success. If you have drawn more cards than your maximum rating, then you fail and any excess cards go to your opponent for use in their next action. Extra cards beyond the minimum necessary means a much better success, but the more you draw and the closer you are to your max rating, the more likely you are to screw up badly. So you can chose whether you want to be conservative and not worry much about failure, or whether you want to risk a very notable failure by going for a brilliant success.

Characters can work together on an action, either by supporting by adding in cards, or by working together on a task. The maximum total cards that can be drawn is the sum of everyone's max card rating. In each draw, characters work according to their individual speed rating, so one character would draw 2 cards at a time, another 3, and another 1. The total would be 6 cards per draw. The speed rating, to make things easy again is the sum of all the ratings. The same thing can happen with cooperative work as single work with the opposition spending cards to lower the max rating. This would come up if the characters are working together to overcome a task they normally couldn't individually. If the characters are working together to perform a task they could each do individually, they would barely have to worry about failure and would be succeeding quite spectacularly before the opposition could react. In a 10 on 1 fight, the individual would have to be particularly exceptional to be able to win.