Hi Guys,
Long time lurker, first time developer. I've recently compiled a quick-start guide to a diceless RPG system I've invented which uses seal simultaneous auctions to resolve conflict, and I'd love some feedback on it (especially if you can think of similar games).

I've got a development blog at http://d0-rpg.blogspot.com/, and the quickstart guide is available as a short PDF at http://www.filedropper.com/d0dicelessqstart.

Thanks a bunch,
Ryan

Typo: The last post should read "sealed simultaneous auctions" (sorry)

Now, for those folks who aren't keen on navigating to some random URL (like those with acute rick-roll-aphobia), here's some highlights from the game design:
 

• There are no dice—players are random enough: Unlike many games you may have played before, this system uses no dice at all. All conflict is resolved through a simple auction system. Everyone who's got a stake in the conflict gets a chance to push the result in their favor. Players desire different things at varying amounts, so nobody knows what the outcome of the conflict will be until the ST announces the winner.

• There are no real mechanics—except the physics of your setting: Common sense is the measure of what is and is not feasible in the game, and common sense varies from setting to setting. As a result, what's very doable or common in one setting might be impossible or game-breaking in another. In this game, we don't provide any mechanics that exist independent of a game-setting, except what's needed for the auction system to work.

• There are no arbitrary limits placed on you—the ST alone determines the bounds of possibility: Since the setting is what controls the mechanics of common sense, and the ST is the arbitrator between the Players and the Setting, he is the determining factor that limits what character can do. You can be whatever the ST will allow you to be. Want to play a dragon in a high-fantasy game? How about a sentient star-ship in a science fiction game? What about just being a lucky son-of-a-bitch? All fine, provided that you and your ST can agree on a concept with your character, you can be whatever the hell you want.

  • If you want something bad enough, you can usually get it: Without random and arbitrary limits, what is there to keep everyone from just running around doing whatever they please? Simple, we let them run around and do whatever they please—for a price... Since we use an auction system to resolve conflict, that means that there's a price to be payed for getting what you want. If you're willing to blow your right hand off getting a head-shot on the villain, then go ahead, pay with your hand, and we'll see what the villain is willing to bid in order to keep his head. Just keep in mind, the ST alone determines what's possible, so you've never got license to run around fucking up the physics of the setting.

It looks really good so far; I just want to throw a few ideas your way.

1. It seems a little... complicated. I really wish there was a different explanation for the mechanics, and some examples of a few advantages and disadvantages.

2. I'm a little confused about bidding. Could you post a concise summary? If I can't get it, my friends certainly won't

3. I really wish there were a few examples. You know, staple heroes and villains. It would help a little.

4. How do you measure health? Do wounds simply decrease your combat ability until you can't attack and fall unconscious?

Seriously, I really like the system. I'd like to play-test it, with your permission.

Chronologist

I'm glad to hear that you've got a positive impression of the system.

> 1. It seems a little... complicated. I really wish there was a different explanation for the mechanics, and some examples of a few advantages and disadvantages.

Since I set out to make the rules uncomplicated by design, I'm quite curious: what makes you say that the mechanics seem complicated? Are there specific things, or general issues? Similarly, are these issues with the way things are explained or the mechanics themselves (this might be a hard question to answer, if the explanation and the mechanics are bad)?

>2. I'm a little confused about bidding. Could you post a concise summary? If I can't get it, my friends certainly won't

The way I designed it, bidding occurs like this:
1) The ST announces that an auction will take place, and sorts out who will be involved. This entails stating the conflict that the auction will resolve, such as "wildebeests appear and attempt to attack all of you: please tell me what you'd like to do".
2) Each Player considers what he'd like to do, and informs the ST secretly of this, along with what Traits he is willing to use to support this action. Following our example above, Player A secretly tells the ST that he is going attempt to leap into the trees above, and out of attacking range. To support this he informs the ST that he's going to make use of the following traits from his sheet: "Quicky, Wiry, Professional Acrobat".  These traits are now considered "bid".
3) Each Player marks the Traits that he's bid on his character sheet, so he knows how long he has until it will be usable again (I can explain this too if you have questions about it).
4) The ST then compares the bids and determines the outcome of the auction.

>3. I really wish there were a few examples. You know, staple heroes and villains. It would help a little.

Once we do our alpha play test, I should have some example setting material that I can post. Since so many of the people who've volunteered like the show Naruto, it'll probably be a bunch of characters similar to those seen in that show.

>4. How do you measure health? Do wounds simply decrease your combat ability until you can't attack and fall unconscious?

Health is not an explicit trait, though "Healthy", "Fit", and "Hardy" are all Physical Advantage Traits available to contest damage, while "Broken Ankle", "Serious Burn", and "Only a Flesh-wound" are all example Physical Disadvantage Traits that can hurt you.

The way that you'd use this to model a man being gored by an angry wildebeest is that you'd have the damage dealt by the horns result in some sort of physical disadvantage, like "Gored", which would then be used against the PC when he engaged in other auctions. For instance, if he tried to climb a tree after being gored, it would be an auction between the PC's remaining physicals and the accumulated damage traits.

Wounds and similar things not only work against you passively while you're dealing with other things (by setting up the context of the bid to be disadvantageous to you), but they can also actively work against you, as in the above example.

>Seriously, I really like the system. I'd like to play-test it, with your permission.
>
>Chronologist

Oh, by all means, please have at it. I'd be curious to see how it goes.
Best of luck!
Ryan

rhat wrote:
> 1. It seems a little... complicated. I really wish there was a different explanation for the mechanics, and some examples of a few advantages and disadvantages.

Since I set out to make the rules uncomplicated by design, I'm quite curious: what makes you say that the mechanics seem complicated? Are there specific things, or general issues? Similarly, are these issues with the way things are explained or the mechanics themselves (this might be a hard question to answer, if the explanation and the mechanics are bad)?

Multi-way Context-Weighted-Trait auction resolution:
Let there be N bidders, numbered [0,N).
Let Bs be the list of all bids.
Let the bid of bidder M be represented by Bs[M-1].

One of the things that I find complicates things is how different abilities recharge at different rates and different times, depending on when you use them. It seems like a lot to keep track of. What if, instead of having a recharge rate for each power, you fully regained a certain number of abilities each round? A translation like this:

3      3
5      2
8      2
13    1

so instead of each recharging in 3 rounds, 3 fully recharge each round. Instead of recharging in 5 rounds, 2 fully recharge each round, and so on. This way characters can bid more often and keep having options.

Finarvyn wrote:
...
I think you have some interesting ideas here, but sometimes it reads like a computer programming manual.
...
I don't think of this as being very "user friendly" even if it explains exactly what you mean. When I read passages like this, I have the urge to put the book away and run screaming from the room.

Compare your document to the text of the Amber Diceless RPG, for example, and maybe you'll see what I mean. Wujcik is a little wordy sometimes, but it's pretty clear what he means when he says something.

My solution would be to "dumb down" the language a little (particularly eliminating much of the game jargon and making it "plain english") and certainly to put in a couple of simple examples (as others have suggested).

It doesn't matter how simple the mechanics -- if the reader can't follow what you're saying they won't "get" the game.

As I said, you've got some good ideas here. Stay with it and keep us posted as to how this evolves!  :-)

Chronologist wrote:
One of the things that I find complicates things is how different abilities recharge at different rates and different times, depending on when you use them. It seems like a lot to keep track of. What if, instead of having a recharge rate for each power, you fully regained a certain number of abilities each round? A translation like this:

3      3
5      2
8      2
13    1

so instead of each recharging in 3 rounds, 3 fully recharge each round. Instead of recharging in 5 rounds, 2 fully recharge each round, and so on. This way characters can bid more often and keep having options.

Here's a plain English explanation of the original Auction system:

Here's how you run an auction, assuming that you already have all bids in hand.

Phase 1: Do a sanity check.
Go through all of the bids, and note all of the things that were bid that won't help the bid. If something was bid that won't help but won't hurt either, just ignore it, otherwise, treat it like a Disadvantage when evaluating the value of the bids later.

Phase 2: Check for Overkill.
Quickly scan through all of the bids to see if there's someone who has obviously won, before you go through and muck around with all that tedious math. A bid obviously wins when it is orders of magnitude larger than any other bids (or combination of bids), and no realistic comparison is necessary to determine the outcome. This Phase is designed to bypass auctions with obviously asymetric bid values, and it is a good idea to actually check for a winner. If someone has obviously won during the Overkill Check, then you can skip to Phase 4.

Phase 3: Valuation.
This phase follows a simple procedure:
1) Find the Trait that has been bid amongst all bids which is least useful, this is called the Base Bid. Assign this the value of 1.
2) Go through each bid, and assign each Trait a value based on how many times more useful it is in the context of this Auction than the Base Bid. Remember that disadvantages will reduce this number, as will other extenuating factors.
3) Sum up the values for each person's bid, and figure out who has the biggest bid. They are the winner, go to Phase 4. However, if there is a tie of some sort, continue to the next Step in this procedure.
4) If there is no highest bid, or there are several bids whose values are too close for the ST's taste, then you have two options. Either procede to Phase 4 with a mutually neutral outcome as the resolution, or each bidder that is tied may bid one CONSEQUENCE, which are then compared like normal Traits (go back to Step 1, and only consider the new bids).

Phase 4: Resolution.
When there is a winner, you may resolve the auction in has favor by having the outcome of the conflict come out in a way that provides him with an advantage. Those who did not win will have something disadvantageous happen to them, depending on their original action.

I understand why you don't want a very fast refresh rate; it makes sense. You don't want them to bid everything, then wait a few turns and do it again. The problem I see is that people start running out of this to bid REALLY FAST. Also, keeping track of all of those abilities seems a daunting task. I had an idea, though.

Divide up 20 abilities among the 4 attributes of Physical, Mental, Social, and Supernatural
8
6
4
2

For example, Physical 4, Mental 6, Social 2, Supernatural 8

At the beginning of each round, roll a d20. Yes, I know the point of the game is to have no dice at all, but just hear me out. This concept can always be changed later.

Roll a d20. If it is a 1-4, one Physical ability is restored. If it is a 5-10, one Mental ability is restored. If it is a 11 or 12, one Social ability is restored. If it is a 13-20, one supernatural ability is restored. This way, players are encouraged to bid all 4 types of abilities, and they are more likely to have their strengths restored than their weaknesses. Players choose what ability is restored each time.

I DO understand that this requires a d20, but I urge you not to discard this out of hand. I think it is a solid system with a great deal of merit behind it.

The problem I'm seeing with a d20 roll evenly distributed is that a character has just as much chance of regenerating a low attribute as they have for regenerating a high one.

Using the example given, if it's 8 supernatural, 6 mental, 4 physical and 2 social, you might want to distribute the rolls according to the numbers allocated.

1-8 (8 chances in 20) restores a supernatural, 9-14 (6 chances in 20) restores a mental, 15-18 (4 chances in 20) restores a physical, 19-20 (2 chances in 20) restores a social.

This way players have a better chance of restoring the attributes that they've built themselves up in.
[hr]

If you really don't want dice, you could always simulate this with a couple of other effects.

Perhaps refresh could be achieved through the drawing of cards (identifying each attribute to a suit), players make up a "regeneration deck". This deck consists of a number of cards equal to the respective attribute...in the exmaple, you might include 8 different diamonds(supernatural), 6 different spades(mental), 4 different clubs(physical) and 2 different hearts(social). Simply draw a card when it's time to replenish a trait. This has the advantage that when characters improve their attributes, they can simply add extra cards to their "regeneration decks".

V

I don't think you read it properly, or maybe I phrased it poorly. The chance IS determined by the allocation given.

"Roll a d20. If it is a 1-4, one Physical ability is restored. If it is a 5-10, one Mental ability is restored. If it is a 11 or 12, one Social ability is restored. If it is a 13-20, one supernatural ability is restored."

That's what I said. There's a 4/20 chance for physical, 6/20 chance for mental, 2/20 chance for social, and 8/20 chance for supernatural. I think you must have skimmed the numbers or miscounted. Still, it's good that someone supports my idea.

Sorry, you're exactly right. I must have just skimmed over the numbers, because I'm sure I had read it with equal chances of regaining each attribute.

I was probably in the mindset of my card drawing idea, because that struck me as a more fluid way to replenish attributes when the numbers don't make nice round figures that match with dice sides...

V

If the numbers don't match the dice sides, why not use a simple calculator? If you use the Math function and probability on a graphic calculator, you can generate any number of dice of any number of sides (I'm in a stats class, so I just learned this today). It's a little complex, but once you get the hang of it, you can start generating d23s, d17s, d31s, etc.

Anyway, I think that proportional refresh rates are appropriate. I was also thinking about the characters having an ability that lets them refresh other abilities. For example...

Alacrity (Supernatural)
Description: You recover from using your abilities faster than normal.
Benefit: You can bid Alacrity at any time to refresh any other ability you have exhausted (except for Alacrity).
Special: You cannot refresh any ability you bid this turn, only abilities that were exhausted at the beginning of the round.

This way, the fighter can use up his 2 Supernatural slots for something useful (2 instant recharges for his weapon skill). Sure, he could take defensive abilities like "Blade-Proof Skin" or "Fire Resistant", but this is a more aggressive approach. Plus, he can use Alacrity to restore a Mental or Social ability in a dire situation.

Hi Rhet, couple of things:

1) you don't seem to define/expand the abbreviation ST anywhere. I assume it basically means GM, but it might be helpful to clear this up to help reduce the impression of complexity? I dunno.

2) As far as "similar games" go (not really all that similar, but they are diceless mechanics that a lot of Forge-goers may be likely to have as reference points), you might want to have a look at Mortal Coil and the Duel of Wits subsystem of Burning Wheel.

Chronologist wrote:
<snip>
Anyway, I think that proportional refresh rates are appropriate. I was also thinking about the characters having an ability that lets them refresh other abilities. For example...

Alacrity (Supernatural)
Description: You recover from using your abilities faster than normal.
Benefit: You can bid Alacrity at any time to refresh any other ability you have exhausted (except for Alacrity).
Special: You cannot refresh any ability you bid this turn, only abilities that were exhausted at the beginning of the round.

This way, the fighter can use up his 2 Supernatural slots for something useful (2 instant recharges for his weapon skill). Sure, he could take defensive abilities like "Blade-Proof Skin" or "Fire Resistant", but this is a more aggressive approach. Plus, he can use Alacrity to restore a Mental or Social ability in a dire situation.
<snip>

I'd suggest converting the single roll into one roll for each column at the end of each round. A simple d100 for each column, and a simple translation of the refresh rates into a probability that that column will refresh (do refresh rate of N into P(Refresh on this turn| Rate=N) = 1/N), so the 3/5/8/13 refresh rates turn into 33%, 20%, 12%, 7% (if you take the floor of each). That's a small difference in the number of rolls (+3), and you're guaranteed to get similar behavior as if you were doing the book keeping by hand.

To respond to Rhat,

Rolling d% sound good, but I still prefer laying out attributes in the 10/8/6/4 style and using a d20. It seems... cleaner to me. Of course, d% is easier if you have more than 20 traits. As I said before, if you have a graphic calculator, you can roll dice with any number of sides, plus I think there are some apps. on the internet that let you do that too.

I have figured out a way to solve the problem when you "recover" traits from a group you haven't used yet. Well, two actually. The first is that the roll is wasted. This encouraged players to use traits of all types during a fight.

The second way is that every time you would restore a trait from a column you haven't expended yet, you put a counter on your character sheet. When you have 3 counters, you can restore any trait you like. You can do this only as soon as the recharge roll is made (aka the beginning of each turn). So this way, it's a lot less efficient to play a character who only uses one or two types of traits, but it isn't impossible.

I have a few questions. First, can players "level up" and get more traits? Can some traits become more effective over time (giving them "ranks" or something)? I've toyed around with the idea, and I think it would be good if traits had "levels" of effectiveness.

For example, someone could have "Boxing 3". When Boxing is bid in a situation that it would excel at (like a fist fight), the player's bid would increase by 3. In situations where Boxing could be useful, but not directly related (like jumping across a chasm, a physical activity), you'd add 1/2 of Boxing's value, rounded down, to the player's bid (in this case, 1). If Boxing is bid in a situation where it is useless (a test of wits), no points are allotted.

This way you could set DCs in the game, and have a method of rewarding players by increasing the rank of their traits. It seems complicated, and it WOULD make the game harder to run, but you wouldn't have to assign arbitrary values to Traits anymore. Also, players could have a scale of how good their character is at something. This means of reward could replace increasing the number of traits (which would get really complicated after a while).

For your consideration

I've been musing on different ways to model refreshing traits, and here's some of the ideas I came up with:

1) Direct Expiration: in this model, which is the default one from the Quick-Start guide, each trait is simply unavailable for bidding after being bid for a set amount of time. Pros: simple, requires no randomizer, correctly models scarcity by making things unavailable when they would like to use them; Cons: lots of numbers to keep track of, players may not take "dramatic" liscence without breaking the rules.
2) Approximate Expiration: in this model, we replace the set timer based expiration discussed above with a probabilistic timer. For this model, at the end of each round, the player rolls a d100 for each trait that is not currently available for auction, and if the roll is less than some number (determined for the column, so there's only like 4 numbers to keep track of), then that trait is refreshed. Pros: only 4 numbers to track, very simple, accurately models scarcity; Cons: lots of potentially tedious die rolling (O(n)--it grows linearly with the number of traits spent, and is done every round), introduces dice into an otherwise diceless system.
3) Exact Buyback: in this model, we do away with the whole expiration model, and we replace it with a point-based refresh system. After you spend a trait, it does not naturally refresh, unless you pay a certain number of points for it. These "points" are abstract units only used for the buyback system (this may involve dice). You get a certain number of them each round, and you can spend or save them as needed. The cost is associated with the column, so there are only 4 numbers to track. Pros: simple, no repetitive die rolling; Cons: introduces new mechanics that are not used elsewhere, may allow for the RPG version of button-mashing because it does not properly assign a higher cost to more desirable traits.
4) Inexact Buyback: in this model, as the Exact Buyback model above, you have a cost and all that, but you don't get to choose which trait comes back when you pay the normal rate, one at random from the column refreshes (based on a die roll of some sort), but they can also buy back a particular trait at a higher cost. Pros: can be managed entirely by players, penalizes button-mashing; Cons: requires strange dN die rolls, still has dice involved.
5) Probabilistic Blind-Auction Buyback: in this model, instead of having a set price for a particular trait, we have a Uniform Random Variable in a range indicative of the relative difficulty of refreshing (basically, you have a die-roll and the refresh rate, and some formula that turns the two into a number). What the player does is, as he gets more points back after his round is over, he has the option of buying back any traits he has listed as spent. However, the way that he does this is by bidding a number of his points on each of them, and for each trait, you roll a die, and come up with a cost. If his bid is less than the cost, he loses those points and gets nothing, if it is equal or more than that cost, he gets the trait back. Pros: great way to model cost--with more valuable traits costing more, can be done by players without the ST doing the rolls (provided that they don't cheat on the rolls); Cons: requires 1 roll per trait, may just annoy players.

and, to respond to Chronologist:
I like how simple the counter system sounds, but there's probably a better way to represent scarcity in the refresh system. Of the ones I've mentioned above, I'd guess that 3 or 4 is the closest, though there isn't a direct mapping between "points" used to purchase a refresh on a trait, and the "counters" because the actual "cost" of the trait is not taken into account by the "counters". That's just my $0.02, though.

As for the  idea of assigning ranks, it works pretty well in the Marvel Universe RPG (they basically have the difficulty system set up so certain tasks are impossible without sufficient ranks in the relevant skill or attribute--it's very close to what you're describing), but I'd like to keep the premise that "Traits" are a brief description of something that the PC is capable of doing or a quality of the PC, rather than just a number. That way, the mechanics are based on the context (setting, scene details, PC details, and auction circumstances) of the challenge taking place. While it does add an additional burden on the ST, it also allows for a greater correspondence between the logical actions occurring and the results of those actions than just having some numbers move around.

For instance, if we have a Cthulhu Mythos setting, and a PC needs to make a check to avoid going insane after seeing something he shouldn't we have two different ways to do it. In most RPGs you lose a sanity point, or get a minus to your social rolls, or something like that. In this system, you'd get a note on your sheet that "Can't sleep, it'll kill me if I sleep" as a Disadvantage under the Mental column. Now, this gives us an immediate idea for later when the character does something where this particular brand of crazy will come up (like when he goes to nap on the couch). It really adds some meat (that is it gives people more to Role-Play with) to what would otherwise be a rather dull and annoying mechanic.

As for how to "level up", I think another example is in order:
Let's assume that we've got a character who has done something worth rewarding. How about a Samurai who has just won a duel using a Physical Trait called "Iaido: Quick Draw" (the classic pull-out-your-sword-and-cut-something attack from so many movies and TV shows). If the player wants his character to do his leveling up by replacing his existing technique with a more refined version of the same thing, he does the following: think up a good style for the replacement; come up with a good name for it; and then check to see if the ST is ok with what you've designed. So, lets say the player above wanted to replace "Quick Draw" with a version of the same thing that involved hitting the enemy harder than normal, but at the same speed, then he wanted to call it "Falling-Tree Quick Draw". If the ST thought that was a good upgrade, then great! You've "leveled up"!

However, adding additional traits gives you more things to bid, so upgrading Traits should either be easier to do, or should give you a comparatively larger advantage when using it.

Maybe it would be helpful to keep track of the revision history of the Trait? It might not be the same thing as a rank number, but it would at least tell folks how big the advantage should be at a glance. (I'll have to ponder this later).

...unless traits have a standard mechanical effect, but techniques are treated differently.

A trait might give a specific mechanical benefit of +1 to a task...the specific task being given the bonus depends on the nature of the trait.

A character can only spend one trait at a time unless they have a technique that allows the expenditure of multiple traits on a single task for increased benefit.

"Iaido: Quickdraw" may allow a play to play a +1 speed trait and a +1 swordplay trait simultaneously to combine their effects. The upgraded version may allow a player to add in a +1 strength trait to get the "Falling-Tree Quickdraw".

This has the benefit that all traits a worth the same amount, it keeps things simple. If you want to do something really fancy then you spend more traits to activate the technique effect. A secondary benefit is that trait regeneration can be kept simple, with single traits coming back one-by-one, so a player can quickly resume their activities with the single traits, or they can build up their energy reserves for the big flashy effects later.

[hr]

As for trait refreshment, an older (and many would say superior) version the miniatures game Confrontation had an interesting system for magicians to regain their magical energy.

Basically they have a pool of magic points that are depleted through casting spells. Each of these points are flavoured by the elements mastered by the magician (spells may cost one point to activate, multiple points of the same element, and some cost points of different elements). Spent points are put to the side and have a chance of regenerating in a certain phase of the game. These simply return by rolling a d6 per expended point, if the roll meets a threshold score, the point returns for the next round. Otherwise it stays unavailable.

Thus magicians could go all-out on a spell but risk rolling badly and not have any magic available for the next turn, or they could play more cautiously and have a steadily regenerating pool that never seems to run dry.

No tables to worry about, no variable costs between different types of tokens...if you have more traits of one type, and you spend more traits of that type, then you simply get more dice at the end of turn to regain traits of that type. If you were to use this sort of system, you'd probably expand the regeneration time-frame from rounds to 'scenes', hours or even days. The major con of this system (and many of the others on this thread) is that it introduces dice to a "diceless" system.

V

I like the idea of traits specifying what they're good at (+1 Strength, +1 Speed). This could replace my idea about ranks.

More later, I'm still considering these ideas. Some of these are really good.

I still like the idea of ranks to traits, not gaining more traits, and I like the idea of random recharge. It adds a sense of chaos to the game (plus, with 20 traits, you only need to roll a d20). If instead you want to roll for each trait, if you gave a 4 6 8 10 distribution, you can just roll d4, d6 etc. and regain up to 4 traits a turn, one of each column.

I've been thinking... is the purpose of this game to be fun? Competitive? Balanced? It seems to lean towards a cinematic-style game. If so, and the purpose is to have fun (and not to tie characters to lots of rules and such), I'd go for a faster recovery system. If it's a casual game, XP doesn't matter, just assume that players get better over time.

An early character, say, in a fistfight with an experienced brawler, would get thrashed after comparing his 3 traits versus his opponent's 4. Later on in the story, though, after considerable seasoning, if he bid 1 trait versus that guy's 4, he'd pound him flat with almost no effort.

The GM just has to assume that the players get better over time. That, or give the PCs better weapons and such that increase the value of their bids under certain conditions (like a sword that gives a +1 to your bid while you're bleeding, or a bow that inflicts harsher wounds when it hits).

That was an idea of mine. Every point you lose by in a fight inflicts "wounds". It's based off the original idea of having "Bleeding gash in the side" as a temporary complication. Basically, each character has a number of boxes, and each point they lose a Bid by in combat reduces these boxes. This either represents getting tired, being injured, running out of spells/ability to focus in combat, or just running out of luck. For now, let's call it Destiny (something from a game of mine).

Characters start with, say, 10 boxes. Each point they lose by in a bid, they check one box. At certain intervals, they start to gain complications OR modifiers. A thief being "hit" by an arrow. Low "damage" means it narrowly grazed him; his luck is holding out. Good damage could mean that he's cut and thrown off balance and gets the "Shaken" complication, giving him a -1 to his balance, acrobatic, and dodge bids. Severe damage could mean he's shot in the leg, and he gets the "Wounded Leg" complication, giving him a -2 to balance, acrobatic, and dodge actions, as well as moving at half speed.

Eventually, everyone can be killed, but in different ways. I'll use Lord of the Rings as an example. Fighters usually need to get shot or cut a lot before they die (ie. Boromir, Gimli). Some characters just get fatigued (most soldiers), some characters are lucky until they finally get "whacked" (Merry + Pippin, though they technically get captured), some die at critical plot points (Smeagol/Gollum, Saruman). They all die because they run out of Destiny, what fuels their character to survive.

I think it represents damage pretty well, as well as a method of advancement (increasing boxes over time, say, one per 2 sessions). Any feedback?

It's similar to what I use in the 8th Sea.

Everyone has a card rank with Ace(1) being low and King(13) being high, this is their Coherency (how strong their presence is in the story/timeline).

Everyone risks something when they go into a challenge. The attribute they use is literally on the line. If they are physically attacking, then they risk being wounded, if they are socially arguing then their ego is at risk, if they are thinking a way through an obstacle then their knowledge is put to the test, if they are dealing with unknown forces then their very soul could be at stake.

If the player loses the challenge, their attribute is literally dropped by a point (they have 10 points to spread across the four attributes). It becomes harder for them to achieve something similar in the future due to their injury, lose of face, or other negative that was applied through the combat.

Once a scene is over, a character has the chance to regain their strength. They spend the points of their coherency to regain the attributes they lost through challenges. In this way, a character with only 1 Coherency (Ace) has a single "Hit Point" before they are at the mercy of their opponents. A character with 13 Coherency (King) might get beaten down quite a few times, but they'll be coming back for more quite often.

If a player wins a conflict against an opponent, they may choose to either strip an attribute point from their opponent, or apply a penalty of some type (in much the same manner as you've described). These penalties can likewise be bought off with coherency points between scenes. The more substantial the penalty, the more costly the purchase to eliminate it.

Characters refresh their coherency in this game by fulfilling their own goals, staying true to their inner selves and asserting their place in the story/timeline. It's a system that rewards active play in a cinematic style.

[hr]

Applying this back to the system at hand though (especially noting that this is a diceless system), comparison of traits could work off a combination of the relevant attribute and the coherency/destiny pool. Players compare a total of their base traits, plus a hidden number of additional traits from their relevant pool. When even players face off against one another, the player who goes all out on the first round will have less bonus points to play with in subsequent rounds. When playing with two character who have similar techniques, but one has more experience (both have the same regular traits, but one has more bonus traits), then the experienced character will show their strength as the conflict progresses.

In this way, the destiny pool could be stripped of points temporarily to fuel powerful actions. Or it could be expended in a more permanent fashion for healing and overcoming long term effects.

Points spent temporarily could be regained at a rapid rate (one per round), or could be regained in different ways by different types of characters (a pacifist might regain a point every round as long as they are defending and don't attack...a cleric might regain a point every round that they pray to their deity...a berserker might keep scoring points every round that they successfully inflict damage on someone or something...)

Points spent in a more permanent manner might only return after a full night of rest, or after a solid contribution to the storyline that gives a character a renewed sense of self worth.

It all depends what the game system is trying to reward.

V

Cards seem a little... odd to me. They're objects of chance in a game whose purpose is not to have dice.

Sure, you need a d20 for my idea, but that's it. Also, cards DO seems little.. klunky. They might work, I don't know, but I think having a Destiny pools is a cinemagraphic way to go. Also, it doesn't inflict as harsh penalties as being reduced a card value or two. Plus, you can take Destiny "damage" to modify the plot of the story.

I thought up a new distribution (7-5-5-3) and the idea of having 4 different stats:
Physcial: Your strength etc. and physical abilities
Mental: Your mind, smarts, knowledge, wits etc.
Supernatual: Your supernatural powers, defences, or resistance to those things, also your Plot powers
General: grab bag of other things, like blacksmithing, driving, riding, etc. Also your Alacrity, if you have it.

Plot powers are basically powers you bid to change the plot of the story. The more you bid, the less Destiny you lose for the outcome. Bidding one on a major event might make you take 4 Destiny loss, while bidding 3 on something minor would be free. DM's discretion to the cost, but it almost always works.