So I got some great feedback on my table top game GaC which I have taken to my creative processing center to chop shop and further develop the “right direction” for my games base mechanics; But I would also like to get some opinions on my semi Buddhist inspired larp the Empty Palm system.
The idea behind the system is that the mechanics relate to the first 3 Buddhist noble truths. With the 4th noble truth (the eight fold path) acting as a sort of social contract for players personal actions.

The idea is that pain is inevitable, and acceptance of the inevitable through understanding loss is the first step to progress. The idea is that each player caries a deck of cards numbered 1-10 and when they go to take actions they choose which number they will add to their attribute + mod to determine success! The catch is that they must then not use the number they have chosen until they cycle through the rest. The catch is that when the characters take actions which cause them pain they in turn can gain “enlightenment” which is basically Dogs in the Vineyard style fallout.

My problem I am having is balancing the refreshing pools. The first method I would use to resolve this would be to determine that unless your characters performs an action which causes them pain even if you lose the test you gain no enlightenment. One thing I am trying to think of how to counteract though are players who know that something “big” is coming up for example so they make menial checks that they don’t care about losing or know they can pass in order to refresh their pools. On method I was thinking of using was to make sure the players had to track the number of checks they made each session which would directly effect there enlightenment pool but I was not sure how it should.

Any opinions or ideas would be greatly appreciated!

Why not scale the refresh to the amount of risk incurred by the player?

If no risk, then no refresh.
If low risk, then low refresh.
If high risk, then high refresh?

You need to balance risk and reward here. Some endeavors have to be unrewarded. Some endeavors must be rewarded. The exact result of an endeavor -- either the outcome or the reward -- must be uncertain. Uncertainty will encourage the players to gamble for the reward.

-L

Seth,
 Cool idea.
 First, I would suggest "Insight" instead of enlightenment. Seeing as Enlightment is like pregnancy, you can't be partly enlightened, lol

 OK, back to serious matters:
1) I like the diminishing resources idea.
2) Personally, I would not get too hung up on refreshing pool. It seems to me that if you penalize players for refreshing often, then players will disengage from the system so as not to deplete their critical resources too early. In others words, if you make a resource too scarce, players will hoard instead of spend.
3) I like the idea that you just get 10 cards back when you run out of cards. Maybe to prevent min/maxing, make every card throw a win/lose situation. Right now, you leave the impression that every time you throw down a card, you win or lose, never both. But, what if you always got both. The difference being who gets to decide what you win or lose. Like maybe if you beat your target, you get to decide what you gain or lose and the other player/GM gets to decide what's left. And vice versa, if you lose, the other player get5s to pick what you win or lose first, and you get to pick what's left.
4) For instance, I am on a country road and a lone bandit demands my food (he can see I have no money).
I have a 2 and an 8, my skill or whatever is only 3. I need 6 or higher to make my target.
If I throw a 8, I can either decide how I defeat him or decide what it costs me to defeat him.
If I throw an 2, the GM gets to decide first what the bandit gets from you or what you get from the encounter and you can decide the other.

 Just a thought, good luck with your game.

Actual I really like the idea of split narration! One of my concerns was in players encounter a big conflict and then having some other big thing they knew they wanted to succeed at so in turn going to another player and for example asking to play a couple games of checkers, and darts in game to blow through all their cards to refresh so they could wallop the next task ahead.
I was thinking since the players get insight/enlightenment when their character takes pain, why not have pain be the resource that allows them to refresh when they hit zero cards. As an example:

1 insight can be used to add an extra card to the task (if you really want to win) and discard both.
2 insight could be used to draw a previously used card in an emergency situation
(note to draw an old card and add it to a second card in your hand would be 3 insight)
1 insight could be used to refresh your hand when you hit zero.

Players not willing to grow from their painful experiences and simply blow through insight to win at everything might find themselves unable to refresh their hands and some serious pain to get insight back.

Opinions?

Regards, Seth

Seth wrote: One thing I am trying to think of how to counteract though are players who know that something “big” is coming up for example so they make menial checks that they don’t care about losing or know they can pass in order to refresh their pools.

You mean that the gm would just tell the character yes you succeed without allowing a “draw for it”?
If so I think that would actually work as a valid option, maybe just assume that if a character is in a non-threatening situation they are assumed to give a standard average effort. This could be justified in that nothing is pushing the character to accidently make a mistake or forcing them to go above and beyond to rise to the situation.
Regards, Seth

Seth,
 I like your idea of spending insight for bonuses and refresh. One thing I wonder is, what else is Insight good for? Maybe build in something in the game that benefits you to keep it? Like maybe you current Insight pool is the target number to affect you with chi or magic-based attacks.

  Also, ditv does this well, say yes or roll the dice. What that means is, unless it matters to you, then the character succeeds. A dog wants to jump a high fence, say "yes" unless somehow it matters to you. A player wants to convince a shopkeeper to donate some supplies to "the cause" say yes, unless it matters to you for some reason. It doesn't really depend on "realism" or skill levels as much as it depends on a sort of cost/benefit analysis on the part of the GM. In other words, how much time or effort will it burn to roll for it, and what do you get if you decuide to roll for it. If it seems more fun to roll for it, you do, otherwise, they succeed.

Seth wrote:
You mean that the gm would just tell the character yes you succeed without allowing a “draw for it”?
If so I think that would actually work as a valid option, maybe just assume that if a character is in a non-threatening situation they are assumed to give a standard average effort. This could be justified in that nothing is pushing the character to accidently make a mistake or forcing them to go above and beyond to rise to the situation.
Regards, Seth