I'm in a situation where I can approach the same thing in two different ways. 

Mechanically and statistically, these two approaches have the same result, however, they are presented in different ways.  I've left out quite a bit of information, but it's not necessary to understand the question I'm asking. 

First of all, the result:  People make plays where some plays are more powerful than others.  In the middle, stats are used to break ties.  This way, the weak can sometimes overpower the strong if the right cards get played. 

Let me know which you believe to be the easiest to grasp:

Method #1: Trumps

In a conflict, higher items on this list trump lower items on this list.  In case of a tie, escalate (face off again).

1) Joker (a)
2) Face Card (a)
3) A-10 (a) - break ties with stat
4) A-10 (na) - break ties with stat
5) Face Card (na)
6) Joker (na)

(a) = applicable to quality
(na) = not applicable to quality

Method #2: Points

In a conflict, the person with the highest number wins.  In case of a tie, escalate (face off again). (FYI, "stat" is usually 0-10)

Joker (a) = 10,000
Face Card (a) = 1,000
A-10 (a) = 100 + stat
A-10 (na) = 0 + stat
Face Card (na) = -10
Joker (na) = -100

(a) = applicable to quality
(na) = not applicable to quality

It's interesting.  Essentially in one method, the thinking is, "Where is my opponent's play in relation to my play," where in the other method, it's, "I got X points, what did you get?"  Which mental directionality do you think would be easiest for most players to wrap their head around?  Also, what are other factors?  Is there a difference in tone?  Does one seem more "fun," etc...

Many thanks for taking the time to look at my post. 

I myself prefer the first method, for the simple reason that it's simpler... "Points' don't add anything in this case, though I find it curious that a 1 on an applicable stat, even if it's lower than the opponent's, is still a winner over a non-applicable 10... Seems very random, which means the world's greatest boxer could still lose to that ill girl in bed, unless I'm missing something here...

Yes, it's intended to be an "anybody can win," kind of game.  More random kind of story-telling.  The stats are nothing like, "Strength," and instead things like, "Theme."  Interesting things happen when you succeed, interesting things happen when you fail. 

Thank you for your input!  I agree, in that I like #1 personally, because it does what it says. 

The reason I posted this is because I wondered if #2 is simpler because it's less relative, and more demonstrative.  You only need to look up one number in play, and then call it out.  Everyone already knows how to compare two numbers and decide which is greater.  Comparing two items in this list to determine which is greater takes an additional step.  Though, perhaps I'm wrong in my thinking. 

I'd totally run with the first option.

The points applied seem pretty superfluous, almost as though the actual point values don't really mean much they're just given to provide concrete numbers for the lowest common denominator.

In general, people who participate in roleplaying are reasonably smart (combining imagination and intelligence). Give them a simple trump system and they can focus on using the rules to tell stories, or engage the situation, rather than using the rules to engage the rules.

But that's just my way of running things.

V

The advantage of the first option, I think, is that it encourages the players to think of their conflicts as being in relation to one another (or in relation to an external force, or what have you). Converting the cards to a number encourages a sort of self-centeredness. Were I to be playing, the points system would make me think "I've got an ace, what does that do for me?"; the first system is more "I've got an ace, how does that compare to you?"

It's not a massive issue, in terms of the tone of gameplay. In fact, it's really slight, but I think especially in the sort of 'anything goes' realm you're talking about, keeping everyone's attentions on each other, rather than themselves, would be more appropriate.

Stellar feedback, everybody!  Many thanks for all those different perspectives.  The general view of role players, and the idea that comparison makes one care more about what others play was very useful.