Ok, so, I'm working on an idea and I figure rather than keeping it to myself and hoping for the best, I'd see if I could gather some opinions.

This is a system that is greatly inspired by Dogs in the Vineyard, which will probably be obvious in some ways. However, I'm looking to make something that can really encompass more than a moral puzzle--I'd like to be able to run an action oriented campaign as well as something more subtle.

Anyway, here are a few of the major aspects of the system that I'd like some opinions/comments on. It should be noted that, at the moment, I am aiming for a completely Luckless system. So any ideas on how to keep Luckless from being completely predictable would be appreciated as well.

INTENT
Every action you take in a conflict with an opposing force has an intent. There are 4 possible Intents.

> Persuade (Talking, yelling, seducing)
> Force (Pushing, Pulling, Mind Control)
> Wound/Damage
> Kill/Destroy

This aspect is definitely inspired by Dogs, however, rather than Dogs where simply using a knife means you can't deal "lethal" damage dice, or using a gun means you automatically are, this system deals specifically with the Intent of the action.

So you're going to hit someone with a baseball bat--Are you trying to knock them out or knock their head off? That's where the difference lies.

TENSION
Tension is a major aspect of the system, and one that I think could really make for some interesting situations.

Essentially, each scene has its own level of Tension, and a percentage of that Tension will carry over into the next scene.

Tension relates to how much damage the aforementioned Intents do. So, if a scene has low Tension, you are less likely to be able to kill Major Characters, while also being less likely to die yourself.

Tension raises in a few different ways.
1) Using Potential (action points) equal or greater than the Tension Level. So, if the Tension is at 3 and you use a 3-point action, the Tension will move to 4.

2) The first time each character draws a weapon will increase the Tension level by 1.

3) Advancing to the next level of Intent will increase the Tension level by 1.

Essentially you have the choice, much like in DitV, of keeping things calm and collected, but possibly failing the conflict, or escalating the situation at the cost of quite a few things.

POTENTIAL
A character is made up of their Potential. And in this system, Potential serves a few uses. It acts as the building blocks for characters, making up their "experience" which can be converted into Traits (ala DitV traits) or kept nebulous to be expended in more flexible ways (at a higher conversion rate.)

Beyond Character Potential, however, there is also Scene Potential, which is generated at the beginning of a Scene but is then added to by the actions of the Characters. Scene Potential is used in the Shaping Mechanic.

SHAPING
Shaping is a major part of the system. It allows both players and the GM to shape the game world as they see fit by expending Scene Potential.

For example, say that there is a dumpster in the scene. A player could expend Scene Potential to give that dumpster a trait like "Good Cover (5)" and then use it to hide, protecting from an attack. The trait is now stuck on the dumpster, however, and someone else could end up using said trait against him later on.

The players would have the option of shaping anything that makes sense. If they were in a mob bosses office, it would be reasonable to pull a gun from a drawer, while if you were in the middle of the desert, that might not be quite as feasible.

TRAITS
A Character is made up of Traits. Traits are similar to DitV in that they are what is used to determine the character's resources in a conflict.

This is something I haven't completely worked out yet.

My first option is that each character can only expend a trait once per Conflict.

My second thought is a sort of recharge rate--say you had a Trait at 5. You could spend as much of that Trait as you wanted, but would only regenerate 1 point of it per turn.

Either way, without dice being rolled, its a matter of actually figuring out how to determine a hit in a conflict, which is an obstacle I haven't quite conquered yet.

SHAPING
Shaping is a major part of the system. It allows both players and the GM to shape the game world as they see fit by expending Scene Potential.

For example, say that there is a dumpster in the scene. A player could expend Scene Potential to give that dumpster a trait like "Good Cover (5)" and then use it to hide, protecting from an attack. The trait is now stuck on the dumpster, however, and someone else could end up using said trait against him later on.

The players would have the option of shaping anything that makes sense. If they were in a mob bosses office, it would be reasonable to pull a gun from a drawer, while if you were in the middle of the desert, that might not be quite as feasible.

Mobius wrote:

SHAPING
Shaping is a major part of the system. It allows both players and the GM to shape the game world as they see fit by expending Scene Potential.

For example, say that there is a dumpster in the scene. A player could expend Scene Potential to give that dumpster a trait like "Good Cover (5)" and then use it to hide, protecting from an attack. The trait is now stuck on the dumpster, however, and someone else could end up using said trait against him later on.

The players would have the option of shaping anything that makes sense. If they were in a mob bosses office, it would be reasonable to pull a gun from a drawer, while if you were in the middle of the desert, that might not be quite as feasible.

I really like this idea.  It gives the players a way to have creative input but sets limits on what they can do. 

I'm also leaning towards Scene Potential being the PCs source of XP, essentially. So, when the scene ends, they split the Scene Potential or something--thus, using it to shape the story to their advantage takes away from their end rewards.

Well, the idea is to curb abuse of the system. If I didn't have it drain on them somehow, it could get kind of out of hand, I'd worry.

By allowing it to be a choice, I can increase the amount of Scene Potential available, allowing the potential for more improvisation, rather than being forced to restrict the amount of SP just to keep the players from cheesing their way through every challenge.

Obviously I'm willing to consider either way, but my gut tells me that without a trade-off, it'd be abused.

I am very intrigued by this proposal. DitV has great mechanics, and I would love a good extension of it.

My question is about the luckless part. What is your motivation there? I think a little randomness makes for better stories, because it allows for more emergent activity. It's also more "realistic" if that matters to you.

PeterBB wrote:
I am very intrigued by this proposal. DitV has great mechanics, and I would love a good extension of it.

My question is about the luckless part. What is your motivation there? I think a little randomness makes for better stories, because it allows for more emergent activity. It's also more "realistic" if that matters to you.

SAW,
  I am with mobius on this one. I think that you should encourage players to become more active in setting up the scene and adding more detail. Maybe the limiter should be that the points go to another player. That way you can't have one person hogging the scene embellishment every time. Or make the GM us SP points as well and the points the players use, go to him and the points that the GM use go to a pool the players can use to add detail.
  Or maybe, after they are spent they go into a pool that players can award to other players for adding something special to a scene?
  I don't think you have to worry about abuse. besides, that is more of a social contract issue than an issue that can be solved by rules, right?

Read all the forum threads you can on Nevercast for some thoughts on diceless system mechanics. Good stuff there, but even Ar Kayon uses a d4 for certain events that have more chance to them than others.
Your combat example is a good illustration. If you stand still and I punch at you, i have such a high chance to hit you that it is simply a given that i will. Now if you stand still and I throw a rock at you from 20 ft away, there is a significant chance that I will miss you. It's not for certain however, so having a luckless system where i go from hitting you 100% of the time, then change the range slightly and go to hitting you 0% of the time doesn't make much sense.
Having some mechanic for luck in your system can also cover the unintended. Back to combat, what are the chances that when I go to punch you i trip over my own feet and fall flat on my face? Very low, but i have in fact tripped over my feet at some point in the past and there isn't anything to say i won't do it right at a crucial moment like punching someone.
I can't see you having a game without any luck aspect without it being very complex so that the possible perumations to decide who wins or loses is so mind boggling that players can't think all the way ahead to the conclusion till they've already made their action.

Hi.  Can you give an example of how you see it playing out?  Like,  Fred wants to take Bob's bag of lollies, but Bob opposes it.  What ways can that play out in your system?

SAW wrote:
It should be noted that, at the moment, I am aiming for a completely Luckless system. So any ideas on how to keep Luckless from being completely predictable would be appreciated as well.

SAW wrote:
Generally someone doesn't just miss. The defender almost always has an active role in his not getting offed--if the defender doesn't interfere, then the attacker is likely (at least realistically) going to hit him. Luck isn't going to magically make him punch thin air, ya know?

SAW wrote:
Essentially, each scene has its own level of Tension, and a percentage of that Tension will carry over into the next scene.

SAW wrote:
Tension relates to how much damage the aforementioned Intents do. So, if a scene has low Tension, you are less likely to be able to kill Major Characters, while also being less likely to die yourself.

SAW wrote:
My first option is that each character can only expend a trait once per Conflict.

SAW wrote:
Well, the idea is to curb abuse of the system. If I didn't have it drain on them somehow, it could get kind of out of hand, I'd worry.

Shimera9 wrote: Would a "guess your opponent's move" approach work for you?  The classic "rock paper scissors" contest is semi-random but you may be able to get better odds if you can read your opponent.  A similar result could be gotten by jotting moves down on cards and revealing them at the same time.  You could then either have preset guidelines for which move wins or have a third party act as referee.

Another approach I've seen is using resource points to win.  A variant of that would be higher skill wins, but a character can pump their skill by making a sacrifice or accepting a penalty.  This can be combined with blind bids so opponents never really know how high the other player will go until the reveal.

That's what occurs to me off the top of my head.  Horomancer pointed out some other good leads.

So tension builds up with each scene and the only way to "put on the breaks" is inserting some low tension scenes? Does each scene have it's own tension level which carry over is added to or does the carry over just get used as the starting tension?

It looks like high tension screens are more risky but let you spend more potential without escalating things.  I take it that means high tension scenes are encouraging high powered actions.

Personally I like action dependent recharge, especially if you can tie it to character hooks and advantages.  The Fate system does a nice job of that.

I think a big question here is what kind of flow you want.  Without recharge you're looking at conflicts where opponents can get exhausted and may have to preform at traitless level.  This makes strategically conserving resources more valuable, especially if you can trick opponent into wasting theirs.

With automatic recharge, you ensure a certain minimal level of trait performance but make dropping even lower to build up power a valid tactic.

Another option is letting the trait level determine how many uses you get.  On way of handling that is letting the trait be invoked a number of times equal to it's level for a success.  Another option is saying each time a trait is used it degrades by 1 rank.  Thus you can use higher level traits more, but each use gives you less of an advantage.

I get your concern, but I'd be leery of tieing it your advancement mechanics.  I know when this kind of thing is done with personal xp reserves it can create a feedback loop.  The common cycle is players that stunt a lot have less xp so their traits grow less.  As a result they need stunting to make up for being behind on traits, which further stunts their growth.

You may be able to get around this by drawing on a shared resource.  However, in that case expect any use of this ability to be debated by the group as it drains everyone's resources and ability to progress.

Another way you could limit it is with a backlash mechanism.  For example, perhaps when one side invokes shaping they give their opponents an equal number of points to do the same.  That way if one side tries pulling out an advantage, the other side can do so to.  That could tie in nicely with the escalation theme you've got going.

Another thing you could do is let players expend traits on shaping, thus effectively transforming traits in play.  This could also be a way to bring some oddball traits into play.  For example, architectural knowledge could be expended to "find" a niche in the wall that acts as cover.

So, now as I'm pretty set on going with a die mechanic, I'm starting to wonder how players will react to not being the ones rolling the dice.

Do you think it will be accepted if the players aren't responsible for any die rolling? If they get to push forward an exact amount so that they know exactly what they are wagering, is that enough participation? Or is giving the GM all the rolling going to make the players feel too passive?

The idea is that the players get to narrate their attack and then push forward with the amount of points they want to represent that attack. The GM would then roll the dice to determine the results. The players would then get to narrate the wounds they deal out or the bad guys they kill.

Part of the reason I'm aiming for this approach is to possibly allow a GM-less option for the occasional dungeon-crawl (or even a communal story-telling experience because no one has to necessarily be "in charge"), but also because I really want the players to feel completely in control of what their characters are doing. They are going to be able to perfectly gauge their character's attack and defense potential--they just have no say over how their opponents are going to react.

To me, this feels like it'll be fun and refreshing (and even a bit more realistic), as in D&D I know it always seems strange that a goblin is always going to mount the exact same level of defense, and if I miss, its because my character decided to suddenly become clumsy or forget his years of fighting experience.

I'm just looking for on an opinion if you all think that that still gives the players enough to feel like they are active participants in the battle? I don't want it to feel like a passive experience.

Seems to be a mute point. If a player rolls or the GM rolls (or another player for that matter) the result is the same. It's something that could be determined by the people playing.

horomancer wrote:
Seems to be a mute point. If a player rolls or the GM rolls (or another player for that matter) the result is the same. It's something that could be determined by the people playing.