Scoring - The Feel of Speed

Saving Throws is a Diplomacy Style game mixed with betting moreso than simulating the nature of agreement and disagreement in war. What started out as a roleplaying trainer has become something else entirely, something related to bluffing, betting, betrayal, and scarce resources. 

The issue at hand with whatever this game is becoming is to determine how to deal with: 

1. Speed of Tallying (how fast you can see what score you got)
2. Strategy (maximizing score versus not maximizing at all)
3. Treachery (a core Diplomacy tactic)

Over the years, i've found that I am not a fan of balance in games as a design aesthetic. It feels artificial and often situates itself within the early parts of a game and then disappears later on. I am a fan of rubber banding though as I think it lends itself not to balance, but to strategy with Mario Kart being the exemplar there. 

But lately, i've been focusing on games like Diplomacy, Dune, and Borderlands while thinking about betting games like Poker, Euchre, or Hearts. Those games are not really balanced by their systems but by the social skills of the players at the table juxtaposed by the point system or resources of the game. Many of former types of games can last hours, days, even years depending on the frequency of orders while the former can be complete in minutes. To me, there is a way to meld these without relying on a codified betrayer like in Werewolf, Avalon, or whatever Zombie game.

I feel like there's a space that can accept certain kinds of negotiation, betting, and treachery in a smaller package than grandiose games with plans within plans. And so what Saving Throws is shaping up to be is strategies surrounding resources at the table which are are the points given to the attributes, the number of rounds, and the type of challenges that are randomly determined. 

Where the crux of the design will sit is trying to balance the speed of games like poker with the slow strategizing and discussions of diplomacy.

The loop I had in mind is relatively clean, I think: 

1. Roll encounter type. 
2. Charisma player sets challenge mark. 
3. Major and Minor attributes are chosen and ante must be checked.
4. Discussion.
5. Orders / Betting Submission.
6. Resolution. 
7. Scoring.
8. Repeat until each player is Charisma.

My hope is that each round takes about 10 minutes meaning that a 6 player game will take about an hour. I also wanted to avoid print-and-play as well as fancy pieces. Just a group of friends sitting around a table with a pad of paper. Or, in the age of COVID, this game can be played via chat rooms, voice and video chat, or via forum.

With the feel in mind then, the question becomes, "So how should scoring work?"

Right now, i'm feeling that hearts has the right feel. As a result, this pass looks like this: 

Charisma
Your point base begins with your unused points *2. For example, if you used just 1 of 3 points, your score would begin at 2*2 or 4. 

Charisma scores points: 

1. The score over (success) or under (failure) the target number *2. For example, if you set a target number of 6 and the adventurer succeed with a 12, you add 6*2 or 12 to your score.

Everyone else gains points if there is a success: 

1. Each player on the winning team gains +2.
2. If it was the major attribute, gain an additional 2 with the major attribute player gaining a total of 4.
3. If it was the minor attribute, gain an additional 3 with the minor attribute player gaining a total of 5.

So each round, one player has the potential to gain a significant bump in points with a small smattering of points for succeeding in a saving throw.

Maybe too simple? Maybe not?