The Forge Archives

Alright, homeboys. This is what I've got it down to:

Killin’ (an’ doin’)
STRength
DEXterity
STAmina

Thunkin’ (an’ clevers)
PERception
INTelligence
WITs

Talkin’ (an’ plottin’, an’ lookin’)
CHARisma
MANipulation
APPearance

I've just realized these are standard for WW stuff. Either way, it is in no way meant to be groundbreaking (in the context of breaking ground) nor earthshattering (ooh, we wouldn't want that). Just what I think is a nice and well-rounded listy of attributes.

P.S. I think you will agree it is by far the most Ultimate on a scale of one to Ultimate.

Why do you need 9?

Seems like Killin, Thinkin', and Talkin' do the job with much more color and much less fuss.

Want more differentiation?  Add descriptors or modifiers.

Killin' (Brick Shithouse)
Thinkin' (Smarter than your average rock)
Talkin" (Two or Three words anyway...on a good day)

Bam, done.  The rest of that stuff gives me the shivers.

I agree with Ralph, with the caveat that it depends on what kind of game your making.  The 3 headings seem indicative of a certain type of setting, they add good color and you can easily abstract all the sub attributes from the main 3.

I have used almost the same abilities, but I have only Charisma, and I'm not yet sure about its all uses? What are the differences between your charisma, manipulation and appearance?

Oh, and this isn't nearly as bad as the system I am using, where there are Str/Dex for general sporty actioncs, str + constitution(or stamina) for long runs and dex+int for reflexes...

- Endoperez -

You forgot a category.

Hopin'
Drive
Passion
Destiny

(yes, I forgot Faith, Conscience, and Luck, but I never liked luck, and conscience and faith can be rolled into drive or passion...)

;-)

yrs--
--Ben

Hehe. I agree with Valamir. That makes much more sense.

To create an accurate model of the Universe, you'd have to make a construct larger than the Universe itself.  Thusly, all games are abstractions of possible actions.  In these cases, I think it is an excellent list of commonly used attributes.  This is not to say that these are the be all and end all.  They could be condensed, expanded, redistributed, et al ad infinitum.  Say you had an RPG where all the PCs were brains in jars...  then the character sheets would suddenly contain many more mental attributes than physical (Dodge would be a difficult attribute to justify, no?).  Such is the nature of being.   One could easily create an infinitely large list of attribute scores to rate and roll against... but that would be an exercise in madness.

So, you know...  good list.

If you're creating a finite list of traits for your game, you should be very selective about the traits make the final cut. Whatever skills, attributes or talents you put into your game are a subtle way of telling the players what they will likely be doing when they play your game. The abstraction of some traits ("athletics") and specification of others ("social engineering") is another way of showing what sorts of activities are most relevant to your game.

But, if you want to run a "surprise game" (where everyone makes a normal, modern-day human character, and finds out what the genre is once they're playing, the 9-attribute list is about as good as it gets.

(I'm a big fan of the surprise game... the players can't really maximize their characters for any one task, which leads to more well-rounded characters. Also, without kewl powerz at first, they have to actually create lifestyles, motivations, and personalities.)

I'm using the nine attribute system for both of the (non-commercial) games I'm designing (although my superhero universe replaces Stamina with Toughness, since superheroes don't experience muscle fatigue like normal humans do).

-Jeff

Forgive such an obvious question, but doesn't Storyteller have the exact same attributes?

Personally, I always saw Manipulation as more of a skill than an attribute.  I also can see as much justification for splitting Dexterity into Agility and Precision as I can see for having Strength and Stamina separate (and either way would work).  I also think Willpower should be an attribute, but Storyteller uses Willpower a bit differently and gives it more attention.

Then there's attributes from other games like Cool, Chutzpah, Faith, Angst, Sanity, etc.  Depends on what's important.

Bad Omen, there can't possibly be an "ultimate" list of attributes; it's much to dependent on what you intend to do with them.

When I was brought on board to help design Multiverser, it had fourteen attributes already, and I left those intact. The list is

• Persuasion
• Charisma
• Animal Magnetism
• Strength
• Stamina
• Resistance
• Density
• Hand/Eye
• Agility
• Flexibility
• Intellect
• Intuition
• Education Level
• Will Power[/list:u]It struck me that there were a few things that could be attributes that had not been covered, but fourteen was already a solid list; it also had a certain balance, since I could see that there were seven physical and seven non-physical attributes. Although some of these did not appear necessarily to be attributes in the traditional sense, they were used as attributes in play, and so needed to be there. Multiverser is designed to facilitate converting any real or imagined person, character, or creature into game stats, and to simulate quite a large chunk of unlimited different realities, so it needed a lot of mechanics on which to build that.
  
  For what it does, it may well have the ultimate list of attributes.
  
  On the other hand, Legends of Alyria has three: Force, Insight, and Determination.
  
  Force is not strength; you can be a ninety-eight pound weakling and have an incredible level of force, if that's the kind of person you are. There was a business teacher in my high school who was all of about four foot eight who was such a fierce individual that the worst hoodlums in the school were afraid of her. You could, on the other hand, be able to lift a car with one hand and not have a significant force, if you're really the sort of cowardly lion who wouldn't hurt a fly or insist on your own way in a confrontation. Strength is irrelevant; force is what matters.
  
  Similarly, insight does not mean you're necessarily brilliant--you might be, or you might just be very good at understanding what's going on. Determination might be the equivalent of will power, but it covers a lot more.
  
  Legends of Alyria doesn't need any more attributes than that. A strength score would actually be counterproductive to the game's objectives; a dexterity score would be more so. There is no attribute you could add that would make the game system more effective at what it does.
  
  Ultimate lists of attributes really aren't much use, because they are only ultimate within the context of the game system objectives, and that means you've got to know what you're doing with them before you know which ones you need.
  
  --M. J. Young

Hasn't this been done already for English?

I think some guy named Roget did it a while back, and various heirs of his have kept up as the language has changed.  The book--I forget the title, but it sounds like some kind of dinosaur--is now in its third edition, I believe.

--JB, that lump you see in my cheek is just a large mint

Ok... kind of new to this forum.... so I'll bite....

... J B BELL ...
  Would you be talking about a Thesaurus?
  Did you know that there isn't a synonym for that word, which is kind of funny!
  Where you being facetious;
(fu'seeshus) -
1) Cleverly amusing in tone.
Syn=tongue-in-cheek, bantering.


Still, kind of glad to see no "It's this way, it's the best" statements here!  You have no idea how wonderful that is to see, (or not as the case actually is! LOL).

  So, as a quick question, considering people seem so broad minded , what are peoples reactions to contactable/expandable statistics.  Those that permit you to choose whether you want to play with generalistic stats, such as Body, Mind and Soul, or more detailed, exploded versions of those three, so Body would become Strength and Constitution, those two might then become Muscle & Force, Endurance and Health etc., so you range from 3 Stats through 6. 9, 12, 15 to 21 stats in total ?
  Would people find this useful, enjoyable, having some potential, or just redundant, inane, useless, unneccessary etc?

conceptually thats been done for a long time with skill lists.  Lots of games have gone from packages, down to skills, down to specialties, and even down to sub specialties.  I don't remember any that drilled that deeply on the attribute side, but I don't see a reason why you couldn't do that.

The question would be for me "what's the advantage".

I'd much prefer to have a game where the attributes were chosen by the designer specifically not because they represent a universal list that covers everything but precisely because they make a very specific statement about the nature of the game and or its setting.

For instance, one under-appreciated game here on the Forge is Ron's Mongrel example from the simulationist essay.

In that game one of the attributes is "beauty".  Not as a proxy for charisma or force of personality, or presence or anything of the kind.  Simply because actual physical beauty is important to the culture of the setting.  Its what members of that culture would rate each other on, and therefor its an attribute...regardless of questions of "what skills would you use it with".

Even better, is that the attribute is part of linked pair that must sum to 8.  Which means as one attribute gets higher, the other must get lower.

The other attribute in that pair is Physique.

Whoa, double check, does that say what I think it says?

Yup.  As Physique goes up, Beauty goes down.  As Beauty goes up, Physique goes down.  

In other words, for this culture, for this setting, big mighty muscles are considered profoundly unattractive.  Beauty then must be set by slender, petite, waif-like, elven, effete standards.

Is that a universally applicable truth?  No, but it is a truth for the culture specific to Mongrel and I find that level of setting specific information being embedded directly into a games attributes to be very appealing.

As I recall, BESM/the TriStat family have provisions for such things; I'd consult TriStat players to see how they use them.

Well, the long attribute list seems to me to be one of the first pitfalls many fledgeling game designers fall into. It's fun to come up with a big attribute list.

We did it over at Happy Nebula Adventures -- our system uses 10 attributes: Agility, Speed, Strength, Vigor, Appearance, Demeanor, Intelligence, Knowledge, Perception and Tenacity.

If I had it all to do over again (it's a bit late now, we've got three different fully written games using this system) I'd get rid of at least two, and possibly more. For example, Appearance, which realistically does very little ranging towards nothing in our very combat-related games. Intelligence I would dovetail into knowledge for the simple reason that you can make a smart character, but the character still isn't going to act any smarter than the player. It's generally only useful for a player playing a character that's dumber than they are.

For example, in your list, I wonder why Charisma and Manipulation really have to be two different attributes -- Most of the skills I would normally think of as Charisma-based should technically go under Manipulation like Persuasion, Con, Bribe, etc. Leaving Charisma covering -- what exactly? Also, I've never been a fan of Wits -- it dovetails so easily into Intelligence. While yes, I have known people that were plenty smart but not quick thinkers, it just seems to me to not be a useful distinction most of the time in an RPG.

You might want to think about listening to those who suggested going with the Killin', Thinkin' and Talkin' overattributes. Not that I'm generally in favor of that over-simplification, I feel while 10 may be too many, three is too few... But the overattributes you came up with are fairly simple, defining and interesting.

Just thought I'd add that one reason for attributes that is not often listed but is very important is in describing a character.  When designing a system, I didn't want the stats to really have that much focus in game play.  I debated having minimal stats, like Body, Mind, and Spirit or something, to reflect that.  After consideration, I decided to go the other way and have 10 stats that really aren't very important except in describing the character by where his priorities are.  For example, one concept would have higher priority in strength and stamina over intelligence (jock), one would have appearance and charisma over willpower and precision (princess), etc.  I think players often look over the attributes of a character first to get a "feel" for it.

Hey Scourge.  As an alternative may I suggest using descriptors attached to a more brief attribute list to get the same effect.

So yes Strength 17, Dexterity 13, Constitution 16, does tell you more about the character than simply Body 15.

And differentiates from the character who is Strength, 15, Dexterity 18, Constitution 13


I submit that:

Body 15: Rippling Physique vs.
Body 15: Cat Like Grace

Accomplishes the same thing without adding more attributes that don't serve much purpose.  

If the point of the attributes is to enhance character description...then my recommendation would be to simply go with character description in the attributes.

(and yes, I do blame Ron Edwards for having corrupted me with this).

As others have mentioned, there is no 'ultimate attributes list'. Some games have no attributes, or treat them as a special kind of skill; other games have them, but use a wide range, with different sorts of priorities.

I would always ask: what do you want the attributes to do in your game? That should tell you what you need.

One kind of designer thinks that they need to simulate 'the' essential features of a character. Essential relative to what? (And then often after they've more or less successfully sweated out their desire to simulate what they want to simulate, they go back and worry that the list isn't balanced for competitive play. Well, but, you weren't designing it for that...!) Even if your game is supposed to reflect the underlying 'physical reality' of your game world in a really accurate way, which most aren't, you still have to make a decision about this.

Two examples from my own abortive and miserly hoarded game design efforts:

1) Attributes measure the force a character can bring to certain types of conflict. In a game I've worked on on and off (Gods and Heroes), which has a neat central conceit and mechanic (IMO, obviously) but isn't 'about' enough yet to be worth finishing, there are four: Prowess, Magic, Cunning, and Heart. Heart allows player narration of the sequels to bad conflict outcomes, while the other three are bid to determine how a conflict gets resolved, with a combination of highest combined bid and rock-paper-scissors determining the answer.

2) In the perpetual effort expended on my endless series of Fantasy Heartbreakers, now finally slowing down after discovering the Forge (thank you all once again!), I ripped off Alyria's distinction between a stat which influences, a stat which resists, and a stat which allows knowledge. I first split these up into Physical and Spiritual versions of each, giving

Physique (Physical, Influence)
Mettle (Physical, Resistance)
Awareness (Physical, Knowledge)
Charisma (Spiritual, Influence)
Will (Spiritual, Resistance)
Intelligence (Spiritual, Knowledge)

and then, because it's a fantasy heartbreaker, allowed submodifiers to Physique and Mettle along the usual Strength/Dexterity (Fortitude/Reflexes) axis.

So on one level that looks like - and in a sense is meant to be - completely conventional fantasy stat stuff, but even so there's a difference. The question was not 'what does the stat simulate' but 'what do you do with it'? If you're lifting a rock, you're using Physique (Strength) to influence something physical; if you're avoiding taking damage in combat, you're using Mettle (straight); if you want to know something, roll Intelligence; if you want someone else to do what you say, roll Charisma; etc. A cunning bit of magic theory allowed me to interpret Will rather than Charisma as the core stat governing magic use, and away I went.

----------

Hope that was vaguely interesting to someone. I just wanted to throw my voice in with those saying that the original question was somewhat problematic, and try to give some simple examples (axis of conflict/type of action) of non-simulation-driven choices for fundamental attributes in RPGs. Blood of Haven was what really brought this home to me, with honorable mention to "Cover" in Sorcerer (...and just like that, the problem of the skill list in the non-skill-driven game was solved - like a bolt of lightning in my little world...) as what first made me realize there were alternatives out there to the standard stat design mentality. Apologies to Seth and Ron if this post mangles your concepts: credit for anything good here you deserve in abundance, but blame for my mistakes and ignorance none.

QuoteA cunning bit of magic theory allowed me to interpret Will rather than Charisma as the core stat governing magic use, and away I went.

I'd be interested in hearing, if you'd care to start a thread on it,

what the cunning bit of magic theory was, and why using charisma to influence, will to resist, and intelligence to know wasn't your preferred solution.

Quote from: ValamirHey Scourge.  As an alternative may I suggest using descriptors attached to a more brief attribute list to get the same effect.

If the point of the attributes is to enhance character description...then my recommendation would be to simply go with character description in the attributes.

(and yes, I do blame Ron Edwards for having corrupted me with this).

Yeah, I considered going that way, and still haven't ruled it out.  I just thought I'd experiment with something different to achieve a similar effect.  Basically, I'm thinking having a list of attributes, and have the player prioritize them for the character.  The actual scores don't matter so much as what your top preferences are.  That helps the players that aren't as good with descriptions, and takes some emphasis away from the actual score of the stat.  I know too many players who are not satisfied unless their character has phenomenally high stats, feeling puny if not maxed out.  I'm hypothesizing that this might reinforce the idea of arranging stats to fit the character concept instead of obsessing about numbers.

I would have to say that, overall, I tend to be a fan of a two stat system (some of you may be aware of my absolute HATE for "systemizing" social ability... as roleplaying is a social activity): Mind and Body.

However, I do tend to break those two stats into a binary system:

Body gets subgrouped into "ability to whoop ass" and "ability to have ass whooped" (with an occasional subcategory of "ability to avoid ass whoopage"... which I find slightly unnecessary in most cases, as it can be rolled into the second of the above subcategories)

Mind can similarly be noted as "ability to mentally whoop ass" and "ability to have ass mentally whooped"

In the end, these seem to be the only true numerical reasons to have attributes.  However, if your system rests in less numerical or calculative (is that a word?) methods for resolving conflict involving attributes, then go with a system of adjectivity ("brick shithouse" "beefy" "completely physically useless" etc.).  Keeping in mind that a majority of games only have attributes to reference the four above points of ass-whoopage (again, completely ignoring social systems... having a fortune or karmic system to deal with "talky shit" is ricockulous to me), I find that the only real modifications that are needed are in the titling of them.  Call 'em strength, mind, whatever, in the end, it tends to be the same.

There are always a few exceptions to every rule, but overall, unless you are designing a system that goes beyond roll-compare-consult, there is little need to discuss attributes beyond the big 4.

Dav (pausing for a moment to toss a couple cents at the subject)

OK, what I'm getting from this is that attributes can be divided into 2 basic categories: Physical and Mental.  Mental can sometimes be subdivided into social, spiritual, etc., but you do need something seperate from physical characteristics.  Something to measure how well you affect the physical world, and your effects on the immaterial.

Then, in deciding what attributes to have, you need to decide what you want them to do.  How much force you can inflict and how much you can take seem to be two important ones, so you end up with strength and endurance/stamina/constitution for physical, and charisma and willpower for mental.  You can also decide to have stats to measure how well you maneuver, so get dexterity and wits.  Or you can add the information gathering stat, perception or awareness for physical, and intelligence for mental.  I'm sure I could go on for a while discovering new ones, so it's obvious this can get out of hand quickly.  It seems most people seem to be in favor of limiting the amount of stats as much as possible, keeping only those that are important to maintain the game's flavor.  A courtroom drama RPG probably wouldn't even need a strength score (that's what the bailiff is for).  Someone in an athletic-based RPG might need several strength scores (throwing strength, lifting, etc.), depending on the focus.

Overall, I think you'e pickin' up what I'm puttin' down (I dunno, it just sounds cool).  Here is the key to me:

"A courtroom drama RPG probably wouldn't even need a strength score (that's what the bailiff is for)."

Yes, so why not make the Strength score "Bailiff"?  Nothing restricts you from this.  Why get locked into standard definitions and uses.  A courtroom drama has EXTREME need for strength in my opinion, as without it, you have just that: a courtroom drama.  

I mean, everyone expects a courtroom drama to have "Lying", "Persuasion", and maybe some investigative or nitpicking ability.  But instead, why not have attributes like this: "Honesty", "Outburst", "Bailiff", and "Soulful Gazes"?  Defy the expectation.

I know it seems I may be arguing the devil's case here, but follow me:

High- Action games:  
try these sample attributes:
-Lookin' Good Doin' My Thang: 5
-Makin' an Ass Out of the Bad Shit: 3
-Bein' a Top: 4
-Bein' a Bottom: 2

The general idea would be that whenever an attribute comes into play, you use it.  For instance, I'm gettin' down and dirty on some punks in a scrapyard... well, it's time to show them who's boss.  I'm not interested in looking good for the crowd, I want to focus on them, so I use "Makin' an Ass Out of the Bad Shit" and "Bein' a Top".  Meekness and looking good are secondary to making certain my message comes across.  

Even better, the player picks one attribute he or she feels applies, and the recipient (the GM or another player, or whatever) picks one that he or she feels applies.  Combine the two attributes and do something with them (this is where some degree of a fortune mechanic would come in, or perhaps a simple karma situation, comparing the result to some consultation method (like a chart... damn, charts)).  Perhaps major adversaries or other players get some more dynamic conflict system, and the minor shit gets a quick-karma comparison for resolution. (Always a fan of gettin' through the little shit fast)

In the end, however, I've still got a small gathering of attributes that can, if you like, be given names like:
Strength, Constitution, Wits, Willpower

But the idea is that if you leave them vague, the lines can blur.

Lookin' Good Doin' My Thang has so much more than any of the 4 old boring ones will ever have.  I can use this for Wit situations (figuring out the four digit code while the cute girl is watching), or Consitution (those pesky drinking contests, or walking the line for the cops, for instance), or Strength ("don't worry, I got this" <HEAVE> "ooo, that was a hernia").  But it will only apply when the need to impress is there.  

The same goes for the other three.  Bein' a Top is all about getting hardcore... and, well, you get it.  

I've seen games that have attributes like: Avarice, Depravity, Lust, etc.  Others have Doin' Stuff, Having Stuff Done to You... or what-have-you.  

Now, which sounds better:

Str, Dex, Con... or Depravity, Avarice, Lust?  

The first part of designing a new game comes from realizing that the games of the "usual suspects" (y'know, d(shudder)20 stuff) are already there.  And, while they may seem puerile or, at the very least, stunted, they adequately accomplish what needs to be done.  We all know what a high Strength means in any game... and I'm sure any one of us could look at a game with the big standard stats and have the system ready-steady-go in about ten minutes... but why not take the attribute idea to a new position and make it have a meaning for your game?

Anyway, just some thoughts...

Dav

Though I agree with the idea that Stats are there to be used in the game, therefore there is nothing wrong with the view that certain stats may be redundant in certain situations....I have two key areas that keep me thinking about retaining stats in general...

1)   Play and Character.... to often people expect a Player to be able to respond seperately from the Character, and vice-versa.  Intelligent Players may be able to role play a dumb Character, yet the other way around is impossible.  Further, some people just can't act out, role-play or get into character in that fashion.
  Then you have situations where people aren't picking up on clues, can't remmber what was said, or otherwise fail to get the significant stuff being laid out in front of them or blatantly being hit with!
  In these situations, have Stats is a fallback method!  They are there to cover peoples backsides when they fail to perform as required.

2)   So what do we do now..... there are times when things just don't work out... something is missing or simply doesn't make sense.  It's not anyones fault, nor the games... Human nature is not easy to predict, and trying to cover the majority is tough, let alone the oddball with the whacky sense of humour or the person with off the wall ideas and solutions!
  So, in an intense combat game, the Character faces of three adverseries, the Player realises theres a good chance the Character is about to die, and opts to discuss the problem...hmmm, so what stat does this?
  Games use Karma points, yet have no stats relating to religion, faith or luck!
  The mighty court room drama game, when alcapone leaps over and starts stabbing the DEA... yet theres no agility, aim, strength, force or attack and defence stats.....
  Again, the stats are there as a back up!

  I agree that having a whole host of redundant stats is of no use to any one, yet having some stats are are rarely used is fine.
  The same way some people dislike having these stats is the same as my dislike as not having them, bundling them with another stat just to tidy things up, or using descriptors that will only ever apply to certain things and serve little other purpose.

  As a solution, I thought having the choice of the stat type would be nice...simply having the Three general Body, Mind and Soul, and then breaking them down to a level of detail that suits you, would solve this problem.
  As far as I know, it should even be possible to have them mixed, so you can keep the less important stats in low number, such as just have Mind and Soul, then break Body down into 7 other stats as the game sort of requires alot of physical detail.
  Then, if you have traits as well, you can add those little names and alterations to stats that you wanted as well...thus the Trait, Wise beyond years would turn the Mind or Soul stat from a 15 to a 20 in respect to any wisdom based checks etc.

does that make sense?
PArticularly for a system that is meant to be general and flexible?

At the end of the day, you know what your intending, you know what you want.... all you have to decide is how flexible or rigid you are going to be getting there!  Hey, if you want to keep it, you don't have to justify it, same as if you want shot of it, shoot it!

Quote from: AutocratIntelligent Players may be able to role play a dumb Character, yet the other way around is impossible.

You know, this is axiomatic in role playing games; I've probably said something like it myself. I've also noticed that highly charismatic players have a very difficult time playing dull characters, and the reverse. But it is not true.

Multiverser provides some basic ideas for how to handle the situation in which the player's character becomes smarter (or dumber) than the player, but I think we could have gone further. There are ways to do it.

Let's face it, whether a player can figure out something in game depends on what? It depends on what information he has, and whether he as the player is smart enough to put it together.

Thus if the character is smarter than the player, of course you could just roll the dice and give the character the answer--or you could be more subtle than that.

For one thing, Multiverser recommends that the dumb player playing the smart character (not in those words, exactly) should be permitted the assistance of other players in reaching the solution. The group becomes a sort of brain trust to provide assistance so that the character can be played smarter.

However, what I think is important to note is that since the difficulty of the problem is based on the amount of information given, if the player is smarter than the character you give less information (things the character just wouldn't recognize as significant are not mentioned), and if the character is smarter then you give more information (partial conclusions in the reasoning process, like, "you realize as you see that gem that it is exactly the sort of thing Moriarty would have planted, and thus that he is expecting you to find it").

There's no reason why a player can't play a character smarter than himself, as long as play recognizes this and accommodates him.

Let's put that lie to bed, shall we? It's fooled us long enough.

--M. J. Young

Autocrat:

"1) Play and Character.... to often people expect a Player to be able to respond seperately from the Character, and vice-versa. Intelligent Players may be able to role play a dumb Character, yet the other way around is impossible. Further, some people just can't act out, role-play or get into character in that fashion.
Then you have situations where people aren't picking up on clues, can't remmber what was said, or otherwise fail to get the significant stuff being laid out in front of them or blatantly being hit with!
In these situations, have Stats is a fallback method! They are there to cover peoples backsides when they fail to perform as required. "

I disagree with you entirely.  Entirely.  If people aren't picking up on clues, there is a reason: a) there aren't any, meaning the GM hasn't left any to find; b) they don't want to investigate (as Players); or c) they are being obtuse (as Players or Characters).  In any event, any Player worth his salt should be able to make his own clues.  If I can't find clues, I start making damned certain I understand things the wrong way, providing me enough to go after SOMEONE or SOMETHING.  There is a whole new game now!  And fun.  And no stats, system, or other required.

As for memory problems, the GM should remind someone in this event, unless it makes more sense not to, then don't.  Not everything needs to be a damned system in order to exist in a gaming sense.


"So, in an intense combat game, the Character faces of three adverseries, the Player realises theres a good chance the Character is about to die, and opts to discuss the problem...hmmm, so what stat does this? "

Again, why need a system?  As a GM, I would decide, for myself, whether someone would care to listen, could be swayed, what it would take, and if not, how many rounds can go down range during one sentence.  I don't need to cross-reference a chart to figure out if someone is willing to listen.  And I will simply LOSE MY MIND if someone looks at me and says: "I lie to the guy" and drops some dice.  

"Games use Karma points, yet have no stats relating to religion, faith or luck!"

I honestly have no idea what the hell this means.  I seriously sat and looked at this for nearly ten minutes, trying desperately to discover some meaning.  I am confused.  Please elaborate.

"The mighty court room drama game, when alcapone leaps over and starts stabbing the DEA... yet theres no agility, aim, strength, force or attack and defence stats..... "

Um, that was the whole Bailiff score from the previous post...  My whole point is that agility, aim, strength, defense, ad nauseum, are all so tired and used that it should likely never enter another games' vocabulary.  Instead utilize alternate means.  If you want to play Courtroom d20, then play it, but don't try to tell someone it is a new game.


"I agree that having a whole host of redundant stats is of no use to any one, yet having some stats are are rarely used is fine.
The same way some people dislike having these stats is the same as my dislike as not having them, bundling them with another stat just to tidy things up, or using descriptors that will only ever apply to certain things and serve little other purpose. "

See, now it is not the same.  If it serves little purpose, don't bother including it.  The general idea is that you have to trust players and GM's enough to realize that they will do this on their own.  Open upon any gaming book you want, if the game has a system for swimming, it had better be a game about swimming, or pirates, or something that would mean I am the water often.  If it doesn't have a hook relating to water and still has rules for swimming, and here is where it gets tricky: THE GAME IS NOT GOOD.  

I never want to see a rule or system that has no point.  Take D&D (pick a damned edition), they all have rules for swimming.  Why?  I have no fucking clue.  I have tried to understand it.  I am a relatively smart guy.  This game seems to be 97% about killing things and taking their shit in order to acquire phenomenal cosmic power (let us not examine how or why THAT works)...  I can understand a very detailed "killing things and taking their shit" system... and boy howdy... there is not.

For instance, I tried to play the game one time...  I trying to stop some naga from catching some guy for some reason (there was a reason, I just don't recall it).  Naturally, I remove my pickaxe and attempt to pin the naga to the ground using the pickaxe.  

The GM: "There are no rules for that"

Me: "So wait, there is a fucking page on swimming, on climbing, on knot-fucking-tying, a chart on what the fuck is in a room when I open the fucking door, but a game where all I do and am is killing things and taking its shit does not allow me to pin a fucking snake-thing to the ground with what amounts to a giant staple in a combative sense?"

The GM: "Correct"

Me: "How is this a popular game again?"

Voila.  So then I turn to Riddle of Steel.  A fantasy game.  I look about me for a bit and realize that "YES I CAN PIN WHATEVER I NEED TO HOWEVER IT HAPPENS WHENEVER I WANT!"  Why?  Because combat is a heavy-focus in this game, so it was decided by the people who think these things up (in this case Jake Norwood and company): hey let's not with the swimming and the cooking and the knot-tying, and yes with the fighting and stuff.  Now HELL, that makes sense.  And their game's statistics, mechanics, and system all serves to make fighting and killing and living in this bleak world ABOUT SOMETHING.  

Now that is how fantasy is done.

A game shouldn't need a system to be flexible, it shouldn't need to compromise or apologize.  A game should be designed with something in mind: a concept.  And everything about that game should feed that concept.  Pick a moral dilemma, any moral dilemma.  A game should encompass THAT moral dilemma, using some cool hook as a focus, and the entire things should be in existence to serve one purpose: to resolve such a dilemma and allow for an entertaining time doing so.

This would mean stats, it would mean dice, it would mean everything.

Dav

The thing I have found with most people involved in RPG's is that they forget that there are "newbies", that when they strted, they didn't know all that much about it.  Once you have played one set of rules, you tend to be able to pick up others quite easily.  Yet in the beggining, people don't think like a unit, people want to do there own thing

... M. J. Young ...

  OK, I am inclined to agree with you... it's an old excuse, but I believe it is true, (hey, it's only my own opinion, and its not worth much....).
  Some people need rules, others like them.... the majority of experienced players have learned to adhoc rules as needs be, sometimes using their own rules rather than those in the manuals.
  Its a matter of experience and preference.
  Also, newbies aren't likely to be able to do as you suggested.  Though I prefer doing your method, I'd rather have a fallback alternative, something these people can turn to.  It's also a nice way to speed things up .... rather than Role play it, Roll play it!  It saves time, and if the game doesn't lean in that direction, then roll for it.  I can't think of many games that make you sit there and explain how you are picking a lock, or exactly what method and ingredients are used for cooking at the camp fire, you take them sa is.... so do the same for other thigns if you like.
  At the end of the day, I'm trying to cover as much as possible to save time and effort on the gamers side, and generating alternatives so that as players advance in experience, they can play differing aspects of the same game, till they reach a level they are comfortable about... rahter than having stats that they think are to numerous or to few, they can select and alternate amount, if the skills are to defined or to genreal, they can move to a diffferent level of play, so on.....


... Dav ...


  I'm going to guess that your'e a Settings person.... one that believes settign is an integral part of the game and the mechanics/system behind it.
  Well there is a problem form the start, becuase though I beleive it can add a lot to the game itself, I don't think it is necessarily true.... thus mine is system and mechanics only, nothing to do with setting.
  As to the rest, the same applies as I said to M.J.Young, people are different, want and need different things.  I'm doing my best, and what I ocnsider suitable, to cover those aspects, whilst offering aspects they may want to include.
 

  Human nature is strange, people will make choices based on colour, size, appearance, text layout etc., not just the rules... though that is what they are really getting, its the experience that comes with it they purchase.
  Prefences alter so much, what you like, what I like, what he/she likes, garauntee these will differ, in one extent or another on almost every option available.... thats why your'e you, I'm me, and there who they are.  No single thing will suit every one, so I provide options and alternatives, hoping that what I create will offer what they want, or atleast appeal to the variety of tastes people have.  My groups are a perfect example, some prefer multiple die, where as the majority prefer percentile or D20.  Others think Requesite systems are great, where as others think they suck.... so why not cover both of these aspects by allowing both types to be used?

  If you don't like the stat, don't use it!  As the Species decides what Stat Scores you have as a base, you don't have to spend anything extra to alter them.  AS the different campaigns provided will offer details as to the game play type, you pick what is relevant from the options the campaign meterial provides.
  The system is there to be altered and tailored to your prefence so as to as closely resenble what you want as possible, then you play settings that are to your prefence as well.... I can't think of anything better than being able to do what you want, how you want it!

  Still, these are my opinions, and merely that.  If you disagree, I don't blame you and thank you for your views, particularly the strength of them, as it reminds me that my view is only that!

Hello,

This thread has transmogrified into an RPG Theory type thread when I wasn't looking ...

Therefore, let's get back to the primary work of helping this person with this game, and take any more generalized discussion of attributes, play, and characters into another thread in the Theory forum.

Best,
Ron

Many years ago there was a project called DragonNet, which attempted to design an frpg over the net. By way of comparison, this was their 'ultimate' list of ten attributes:

Physical
Strength, Dexterity, Agility, Constitution, Beauty

Mental
Intelligence, Perception, Psyche, Willpower, Aura

An earlier, 4-3-2-1 division of stats was proposed, but discarded:

Physical
Agility
Constitution
Dexterity
Strength

Mental
Intelligence
Perception
Willpower

Spiritual
Aura
Psyche

Social
Beauty

The attribute descriptions (which I thought were pretty good at the time) were:

Physical
o Agility represents body control (static and motive) and connectivity. It includes balance, rhythm, and flexibility.
o Beauty simply defines how good a character looks in terms of sheer physical attractiveness. It can be particularly important when you have no time to argue or express yourself but must still leave a good impression.
o Dexterity includes hand-eye coordination, fine finger manipulation, and sensitivity of touch.
o Constitution is an indicator of bodily health (including resistance to hardship, injury and disease) and metabolic efficiency. Running is an example of a constitution related activity.
o Strength is a composite of two types of physical power - instantaneous explosive and prolonged and measured. Jumping is an example involving the use of the former, swimming the latter.

Mental
o Aura is the non-tangible complement to beauty. It represents a character's ability to impress, influence, seduce, command and lead people. Qualities such as natural charisma, personal magnetism, and sex appeal are greatly influenced by a character's aura.
o Intelligence encompasses memory, analytical and reasoning ability, and speed of thought. A high intelligence indicates a natural aptitude for the generation, retention, and understanding of linear thought.
o Perception includes alertness and observational acuity. A character with a high perception score has keen senses and is less likely to be surprised by unexpected developments.
o Psyche is the emotional counterpart to intelligence. It rates a character's ability to engage in creative, intuitive, spiritual and transcendental thought. Amongst other things, Psyche enables interaction with the supernatural, including the gods, the spirit of Nature, and the mysteries of the universe.
o Willpower is an indicator of self discipline (determination and persistence) and mental fortitude (resistance to influence, pain and stress).

Z

I like the idea there, propably the same as with BESM, but I do not know that system.

You have
Mental
Physical
Social

stats, and you can have flaws or merits for those stats, like quick, smelly, strong grip, weak lungs.

The guy who does a lots of sports, is bound to be strong AND fast. scholar is bound to be smart AND witty.

but there is one rule I hold dear.


NEVER HAVE AN INTELLIGENCE STAT!

How many times have you seen a stupid player playing a smart character? I think it's a rule, when you are really stupid, you want your character at least to be smart, then you can say 'my vassago is really smart, how does he solve this puzzle you GM threw at us?'

Smart characters just have good knownledge skills and some perks to suggest he is smart.

Then again, I have known people who score as geniuses on IQ tests who can be pretty stupid at times.  Just because they have the intelligence doesn't mean they always use it.

Quote from: artofmagicNEVER HAVE AN INTELLIGENCE STAT!

How many times have you seen a stupid player playing a smart character? I think it's a rule, when you are really stupid, you want your character at least to be smart, then you can say 'my vassago is really smart, how does he solve this puzzle you GM threw at us?'

Smart characters just have good knownledge skills and some perks to suggest he is smart.

Didn't I just cover this in another thread?

Yes, you can have players play characters who are significantly more or less intelligent than themselves; you just have to accommodate that.

Suggestions were in the other thread, but I don't have time to hunt for that at the moment.

--M. J. Young

Just thought I'd lob a few bones in for the hell of it....

The first bone is, in another Forum, someone threw a large rock like statement in my direction, stating something like....

  It's a proven fact that when people first start design RPG's, they make the mistake of balanced stats.......which never works........

  or something like that.


Bone number 2 is one that will cause some people to choke.  I keep seeing these posts with things like DON'T, NEVER, UNECCESSARY, POINTLESS etc., regarding the social, appearance and Intellectual stats.... yet no one seems to say that about strong Characters and weak players, of clumsy players and agile characters etc.
  why is this?
  (der-her george, is it preference ?)


Another bone is one of contention.  Preference is the key, so by definition, (and according to certain individuals), you'll never get it right.

  Hell with it, cover as much as possible, permit break downs and overlaps, this means that if you generate 1034 stats, you can reduce them down to just 8, 6, 4, 3, 2 or 1.  Then depending on style, you can have descriptors, traits, tags, skills or what ever other method to tailor the character how you wish.


  To be honest, I can't see why we don't all just throw in as many stats/attributes and there definitions as possible.  Then find a way of organising them, possibly grouping them, and hten my personal favourite, find a way of cascading them so that each one encompasses those below yet is encompassed by those above, thus making it so can reduce them or expand them in a neat little fashion.
  Then we can suggest various ways of altering those stats/attributes, listing the method of each, such as traits etc.

  Wouldn't that make the ULTIMATE ATTRIBUTE LIST ???????

Quote from: AutocratThe first bone is, in another Forum, someone threw a large rock like statement in my direction, stating something like....

  It's a proven fact that when people first start design RPG's, they make the mistake of balanced stats.......which never works........

  or something like that.

I'm confused. Are you agreeing with them, or are you complaining that they said it?

I don't think there's any such "proven fact"; I'm not even certain what "balanced stats" means. Is he complaining that designers try to put all attributes on the same scale? Sure, you could create a batch of attributes using different scales--

• Strength bench 350
• Intelligence IQ 120
• Dexterity targets 79/100[/list:u]--but the complexity of such a system would almost certainly obliviate its usefulness.
  
  Does he mean that having the same scale for every attribute with humans in the same range is unworkable, because there are going to be creatures who outstrip us in strength by far more than those who outstrip us in intellect? Of course all scales are abstractions; consistency in system is a feature, and a desirable one.
  
  So I don't know what he's saying, and I don't know whether you're repeating what he says because you agree or because you disagree.
  

  Quote from: Autocrat furtherBone number 2 is one that will cause some people to choke.  I keep seeing these posts with things like DON'T, NEVER, UNECCESSARY, POINTLESS etc., regarding the social, appearance and Intellectual stats.... yet no one seems to say that about strong Characters and weak players, of clumsy players and agile characters etc.
    why is this?

  Actually, while I disagree with the statement (as I just said in the preceeding post), I know why people make it.
  
  Physical stats are easy to codify into the game. It's easy to say that your character is strong enough to lift this, flexible enough to fit through here, dextrous enough to hit that target--these are all imaginary objects being manipulated by imaginary characters, and on some level we need those numbers to make that manipution possible. Sure, I'm strong enough to lift my briefcase; but is my character strong enough to lift that car? Something has to be quantified for this.
  
  People have attempted to design games in which a strength check involved lifting a weight, a dexterity check involved manipulating a physical puzzle, and the like; but these tests break the concept that this is a character whose abilities are distinct from mine.
  
  Where it breaks down with non-physical stats is that somehow we think we have to role play these things, and we think that rolls interfere with that--and they can, used roughly. If every time you thought of a good idea, the referee said, "Roll the dice to see if your character thought of that", it would be a bit frustrating, wouldn't it? And if figuring out what's happening comes down to rolling the dice to get the referee to tell you, it's rather boring. That doesn't mean that there's never a time to roll the dice for either of those reasons--it just means that this approach to play is generally unpopular.
  
  I had a player join an ongoing OAD&D game as a first level cavalier in an established group of characters ranging to about sixth level who had been working together for a long time. The player himself was highly charismatic, but his character wasn't, according to the dice. I used a mechanical leadership system in that game, which in essence combined various factors representing charisma and experience into a simple statement of which characters people were more likely to trust and follow. The new player found it extremely frustrating that his character didn't automatically leap to a leadership position in this established experienced group based solely on his, the player's, personal charisma. It took a while for him to adapt to it (and ultimately he realized that the system worked well, particularly when other new players tried to push their way to take over). But tell players that despite the fact that they were so polite and eloquent in their speech to the prince, the dice roll says he is insulted, and you'll get a pretty negative response. We want our player intelligence and charisma (which we frequently overestimate) to give us success in play.
  
  As I say, there are ways to handle it such that these non-physical stats impact play positively, but for people who have never played that way they don't want to hear it.
  

  Quote from: Autocrat nextAnother bone is one of contention.  Preference is the key, so by definition, (and according to certain individuals), you'll never get it right.

  Well, they have some point. I would disagree--it isn't exactly preference in itself, but preference in overall design concept.
  
  To again compare Legends of Alyria with Multiverser, there is an entirely different design concept behind the attributes. In Multiverser, the design concept is to as completely as possible convert a real person, or an imagined one, into a game character; thus there is a heavy emphasis on attributes, fourteen in all, plus several derived attributes drawn from these. Multiverser characters are expected to wind up in all kinds of situations many of which were not imagined at the moment they were created, and so we might need to know how the character functions in a three-grav environment, what is his inherent ability in magic, how long can he tread water--there has to be a solid underpinning for these things. In Alyria, the only question that matters is how effectively this character can interact with other characters. In a sense, all three of the Alyrian stats are social stats, not physical stats--it doesn't tell you how strong the character is, only how forceful a presence that character has, whether that's because of hulking muscle mass or because of a threatening stare or a strong political powerbase. The three attributes do the job extremely well.
  
  So the problem isn't really that it's a matter of preference about how many attributes to have; it's that it's a matter of preference regarding what kind of game you want to play, in general, which then leads to answers regarding what sort of attribute structure is appropriate for that kind of game. Someone recently mentioned a game in which there is only one attribute and no skills--it's just "character effectiveness" which is rolled whenever the character wants to accomplish a goal, and then we assume that they succeeded by some means appropriate to the character. That might be the "ultimate attribute list", as it sums everything else up into a single package. Anything beyond that is a design choice intended to achieve the design objectives of the game--so you have to know what you're going to do with the game before you can answer why you need more than one attribute, and what sort of attributes you need.
  
  Does that clarify things?
  
  I hope you're not feeling like people are picking on you here. One thing that makes dialogue at the Forge so enlightening (and perhaps intimidating) is that no one will let you get away with your presuppositions. We've all got them. As soon as you ask a question that assumes something you haven't stated, someone here is going to challenge that assumption, because knowing what you're assuming is the first step to understanding what you're doing.
  
  --M. J. Young

OK......

... M.J.Young ...

1)  
The first Bone of Contention... hmm. yep, I completely disagree with it!
Also, the term balanced stats was that you have 3 Physical, 3 MEntal... or 1 of Phys, 1 of Ment and 1 of Spirit etc.
I consider it a load of trash, yet the person stated that it is the common mistake that most RPG designers make, especially as it's normally the first system they make that uses this approach.
I view it as workable... further, i there are mistakes, I think it more likely to be due to being their first system, not the method they employed!

2)
I'm sorry, but I'm really confused.....

You say...
"... but these tests break the concept that this is a character whose abilities are distinct from mine. ..."

Then you say...
"... We want our player intelligence and charisma (which we frequently overestimate) to give us success in play. ..."

So which is it... are the Players and Character seperate entities, are they merged or are they psuedo P/C's?????

Yes, it's all quantifiable... to certain extents.  Yes it's stupid to roll play every situation.... yet it's distinctly unfair to role play every situation as well.
I believe in having the stats as a fall back, time saver and rescue attempt for those with little experience or that lack the qualities their characters has!

3)
You said...
"... Well, they have some point. I would disagree--it isn't exactly preference in itself, but preference in overall design concept. ..."

Now is it me, or is that still as preference?
Not taking what is said and twisting it, or simply mis-reading it are you?
No, I hope not any way!  LOL


By the way...presuppositions... at what point did I lack factual evidence for my little bones?  They were merely statements of either opinion or previous occurences....no more, no less!
Whats more, at what point did you provide hard evidence or factual points to correct or refute my apparent suppositions?
LOL

Just kidding!

Seriously though, I don't find people intimidating at all, I do find certain individuals hold views and beliefs that prevent them from looking at other peoples, particularly if they hold a strongly oppossing belief!
I have never shouted down another persons view, not stated they were wrong... yet other people seem to do it alot.
I just find it sad and dismally disappointing that I can't have my thoughts expressed without them being beaten, when I attempt to help, suggest and refer others, even being encouraging.
Shame!

Autocrat, I am having difficulty reading your posts. If it's not too much trouble, could you proofread just a hair more closely? Thanks. LOLs particularly peeve me, and do nothing to add content. Better to speak seriously and articulately.

The Character/Player distinction:
Basically, from what I can tell this boils down to, "Generally, unless the point is that the players are better (see kill puppies for satan and people who Explore inferior Character in general), the players don't want their own abilities limited by the character's abilities."
So players like characters who are stronger than they are, or more knowledgeable than they are, or in general posessed of more prestige attributes than they are. I suspect that if a game came out of a herding culture like the Maasai, there would be something like a "Cows" stat that tells you how many cows you own, and the average Cows score represents, IRL, a rather affluent herd. Edit: I realise this is a massive oversimplification of a complicated issue and a huge stereotype of a complex culture with which I am not intimately familiar. It is illustrative, not representative, and should be taken as such.

Players don't like, "Roll to see if you can read this book." Because players can read books.

OTOH, they do like, "Roll to see if you can swallow this castle." Because players can't ordinarily swallow castles.

I don't think I agree with your assessment of "stats as a fallback." That, to me, seems to come from some presupposition that "interaction is superior to mechanics", that is not always or even often the case. What would a happy d20 player say to that? A well-engineered set of game rules should provide a play experience that is far superior to one that the players extemporized, with the same intentions in mind. They can be a highly beneficial core to play, rather than a marginalized "crutch".

It seems to me that there are a couple of different ideas about the role of a player and character.  In general, a character is a vessel to explore or interact with the game world.  The character is normally believed to be a seperate entity than the player (even if you're playing a character based on yourself, it's a fictionalized version).  The question, then, is how much of a character's mind and personality are his/her own, and how much of their psyche is provided by the player?

It's one approach to assume that the character is merely a body that the player "possesses" in the game, and that the character WILL have the same mind as the player providing the character's actions.  Personally, I like it when characters have their own personalities, intelligence levels, psychoses, etc.  Yes, it can be a bit of a role-playing challenge to play someone with different mental traits, but that's also part of the fun for me.  I enjoy games that have psychological as well as physical elements to their mechanics.

I see intelligence and charisma as any other character advantage that requires roleplay.  The difference between what a player and what a character knows is always a problem.  If the player doesn't know martial arts, but the character does, it's easy enough to solve.  Just roll a few dice and describe a kick to the head.  But what if the black belt player has his scholar mage stand in a horse stance, and describes the deadly moves he wants his character to perform?  Or if a paramedic player describes the advanced first aid procedures he wants his barbarian PC to perform on his allies?  Or if a mechanic player "invents" a motorcycle with medieval technology (someone tried to pull this off once in a game I saw...they had the blacksmith plans all worked out).  A simple "You don't know how to do that, don't confuse player knowledge with character knowledge" usually suffices.  

To avoid all problems like this, you can have the players BE their characters, but this causes a whole other set of problems.  Like combat.

O.K., Autocrat, I think I'm with you here.

On balanced stats, I understand what you mean; I agree. It happens that Multiverser has seven physical and seven non-physical stats, but we didn't realize it until after it went to press; in fact, if you look at the way they're laid out in the text (which is specifically stated to be nothing more than the order in which we were listing them when we started writing) you'll note that the seven physical stats are sandwiched between three non-physical stats at the top (related more to character/personality) and four more at the bottom (related more to mental abilities, although the last, will power, could be seen either way). There is certainly nothing wrong with symmetry in a game design, but if it interferes with function it's nonsense. I think we agree there.

Quote from: Quoting me, AutocratI'm sorry, but I'm really confused.....

You say...
"... but these tests break the concept that this is a character whose abilities are distinct from mine. ..."

Then you say...
"... We want our player intelligence and charisma (which we frequently overestimate) to give us success in play. ..."

So which is it... are the Players and Character seperate entities, are they merged or are they psuedo P/C's?????

The first quote is from a paragraph in which I was describing a rare type of game in which resolution of physical tasks is done by performing physical tasks--in essence, if you can do this, your character can do that. It occurs to me now that LARPs which use boffer weapons fall into this category, to a degree (some of them have advantages given to the character who has higher stats). This sort of game concept comes down to, if you want to see whether your character can pick up the front end of the Volkswagon, let's step into the weight room and see if you can deadlift a three hundred pound barbell. My objection to this sort of play is that I want to play a character who is stronger than me, faster than me, physically better than me (usually), so my own abilities should not be relevant. Rarely do we have situations in which we're talking about whether my character can't do something that I can, in the physical realm--few of us are registered sharpshooters, martial artists, olympic weight lifters, champion acrobats, and those who are usually understand that their characters are not. If you told me that my ninety-eight pound weakling character can't carry a forty pound pack, I would accept that; if you told me he can't lift a ten pound sack of flour, I might want to argue with you--but that's not because I can pick up such a weight, but rather because anyone should be able to do so.

The second quote is given as the argument people make (implicitly) against such non-physical attributes. It's a difficult issue to tackle. If I'm playing a smarter character, and I can't solve the puzzle, should I be allowed to roll to see if he does? If I'm playing a dullard and I can solve the puzzle, should I be forced to roll to see if he can? To complicate it, does my dullard get a roll to solve a puzzle I can't solve, or is my genius forced to roll when I've already solved it? No one wants to solve the puzzle only to be told that their character didn't do so; that's why people object to such checks. Since they see the stats as doing nothing but this, they think the stats stand in the way of good play. My answer is that the stats can be used to effectively manipulate situations without this sort of egregious mechanic, and therefore have value.

Thus I think the stats are good, despite understanding the objection to them.

Is that clearer?

Quote from: Again, quoting me, heYou said...
"... Well, they have some point. I would disagree--it isn't exactly preference in itself, but preference in overall design concept. ..."

Now is it me, or is that still as preference?

Yes, it is a preference; perhaps I misunderstood you. It seemed you were using it in the context of questions like "how many attributes should you have--well that's a personal preference; what kind of dice should you use--well that's a personal preference." It sounds like whether you use one attribute or three thousand is merely a matter of personal preference; whether you use a percentile, a dice pool, or a bell curve is merely a matter of preference, directly. It isn't. It's a matter of preference indirectly. That is, if you want linear probabilities within a minimum and maximum through which you can make direct adjustments that have similar impact throughout the range of ability, you probably want a percentile or single-die resolution system. If you want open-ended rolls that can escalate, you probably want dice pools or something similar. If you want most rolls to land near the average, you probably want a bell curve system. Thus it isn't "I like percentiles" (although it is often expressed that way), but rather "I like systems that provide linear results with plenty of granularity that are easily manipulated to get the probabilities I want", of which percentile systems are among the most common choices.

But maybe you didn't mean it that way.

Regarding presuppositions, you have (several times in this thread, if my memory is functioning) suggested that the ultimate set of attributes should fully define a character. You never actually said that, but rather kept going for how many stats and which ones do I need to accomplish this? In the post to which I was immediately responding, you suggested a system of 1034 stats, which could be divided in several ways, as the ultimate attributes list. In response, I suggested that a single stat of "character effectiveness" could be viewed as the ultimate attributes list. Your assumption seems to be that a more detailed mechanical description of character abilities makes for better role play; that's a judgment. It may as easily be that less mechanical description of the character permits better role play. Do I think that? Patently not--I don't know a game with more attributes than Multiverser's fourteen, and I think they do an excellent job of doing exactly what you're trying to do. On the other hand, I've seen games do what they're trying to do extremely well with a lot fewer. Which is better depends on what you're trying to accomplish. There is no ultimate attributes list because of that. Your suggested thousand is not better or worse than my suggested one; it just approaches the concept of what is a character in this game very differently. Without answering that question, you can't really know what attributes matter to him.

Really, I'm closer to you than most here--I like a detailed character definition in mechanical terms. I just think you're assuming that it's better generally, rather than better for a narrowly defined sort of approach to role playing design.

(And Shreyas is correct: indications of laughter are only confusing. Do they indicate that you don't mean what you just said, so we should ignore it? Do they mean that you are intentionally being nasty but want to pretent you're not? If you made a joke and it really is funny, we should be able to recognize it. If you're laughing at your own jokes and we can't see them, maybe they're not all that funny.)

I hope this helps.

--M. J. Young

I'm new here, and since I came for advice I figure I'll jump on in headfirst...

Why are balanced attribute systems worthless?  I'm working on my first game, I've got all these lofty ideas and goals and basically, I'm trying to get them dirty to see if they'll work.

However, I pretty much figured that balanced attributes was a given.  If one race could be the best fighter possible, then wouldn't players (who wanted to be fighters) use that race almost exclusively?  Same for magic-users, thieves...etc.

My approach would be to make races (traditionally, this is where the difference in attributes takes place) basically even, that way any other race can be the equal of a "fighting race" or a "magical race".  I thought that taking a step away from "All halflings are natural thieves" would go a long way towards keeping the lore of my story from becoming useless.

But, like I said, I'm new to all this.  I'm just curious why balance is a mistake.

Basically, balance is one of those lofty impossible goals, not the least because actual play can be very different from a designer's expectations. Like, suppose that I have a game where every point of "Speak Languages" gives me a new language I can speak, and I can buy a special ability to raise any one skill at half the cost. Blah.

Then my GM decides, "Hey! I'm going to introduce a lot of linguistic puzzles into the game, and NPCs who like you better if you speak their native tongues." Suddenly, the Speak Languages skill is overvalued in my game, compared to other games being played in the same system.

The same thing can happen to any game stat, and that's why balance doesn't.

Quote from: WyldKardeWhy are balanced attribute systems worthless?  I'm working on my first game, I've got all these lofty ideas and goals and basically, I'm trying to get them dirty to see if they'll work.

However, I pretty much figured that balanced attributes was a given.  If one race could be the best fighter possible, then wouldn't players (who wanted to be fighters) use that race almost exclusively?  Same for magic-users, thieves...etc.

Welcome to the Forge.

First, one of the problems that plagued this thread was that no one was quite certain what the original poster meant by "balanced stats". It turns out (if I've got it now) that all he meant was the idea that there should be X physical and X non-physical, or the same number of physical, mental, and spiritual, or some similar system in which the number of stats you have is in part determined by balancing different aspects of one character, so that no one part of the character has more attention than another. There are people who come up with these systems where they try to do everything in threes, something like

QuoteI've got three main stats, Physical, Mental, and Spiritual.

Under Physical, I have strength, coordination, and endurance.

Under Mental, I have intelligence, insight, and memory.

Under Spiritual, I have faith and gentleness, but I don't know what the third thing should be; can you help me?

The point is that you shouldn't have a "third thing under Spiritual" just for the sake of making it balance Physical and Mental. You should only have that stat if it has some purpose in the design of the game, and if you don't know what it should be, it probably doesn't have such a purpose.

*****

Now, on your question, there's an entirely different sublayer to what you're after. Should different (fantasy or sci-fi) races have different strengths and weaknesses? Should elves be better archers because of their dexterity and eyesight, halflings better thieves because of their surreptition and stealth, dwarfs better infantry because of their hardiness and physical strength, humans more well-rounded because they are the baseline for everything else?

The answer to that question really raises another: why do you have fantasy races in a fantasy game, and what meaning is there in choosing one over another? If elves really are just pointy-eared people with slender bodies, and halflings and dwarfs are just short, what function does that have in play? Why should anyone choose one race over another, and why should these races even be included in play?

Certainly, you could create a fantasy game in which all the races were functionally the same, such that you could have the expert archer a dwarf, the hobbit the powerful knight, and the elf the great thief. Race in this world would be primarily color: we have fantasy races because the players expect the world to be populated by fantasy races and like to play these. However, part of the appeal of playing different races is that they are different, even if only in very superficial terms. You could make the differences essentially cultural, but for this to have any real impact on play the players would each have to study the culture of his own character and commit to making that matter in play--as soon as you wind up with player characters working together without regard to their differences, the differences evaporate and the races are immaterial.

So there's nothing particularly wrong with races which are functionally identical, but there's nothing particularly right with it either. Just because Minotaurs make the best Barbarians and Elves make the best Archers doesn't mean that the game is broken. If you're going for balance and functional difference, incorporating advantages and disadvantages in each race gets you there more easily.

--M. J. Young

Hmmm, well, in my game, races do have slight advantages over other races as far as combat skills go, but attaining a skill level of "grandmaster" in any combat skill negates all racial bonuses or penalties.  So while it is possible to equalize any race to another, it is difficult and it requires that the character "specialize" or essentially, choose a class in a skill-based RPG where there are no classes and it generally benefits a player to make characters that are as diverse as possible.

I guess I should have mentioned (or remembered myself for that matter) that there is a craft system in my game as well and that is where the racial bonuses and such really stand out.  A human could be an excellent archer in my game, but she'd never make as beautiful a wand as a Hasper (sort of a magical halfling).  I kind of threw that intentional imbalance into the game to pull focus away from hack-and-slash (nothing wrong with it, but what about when not a lot of people are online) gameplay.


BUt yes, as far as Physical/Mental/Spiritual attributes being the base for some sort of ultimate attribute list.  I guess I'd have to say that it would depend on gameplay.  A RPG filled with so much magic as to make physical combat pointless would not need physical attributes or, at the very least, the playerbase would lean towards those who weren't particularly physical.

So to quote a lot of other people here, it depends.