Stats Suggestion

[Valamir]

Different priorities Bob.

You're interested in a system capable of defining every conceivable nuance so that any possible individual you can think of can be created.

That's fine...and I used to be a big proponent of that too so I know right where you're coming from with it.  In fact some of these comments could almost be verbatim said by me when I was "explaining" to Ron why just having one physical stat for Stamina was insufficient in his Sorcerer game.  I've since changed my mind.  Now my priorities are having a system that creates powerful characters who're important characteristics are known quickly and simply.  Not that the highly detailed system can't do that...just that I've come to realize it isn't necessary.  That is one can create really powerful meaningful characters without needing to know the difference between Endurance and Health to the last 10%.  Note:  I'm sure you know that and are fully capable of doing it also...its simply, as I said a difference in what we give priority to.

To me if a character creation system is capable of making powerful, interesting, meaningful, and entertaining characters it is successful.  Whether or not its capable of defining every single possible difference between two people with numbered stats interests me not at all.

The only difference between two characters that I'm interested in are the ones that have an impact on the mythology being developed around that character.  What those important characteristics are depends alot on the type of game being played.


So while I could probably show how your suggested character *could* be done in a system like I'm suggesting (probably starting with a low over all physical stat with a "muscle bound" gift)...It's really not that important to me, which is an illustration of our differing priorities on the matter.

For you (and formerly for me) a character creation system that couldn't stat out with precision every extreme character concept one can conceive of is seriously flawed.  For me today...so what...there are plenty of other good character ideas out there...choose one of them


I have also grown a distaste for games that attempt to define characteristics with an arbitrarily high level of precision.  Is it somehow important to anything whether one character has a strength of 7 and a toughness of 6 and the other has a strength of 6 and a toughness of 7?  It is to some folks I'm sure (likely you).  To me...its an absolutely meaningless (ok...that's a bit of hyperbole...largely meaningless) distinction.  The difference simply isn't great enough to have any real impact.  Take any two characters from a novel or a movie who can be said to be physically equivelent...do we have any real idea of their relative strength and toughness to that level of precision...or just enough to know they are "approximately equal".  If the difference was 7 and 3 vs 3 and 7...then yeah...that's a difference worth worrying about...a difference worth depicting as a gift or a flaw.

As far as overcomplicating things...I guess that depends on what you're used to.  Personally I'd say pointing out 4 stats and a couple of gifts reflecting significant strengths and weaknesses to be much simpler than trying to point out 10 stats in order to make those stats reflect the desired strengths and weaknesses.  

Its simpler for me conceptually and time wise.  If I need to whip out 10 fully stated NPCs I'd rather have 4 stats to deal with and only worry about strengths and weakness for those who need a distinct feature.  Conceptually it eliminates having to agonize over whether strength or toughness should be a point higher.  

As for your specific recommendation of -1, -3....for my purposes that wouldn't work.  A large part of my motivation for doing something like this is the idea that +/- 1 just doesn't matter.  Its not a significant enough difference to be worth even noting on a character sheet.

Now before you run the math and show me what a difference +/- 1 makes to the system, let me note that I'm talking about significance from a character defining perspective.  I'm not really interested in what significance might be artificially given by game mechanics.  Worrying about a +/- 1 to a stat because of the effect it will have on your CP is playing the game mechanics, a perfectly valid exercise, but not one that I really care to do much of any more.

[Bob Richter]

Different priorities Bob.

You're interested in a system capable of defining every conceivable nuance so that any possible individual you can think of can be created.

That's fine...and I used to be a big proponent of that too so I know right where you're coming from with it.  In fact some of these comments could almost be verbatim said by me when I was "explaining" to Ron why just having one physical stat for Stamina was insufficient in his Sorcerer game.  I've since changed my mind.  Now my priorities are having a system that creates powerful characters who're important characteristics are known quickly and simply.  Not that the highly detailed system can't do that...just that I've come to realize it isn't necessary.  That is one can create really powerful meaningful characters without needing to know the difference between Endurance and Health to the last 10%.  Note:  I'm sure you know that and are fully capable of doing it also...its simply, as I said a difference in what we give priority to.

To me if a character creation system is capable of making powerful, interesting, meaningful, and entertaining characters it is successful.  Whether or not its capable of defining every single possible difference between two people with numbered stats interests me not at all.

The only difference between two characters that I'm interested in are the ones that have an impact on the mythology being developed around that character.  What those important characteristics are depends alot on the type of game being played.


So while I could probably show how your suggested character *could* be done in a system like I'm suggesting (probably starting with a low over all physical stat with a "muscle bound" gift)...It's really not that important to me, which is an illustration of our differing priorities on the matter.

For you (and formerly for me) a character creation system that couldn't stat out with precision every extreme character concept one can conceive of is seriously flawed.  For me today...so what...there are plenty of other good character ideas out there...choose one of them


I have also grown a distaste for games that attempt to define characteristics with an arbitrarily high level of precision.  Is it somehow important to anything whether one character has a strength of 7 and a toughness of 6 and the other has a strength of 6 and a toughness of 7?  It is to some folks I'm sure (likely you).  To me...its an absolutely meaningless (ok...that's a bit of hyperbole...largely meaningless) distinction.  The difference simply isn't great enough to have any real impact.  Take any two characters from a novel or a movie who can be said to be physically equivelent...do we have any real idea of their relative strength and toughness to that level of precision...or just enough to know they are "approximately equal".  If the difference was 7 and 3 vs 3 and 7...then yeah...that's a difference worth worrying about...a difference worth depicting as a gift or a flaw.

As far as overcomplicating things...I guess that depends on what you're used to.  Personally I'd say pointing out 4 stats and a couple of gifts reflecting significant strengths and weaknesses to be much simpler than trying to point out 10 stats in order to make those stats reflect the desired strengths and weaknesses.  

Its simpler for me conceptually and time wise.  If I need to whip out 10 fully stated NPCs I'd rather have 4 stats to deal with and only worry about strengths and weakness for those who need a distinct feature.  Conceptually it eliminates having to agonize over whether strength or toughness should be a point higher.  

As for your specific recommendation of -1, -3....for my purposes that wouldn't work.  A large part of my motivation for doing something like this is the idea that +/- 1 just doesn't matter.  Its not a significant enough difference to be worth even noting on a character sheet.

Now before you run the math and show me what a difference +/- 1 makes to the system, let me note that I'm talking about significance from a character defining perspective.  I'm not really interested in what significance might be artificially given by game mechanics.  Worrying about a +/- 1 to a stat because of the effect it will have on your CP is playing the game mechanics, a perfectly valid exercise, but not one that I really care to do much of any more.

I'm interested in a system that is both capable and flexible, and has the minimum number of stats possible.

Your system actually increases the number of stats by decreasing the number of attributes. Each gift/flaw is a stat (albeit a binary one) in its own right.

Conceptually, 1 is a fairly huge difference, especially in tRoS. 1 is the difference between 3 (below average) 4 (average) and 5 (above-average)

Surely the conceptual effects are minor (thus the minor gift/flaw) but certainly they are there.

It is my contention that the "bonus dice in x situation" major/minor gifts/flaws in TROS are mostly set up this way for a reason. :)

And why not take "attribute compression" to its logical extreme?

ELIMINATE numerical attributes entirely. The baseline is 4. You have gifts and flaws which give you more/less dice in certain specific instances. Yes?

As for your idea concerning the character I was creating: It won't work. I need a gift/flaw for each of TROS's physical and mental attributes in order to get them all right, because no two of them are the same, and IT'S PART OF THE CHARACTER.

[Valamir]

I think we're talking in circles here.  You seem to have some need to prove a right or wrong answer, when there is none.  As I said different priorities.  The issues you raise are almost entirely unimportant to me.  I'll attempt to clarify.

I'm interested in a system that is both capable and flexible, and has the minimum number of stats possible.

Your system actually increases the number of stats by decreasing the number of attributes. Each gift/flaw is a stat (albeit a binary one) in its own right.

I am uninterested in the number of stats the GAME may possess.  Hero Wars literally has an Infinite number of stats, because anything you can think of COULD be defined as a stat.   I am interested in the number of stats I as a player have to be worried about on MY character sheet.  Or that I as a GM have to worry about for an NPC.

Having attributes that differentiates between Endurance, Health, and Toughness (for instance) means I have to have 3 stats on my character sheet EVEN for characters for whom such distinctions aren't important.  For those characters I would rather have 1 attribute than 3.

For characters for whom such a distinction matters you can gain the equivelent effect by simply taking an appropriate Gift or Flaw.  This does not in anyway create MORE gifts and flaws.  As Ron pointed out above the actual number of gifts and flaws in the game is already limited only by what the GM and players come up with.

Conceptually, 1 is a fairly huge difference, especially in tRoS. 1 is the difference between 3 (below average) 4 (average) and 5 (above-average)

You missed the point.  How would you a player roleplay a 6 Endurance, 5 Toughness character differently from a 5 Endurance, 6 Toughness character?  If you were to roleplay one of them, and your identical clone were to roleplay the other, would any observors notice the difference in these two stats without having looked at your sheet, based only on how you are playing them.

I believe the answer is no.  The difference is too trivial to affect the way the character is roleplayed to any level of distinction.  If the stats were 7 and 3 or 3 and 7, than yes...that difference would probably be noticeable over the course of play.

So, under my idea Endurance and Toughness might be part of the same stat.  For a character where there was a big difference between the two that the player wanted to emphasize a gift or flaw could be used to highlight this.  But no a gift or flaw of +/- 1 completely defeats my purposes.  There is absolutely no justification you as player could give me for desireing a 1 point difference between that I as a GM would find meaningful.  Its not worth my time as a GM to muck around with a whole additional attribute (which I'd have to use for every NPC I ever create) just to handle a mere 1 point difference.  

And why not take "attribute compression" to its logical extreme?

Thats a standard straw man arguement.  Logical extreme is an oxymoron.
 

ELIMINATE numerical attributes entirely. The baseline is 4. You have gifts and flaws which give you more/less dice in certain specific instances. Yes?

That said...for some games this would be a perfectly acceptable methodology.  I'm sure there are some out there that already do this.

As for your idea concerning the character I was creating: It won't work. I need a gift/flaw for each of TROS's physical and mental attributes in order to get them all right, because no two of them are the same, and IT'S PART OF THE CHARACTER.

Again, difference in priorities.  One I already addressed at length in the previous post.  "Get them all right" is a priority of yours.  One I don't share.  "Part of the character" is a priority of yours.  One I don't share.

"Close enough" is my priority.  If the character is interesting to play, and has a purpose in the game and story, I couldn't care less whether or not every single possible nuance of the character is captured somewhere in a game stat.

My response as a GM would be...If you want the character to be like that...play him like that...you don't need numbers for it.  If you can't roleplay whatever the difference is that you want, than it can't be a meaningful enough difference to worry about assigning a number to.


Now, lest this start to sound like RoS bashing.  It isn't.  I love the game.  I love the game as written.  I think I'd love the game more (and I'm sure it would be a hell of alot easier to GM) if there were fewer stats to worry about, and I posted this an an example of what I'm talking about.

[Bob Richter]

I think we're talking in circles here.  You seem to have some need to prove a right or wrong answer, when there is none.  As I said different priorities.  The issues you raise are almost entirely unimportant to me.  I'll attempt to clarify.

I think you're ignoring me while I'm trying to clarify my position. :)

But you seem to have missed my suggestion: TAKE IT TO THE LOGICAL EXTREME (which is not an oxymoron, any more than IBM Tech Support, or Military Intelligence, no matter how amusing it is to say so.)

For what you want to do, just ditch the attributes entirely. That way you never have to define ANYTHING about a character's attributes unless it's something special. (I already do this for minor NPCs. I call it "The rule of four." It reduces my workload.)

The other thing you're missing is: I'm just saying *I* wouldn't want to play in such a system because, like it or not, I actually use all of tRoS's ten attributes. I find them a necessary and satisfying definition of my character. (It is irrelevant whether you do or not.) I resent your implication that this makes me somehow unenlightened.

How would I roleplay a 6 endurance 5 toughness character as compared to a 5 endurance 6 toughness character? One is a boxer, the other is a runner. I thought that much was obvious. :)

Of course I roleplay them differently, but it's not something you can explain exactly. I can't tell you precisely the difference in my roleplaying of a 32 year old man and a 16 year old girl, but it's there.

And it's the same for any other tiny distinction you can come up with (though I notice you dwell among the 5s and 6s for some reason instead of the 3s 4s and 5s which are so much more common.)

"Close enough" is a concept recognized by everyone who dwells in the real world. If my priority were precision, I would be trying to come up with some way to roll fractional dice. :)

As you see, we don't really have different priorities, just different opinions. I think a 1 or 2 adds a whole lot, while you seem to think any distinction of less than 4 is meaningless, in roleplaying terms. I'll let you keep your opinion, if you don't mind my keeping mine.