The No Stats rpg

[xiombarg]

At any rate, any time I've played "diceless" I can't seem to escape the feeling I'm playing a variant of Amber. Which I love by the way.

Well, speaking as someone who has played and run -- and likes -- both games, they're very different. You don't ever risk "running out" of your Warfare stat, and not being able to do as interesting a Warfare trick as before. The resourced-based mechanics of Nobilis make for a very, very differnt game.

Not that you couldn't run Amber using the Nobilis mechanics. In some way, it might even simulate the books better than the standard Amber Karma system.

[Mike Holmes]

Hey, have you considered some of the alternatives to getting "paid" to take flaws that some games have today? Have you seen www.faterpg.com?

Also, what if I have two abilities that seem to apply to a situation, is there any way for one to help the others? Or is resolution one skill at a time?

Mike

[tldenmark]

Hey, have you considered some of the alternatives to getting "paid" to take flaws that some games have today? Have you seen www.faterpg.com?

Also, what if I have two abilities that seem to apply to a situation, is there any way for one to help the others? Or is resolution one skill at a time?

Mike

I very much like synergy between abilities, which was the point of having aptitudes and traits.

I suppose you mean if you have a jet pilot trait, and a weapons expertise trait, will they help you to operate a mecha?

The possible solutions are to limit the player to 1 (his best), or to allow jet pilot to give a bonus to his weapons expertise. The danger being that a system like that leads into the big fat mess called d20.

But I can't think of a more elegant solution off the top of my head - outside of the aptitutude/trait system I've outlined here.

td

[Mike Holmes]

I suggest this too often nowadays, but check this out and let me know what you think:

http://www.glorantha.com/support/GameAids.pdf

Mike

[tldenmark]

I suggest this too often nowadays, but check this out and let me know what you think:

http://www.glorantha.com/support/GameAids.pdf

Mike

wow. that's genius. is that from the new HeroQuest? I haven't had a chance to look that game over yet.

It does go down a path considerably different then I'd like to take. It seems to break down into smaller detail, whereas I want to consider broader guidelines. I'll have to read it more in depth to fully 'grok' it.

thanks!
td

[Mike Holmes]

Yes, that's HQ.

It does tend to break things down into small abilities, but there are also "Keywords" which are very broad abilites. So you have "Warrior" and in addition to all the abilities that come under warrior specifically, you can do anything a warrior could do at the keyword level. This is really cool, because it means that you never have abilities that slip through the cracks. For example, you want to sharpen your sword before combat, but don't have "maintain weapon" or something like that. You just argue that this is something that every warrior knows, and use the keyword level.

These sorts of broad defaults - culture, occupation, etc - ensure that nothing "falls between the cracks". What I call the GURPS Math Skill problem. In GURPS, Math is a skill, but few players remember to take it. Then when it becomes an issue, the players realize that they didn't take something that's probably key to the character concept, if not really important in play (it's this syndrome that's driven the GURPS movement to templates to ensure that all the "little" skills get taken).

Many games today avoid the GURPS problem by just doing nothing but broad abilities, but this is, IMO, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. By combining very broad abilities with very narrow ones, you get detailed characters who are very complete with little effort. Basically, HQ goes back to selections similar to "Race/Class" in complexity, but does it in a much more functional way.

In any case, in play, then, the augmenting rules mean that you get to really explore the character's abilities in determining your overall TN.

Mike

[tldenmark]

Yes, that's HQ.

It does tend to break things down into small abilities, but there are also "Keywords" which are very broad abilites.

Basically, HQ goes back to selections similar to "Race/Class" in complexity, but does it in a much more functional way.

In any case, in play, then, the augmenting rules mean that you get to really explore the character's abilities in determining your overall TN.

Mike

That's really a beautiful solution to a complex problem. And it's interesting that it is in someways very much like the Race/Class solution. I've always felt that the Race/Class system was disarmingly brilliant. As much as it has been derided, it is in fact the reason D&D has been so successful (other then that whole role-playing thing I suppose). ;)

I'm still interested in developing this idea into a published role-playing game. It's been so long since I posted this I'd forgotten how intrigued I was by the concept.

td