Would this idea work? Has anyone tried it?

[Sir Privy Toastrack]

In trying to think of ways to better engage players in their characters and the story, I was thinking that an interesting way to generate PCs would be to have the players write down descriptions of their skills & attributes instead of giving them numerical values (example: Swimming: Once swam across a 500' pond without tiring, can tread water for at least 30 minutes, arms tire after that"). My thinking is that characters don't think of themselves as having a STR of 14, but instead measure thier skills and attributes by what they have done, what they have lifted, what they have read, what they have experienced. etc. Once players have provided brief descriptions of each notable attribute & skill, then the GM generates a numerical value based on the description and keeps it to himself. This is different from the FUDGE descriptions of "good", "everage", "poor", etc, because here the player don't know the value -- only the GM knows the value. My hope is that the players will make decisions not based on their tangible values, but on their gut feelings and experinece ("Well, I once swam across a wide pond with no trouble... so I think I could make it across that raging river ...").

Would it work? Could it work? Is it just a gimmick? A good idea? What games have used this idea?

[Eric Provost]

I'm shuddering at the thought of the GM keeping the numerical values of the PCs abilities a secret from the players.  I could see this being interesting on a limited scale and for a very specific theme, but not as a standard course of action.

The only game that comes to mind that have a similar mechanism to what your're describing is Dogs in the Vineyard where a PC might have a Trait like "Used to break horses with my 'pa".  The value assigned to the trait represents how important of a trait it is to the player.

-Eric

[Jeremy]

I think you will find that players will end up being frustrated by character actions.  What a player has in mind for a character is not the same as when a GM reads the character sheet.  Words can be interpreted many different ways.  A number can't if it's applied to a rule (higher is better).  I have swimming at 5.  Bad guy has 10.  10 is faster then 5 so he wins in a race.

Also you have to keep in mind that not all players are skilled at language.  When I think of things I sometimes have a hard time convening that as words. I think you'll find players saying "But that's what I meant".

It's an interesting idea.  But I think it would be very hard to play.

[Sir Privy Toastrack]

I think you will find that players will end up being frustrated by character actions.  What a player has in mind for a character is not the same as when a GM reads the character sheet.  Words can be interpreted many different ways.  A number can't if it's applied to a rule (higher is better).  I have swimming at 5.  Bad guy has 10.  10 is faster then 5 so he wins in a race.

Also you have to keep in mind that not all players are skilled at language.  When I think of things I sometimes have a hard time convening that as words. I think you'll find players saying "But that's what I meant".

It's an interesting idea.  But I think it would be very hard to play.

You make good points.  One thing I forgot to add is the concept of a player describing his abilities in two ways: his perception of what he can do, and what he has ACTUALLY done (ie: experience).  So, a PC might say "I'm a really good swimmer", but his only experience is swimming in a little pond with his mates.  On the other hand, he has done other things that demonstrate his fortitude (farming 16 hours/day), athleticism (wins all sorts of commuity sporting events), and strength (lifts heavy crates).  So the GM weighs all of this.  This would definitely be a situation where the players must trust their GM thoroughly and be iven the opportunity to "argue their point."  

I'm really just playing around here.  I want to get away from players knowing more than their characters would.  For instance, I'm a professional videographer.  I run into people all the time who say they have a great camcorder and can make really good videos.  Then I see their work and it makes me wretch.  In their minds, they have a videography skill of 13 (on a 3-18 scale), but in reality they are more like a 6.  Ever run into anyone who said they were awesome miniature painters but really weren't?  Or folks who think they're great role-players because they have a 39th level fighter/wizard/thief who tackled the Tomb of Horros all by themselves?  
On the reverse, there are people who UNDERestimate their abilities.  My point is : no one really knows what their abilities are in numerical terms.  And, unless they have competed in head-to-head situations, don't really know if they are any good or not.  Someone might have practiced swordplay for years but never engaged in an actual do-or-die melee.  How would they rank their skill?  Just some devil's advocate points, really... I'm not saying this idea would work (certainly not with most players, who like to have concrete numbers hey can rely on).

[Jeremy]

I'm a professional videographer.  I run into people all the time who say they have a great camcorder and can make really good videos.  Then I see their work and it makes me wretch.  In their minds, they have a videography skill of 13 (on a 3-18 scale), but in reality they are more like a 6.

Funny.  I'm in the video industry too and know exactly what you're talking about. -smile-

Assuming you have great trust in your GM and you are an open minded player  I think this type of game would be interesting.

As a player you would really not have any idea if you're better then somebody else until you tried.  But the history of the players would be cool (and long winded).  As a player role-played out his character he/she would become what they where trying to create in the first place.

-after a few games-
Video Skill:  I have created 4 commercials for local auto dealerships.  I created a video biography and entered it into a contest but came in 32nd out of 40.  I then took a 6 month video course at my local university. I was asked to to a music video for a local band and it ended up winning an award.

[Sir Privy Toastrack]

I'm a professional videographer.  I run into people all the time who say they have a great camcorder and can make really good videos.  Then I see their work and it makes me wretch.  In their minds, they have a videography skill of 13 (on a 3-18 scale), but in reality they are more like a 6.

Funny.  I'm in the video industry too and know exactly what you're talking about. -smile-

Assuming you have great trust in your GM and you are an open minded player  I think this type of game would be interesting.

As a player you would really not have any idea if you're better then somebody else until you tried.  But the history of the players would be cool (and long winded).  As a player role-played out his character he/she would become what they where trying to create in the first place.

-after a few games-
Video Skill:  I have created 4 commercials for local auto dealerships.  I created a video biography and entered it into a contest but came in 32nd out of 40.  I then took a 6 month video course at my local university. I was asked to to a music video for a local band and it ended up winning an award.

Yes!  You got what I meant!  Pretty much everyone else on various forums has disliked this idea, so I'm not usre if its worth pursuing for a publicly available RPG, but I'm looking forward to trying it out.

[daMoose_Neo]

Something like this certainly has merit~
Its a different concept, to say the least, and one I haven't seen around~
One of the nice things about the Forge here is we can make systems on a trial basis and see something out of it: suggestions, thoughtful discussion etc. It might fly, it might not, but this is a pretty darn good laboratory to test that in.
If you have the time, I say go for it, regardless what other peeps on other forums say~ Thats what Forge is here for: trial and experimentation ^_^

[Sir Privy Toastrack]

Something like this certainly has merit~
Its a different concept, to say the least, and one I haven't seen around~
One of the nice things about the Forge here is we can make systems on a trial basis and see something out of it: suggestions, thoughtful discussion etc. It might fly, it might not, but this is a pretty darn good laboratory to test that in.
If you have the time, I say go for it, regardless what other peeps on other forums say~ Thats what Forge is here for: trial and experimentation ^_^

I appreciate your encouragement.  Feedback from RPGers can be both helpful and frustrating -- ultimately, most people want you to design your game to suit *their* tastes, which can be a bit...unhelpful.

[Michael S. Miller]

It seems to me that your idea has two facets:

1) Character effectiveness is derived from a written description rather than simply choosing the actual effectiveness value.

2) Players don't know what their character's effectiveness value is.

Facet number 1 seems an awful lot like the Hero Wars/Hero Quest character generation system, if I understand it properly. This is also used in The Pool, wherein one writes a small story of their character as the first step of character creation. So it can be done.

The second facet is found in numerous advice articles on how to make RPG combat more tense. It has also been used in games like Cell Gamma (part of the No Press RPG Anthology and IIRC, the game Psychosis: Ship of Fools. I'd be surprised if there wasn't an Over the Edge supplement somewhere that did it as well. I think Paranoia 5th Edition encouraged it as well. Having just run Cell Gamma, I can say that having the GM be the only one dealing with the game mechanics is stressful for the GM and slows the game down from the players' perspective. But in the case as well, it can be done.

My question to you (BTW, what's your real name) would be: Why? What are you trying to achieve by removing the numbers from the players' sight?

[Sir Privy Toastrack]

It seems to me that your idea has two facets:

1) Character effectiveness is derived from a written description rather than simply choosing the actual effectiveness value.

2) Players don't know what their character's effectiveness value is.

Facet number 1 seems an awful lot like the Hero Wars/Hero Quest character generation system, if I understand it properly. This is also used in The Pool, wherein one writes a small story of their character as the first step of character creation. So it can be done.

It's like HQ to an extent, but much more freeform and narrative based.  I will post a chargen thing soon to illustrate.

The second facet is found in numerous advice articles on how to make RPG combat more tense. It has also been used in games like Cell Gamma (part of the No Press RPG Anthology and IIRC, the game Psychosis: Ship of Fools. I'd be surprised if there wasn't an Over the Edge supplement somewhere that did it as well. I think Paranoia 5th Edition encouraged it as well. Having just run Cell Gamma, I can say that having the GM be the only one dealing with the game mechanics is stressful for the GM and slows the game down from the players' perspective. But in the case as well, it can be done.

Yeah, that's something I have to work out.

My question to you (BTW, what's your real name) would be: Why? What are you trying to achieve by removing the numbers from the players' sight?

My real name is Bill Edmunds.  I'll try to answer your question:
My interest in trying this is derived from a number of things, most of which can be boiled down to this:  what if?  What if I had never heard of RPGs but came up with the idea to make one?  What would it be like?  Because we are all so used to certain tried and true concepts, RPGs --even ones like HQ and other revolutionary games -- still use many of the traditional methods.  But what if you started from scratch without any prior knowledge of mechanics?  What would you come up with?
The concept of using numbers for attrributes is mainly a wargames conceit.  It is, in some ways, counter-intuitive to role playing.  Actors don't roll dice.  Neither do writers.  Neither do directors.  When actors perform a scene using no script (improv), they don't use dice or consult a rulebook.
It's an experiment, really.  I've never played an RPG that didn't use dice or some kind of numerical measures.  My idea still does use dice, actually, but asks the players to immerse themselves completely in the game itself.  Having concrete stats (which I love, BTW) takes you out of the game world in some ways and makes you more aware of the mechanics.  Looking up things in a rulebook does as well.  It's sort of like learning how a magician performs his illusions.

In the end, I'm really just hypothesizing.  I might hate this in an actual game.  It's just an idea.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  I like playing around with new ideas.  There seems to be a type of thinking among many in the RPG community that says you have to do things a certain way or its "wrong".  It might be that way.  But you never know unless you try.

[Darksmith]

The problems that I see are that words have different meanings for different people. I'm constantly berated by my wife, because when she asks my opinion about things my usual response is, "It's okay". It's non-committal. It can be taken either as positive or negative and it drivers her up a wall! What is good to me might not be good to you.

Trying to describe how good I am at something without using some sort of measure is close to impossible. Baseball player verse a softball player. Very similar set of skills and physical attributes. The same 'words' can be used to describe both players and they do things in a very similar fashion. How do they measure up to one another?

Statistics...

Batting average, slugging percentage, fielding percentage... That is why numerical values are used, because these numbers give us a relative basis for comparison that isn't as subjective as descriptors. The number one is one to everyone. The word 'good' means 'good', but what I meant was 'better' than what you rate as 'good'. I just didn't know that is what you consider 'good'

What I'm saying is that I think RPG's would have evolved to a numerical system regardless of how it was thought up, even if it didn't evolve from war gaming. If a group of improv actors has designed RPG's in the 60's the GM would probably be the one deciding if you fail or succeed by how convincing your performance is! At least until half the troupe walked away because this cute little actress kept succeeding at everything because the GM has a thing for her... like that's never happened in a gaming group.

The concept is intriguing, but I don't think it'll succeed because of the ambiguity of language as a whole.

But please... prove me wrong. I'd love to see it work!

[Cmonkey]

I'll have to agree with the last post by Darksmith....mathematics is the universal language.  No matter who or when the first rpg was designed, it would have involved numbers.  Even FUDGE uses numbers through it's descriptors, whether you realize it or not.  For example:

Amazing
Great
Good
Average
Poor
Awful
Horrid

Without realizing it, the human mind would equate the above as follows:

3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3

or:

7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Either way, we quantify the terms in order to logically relate which is "better" or "higher" than the other.

[Sir Privy Toastrack]

Trying to describe how good I am at something without using some sort of measure is close to impossible. Baseball player verse a softball player. Very similar set of skills and physical attributes. The same 'words' can be used to describe both players and they do things in a very similar fashion. How do they measure up to one another?

Statistics...

Batting average, slugging percentage, fielding percentage... That is why numerical values are used, because these numbers give us a relative basis for comparison that isn't as subjective as descriptors. The number one is one to everyone.

I see what you mean but even there you have some problems.  Is someone who bats .400 in little league better than someone who bats .300 in the majors?  Statistically, yes.  In reality?  No.  So stats aren't necessarily reliable -- they can be misleading as well (and I'm a HUGE stats guy with baseball).

The word 'good' means 'good', but what I meant was 'better' than what you rate as 'good'. I just didn't know that is what you consider 'good'

True.  That is why my proposed system relies on both a combination of the character's perceptions of how good he is AND a description of his experience.  You might think you're great at climbing, but what have you done?  Climbed a few trees or scaled some sheer cliffs?

The concept is intriguing, but I don't think it'll succeed because of the ambiguity of language as a whole.

You could well be right.  I'm definitley not saying this system would work, ony that I'd like to give it a try.

But please... prove me wrong. I'd love to see it work!

Well, I'll try.  But keep in mind that I'm not actually convinced myself!  It's just an idea at this point.  I'm going to post a pdf this week and I'd encourage everyone who is interested to try it out (as long as you're not doing it just to "prove me wrong"!) and give me your feedback.

[Sir Privy Toastrack]

I'll have to agree with the last post by Darksmith....mathematics is the universal language.  No matter who or when the first rpg was designed, it would have involved numbers.  Even FUDGE uses numbers through it's descriptors, whether you realize it or not.

I don't disagree.  I'm just saying there are other ways to quantify things.  Having blanket stats and attributes is all well and good, but they can't take into account every minute detail and possibility, no matter how thorough the rules.  A creative GM and his players, on the other hand, who aren't shackled by a list of stats & modifiers, can be very inventive.  I just want to explore how it would work.  No crime in that (unless you play D20...just kidding).

[dredd_funk]

I've also toyed with a similar idea.  The 'why' for me was quite simple: I wanted to support simulationism and not gamism (if I understand Forge-speak correctly).  I'd toyed with this 'blind' system because it put an emphasis on the players having to evaluate what they 'did' in the past in order to project what they might be able to 'do' in the future--it made gamist decisions based on meta-game knowledge more difficult.

Anyway, I can understand 'why' this might be appealing.  The question for me is if there is enough gained to justify the risks.

Problems:

1) As has already been mentioned, it offloads a great deal of effort into the GM's hands.

2) It doesn't just facilitate the idea of GM-fiat, it removes any access the players have to an exra-GM authority (the 'rules') that they can use to lend credence to their version of events, creating a huge disparity in control.

3) With players--by far I would guess--more used to having a specific idea of their skills, they may be very unhappy not being able to accurately predict how well their character can perform.

4) There are two things to model that are slightly different: our 'objective' ability (I can swim 1000m) and our 'subjective' ability (I can swim faster than Fred).  Sometimes we have a better idea of our objective ability--I could give a great estimate on how fast I could run 200m but not where that would put me nationally--other times we have a better idea of our subjective ability--I may be able to say that I'm faster than 95% of the people I've met but, having never timed myself, wouldn't have the first clue of how fast I could run 200m.

To me, #2 is by far the most damaging, though I haven't found a great solution to #4 either.  #1 can be mitigated with good design, depending on how 'cruncy' the game system aspires to be.  #3 can be overcome through a good social contract and repitition of play.  #2 is less tractable.

The underlying problem is that you've taken away the players' ability to cite an external authority and, in so doing, you've only increased the power of GM-as-god.  A lot of 'ifs' have to go in the right direction to make for good play, and that doesn't strike me as good design.  Good design shouldn't mean that you have to get lucky in order to have good play.

With regard to statistics, we should all remember the phrase, "there are lies...there are damn lies...and then there are statistics."  Anyone involved with the production of statistics should have a healthy understanding of just how many biases are unavoidable despite our best efforts.  There is no perfect statistic--one reason that some designs have strayed away from supplying them, in favor of a more 'intuitive' and 'flexible' approach.

Example:  The rules state that, with a Swim skill of '5', I can swim 1000m.  Let's also posit for a moment the rules even go so far as to say that this is in a calm, warm body of water on a warm day.  The questions that will arise during play often have conditions at variance with the baseline conditions.  How far can I swim in an ocean with 25-foot swells, when the water temperature is 48 degrees and the wind is blowing at 50mph?  Damned if I'd be able to swim 1000m then.

What happens next is invariably negotiation between the player and GM about how the conditions serve to limit the 'baseline' 'objective' statistic.  Even if the rules state that I can swim 1000m without any further conditions, it is still implicitly open to negotiation.  Few players would argue that this means that they could swim 1000m in plate armor, with an anchor attached to their midsection via a 10' length of iron chain, when their hands have been cuffed and their feet bound.

The fact that some type of negotiation is almost always required means that many experienced gamers, I would surmise, have found it easier to dispense with the idea of setting a statistical baseline in the first place.  As long as the system they've developed supports their game play, then I'd say, kudos.  I'm not against statistics in any way, used properly they can provide very valuable guidelines for the negotiation process.

I haven't given up on trying this but, darn it, I'm stuck on how it could really work well.  Good luck with the system though!

Cheers
Chris