[Alien Angels] Game Mechanics Adjustments

[tygertyger]

I have started the reworking of AA and already I've hit a snag.  Here's the deal;

Ron suggested that the dice pool for task resolution was a bad idea (which I agreed with, seeing as I only put it there because I could think of nothing better at the time).  By eliminating the dice pool and adding a second die for degree of success task resolution gets simplified.  Here's the problem; with that scheme, stat levels no longer have any bearing on chance of success.  I like for them to have some effect; given equal levels of skill, a person with higher manual dexterity has a better chance of picking a lock, for example.

So, what I need is a way to reincorporate stats into the task resolution system.  I've thought of adding the stat to the d10 roll (to the Chance Die) and upping difficulties accordingly, but I'm open to further input.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello!

As you can see, I split this one off from [Alien Angels] Ronnies feedback. It'll help focus the discussions, and besides, the game is now into its new development, graduated from simple Ronnies feedback.

I've been feeling bad about not following up on Alien Angels lately. So I'm glad you posted.

I suggest that you can get a little radical at this point. You have rightly ascertained that attributes are not important to your revised resolution ...

... so (ready?) ... Lose'em.

Wah! Ack! Run around in circles! What? No attributes? How will I visualize my character? How will I make them up? I love setting up attributes! Every role-playing game has attributes!

I have a secret to share with you. The only numbers and descriptions that matter are those which help resolution and reward to function. None of that other crap matters.

So ... what might help is to abandon the attributes, but include some new "skills" which are attribute-like, such as "brawny" or "agile" and stuff like that. Anyone without such skills is considered to be not-amazingly-brawny or whatever. In combination with the more traditional skills, you'll get 100% the same kind of "character-visualization" and detail during play, but with tons better elegance and clarity for the system.

Really. Almost all (not all) of those games with attributes, then skills, then figure out some combination of numbers that arrive at the target number or whatever, are broken. If what I'm proposing is too radical, then we can talk about the exceptions.

Best,
Ron

[tygertyger]

Hello!

As you can see, I split this one off from [Alien Angels] Ronnies feedback. It'll help focus the discussions, and besides, the game is now into its new development, graduated from simple Ronnies feedback.

No worries, mate.

You have rightly ascertained that attributes are not important to your revised resolution ...

... so (ready?) ... Lose'em. [snip] The only numbers and descriptions that matter are those which help resolution and reward to function. None of that other crap matters.[snip] Almost all (not all) of those games with attributes, then skills, then figure out some combination of numbers that arrive at the target number or whatever, are broken. If what I'm proposing is too radical, then we can talk about the exceptions.

I can see how to implement this suggestion.  What are currently stats can be inserted into the system simply as skills (this does have the drawback of expanding an already long skill list, but not unmanagably so).  It won't even be necessary to add all of them; several of the existing skills are so obviously tied to a given trait that a separate skill for that trait alone might not be needed.

But by all means let's talk about exceptions -- I want to keep my options open at this point.  A stat-free system, for example, lacks the option of using skills with different stats (an option that I rather like).  For example, Electronics could be used with Hands for constructing a circuit or with Brains when analyzing one.  Similarly, Unarmed Combat can use Hands when throwing a punch, Grace when dodging or Savvy when figuring out an opponent's fighting style by examining his stance.  I'd like to have that kind of versatility with whatever method I end up using.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Before talking about the functional attribute/skill games, I should clarify that you can get that "Hands + Tech" nuance to resolution with a skills-only system.

In fact, let's call this the Abilities model, to avoid the terminological problems caused by calling it "skills-only," and also because that's what HeroQuest, the most developed game that uses this system, calls them.

Say your character has a great Hands ability and a decent (oh) Security Systems ability. It so happens this particular system requires some quickie hand-eye work to bust properly. So! You roll Hands first, derive the degrees of success in some way, and then use those as a bonus for the Security Systems roll. It works very, very well (in fact, I was one of the pioneers of this concept using an attributes-only system, with Sorcerer, but never mind that). Note that someone with good Hands but no Security System, and someone with Security System but no Hands, cannot do what your character just did.

It's called augmenting in HeroQuest, and that system by no means provides the only or best way to do it, mechanically, so there's room for you to bring in your own vision of how it would best fit your game.

OK, all that said, let's talk about a couple games in which attributes and skills are treated differently, but functionally.

1. Obsidian. In this game, you might have 4 dice in, say, Agility. You buy skills which are associated with Agility and have dice scores of their own, which are what you roll. You never roll Agility per se. Its only purpose is to set the expensiveness of upgrading and buying new Agility skills - the higher your Agility, the cheaper the costs.

2. Swashbuckler. In this game, your four attributes are rated in dice size (d6, d8, d10, d20). Your skills are rated in d6 units, so when you roll (for instance) Impressive Entrance based on Brawn, you roll the d6's for the skill plus the single attribute die, and add'em all up.

There are others, too, but I'll bring them up in a bit. I'm mentioning these two because they represent two extremes: the first one basically takes the attributes entirely out of resolution, reserving them as currency-setters for the improvement system; the second keeps them in resolution with only a subtle, specific difference between them and the skill dice.

Best,
Ron

[Arturo G.]

Hello!

What Ron said have made me take a second look at your game.

I'm not sure if I'm talking nonsenses, but I should first say that your list of skills may be highly simplified. My feeling is that your examples of concepts are directly related to the categories of skills. Warrior -> combat skills, Artist -> artist skills, Leader -> Interaction skills, and so on.
It may be my preferences, but I would not find the need to distinguish which are my best skill between the different information skills, or interaction skills, or combat skills. This would only diminish my character versatility in the situations where they are needed.

I don't know if this will work for your idea of the game, but I would mix traits and the general categories of skills to create a simplified list of general skills which woudl be related to the different kinds of activities/conflicts you will like to see handled differently in your game. You may lose some color in the way, and that feeling of fine-tuning needing during character creation that some players like. But I will say that the process of creation may be simpler, still interesting and more directed to what your are expecting to happend in the game.

Perhaps this is not what you like for your game, in that case just ignore it.
Arturo

[tygertyger]

your list of skills may be highly simplified.

That's going to happen, but most of it will be condensing.  Having only one Unarmed Combat skill (instead of the original two) diminishes the game not at all, and the skills for running, jumping, etc. can be condensed into a single Athletics skill.  The various Lock Picking skills will also become a single Security skill.

I won't condense the technical and scientific skills into generic Technician and Science skills, however.  An expert mechanic can know nothing about electronics and vice versa, and I want the game to reflect that.  Similarly, a Ph.D. in physics might well be less well informed on the subject of biology (and vice versa).

My feeling is that your examples of concepts are directly related to the categories of skills. Warrior -> combat skills, Artist -> artist skills, Leader -> Interaction skills, and so on.

Quite so.  But my intent in giving the concepts wasn't to say, "These are the only skills that this kind of character can have."  Rather, it was to tell inexperienced players what kind of skills that kind of character would need.  Does the language in that section need to be modified to clarify this, IYO?

I would mix traits and the general categories of skills to create a simplified list of general skills which would be related to the different kinds of activities/conflicts you will like to see handled differently in your game.

If I understand correctly, that's what Ron is suggesting (but by all means correct me if I'm wrong); eliminating the Trait step in chargen and adding the Traits or something like them to the skills list.  This makes all tasks a matter of skill.  I'm leary of this -- and I freely admit that it's a personal preference -- because of my own feeling that the system should reflect the rl difference between innate ability and learned ability.  In the system as written Traits are innate and skills are learned.  A system with no Traits, IMO, assumes that innate ability in every area is the same for everyone and can only be improved with training and practice.  I have problems with such a blatant contradiction of rl experience (stuff for which there is no rl basis of comparison, like the existence of aliens, is actually easier to take).

Therein lies the difficulty in simply following the suggestion and eliminating Traits.  Designing a game that I myself don't like/can't quite get a handle on would be monumentally stupid (and the result probably wouldn't be any good).  Thus, for this and any other suggestion, I must first make sure that I understand it.  Then I have to find a way to incorporate the new information into my design philosophy (which can be summed up as simplistic-simulationist).  I'm not obsessive about accurately modeling rl, but I do prefer not to directly contradict it.  This only applies to stuff that exists in rl, of course; for the fantastical elements of the game, anything goes.

One thing is clear, though -- the game needs some simplification.  Hence the condensing of the skills.  And if I can find a way to follow Ron's suggestion that satisfies my own preferences, so much the better.  On that note... Ron, how about some more examples of games that got the use of attributes and skills right?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi,

Um, I will, but this is a very busy time off-Forge. Dancing as fast as I can.

In the meantime, check out the Roll 3d6 ... what is this? thread, and most especially the linked older threads I provide in it, plus the essay by John Kim that's referenced as well. The conclusion we came to is that the nature/nurture, innate/trained issue is a confounding one - it makes games worse, not better. When a designer puts it in there, it's because he's used to it and thinks he should or must, not because it drives or functions toward any real fun in play itself. But hey - don't work on that here, just check out the threads.

Best,
Ron

[Christopher Weeks]

This makes all tasks a matter of skill.  I'm leary of this -- and I freely admit that it's a personal preference -- because of my own feeling that the system should reflect the rl difference between innate ability and learned ability.  In the system as written Traits are innate and skills are learned.  A system with no Traits, IMO, assumes that innate ability in every area is the same for everyone and can only be improved with training and practice.

It sounds like you're saying that the difference between innate ability and learned ability is a central premise for your game.  Do you really see it as such?  I'm not sure ditching the notion of whether an ability is innate or learned diminishes anything.  You don't have to run counter to whatever rl conclusions you've drawn, they don't matter.  I expect we all agree that people can do stuff -- some of it is learned and some appears to be natural talent.  When you go to the ballet, does it matter to you, or to the dancers what ratio of their ability is "trait" or "skill?"  Probably not.  But maybe -- depending on what your focus is.  If the game that looks like it's all about ballet isn't really about performance, but about the off-stage interaction of the dancers with other people in their world, then whether they were beaten with a stick to make them practice could matter quite a bit.  But if the game is just about doing stuff (dancing, in my hypothetical) then it matters not.

Or are you seeing a side to this that I'm not?  Way up at the top of this thread it looks like you're fishing around for a way to use stats, just because.  Is that just how games are supposed to work or do you see a real purpose?

[tygertyger]

It sounds like you're saying that the difference between innate ability and learned ability is a central premise for your game.

No, but it is an important component of how I think when I design a game.  I'm not willing to discard a perfectly good thought process just because someone else says so.  I want to replace it with something that works better, and I want to see how the replacement works better before I do that.  I'm willing to be convinced, but I do need convincing.

Or are you seeing a side to this that I'm not?  Way up at the top of this thread it looks like you're fishing around for a way to use stats, just because.  Is that just how games are supposed to work or do you see a real purpose?

That the attribute model is familiar certainly can't be ruled out as a factor in my reluctance.  There's also the problem of the amount of redesign that discarding Traits would entail; the entire task resolution system would have to be scrapped, and the chargen section would need extensive rewrites.  Then there's opposed tests.  Without Traits to set the difficulties, what are the difficulties of those tests based on?  What about Wound Points (also based on Traits in the current version)?  I really don't like systems where a 97-lb. weakling and a big strapping bodybuilder can take the same amount of physical punishment (one of the weaknesses of the Storyteller system, IMO).  So part of my goal is to fix the real mechanical problems in the most efficient manner that I can manage.  The less I have to change, the better.  And I see no reason to fix something that isn't really broken -- if a particular "problem" boils down to my preference versus someone else's, It's perfectly reasonable to go with mine.  I don't want to waste time and energy sucking up to Ron or trying to second-guess what potential buyers want.  I want to focus my energies on identifying those aspects of the game that are well and truly broken and fixing them.

That said, I'm off to check out that thread that Ron mentioned.  See y'all in a few.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

There it is! The solution!

Use the "abilities" of the active character for the rolling, but use the attributes of the target for difficulties. It works very well.

All I'm saying, and it's hard to see, maybe that this is all - is not to fold the attributes and skills of a single character into the resolution roll.

I think you might consider as well that what I'm calling "ability" is not a skill. I'm not saying, lose all attributes and only keep skills. I am saying instead, call everything an "ability" and accept that all of them represent some combination of innate/trained input, which is not necessary to quantify for functional play.

Best,
Ron

[tygertyger]

Use the "abilities" of the active character for the rolling, but use the attributes of the target for difficulties. It works very well.

This is the first solution that I came up with when I started the rewrite.  That it's validated here is a good indicator that this is the version that I need to try first in playtest.  I wanted some way for players to actively use Traits (as opposed to the strictly passive use allowed in this system), but I may not find anything better than this.  Time and playtest will tell.

All I'm saying, and it's hard to see, maybe that this is all - is not to fold the attributes and skills of a single character into the resolution roll.

After reading the recommended threads I can see the reasoning behind this, particularly for a Narrativist game.  Which brings me to the thought that AA lends itself to Narrativist play in spite of my Simulationist leanings in game design.  I was completely unfamiliar with GNS theory before coming to the Forge, so I never gave that sort of thing any thought before.  But here we have a Narrativist game being driven by a Simulationist engine, and that's a possible conflict of interests.  Hmmm, I must give this further thought.