Selecting Attributes For Your Game

[Vordark]

Let's say we're talking about traditional RPGs where there's a GM that runs "the world" and a number of players, each of which has their own character.  Let's further say that the task-resolution system for the game is Attribute + Skill + Roll versus a Difficulty Number.

Which attributes would you choose to have for such a game?  Are there any attributes you would be appalled to see combined (say, dexterity and strength)?  Are there any attributes you think most systems include but shouldn't?

Bonus question:  How would you have players "buy" these attributes?

[Vulpinoid]

Before people jump in and ask big metaphysical questions about player experiences, creative agendas and other stuff like that...

What preconcieved notions have you had so far?

How many attributes do you want?

How many skills do you want?

Personally, I used a system with 4 attributes [physical, social, mental, spiritual] in a project because it used a deck of cards with 4 suits.

My current project uses only d6s, so it uses 6 elemental aspects that drive the characters [they're pretty close to "attributes", but not quite].

As for skills, do you want the skills to be subsets of the attributes [eg. D&D 3.5 skills], or can they be mixed and matched [eg. Old World of Darkness].

Again, my personal preference is for the second system, and I'd make sure there were at least five times as many skills as there are attributes. Conversely, I'd make sure the skills were only about a fifth as wide in scope as the attributes. It's hard to talk in quantifiable numbers like this, because there will always be players who try to adapt their best skill into every situation their character encounters.

In a hypothetical system; a lot of systems would make the attributes five times more versatile, but only two or three times more expensive to purchase.

Some good recent systems have allowed players to pick their attributes at the beginning of play, but through a campaign only skills can be bought with experience. Attributes become like a character's genetic coding, skills are what the character does with that coding.

Just some ideas...

V

[greyorm]

This probably isn't the answer you want but: it depends on what the game is meant to be about. A game that is about politicians conniving for power over the course of decades is going to have different answers to those questions than a game that is about looting dungeons in near real-time.

Because the question you're asking right now is akin to: let's say you're playing a traditional board game that uses two dice for moves. How many pieces should it have? How large should the board be? Are there any elements of such games you think should be discarded? How should players get turns?

[MacLeod]

Well, to be fair... he did say traditional RPG.
Traditional to me speaks of the sort of game that measures physical, mental and magical attributes. Maybe even social.
So you could have an attribute for each one... though magic doesn't have to be a separate attribute if your system doesn't intend to tread on that sort of ground. Such a small number breeds simplicity but also makes character more generic. That is, without some sort of Advantages/Disadvantages system.

I think the following would generally work well; Body, Coordination, Intelligence, Will. That is, for an RPG based on exploration and killing. Body for physical damage and hit points. Coordination for physical defense and accuracy. Intelligence for mystical power and efficiency. Will for mystical defense and mystical points. I don't usually like measuring social abilities but such things could be handled by a trait/advantage/disadvantage sort of system.

Numbers are pretty arbitrary until you attach meaning to them... but I like working within 100. It is easy to compare such numbers to the %die which is neat because that is my preferred method of random number generation. If the game is meant to convey a console RPG sort of feeling, the numbers begin pretty low but steadily increase at each level.
I am writing a game where I am using Shining Force as inspiration, the character sheets are hardly more than half a page yet it is meant to be a very tactical experience. The Attribute numbers in that game are pretty low. For instance, a 14 is considered to be a very high attribute. It is all still based on the %die but attributes do not climb every level. Each attribute is multiplied by a certain number and is considered the base for particular statistics (melee power, accuracy, etc...) in order to place some importance on character generation.

When buying Attributes... I like distribution methods as opposed to random generation. I also like the distribution to always be 1:1.

[Vordark]

Yeah, considering that some RPGs are fairly narrowly focused I realized that my question might not have been specific enough.

My system is intended to be a universal engine supporting your "typical" settings/genres like sci-fi, supers and fantasy.  The attributes, therefore, should describe intrinsics that are common to all characters across these genres.  Currently, I have six attributes that have scores going from 1 to 10.

Body - Your character's toughness and constitution.  Things like poison resistance, holding your breath and your hit points come from this.

Physique - Your character's innate athletic ability.  A combination of what might be called Strength and Dexterity in some other games.

Will - Your character's mental fortitude.  Used in situations where your character's inner resolve is tested (say, resisting the effects of a charm spell in a fantasy game)

Mind - Your character's mental acuity.  A combination of what might be called Intelligence and Perception in some other games.

Charisma - A representation of the average character's gut reaction toward you.  Your physical appearance.

Presence - Your force of personality.  Affects your ability to persuade or intimidate others.  Also how well you relate to others (empathy, for example).

So, that gives a bit of background.  Now, on to actual play and player reactions...

In my initial play-testing and discussions I have found that some players are confused about where one attribute begins and another ends (how do Charisma and Presence relate to each other, for example).  I have also found some players are adamantly opposed to conflating a character's strength with their dexterity, or how intelligent a character is and his perceptive abilities.

Up until now, apart from this confusion or controversy, the mechanics have seemed to be functional in actual play, but I am more and more wondering if this isn't just a coincidence.

For example, I use a point-buy system for my attributes, and when making checks it's a straight attribute plus skill plus roll versus a difficulty.  Because I have one combined attribute for athletic ability and two attributes governing social matters, this opens the door for some serious min-maxing.

Hopefully this gives everyone a bit more to go on as to what I mean.

[Egonblaidd]

The game I'm currently working on is more or less a "traditional" fantasy RPG, though I have attempted to include every possible action in my skill set, things like the sciences, art, theology, crafting, etc., so you could play a game about farming or managing a business or life as a student, etc. just as easily as dungeon crawling.  I use a number of Attributes, and Attributes do not change after character creation, except due to temporary effects or debilitating injuries (leg chopped off, for example).

Strength - The amount of force a character can exert in an instant.  Affects damage with certain weapons (most/all melee, some ranged), and how much weight you can lift.

Endurance - The amount of punishment a character can sustain before it begins to impede that character.  Allows you to run, fight, carry heavy objects etc. for longer before fatigue wears you out, and allows you to sustain more damage (numerical damage values are converted into injuries which penalize the character, with the severity (rank) of the injury depending on the damage dealt and the Endurance of the damaged character).

Agility - A character's dexterity and coordination.  Used in many tasks requiring fine motor skills and/or precision, including hitting enemies in combat, balancing, crafting fine goods, etc.

Speed - How quickly a character can sprint.  Allows you to cover more ground in less time when you need to.  Beware, fatigue does apply, so you can't sprint continuously.  (Walking speed is considered the same for everyone, Speed may also affect run speed, though.)

Intelligence - A character's ability to handle abstract concepts (in some ways, a mental version of Strength).  Allows you to easily learn skills related to abstract concepts (science, art, magic, etc.), and easily manipulate abstract concepts, such as math, science, magic, etc.

Willpower - A character's mental strength (in some ways, a mental version of Endurance).  Allows you to resist mind-affecting effect (mind-control, fear, insanity, etc.) and use certain types of magic.

Cunning - A character's aptitude for practical thinking (in some ways, a mental version of Agility).  Allows you to easily learn practical skills (combat, crafting, persuasion, etc.), and to use practical thinking effectively (planning, deception, etc.).

Charisma - A character's likability and charm.  Allows you to handle social encounters with greater ease.

Size - A combination of a creatures size and weight.  Larger creatures gain an advantage in Strength, Endurance, and Speed, while smaller creatures gain an advantage in Agility.  All humans, excepting those with growth defects (which are available to PCs), are the same Size.  (Mostly, Size is just to scale between creatures much larger or smaller than the PCs.)

Spirit - A character's magical aptitude.  Absolutely necessary for good magic users, can also cause unexpected effects from mundane actions (a "magical touch").  Spirit is used in conjunction with magic skills (which depend on either Intelligence or Willpower) to cast spells, both tests must be passed to cast successfully.  It may be possible to increase Spirit by accessing forbidden magic.  Spirit is generated secretly by the GM and kept hidden from the player (ooh, mysterious, at least, that's what I'm aiming for).

Faith - A character's strength of belief in God.  Used instead of Spirit for Holy Magic, can also cause unexpected effects ("divine intervention").  Unlike all other Attributes, Faith changes according to your actions, requiring you to act according to your religion to maintain it.  Faith is also kept hidden from the player by the GM.

Obviously, I can see some of these being fused together, like Strength and Endurance, or Intelligence and Cunning (which was actually what I originally had, then decided to split "Intelligence" into Intelligence and Cunning).  I wanted to have more diversity among characters, though.  Attributes remain fixed after character generation to represent that character's genetics.  Skills, on the other hand, can increase indefinitely, so enough practice and your Attribute becomes less important for that particular skill.  Note, however, that Intelligence and Cunning affect how quickly you learn skills.  Currently, I have it set up to use d100 rolls, but I've been considering switching to a dice pool system, due to it being simpler and because of a certain mechanic I would then be able to implement.

[mjbauer]

In my initial play-testing and discussions I have found that some players are confused about where one attribute begins and another ends (how do Charisma and Presence relate to each other, for example).  I have also found some players are adamantly opposed to conflating a character's strength with their dexterity, or how intelligent a character is and his perceptive abilities.

It might be as simple as using different names for the attributes. Personally, I don't think of Physique as athletic ability as much as muscular appearance, which could be confused with Body as well. Also, I think of Charisma more like personality than physical appearance which made your description of Presence a little confusing.

Make sure you have a good idea of what you mean when you refer to each attribute, but even more importantly make sure that these are the same things that your players mean.

I think that your attributes need to be more distinct. Maybe it would be good to do a questionnaire and have a list of attributes and how people would define them. Then use the results to determine what you name the attributes.

[Ayyavazi]

I say, take a hint from some other games, Like Warhammer Fantasy Role-play. You had a to-hit statistic, I forgot what it was called, and a missile-to-hit, and so on. Instead of trying to give your attributes abstract names that have to be defined carefully and involve a fair amount of overlap, just be extremely specific in naming conventions. For example, instead of strength, you could have Physical Offense. Instead of consititution, Physical Defense. Then, let the individual players give these terms nicknames of their own. So long as they work the same mechanically, it all works out. Now, this of course reduces a bit of the verisimilitude, in the sense that your terms remind the player's they are playing a game, not rating a fictional person's abilities (even though they are doing both in any case) but I feel the clarity makes up for it. Alternatively, use the abstract words, but be explicit in the definitions as to exactly what each stat is used for.

Just a thought. Or, do what I did, and throw out the attributes all together and just use moralities as your attributes. In my system, if you want to do something, your character has to be invested in it. His physical strength isn't important, his devotion to a cause is. But, for a traditional game, your system is probably better suited.

Just my thoughts,
--Norm

[chance.thirteen]

About 25 years ago I had a game with:

Strength - physical power
Agility - grace and balance
Manual Dexterity* - nimble fingers
Reflexes* - reaction time
Endurence -fitness* and health
Reason - abstracted thought and logic
Wit - mental reaction time
Will - resist magic, and other coercive effects
Spirit - magical strength
Faith* - adherence to a divine path and the earned divine favor
Charm - personality
Charisma* - leadership and inspiration
Comeliness* - physical attractiveness
Voice* - singing, entertaining

This was based off of my experienced with Thieves Guild, Flashing Blades and Chivalry and Sorcery 2nd Edition.
There were racial mods for most traits.
Traits cascaded til you had modifiers to most traits above you on the list.
It was adorable.

I thought I would share since Spirit and faith reminded me of my old design.

* denotes an attribute or feature of an attribute I later moved to the role of modifiers or advantages on basic values proded by another attribute or a base human ability.

To my eyes, the large number of randomely generate traits reflect a world view that you couldn't really control your opportunities or health in the medieval era, and so special people seem to just be gifted by fortuna.

[Luke]

My system is intended to be a universal engine supporting your "typical" settings/genres like sci-fi, supers and fantasy. 

Why should I play your game over GURPs, BRP or D&D? Seriously, what differentiates your universal system from all other universal systems?

Why should I play your game over Mutants and Masterminds? In other words, what does your universal system have to offer me over a custom-built hot rod of a system?

The attributes, therefore, should describe intrinsics that are common to all characters across these genres. 

Now THAT is a provocative statement.

-L

[Vordark]

Luke:  I can't say that I'm very good at marketing, but I'll try to answer your questions as best I can.  I really hope this doesn't come across as proselytizing.

Why should I play your game over GURPs, BRP or D&D? Seriously, what differentiates your universal system from all other universal systems?

1.  Aesthetics.  Every universal system has to accomplish certain goals or implement certain mechanics.  And each system typically takes a different approach.  You may favor the approach used by Genesys, or you may not.

2.  Simplicity.  I believe that Genesys is very easy to learn and use.  More so than most other games that I have played or run.  Intertwingled with this simplicity is a heavy emphasis on consistency as well.  Wherever possible I have chosen to create a general rule to cover many situations as opposed to treating these situations differently.  This minimizes the number of exceptions that must be committed to memory.

3.  Genesys has been designed from the ground up to be modular, featuring a relatively small core rule set that "plug-ins" can be built against.  Because of the simplicity and consistency of Genesys's design, I believe it is easier to create such modules for it than some other systems.

4.  I am willing, and eager, to make changes to the system based on the feedback of others.  I have already made several major changes to the system since announcing it.  I don't believe I'm necessarily unique in this regard, but so far many people have expressed surprise at my ability to throw bad rules away.

5.  It's free.  The license under which I've released Genesys allows anyone to use it or develop for it, even for commercial purposes.

Why should I play your game over Mutants and Masterminds? In other words, what does your universal system have to offer me over a custom-built hot rod of a system?

This is a hard question for me to answer, because I'm quite fond of many other systems and I doubt very much that even in my own games Genesys will replace them all.  Also, many RPGs feature special powers or other mechanics as part of their "gimmick".  I think two conditions would have to be met in order for Genesys to fill the role of a genre-specific/"hot rod" system:

1.  The core rules of the Genesys System must be more appealing than the hot-rod system's overall.

2.  A well-designed plug-in must exist for those elements that define the hot-rod system (a super powers plug-in, a magic system plug-in, etc.)

If either of these conditions aren't met in full, I don't believe Genesys would be suitable for that particular application.

Hopefully all of this makes sense.  It's early for me.

And thanks for asking these questions very directly.  Answering them made me focus more clearly on what differentiates my system for others.

[Kyle Schewe]

In my initial play-testing and discussions I have found that some players are confused about where one attribute begins and another ends (how do Charisma and Presence relate to each other, for example).

This is going to be a consistent problem because you are making a catch all system that is not specific to a genre. This can't be avoided.  This will also suffer from conflicting and forced/ignored fiction cohesion. If I have a high presence (great personality and able to persuade people) and low charasima (an ugly SOB), shouldn't I be good at persuading all people, but yet many of them react as if I am vile creature? How does the system deal with inconsistencies? Do you ignore them? Do they stick out like a sore thumb?

I know you say that charisma creates a 'gut reaction', but since you are trying to address as many human attributes as possible, I would say this: You ever talk to someone who has a huge scar across their face, or a huge nose, are you actually listening to that person, or are you staring at that scar or their nose? I am mainly pointing out that the system, or the GM, will find themselves being challenged on the meaning of an attribute and how to use it, so in the end you are going to get a bunch of the rules altered or modified in game play by the GM. Is this okay? Then why bother with the rules if this is okay, if the GM is making a lot of judgement calls.

2.  Simplicity.  I believe that Genesys is very easy to learn and use.  More so than most other games that I have played or run.  Intertwingled with this simplicity is a heavy emphasis on consistency as well.  Wherever possible I have chosen to create a general rule to cover many situations as opposed to treating these situations differently.  This minimizes the number of exceptions that must be committed to memory.

In my experience simplicity does not mean a system is good or wanted. I think it is a false assumption that you want the system to be simple for simplicities sake. I have played many different systems (roleplaying, boardgames, wargaming, etc) and complexity is rarely an issue. It is how the rules interfere with the fun of the game. If the rules interefere with how fun a game is, then it is a bad system. If the rules make the system fun, and it is fun to play, then I would call that a winner. It also matters on how the rules reinforce the setting that determines the simplicity or complexity of the system, which because you are making a catch-all you will have a hard time addressing this issue.

2.  A well-designed plug-in must exist for those elements that define the hot-rod system (a super powers plug-in, a magic system plug-in, etc.)

When you are changing genres, you may find that the same attributes may not apply the same. For example, if I am playing a game with lots of psychological effects or magic, Willpower is great. But what if I am playing a more mundane campaign, it seems the attribute is then devalued, and if so does the 'plug-in' deal with removal or changing effects of the core attributes? If the core attributes are always the same, but different games emphasize different attributes, how do I a prevent players from stacking their characters in those areas? Is this okay? Will this happen everytime I switch genres? Is there a default genre that you have in mind that all the attributes will be equally valuable?

1.  The core rules of the Genesys System must be more appealing than the hot-rod system's overall.
2.  A well-designed plug-in must exist for those elements that define the hot-rod system (a super powers plug-in, a magic system plug-in, etc.)
If either of these conditions aren't met in full, I don't believe Genesys would be suitable for that particular application.

I honestly wish the best in this regards, but even if your system does fill a genre gap by being modular, and you can play that 'Pirate Game' you always wanted to, it still seems I would just choose a different system to play that is genre specific even if it is not that 'Pirate Game' I always wanted to play. This is because the custom built hot-rod system is tailored to reinforce the setting and playability of that genre, and in the end they are normally more fun because of this. And in the end I would never find a reason to choose to use the Genesys System.

- Kyle

[Vordark]

Kyle:  Thanks for the response!  Most of what you wrote seems to be more a critique of universal systems in general, and not Genesys, but I did want to respond to one point.

In my experience simplicity does not mean a system is good or wanted. I think it is a false assumption that you want the system to be simple for simplicities sake. I have played many different systems (roleplaying, boardgames, wargaming, etc) and complexity is rarely an issue. It is how the rules interfere with the fun of the game. If the rules interefere with how fun a game is, then it is a bad system. If the rules make the system fun, and it is fun to play, then I would call that a winner. It also matters on how the rules reinforce the setting that determines the simplicity or complexity of the system, which because you are making a catch-all you will have a hard time addressing this issue.

In my experience, simplicity (to a point) dovetails with how much a system gets out of the way, and thus how fun games are to play with it.  I'm fairly certain this is simply a point of aesthetics (if you love math and complex problem-solving, you're not probably going to mind if you have to do a lot of both in an RPG) but consider a game with hit locations like "Head", "Torso", "Legs", etc.  Whenever a shot hits a character, the shooter rolls to determine hit location.  Each location has a number of hit points, but also generates a side-effect if hit (hit in the head, you get stunned, hit in the legs, you are slowed).

That sort of a system certainly brings an element of realism to the table, as well as new strategic options for combat, but it my opinion it adds a level of complexity to the game that makes combat be more about adjudicating specific hits and effects, and not about flow or story.  There are different games for different people.  Mine just happens to make simplicity toward this end a priority.

On Generic RPGs

The universal RPGs I've played tend to suffer from all of the problems you wrote about.  I'm not saying Genesys is objectively better than the universal systems I have played, but I believe keeping the core rule set small and making them easy to expand on may help to dodge some of these issues.  I hope.  I dream.

And yes, if you decide in a plug-in or setting you are writing that one attribute doesn't make sense, or you would like to add an attribute, the rules easily support that, in my opinion.

[Gurnard]

I use nine attributes in a system I've used for a few games over the years. Three main attributes with three sub-attributes. Throwaway NPCs only need the three main ones because each operates relative to the average of the three subs. PCs prioritise main attributes in character creation.

MIND
- Reason
- Intuition
- Charisma

FITNESS
- Strength
- Stamina
- Quickness

COORDINATION
- Agility
- Finesse
- Grace

It's pretty attribute-heavy rather than skill-heavy.

[Daniel B]

Just my own two cents, maybe people disagree ..

One of the very first system-shocks I had when first coming to the Forge was the surprising amount of symmetry in people's systems. (Of course, I thought I was the only person on the planet for these ideas to have occurred to.) My own system, also, had symmetry of attributes - namely,
     physical  [ strength (offense), dex (defense), con (health) ]
     mental    [ intelligence (offense), etc.
     social     [ confidence (offense), etc.

You can see the pattern. The struggle to force my game into these symmetrical patterns was also one of the first things I dropped, precisely because it seemed like everyone was trying to do this, and it made me wonder what the point of it all was. I quickly came to believe (and still strongly believe) that there really is no point for it beyond the aesthetics. In fact I'd go so far to say that it must be a stage that all (or at least most) of us potential game designers go through. I have since discarded the idea of aesthetics in favour of functionality. Who cares what it looks like (within reason) as long as it accomplishes what I need it to do, to meet my goals for the system.

My current system has four physical attributes, no "core" mental attributes, and social attributes that are invented by the player during the game as the situations come up (within some rules). It sure as heck ain't symmetrical, but it certainly does the job I need it to do far better than a symmetrical attribute group could.



Daniel