Stats Suggestion

[Valamir]

I've been musing on the RoS attributes for awhile now and have a suggestion that really can't be implemented as a house rule (without making alot of work) but might be something you want to think about Jake for some years hense second edition.

I'm not a big fan of having a zillion and one attributes (I used to be...I recently uncovered an old home brew that had 16 attributes).  If I were to list the pros and cons of RoS out on a sheet, "too many attributes" would be high on the (very short) list of cons.

From having chatted with Jake about this I understand the desire to differentiate different character types (indeed that used to be a soapbox of mine)...the tough but unhealthy guy for instance.  

Inevitably though the more stats you have the fewer actually get used with any regularity and the easier it becomes to play min max games with the underused ones.  Further it makes it more difficult to keep track of what to roll against when (for some of us anyway).

So given this...what's my idea...

Simply this.  I think the number of stats in RoS could be cut way down maybe as low as 4 or 5.  The differentiating features could then become part of the Gifts and Flaws.

Example:  I want a character who can take a hell of a beating but gets winded quickly.  The Current solution would be to jack up Toughness and cut down Endurance.  

The method I think I would like better would be to have 1 more broad "Physique" type stat that I set really high and then take a Flaw of "Tires Quickly".  Or if the character also gets sick easily, set the Physique stat low (to cover the Endurance and Health aspects) but take a Gift of "Feels no Pain" or "Unbreakable" or something like that.

This is kind of similiar to the way BESM works.

Any how, thought I'd throw that out there.

[Ashren Va'Hale]

personally... if it aint broke dont fix it.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I just went scavenging for it, but did not succeed in finding Jake's answer to a similar query very early in the forum's history. As I recall, he recommended "collapsing" attributes quite freely - all the way down to one "physical" and one "mental" attribute, if desired. It means that the derived attributes become pretty uniform, but that's consistent with the simplification-goal anyway.

So I guess one could do this lightly, in the sense of collapsing TO and HT together, or WIL and SOC, or whatever, to reduced the number of values to 2/3 or 1/2 its current number, or take it all the way to the extreme of one "Physical" score and one "Mental" score.

The usual rules from there would apply in full and game-play mechanics wouldn't be altered in the slightest.

Best,
Ron

[Jake Norwood]

I'll agree with Ron (since he was summing up my approach anyway). Now that I've been doing the game-design thing longer I can see lots of areas that I'd have done a little differently--nothing that really bugs me, just stuff that I think would be a *little* smoother one way or another. Examples include the skill selections and the attributes, as well as meshing sorcery into the rest of the system a little more. But a lot of folks like it just like it is, and it doesn't bug me too much, so I'll probably leave it to some degree.

For now, just collapse what you will.

I'm really looking forward to a written-and-working version of Thirst, as I think it's a more streamlined system by far (although I admit that few things beat dropping 10 more SA dice into your pool of 14 and saying "I'm throwing it all...")

Jake

[Valamir]

I remember that thread Ron, but that wasn't really what I was going for.  I don't want to make the derived attributes more uniform, or lose the ability to differentiate character types by simply collapsing the traits.  Rather simultaneously with collapsing the traits I was suggesting that the differentiation that was lost could be recovered by shifting the areas of "specialization" to Gifts and Flaws.

That way, for most characters whose Health, Toughness, and Endurance stats are all fairly close in value anyway, you get the benefit of collapsing them down into a single simpler stat.

But for those characters for whom having a noticeably higher or lower score in one of these traits is a core part of their character concept, you can still get the nice crunchiness by taking the appropriate gift/flaw.

[Jake Norwood]

Valamir-

This is very similar to what I'm doing with THRIST right now. I think its a fantastic idea, although not one that I personally will probably provide for TROS in the foreseeable future. I am not against it, however, and would be happy to see it done and I'd even support it to some degree.

Jake

[Bob Richter]

Inevitably though the more stats you have the fewer actually get used with any regularity and the easier it becomes to play min max games with the underused ones.  Further it makes it more difficult to keep track of what to roll against when (for some of us anyway).

TRoS seems to have a more-or-less perfect number of attributes.

I tend to use them all, which stops anyone from trying that kind of minmaxing in my games. :)

Systems with only a handful of attributes tend to be broad, sweeping generalizations regarding a character's capabilities, and using gifts and flaws to reflect them wouldn't give ENOUGH differentiation.

Personally, I'd rather have more attributes than Tri-Stat (BESM)'s three. TRoS's fifteen (it has five Spiritual Attributes, after all) seem just about right.

Just MHO, of course.

[toli]

Didn't D&D at one point have a system that dealt with this type of question.  For example, you had one score for Constitution but it could also be divided (if you wanted to be more complicated) into the equivalent of Endurance, Health and Toughness.?

NT

[Jake Norwood]

Didn't D&D at one point have a system that dealt with this type of question.  For example, you had one score for Constitution but it could also be divided (if you wanted to be more complicated) into the equivalent of Endurance, Health and Toughness.?

NT

Yeah, in their 2nd Edition "Skills and Powers" book. I avoided it, though I can't recall why.

Jake

[Lyrax]

Yeah, in their 2nd Edition "Skills and Powers" book. I avoided it, though I can't recall why.

Probably because it unnecessarily complicated an already hopelessly confusing game by adding several much-needed attributes as well as several contrived and extraneous attributes.

About TROS, I must first admit that I'm guilty of min/maxing.  Aw, heck, I'm guilty of just plain maxing.  But I use it as a roleplaying platform.  Sure, my Stahlnish tin can man has a Strength and a Toughness of seven, but he's got a Social of one.

I don't see this as a problem... it's a feature.

[MrGeneHa]

The method I think I would like better would be to have 1 more broad "Physique" type stat that I set really high and then take a Flaw of "Tires Quickly".  Or if the character also gets sick easily, set the Physique stat low (to cover the Endurance and Health aspects) but take a Gift of "Feels no Pain" or "Unbreakable" or something like that.

This is kind of similiar to the way BESM works.

Any how, thought I'd throw that out there.

I personally think this is more a matter of aesthetics than anything else.  How many of your numbers are "official" stats, and which are "gifts/flaws"?

Games like BESM and GURPS claim to have 3 or 4 stats, respectively.  But in truth, each game has far more than 15 stats.  I don't have a copy of BESM, but in GURPS, you have:  

Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, and Health.  Then things like Fatigue, Hits, Speed AND Move.  Status is represented by a number, from -4 to 8.

Intelligence alone can be broken down into things like Perception (which can be broken down for different senses), Fright Check, Magical Aptitude, Willpower, Voice, et cetera.  While these are described as bonus/penalties to Intelligence, they effectively form extra stats that most people leave at default.  Describing these as gifts/flaws won't stop a min/maxer from playing with these.

I don't object to having few or many stats, as long as you don't go too far either way.

Gene Ha

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

If I'm not mistaken, this thread isn't about "what's the perfect number for attributes in TROS/other games," or even, "what's the perfect number for attributes for me." Again, correct me if I'm wrong, Ralph, but it seems to be about, "What is the best way to adjust the number of TROS attributes and maintain character diversity?"

In other words, if adjusting the number of attributes downward isn't your cup of tea ... so what? The thread/question presupposes that as the task at hand, so if you're not into it, then the thread ain't about you.

Ralph, do you think the existing approach to Gifts and Flaws is sufficient for customizing the game as you see fit? Keeping in mind that the written Gifts and Flaws are not limited but rather exemplary (in other words people are encouraged to invent their own).

Or do you think that the Gift/Flaw system itself should be tweaked, given that the number of attributes is being reduced?

Best,
Ron

[toli]

I actually like the number of attributes and set up in TROS.  Something like GURPS has far too few real attributes to describe a character.  TROS also seems to separate them into logical categories.  For example some one can be very intelligent (high MA) but not a quick thinker (low Wit).  

Related, (but possible a different topic) I also think that the way attributes are used in TROS allows for a higher number of attributes than in other games.  I always like games that allowed attibutes to affect skills, but couldn't stand adding my skill level to my attribute modifier and calculating...etc.  TROS gets around that very nicely.

As for Gifts and Flaws, I would avoid gifts or flaws that could simply be replaced by role playing and adjusting stats accordingly.  For example, one could have a lecherous character withought the lecherous flaw, or one could be melancholoy (as an Elrician type flaw) by just having a low Soc.

NT

[Valamir]

Toli:  Actually your differentiation between high MA and low Wit is exactly what I'm talking about.  I long held to the theory that because such a character was possible and would be interesting to play that it was then necessary and desireable to have an attribute system that incorporated both so that *just in case* someone wanted to have a character where these were differentiated in a significant manner it would be possible to do so.

What I've since realized is that while, for some, it may still be "desireable" to do this, that it is completely not "necessary".  In other words there are a great number of OTHER ways to distinguish between a high MA and low Wit without needing to track each as seperate attributes.

Why I think its important is that for most character concepts there is no character driven need to differentiate.  The attributes may be the same, but even if they're a point or two different they aren't different enough to impact the way the character is played.  In other words its not part of the characters schtick to be "the really smart but slow and deliberate guy".

To my current way of thinking (and this is where the "desireable" part comes in) if the difference isn't enough to have a significant impact on the way you as the player roleplay the character it isn't worth while to track it seperately.  Thus, even though my character has nor particular dichotomy between the two stats, I'm still required to have two seperate attributes, for them.

And I'm required during character creation to put alot of thought into them, because if I don't make the stats pretty close to equal then inadvertantly I've created a character with a major personality feature.  Since I know that I don't want that feature I have to spend the time and effort to make sure I don't shortchange one of the attributes too much.

So what my suggestion would do is simply this.  For the majority of character types where such a differentiation isn't important you won't have to worry about having two stats (essentially for those characters the two stats would be the same or very close to the same value anyway).

For those characters for whom there is a desire to make such a differentiation you go the extra step to take a gift or flaw.  That character can then have the really high mental stat but with the flaw "slow thinker".  Narratively "slow thinker" affects the way you roleplay, and mechanically "slow thinker" gives you a minus to the mental stat when used for "Wits" type purposes.  Thus the only players who have to worry about whether a particular use is an MA or a Wits use are those players who chose to have that difference be a key feature of the character.  For everyone else...it doesn't matter.


Ron: yeah I think you've summarized the reason for this thread well.  As for the current Gift / Flaw system...I think the current system works well in all but one aspect (and that's an aspect I have a bit of trouble with anyway).  If I were to play a game of TRoS with collapsed stats the only additions to the Gift / Flaw would be to give a couple examples of how they work, and settle on a mechanical impact for minor vs major.  For instance: a minor flaw in a facet of the attribute might be a -3 when using the attribute for that purpose, while a major might be -6.

The aspect of the current Gift rules that might be problematic are the set combinations of Major and Minor gifts from the letter table.  I think that's a problem now anyway, but it would be more so in a situation where taking the right gift or flaw for the above purpose was important.  I'd be inclined to fix this simply by reducing the list to "X" points of Gifts, and "Y" points of Flaws, and then let players chose the combination of major or minor that work best.  But I'd probably take this approach even without collapsing the attributes, so its not specific to that.

[Bob Richter]

Ron: yeah I think you've summarized the reason for this thread well.  As for the current Gift / Flaw system...I think the current system works well in all but one aspect (and that's an aspect I have a bit of trouble with anyway).  If I were to play a game of TRoS with collapsed stats the only additions to the Gift / Flaw would be to give a couple examples of how they work, and settle on a mechanical impact for minor vs major.  For instance: a minor flaw in a facet of the attribute might be a -3 when using the attribute for that purpose, while a major might be -6.

The numbers you want are -1 and -3 :)

Those are the most commonly used bonuses and penalties for minor/major gifts/flaws in tRoS (or so it seems to me.)

I don't know. I don't think it's POSSIBLE to retain meaningful character differentiation with LESS stats.

Personally, I'd rather have MORE stats, so that gifts/flaws could be ditched entirely and what they represent could be rolled into a seamless skills/attributes/resources system.

But we're not talking about the fact that I think this approach is bass-ackwards, as Ron said. :)

The biggest problem(s) in my way of thinking, both come from the priority table.

First, there's the attribute point allocation.

Let's say you decide to have two non-spiritual stats, Temporal and Mental.
Clearly an attribute allocation of, say, 39 is not appropriate.

So divide by 5. Round up? Round down? I'd round down, personally. Leaves me with an odd number.


Second, of course, the gifts and flaws bit.

What if I want to be "muscle-bound" (like having a low AG?) "glass-jawed" (low TO?) "slow-witted" (low Wit) "socially incompetant" (low Soc), all at Major level?

Basically what I guess I'm saying is that you're overcomplicating the system by trying to decomplicate it. As it is, it works. With compressed attributes, you have to try harder to make it. Why bother?
What's so great about having LESS stats, anyway?