Blurring attributes and skills

[M. J. Young]

I did not earlier mention Multiverser because it seemed reasonably within Ron's statement,

Now there are a few games which do some interesting tricks with attributes vs. skills representing different and distinct aspects of a single Fortune mechanic, rather than just contributing quantity to a target number.

--even though he didn't mention it then. But some things Windthin wrote made me think perhaps it would help him to look there.

Multiverser does use a base attribute plus skill system; but it has a couple of nuances that make this work.

One is that attributes are a lot harder to improve than skills, and almost impossible to improve above a certain level. This mitigates against the approach of building up attributes instead of skills because they're more useful.

Another thing that makes a difference is that although attribute and skill contribute equally to the chance of success, skill has a lot more impact on the quality of success and often the speed of success where that would be relevant.

Averaged attributes are also used, although in the main these are listed on the character sheet for very specific purposes (which saves handling time in play).

Overall, I think the secret to making an attribute plus skill system work right is be certain that each score has a unique independent impact on task resolution or completion within the game. To do this with minimal impact on search and handling time is elegant design. If you can't do it, you're better off building the attributes into the skills in some way.

Hope this helps.

--M. J. Young

[Windthin]

That difficulty to increase attributes, along with a certain cap, limit, is something I am also striving for in the system I've been working on lately.  Clearly some attributes are easier to develop than others, most notably certain physical ones such as strength and agility, but overall the system is set up such that one cannot merely rely on attributes to carry them through: to truly develop any skill, they have to go beyond what raw talent and potential (i.e. the base offered by the combination of various attributes) provides.

Likewise, if you wish to diversify, to truly master a skill, you're not going to do it building up attributes, partly because they do not add to the base skill levels on a 1:1 basis.  You need to look into your skills to hope to go far.

This does bring up a flip side, a problem I call "too many choices."  Skill-based games develop a certain amount of trouble in that skills can rapidly multiply at an exponential rate, especially when you start getting into speciality and secondary and so-on and so-forth skills.  Trying to keep things pure and simple might give the feeling that there is not enough diversity, but trying to cater to every whim can wind up in a dilution of characters.  I've personally experienced this in a game I've played for many years, where I used to have a terrible habit of building characters who tried to do a little of everything.  The problem with that is... very few game systems really are built to let that work well, and in this one trying to do so was usually disasterous (though I none-the-less always managed to have a successful character... I just wound up with a strong emphasis in certain areas and a lot of useless little tidbits).  One possibility I am tossing about is "spin-offs", splinter skills.  This idea is partially spawned by the quote concering swordmanship and carpentry.  The basic premise is that more keenly-developed skills also gain attached minor skills, mostly for roleplay purposes.  Skill packs, if you will (another idea I've tossed around at times, and something you actually see in the game I play in now, where you have single mega-skills which advance many abilities at once, at varying degrees).  I know there is a certain degree of difficulty, also, in that there is often the tough choice of developing fun, playable skills versus developing skills more likely to keep yourself and the rest of your party alive.  I hate being forced into that position personally, and it's possible that some of that could be alleviated by hooking skills together via this method, even if it does bring up whole new problems, such as why my crossbow and calligraphy skills advance concurrently when I don't even have adarn quill to practice with (I wonder if a quarrel can substitute?).  ::chuckles::  Anyhow... ah... food for thought there.  Feedback appreciated, and hopefully this offers some options as well.

[M. J. Young]

Skill-based games develop a certain amount of trouble in that skills can rapidly multiply at an exponential rate, especially when you start getting into speciality and secondary and so-on and so-forth skills.  Trying to keep things pure and simple might give the feeling that there is not enough diversity, but trying to cater to every whim can wind up in a dilution of characters.

Well, Multiverser has several approaches to that problem, including using related skills at a penalty (such as using knowledge of electronics to troubleshoot a computer) or as an example (the game allows characters to try to teach themselves how to do something they've never done pretty much on the spot), but I'll cover one I find particularly useful.

In skill improvement there are break points at which the focus of the skill has to narrow. Thus you can develop a skill in, say, swords, or pistols, and as an amateur it doesn't much matter what sword or what pistol you've picked up, they're all pretty much the same. You can improve as an amateur, but when you reach the point where you're becoming a professional, there's a narrowing of the definition. You're still as good as you were at swords, or pistols; but now you're better and faster with long swords, or Colt .45 revolvers. You can continue to improve this (and you can become professional at other subcategories of the weapon) until you're about as good as a professional can be, and then you hit the breakpoint to expert. If you're an expert, you're still as good with all long swords or all Colt .45 revolvers, but now you're faster and better with the long sword handed down to me by my father or the Colt .45 Revolver I bought in Carson City, Nevada.

We also talk quite a bit about skill discrimination and generalization, and suggest that referees should give consideration to how useful a skill will be in the game as he predicts it will go. If there's going to be a lot of stunt driving in the game, it might be worthwhile to divide driving skills into skid turns, jumps, wheelies, and whatever else is worthwhile; if it's just a matter of an occasional use, merely listing driving and improving the ability level to note the experience with stunts is more effective. If you're discriminating more, you need to make skill improvement in those skills easier; if you're generalizing more, it should be a bit tougher.

I hope that helps some.

--M. J. Young