Ultimate Attributes List?

[Shreyas Sampat]

As I recall, BESM/the TriStat family have provisions for such things; I'd consult TriStat players to see how they use them.

[Deadboy]

Well, the long attribute list seems to me to be one of the first pitfalls many fledgeling game designers fall into. It's fun to come up with a big attribute list.

We did it over at Happy Nebula Adventures -- our system uses 10 attributes: Agility, Speed, Strength, Vigor, Appearance, Demeanor, Intelligence, Knowledge, Perception and Tenacity.

If I had it all to do over again (it's a bit late now, we've got three different fully written games using this system) I'd get rid of at least two, and possibly more. For example, Appearance, which realistically does very little ranging towards nothing in our very combat-related games. Intelligence I would dovetail into knowledge for the simple reason that you can make a smart character, but the character still isn't going to act any smarter than the player. It's generally only useful for a player playing a character that's dumber than they are.

For example, in your list, I wonder why Charisma and Manipulation really have to be two different attributes -- Most of the skills I would normally think of as Charisma-based should technically go under Manipulation like Persuasion, Con, Bribe, etc. Leaving Charisma covering -- what exactly? Also, I've never been a fan of Wits -- it dovetails so easily into Intelligence. While yes, I have known people that were plenty smart but not quick thinkers, it just seems to me to not be a useful distinction most of the time in an RPG.

You might want to think about listening to those who suggested going with the Killin', Thinkin' and Talkin' overattributes. Not that I'm generally in favor of that over-simplification, I feel while 10 may be too many, three is too few... But the overattributes you came up with are fairly simple, defining and interesting.

[Scourge108]

Just thought I'd add that one reason for attributes that is not often listed but is very important is in describing a character.  When designing a system, I didn't want the stats to really have that much focus in game play.  I debated having minimal stats, like Body, Mind, and Spirit or something, to reflect that.  After consideration, I decided to go the other way and have 10 stats that really aren't very important except in describing the character by where his priorities are.  For example, one concept would have higher priority in strength and stamina over intelligence (jock), one would have appearance and charisma over willpower and precision (princess), etc.  I think players often look over the attributes of a character first to get a "feel" for it.

[Valamir]

Hey Scourge.  As an alternative may I suggest using descriptors attached to a more brief attribute list to get the same effect.

So yes Strength 17, Dexterity 13, Constitution 16, does tell you more about the character than simply Body 15.

And differentiates from the character who is Strength, 15, Dexterity 18, Constitution 13


I submit that:

Body 15: Rippling Physique vs.
Body 15: Cat Like Grace

Accomplishes the same thing without adding more attributes that don't serve much purpose.  

If the point of the attributes is to enhance character description...then my recommendation would be to simply go with character description in the attributes.

(and yes, I do blame Ron Edwards for having corrupted me with this).

[Sean]

As others have mentioned, there is no 'ultimate attributes list'. Some games have no attributes, or treat them as a special kind of skill; other games have them, but use a wide range, with different sorts of priorities.

I would always ask: what do you want the attributes to do in your game? That should tell you what you need.

One kind of designer thinks that they need to simulate 'the' essential features of a character. Essential relative to what? (And then often after they've more or less successfully sweated out their desire to simulate what they want to simulate, they go back and worry that the list isn't balanced for competitive play. Well, but, you weren't designing it for that...!) Even if your game is supposed to reflect the underlying 'physical reality' of your game world in a really accurate way, which most aren't, you still have to make a decision about this.

Two examples from my own abortive and miserly hoarded game design efforts:

1) Attributes measure the force a character can bring to certain types of conflict. In a game I've worked on on and off (Gods and Heroes), which has a neat central conceit and mechanic (IMO, obviously) but isn't 'about' enough yet to be worth finishing, there are four: Prowess, Magic, Cunning, and Heart. Heart allows player narration of the sequels to bad conflict outcomes, while the other three are bid to determine how a conflict gets resolved, with a combination of highest combined bid and rock-paper-scissors determining the answer.

2) In the perpetual effort expended on my endless series of Fantasy Heartbreakers, now finally slowing down after discovering the Forge (thank you all once again!), I ripped off Alyria's distinction between a stat which influences, a stat which resists, and a stat which allows knowledge. I first split these up into Physical and Spiritual versions of each, giving

Physique (Physical, Influence)
Mettle (Physical, Resistance)
Awareness (Physical, Knowledge)
Charisma (Spiritual, Influence)
Will (Spiritual, Resistance)
Intelligence (Spiritual, Knowledge)

and then, because it's a fantasy heartbreaker, allowed submodifiers to Physique and Mettle along the usual Strength/Dexterity (Fortitude/Reflexes) axis.

So on one level that looks like - and in a sense is meant to be - completely conventional fantasy stat stuff, but even so there's a difference. The question was not 'what does the stat simulate' but 'what do you do with it'? If you're lifting a rock, you're using Physique (Strength) to influence something physical; if you're avoiding taking damage in combat, you're using Mettle (straight); if you want to know something, roll Intelligence; if you want someone else to do what you say, roll Charisma; etc. A cunning bit of magic theory allowed me to interpret Will rather than Charisma as the core stat governing magic use, and away I went.

----------

Hope that was vaguely interesting to someone. I just wanted to throw my voice in with those saying that the original question was somewhat problematic, and try to give some simple examples (axis of conflict/type of action) of non-simulation-driven choices for fundamental attributes in RPGs. Blood of Haven was what really brought this home to me, with honorable mention to "Cover" in Sorcerer (...and just like that, the problem of the skill list in the non-skill-driven game was solved - like a bolt of lightning in my little world...) as what first made me realize there were alternatives out there to the standard stat design mentality. Apologies to Seth and Ron if this post mangles your concepts: credit for anything good here you deserve in abundance, but blame for my mistakes and ignorance none.

[Valamir]

A cunning bit of magic theory allowed me to interpret Will rather than Charisma as the core stat governing magic use, and away I went.

I'd be interested in hearing, if you'd care to start a thread on it,

what the cunning bit of magic theory was, and why using charisma to influence, will to resist, and intelligence to know wasn't your preferred solution.

[Scourge108]

Hey Scourge.  As an alternative may I suggest using descriptors attached to a more brief attribute list to get the same effect.

If the point of the attributes is to enhance character description...then my recommendation would be to simply go with character description in the attributes.

(and yes, I do blame Ron Edwards for having corrupted me with this).

Yeah, I considered going that way, and still haven't ruled it out.  I just thought I'd experiment with something different to achieve a similar effect.  Basically, I'm thinking having a list of attributes, and have the player prioritize them for the character.  The actual scores don't matter so much as what your top preferences are.  That helps the players that aren't as good with descriptions, and takes some emphasis away from the actual score of the stat.  I know too many players who are not satisfied unless their character has phenomenally high stats, feeling puny if not maxed out.  I'm hypothesizing that this might reinforce the idea of arranging stats to fit the character concept instead of obsessing about numbers.

[Dav]

I would have to say that, overall, I tend to be a fan of a two stat system (some of you may be aware of my absolute HATE for "systemizing" social ability... as roleplaying is a social activity): Mind and Body.

However, I do tend to break those two stats into a binary system:

Body gets subgrouped into "ability to whoop ass" and "ability to have ass whooped" (with an occasional subcategory of "ability to avoid ass whoopage"... which I find slightly unnecessary in most cases, as it can be rolled into the second of the above subcategories)

Mind can similarly be noted as "ability to mentally whoop ass" and "ability to have ass mentally whooped"

In the end, these seem to be the only true numerical reasons to have attributes.  However, if your system rests in less numerical or calculative (is that a word?) methods for resolving conflict involving attributes, then go with a system of adjectivity ("brick shithouse" "beefy" "completely physically useless" etc.).  Keeping in mind that a majority of games only have attributes to reference the four above points of ass-whoopage (again, completely ignoring social systems... having a fortune or karmic system to deal with "talky shit" is ricockulous to me), I find that the only real modifications that are needed are in the titling of them.  Call 'em strength, mind, whatever, in the end, it tends to be the same.

There are always a few exceptions to every rule, but overall, unless you are designing a system that goes beyond roll-compare-consult, there is little need to discuss attributes beyond the big 4.

Dav (pausing for a moment to toss a couple cents at the subject)

[Scourge108]

OK, what I'm getting from this is that attributes can be divided into 2 basic categories: Physical and Mental.  Mental can sometimes be subdivided into social, spiritual, etc., but you do need something seperate from physical characteristics.  Something to measure how well you affect the physical world, and your effects on the immaterial.

Then, in deciding what attributes to have, you need to decide what you want them to do.  How much force you can inflict and how much you can take seem to be two important ones, so you end up with strength and endurance/stamina/constitution for physical, and charisma and willpower for mental.  You can also decide to have stats to measure how well you maneuver, so get dexterity and wits.  Or you can add the information gathering stat, perception or awareness for physical, and intelligence for mental.  I'm sure I could go on for a while discovering new ones, so it's obvious this can get out of hand quickly.  It seems most people seem to be in favor of limiting the amount of stats as much as possible, keeping only those that are important to maintain the game's flavor.  A courtroom drama RPG probably wouldn't even need a strength score (that's what the bailiff is for).  Someone in an athletic-based RPG might need several strength scores (throwing strength, lifting, etc.), depending on the focus.

[Dav]

Overall, I think you'e pickin' up what I'm puttin' down (I dunno, it just sounds cool).  Here is the key to me:

"A courtroom drama RPG probably wouldn't even need a strength score (that's what the bailiff is for)."

Yes, so why not make the Strength score "Bailiff"?  Nothing restricts you from this.  Why get locked into standard definitions and uses.  A courtroom drama has EXTREME need for strength in my opinion, as without it, you have just that: a courtroom drama.  

I mean, everyone expects a courtroom drama to have "Lying", "Persuasion", and maybe some investigative or nitpicking ability.  But instead, why not have attributes like this: "Honesty", "Outburst", "Bailiff", and "Soulful Gazes"?  Defy the expectation.

I know it seems I may be arguing the devil's case here, but follow me:

High- Action games:  
try these sample attributes:
-Lookin' Good Doin' My Thang: 5
-Makin' an Ass Out of the Bad Shit: 3
-Bein' a Top: 4
-Bein' a Bottom: 2

The general idea would be that whenever an attribute comes into play, you use it.  For instance, I'm gettin' down and dirty on some punks in a scrapyard... well, it's time to show them who's boss.  I'm not interested in looking good for the crowd, I want to focus on them, so I use "Makin' an Ass Out of the Bad Shit" and "Bein' a Top".  Meekness and looking good are secondary to making certain my message comes across.  

Even better, the player picks one attribute he or she feels applies, and the recipient (the GM or another player, or whatever) picks one that he or she feels applies.  Combine the two attributes and do something with them (this is where some degree of a fortune mechanic would come in, or perhaps a simple karma situation, comparing the result to some consultation method (like a chart... damn, charts)).  Perhaps major adversaries or other players get some more dynamic conflict system, and the minor shit gets a quick-karma comparison for resolution. (Always a fan of gettin' through the little shit fast)

In the end, however, I've still got a small gathering of attributes that can, if you like, be given names like:
Strength, Constitution, Wits, Willpower

But the idea is that if you leave them vague, the lines can blur.

Lookin' Good Doin' My Thang has so much more than any of the 4 old boring ones will ever have.  I can use this for Wit situations (figuring out the four digit code while the cute girl is watching), or Consitution (those pesky drinking contests, or walking the line for the cops, for instance), or Strength ("don't worry, I got this" <HEAVE> "ooo, that was a hernia").  But it will only apply when the need to impress is there.  

The same goes for the other three.  Bein' a Top is all about getting hardcore... and, well, you get it.  

I've seen games that have attributes like: Avarice, Depravity, Lust, etc.  Others have Doin' Stuff, Having Stuff Done to You... or what-have-you.  

Now, which sounds better:

Str, Dex, Con... or Depravity, Avarice, Lust?  

The first part of designing a new game comes from realizing that the games of the "usual suspects" (y'know, d(shudder)20 stuff) are already there.  And, while they may seem puerile or, at the very least, stunted, they adequately accomplish what needs to be done.  We all know what a high Strength means in any game... and I'm sure any one of us could look at a game with the big standard stats and have the system ready-steady-go in about ten minutes... but why not take the attribute idea to a new position and make it have a meaning for your game?

Anyway, just some thoughts...

Dav

[Autocrat]

Though I agree with the idea that Stats are there to be used in the game, therefore there is nothing wrong with the view that certain stats may be redundant in certain situations....I have two key areas that keep me thinking about retaining stats in general...

1)   Play and Character.... to often people expect a Player to be able to respond seperately from the Character, and vice-versa.  Intelligent Players may be able to role play a dumb Character, yet the other way around is impossible.  Further, some people just can't act out, role-play or get into character in that fashion.
  Then you have situations where people aren't picking up on clues, can't remmber what was said, or otherwise fail to get the significant stuff being laid out in front of them or blatantly being hit with!
  In these situations, have Stats is a fallback method!  They are there to cover peoples backsides when they fail to perform as required.

2)   So what do we do now..... there are times when things just don't work out... something is missing or simply doesn't make sense.  It's not anyones fault, nor the games... Human nature is not easy to predict, and trying to cover the majority is tough, let alone the oddball with the whacky sense of humour or the person with off the wall ideas and solutions!
  So, in an intense combat game, the Character faces of three adverseries, the Player realises theres a good chance the Character is about to die, and opts to discuss the problem...hmmm, so what stat does this?
  Games use Karma points, yet have no stats relating to religion, faith or luck!
  The mighty court room drama game, when alcapone leaps over and starts stabbing the DEA... yet theres no agility, aim, strength, force or attack and defence stats.....
  Again, the stats are there as a back up!

  I agree that having a whole host of redundant stats is of no use to any one, yet having some stats are are rarely used is fine.
  The same way some people dislike having these stats is the same as my dislike as not having them, bundling them with another stat just to tidy things up, or using descriptors that will only ever apply to certain things and serve little other purpose.

  As a solution, I thought having the choice of the stat type would be nice...simply having the Three general Body, Mind and Soul, and then breaking them down to a level of detail that suits you, would solve this problem.
  As far as I know, it should even be possible to have them mixed, so you can keep the less important stats in low number, such as just have Mind and Soul, then break Body down into 7 other stats as the game sort of requires alot of physical detail.
  Then, if you have traits as well, you can add those little names and alterations to stats that you wanted as well...thus the Trait, Wise beyond years would turn the Mind or Soul stat from a 15 to a 20 in respect to any wisdom based checks etc.

does that make sense?
PArticularly for a system that is meant to be general and flexible?

At the end of the day, you know what your intending, you know what you want.... all you have to decide is how flexible or rigid you are going to be getting there!  Hey, if you want to keep it, you don't have to justify it, same as if you want shot of it, shoot it!

[M. J. Young]

Intelligent Players may be able to role play a dumb Character, yet the other way around is impossible.

You know, this is axiomatic in role playing games; I've probably said something like it myself. I've also noticed that highly charismatic players have a very difficult time playing dull characters, and the reverse. But it is not true.

Multiverser provides some basic ideas for how to handle the situation in which the player's character becomes smarter (or dumber) than the player, but I think we could have gone further. There are ways to do it.

Let's face it, whether a player can figure out something in game depends on what? It depends on what information he has, and whether he as the player is smart enough to put it together.

Thus if the character is smarter than the player, of course you could just roll the dice and give the character the answer--or you could be more subtle than that.

For one thing, Multiverser recommends that the dumb player playing the smart character (not in those words, exactly) should be permitted the assistance of other players in reaching the solution. The group becomes a sort of brain trust to provide assistance so that the character can be played smarter.

However, what I think is important to note is that since the difficulty of the problem is based on the amount of information given, if the player is smarter than the character you give less information (things the character just wouldn't recognize as significant are not mentioned), and if the character is smarter then you give more information (partial conclusions in the reasoning process, like, "you realize as you see that gem that it is exactly the sort of thing Moriarty would have planted, and thus that he is expecting you to find it").

There's no reason why a player can't play a character smarter than himself, as long as play recognizes this and accommodates him.

Let's put that lie to bed, shall we? It's fooled us long enough.

--M. J. Young

[Dav]

Autocrat:

"1) Play and Character.... to often people expect a Player to be able to respond seperately from the Character, and vice-versa. Intelligent Players may be able to role play a dumb Character, yet the other way around is impossible. Further, some people just can't act out, role-play or get into character in that fashion.
Then you have situations where people aren't picking up on clues, can't remmber what was said, or otherwise fail to get the significant stuff being laid out in front of them or blatantly being hit with!
In these situations, have Stats is a fallback method! They are there to cover peoples backsides when they fail to perform as required. "

I disagree with you entirely.  Entirely.  If people aren't picking up on clues, there is a reason: a) there aren't any, meaning the GM hasn't left any to find; b) they don't want to investigate (as Players); or c) they are being obtuse (as Players or Characters).  In any event, any Player worth his salt should be able to make his own clues.  If I can't find clues, I start making damned certain I understand things the wrong way, providing me enough to go after SOMEONE or SOMETHING.  There is a whole new game now!  And fun.  And no stats, system, or other required.

As for memory problems, the GM should remind someone in this event, unless it makes more sense not to, then don't.  Not everything needs to be a damned system in order to exist in a gaming sense.


"So, in an intense combat game, the Character faces of three adverseries, the Player realises theres a good chance the Character is about to die, and opts to discuss the problem...hmmm, so what stat does this? "

Again, why need a system?  As a GM, I would decide, for myself, whether someone would care to listen, could be swayed, what it would take, and if not, how many rounds can go down range during one sentence.  I don't need to cross-reference a chart to figure out if someone is willing to listen.  And I will simply LOSE MY MIND if someone looks at me and says: "I lie to the guy" and drops some dice.  

"Games use Karma points, yet have no stats relating to religion, faith or luck!"

I honestly have no idea what the hell this means.  I seriously sat and looked at this for nearly ten minutes, trying desperately to discover some meaning.  I am confused.  Please elaborate.

"The mighty court room drama game, when alcapone leaps over and starts stabbing the DEA... yet theres no agility, aim, strength, force or attack and defence stats..... "

Um, that was the whole Bailiff score from the previous post...  My whole point is that agility, aim, strength, defense, ad nauseum, are all so tired and used that it should likely never enter another games' vocabulary.  Instead utilize alternate means.  If you want to play Courtroom d20, then play it, but don't try to tell someone it is a new game.


"I agree that having a whole host of redundant stats is of no use to any one, yet having some stats are are rarely used is fine.
The same way some people dislike having these stats is the same as my dislike as not having them, bundling them with another stat just to tidy things up, or using descriptors that will only ever apply to certain things and serve little other purpose. "

See, now it is not the same.  If it serves little purpose, don't bother including it.  The general idea is that you have to trust players and GM's enough to realize that they will do this on their own.  Open upon any gaming book you want, if the game has a system for swimming, it had better be a game about swimming, or pirates, or something that would mean I am the water often.  If it doesn't have a hook relating to water and still has rules for swimming, and here is where it gets tricky: THE GAME IS NOT GOOD.  

I never want to see a rule or system that has no point.  Take D&D (pick a damned edition), they all have rules for swimming.  Why?  I have no fucking clue.  I have tried to understand it.  I am a relatively smart guy.  This game seems to be 97% about killing things and taking their shit in order to acquire phenomenal cosmic power (let us not examine how or why THAT works)...  I can understand a very detailed "killing things and taking their shit" system... and boy howdy... there is not.

For instance, I tried to play the game one time...  I trying to stop some naga from catching some guy for some reason (there was a reason, I just don't recall it).  Naturally, I remove my pickaxe and attempt to pin the naga to the ground using the pickaxe.  

The GM: "There are no rules for that"

Me: "So wait, there is a fucking page on swimming, on climbing, on knot-fucking-tying, a chart on what the fuck is in a room when I open the fucking door, but a game where all I do and am is killing things and taking its shit does not allow me to pin a fucking snake-thing to the ground with what amounts to a giant staple in a combative sense?"

The GM: "Correct"

Me: "How is this a popular game again?"

Voila.  So then I turn to Riddle of Steel.  A fantasy game.  I look about me for a bit and realize that "YES I CAN PIN WHATEVER I NEED TO HOWEVER IT HAPPENS WHENEVER I WANT!"  Why?  Because combat is a heavy-focus in this game, so it was decided by the people who think these things up (in this case Jake Norwood and company): hey let's not with the swimming and the cooking and the knot-tying, and yes with the fighting and stuff.  Now HELL, that makes sense.  And their game's statistics, mechanics, and system all serves to make fighting and killing and living in this bleak world ABOUT SOMETHING.  

Now that is how fantasy is done.

A game shouldn't need a system to be flexible, it shouldn't need to compromise or apologize.  A game should be designed with something in mind: a concept.  And everything about that game should feed that concept.  Pick a moral dilemma, any moral dilemma.  A game should encompass THAT moral dilemma, using some cool hook as a focus, and the entire things should be in existence to serve one purpose: to resolve such a dilemma and allow for an entertaining time doing so.

This would mean stats, it would mean dice, it would mean everything.

Dav

[Autocrat]

The thing I have found with most people involved in RPG's is that they forget that there are "newbies", that when they strted, they didn't know all that much about it.  Once you have played one set of rules, you tend to be able to pick up others quite easily.  Yet in the beggining, people don't think like a unit, people want to do there own thing

... M. J. Young ...

  OK, I am inclined to agree with you... it's an old excuse, but I believe it is true, (hey, it's only my own opinion, and its not worth much....).
  Some people need rules, others like them.... the majority of experienced players have learned to adhoc rules as needs be, sometimes using their own rules rather than those in the manuals.
  Its a matter of experience and preference.
  Also, newbies aren't likely to be able to do as you suggested.  Though I prefer doing your method, I'd rather have a fallback alternative, something these people can turn to.  It's also a nice way to speed things up .... rather than Role play it, Roll play it!  It saves time, and if the game doesn't lean in that direction, then roll for it.  I can't think of many games that make you sit there and explain how you are picking a lock, or exactly what method and ingredients are used for cooking at the camp fire, you take them sa is.... so do the same for other thigns if you like.
  At the end of the day, I'm trying to cover as much as possible to save time and effort on the gamers side, and generating alternatives so that as players advance in experience, they can play differing aspects of the same game, till they reach a level they are comfortable about... rahter than having stats that they think are to numerous or to few, they can select and alternate amount, if the skills are to defined or to genreal, they can move to a diffferent level of play, so on.....


... Dav ...


  I'm going to guess that your'e a Settings person.... one that believes settign is an integral part of the game and the mechanics/system behind it.
  Well there is a problem form the start, becuase though I beleive it can add a lot to the game itself, I don't think it is necessarily true.... thus mine is system and mechanics only, nothing to do with setting.
  As to the rest, the same applies as I said to M.J.Young, people are different, want and need different things.  I'm doing my best, and what I ocnsider suitable, to cover those aspects, whilst offering aspects they may want to include.
 

  Human nature is strange, people will make choices based on colour, size, appearance, text layout etc., not just the rules... though that is what they are really getting, its the experience that comes with it they purchase.
  Prefences alter so much, what you like, what I like, what he/she likes, garauntee these will differ, in one extent or another on almost every option available.... thats why your'e you, I'm me, and there who they are.  No single thing will suit every one, so I provide options and alternatives, hoping that what I create will offer what they want, or atleast appeal to the variety of tastes people have.  My groups are a perfect example, some prefer multiple die, where as the majority prefer percentile or D20.  Others think Requesite systems are great, where as others think they suck.... so why not cover both of these aspects by allowing both types to be used?

  If you don't like the stat, don't use it!  As the Species decides what Stat Scores you have as a base, you don't have to spend anything extra to alter them.  AS the different campaigns provided will offer details as to the game play type, you pick what is relevant from the options the campaign meterial provides.
  The system is there to be altered and tailored to your prefence so as to as closely resenble what you want as possible, then you play settings that are to your prefence as well.... I can't think of anything better than being able to do what you want, how you want it!

  Still, these are my opinions, and merely that.  If you disagree, I don't blame you and thank you for your views, particularly the strength of them, as it reminds me that my view is only that!

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

This thread has transmogrified into an RPG Theory type thread when I wasn't looking ...

Therefore, let's get back to the primary work of helping this person with this game, and take any more generalized discussion of attributes, play, and characters into another thread in the Theory forum.

Best,
Ron