In trying to think of ways to better engage players in their characters and the story, I was thinking that an interesting way to generate PCs would be to have the players write down descriptions of their skills & attributes instead of giving them numerical values (example: Swimming: Once swam across a 500' pond without tiring, can tread water for at least 30 minutes, arms tire after that"). My thinking is that characters don't think of themselves as having a STR of 14, but instead measure thier skills and attributes by what they have done, what they have lifted, what they have read, what they have experienced. etc. Once players have provided brief descriptions of each notable attribute & skill, then the GM generates a numerical value based on the description and keeps it to himself. This is different from the FUDGE descriptions of "good", "everage", "poor", etc, because here the player don't know the value -- only the GM knows the value. My hope is that the players will make decisions not based on their tangible values, but on their gut feelings and experinece ("Well, I once swam across a wide pond with no trouble... so I think I could make it across that raging river ...").

Would it work? Could it work? Is it just a gimmick? A good idea? What games have used this idea?

I'm shuddering at the thought of the GM keeping the numerical values of the PCs abilities a secret from the players. I could see this being interesting on a limited scale and for a very specific theme, but not as a standard course of action.

The only game that comes to mind that have a similar mechanism to what your're describing is Dogs in the Vineyard where a PC might have a Trait like "Used to break horses with my 'pa". The value assigned to the trait represents how important of a trait it is to the player.

-Eric

I think you will find that players will end up being frustrated by character actions. What a player has in mind for a character is not the same as when a GM reads the character sheet. Words can be interpreted many different ways. A number can't if it's applied to a rule (higher is better). I have swimming at 5. Bad guy has 10. 10 is faster then 5 so he wins in a race.

Also you have to keep in mind that not all players are skilled at language. When I think of things I sometimes have a hard time convening that as words. I think you'll find players saying "But that's what I meant".

It's an interesting idea. But I think it would be very hard to play.

Jeremy wrote: I think you will find that players will end up being frustrated by character actions. What a player has in mind for a character is not the same as when a GM reads the character sheet. Words can be interpreted many different ways. A number can't if it's applied to a rule (higher is better). I have swimming at 5. Bad guy has 10. 10 is faster then 5 so he wins in a race.

Also you have to keep in mind that not all players are skilled at language. When I think of things I sometimes have a hard time convening that as words. I think you'll find players saying "But that's what I meant".

It's an interesting idea. But I think it would be very hard to play.

Sir Privy Toastrack wrote: I'm a professional videographer. I run into people all the time who say they have a great camcorder and can make really good videos. Then I see their work and it makes me wretch. In their minds, they have a videography skill of 13 (on a 3-18 scale), but in reality they are more like a 6.

Jeremy wrote:

Sir Privy Toastrack wrote: I'm a professional videographer. I run into people all the time who say they have a great camcorder and can make really good videos. Then I see their work and it makes me wretch. In their minds, they have a videography skill of 13 (on a 3-18 scale), but in reality they are more like a 6.

Funny. I'm in the video industry too and know exactly what you're talking about. -smile-

Assuming you have great trust in your GM and you are an open minded player I think this type of game would be interesting.

As a player you would really not have any idea if you're better then somebody else until you tried. But the history of the players would be cool (and long winded). As a player role-played out his character he/she would become what they where trying to create in the first place.

-after a few games-
Video Skill: I have created 4 commercials for local auto dealerships. I created a video biography and entered it into a contest but came in 32nd out of 40. I then took a 6 month video course at my local university. I was asked to to a music video for a local band and it ended up winning an award.

Something like this certainly has merit~
Its a different concept, to say the least, and one I haven't seen around~
One of the nice things about the Forge here is we can make systems on a trial basis and see something out of it: suggestions, thoughtful discussion etc. It might fly, it might not, but this is a pretty darn good laboratory to test that in.
If you have the time, I say go for it, regardless what other peeps on other forums say~ Thats what Forge is here for: trial and experimentation ^_^

daMoose_Neo wrote: Something like this certainly has merit~
Its a different concept, to say the least, and one I haven't seen around~
One of the nice things about the Forge here is we can make systems on a trial basis and see something out of it: suggestions, thoughtful discussion etc. It might fly, it might not, but this is a pretty darn good laboratory to test that in.
If you have the time, I say go for it, regardless what other peeps on other forums say~ Thats what Forge is here for: trial and experimentation ^_^

It seems to me that your idea has two facets:

1) Character effectiveness is derived from a written description rather than simply choosing the actual effectiveness value.

2) Players don't know what their character's effectiveness value is.

Facet number 1 seems an awful lot like the Hero Wars/Hero Quest character generation system, if I understand it properly. This is also used in The Pool, wherein one writes a small story of their character as the first step of character creation. So it can be done.

The second facet is found in numerous advice articles on how to make RPG combat more tense. It has also been used in games like Cell Gamma (part of the No Press RPG Anthology and IIRC, the game Psychosis: Ship of Fools. I'd be surprised if there wasn't an Over the Edge supplement somewhere that did it as well. I think Paranoia 5th Edition encouraged it as well. Having just run Cell Gamma, I can say that having the GM be the only one dealing with the game mechanics is stressful for the GM and slows the game down from the players' perspective. But in the case as well, it can be done.

My question to you (BTW, what's your real name) would be: Why? What are you trying to achieve by removing the numbers from the players' sight?

Michael S. Miller wrote: It seems to me that your idea has two facets:

1) Character effectiveness is derived from a written description rather than simply choosing the actual effectiveness value.

2) Players don't know what their character's effectiveness value is.

Facet number 1 seems an awful lot like the Hero Wars/Hero Quest character generation system, if I understand it properly. This is also used in The Pool, wherein one writes a small story of their character as the first step of character creation. So it can be done.

Michael S. Miller wrote: The second facet is found in numerous advice articles on how to make RPG combat more tense. It has also been used in games like Cell Gamma (part of the No Press RPG Anthology and IIRC, the game Psychosis: Ship of Fools. I'd be surprised if there wasn't an Over the Edge supplement somewhere that did it as well. I think Paranoia 5th Edition encouraged it as well. Having just run Cell Gamma, I can say that having the GM be the only one dealing with the game mechanics is stressful for the GM and slows the game down from the players' perspective. But in the case as well, it can be done.

Michael S. Miller wrote: My question to you (BTW, what's your real name) would be: Why? What are you trying to achieve by removing the numbers from the players' sight?

The problems that I see are that words have different meanings for different people. I'm constantly berated by my wife, because when she asks my opinion about things my usual response is, "It's okay". It's non-committal. It can be taken either as positive or negative and it drivers her up a wall! What is good to me might not be good to you.

Trying to describe how good I am at something without using some sort of measure is close to impossible. Baseball player verse a softball player. Very similar set of skills and physical attributes. The same 'words' can be used to describe both players and they do things in a very similar fashion. How do they measure up to one another?

Statistics...

Batting average, slugging percentage, fielding percentage... That is why numerical values are used, because these numbers give us a relative basis for comparison that isn't as subjective as descriptors. The number one is one to everyone. The word 'good' means 'good', but what I meant was 'better' than what you rate as 'good'. I just didn't know that is what you consider 'good'

What I'm saying is that I think RPG's would have evolved to a numerical system regardless of how it was thought up, even if it didn't evolve from war gaming. If a group of improv actors has designed RPG's in the 60's the GM would probably be the one deciding if you fail or succeed by how convincing your performance is! At least until half the troupe walked away because this cute little actress kept succeeding at everything because the GM has a thing for her... like that's never happened in a gaming group.

The concept is intriguing, but I don't think it'll succeed because of the ambiguity of language as a whole.

But please... prove me wrong. I'd love to see it work!

I'll have to agree with the last post by Darksmith....mathematics is the universal language. No matter who or when the first rpg was designed, it would have involved numbers. Even FUDGE uses numbers through it's descriptors, whether you realize it or not. For example:

Amazing
Great
Good
Average
Poor
Awful
Horrid

Without realizing it, the human mind would equate the above as follows:

3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3

or:

7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Either way, we quantify the terms in order to logically relate which is "better" or "higher" than the other.

Darksmith wrote:
Trying to describe how good I am at something without using some sort of measure is close to impossible. Baseball player verse a softball player. Very similar set of skills and physical attributes. The same 'words' can be used to describe both players and they do things in a very similar fashion. How do they measure up to one another?

Statistics...

Batting average, slugging percentage, fielding percentage... That is why numerical values are used, because these numbers give us a relative basis for comparison that isn't as subjective as descriptors. The number one is one to everyone.

Darksmith wrote: The word 'good' means 'good', but what I meant was 'better' than what you rate as 'good'. I just didn't know that is what you consider 'good'

Darksmith wrote: The concept is intriguing, but I don't think it'll succeed because of the ambiguity of language as a whole.

Darksmith wrote: But please... prove me wrong. I'd love to see it work!

Cmonkey wrote: I'll have to agree with the last post by Darksmith....mathematics is the universal language. No matter who or when the first rpg was designed, it would have involved numbers. Even FUDGE uses numbers through it's descriptors, whether you realize it or not.

I've also toyed with a similar idea. The 'why' for me was quite simple: I wanted to support simulationism and not gamism (if I understand Forge-speak correctly). I'd toyed with this 'blind' system because it put an emphasis on the players having to evaluate what they 'did' in the past in order to project what they might be able to 'do' in the future--it made gamist decisions based on meta-game knowledge more difficult.

Anyway, I can understand 'why' this might be appealing. The question for me is if there is enough gained to justify the risks.

Problems:

1) As has already been mentioned, it offloads a great deal of effort into the GM's hands.

2) It doesn't just facilitate the idea of GM-fiat, it removes any access the players have to an exra-GM authority (the 'rules') that they can use to lend credence to their version of events, creating a huge disparity in control.

3) With players--by far I would guess--more used to having a specific idea of their skills, they may be very unhappy not being able to accurately predict how well their character can perform.

4) There are two things to model that are slightly different: our 'objective' ability (I can swim 1000m) and our 'subjective' ability (I can swim faster than Fred). Sometimes we have a better idea of our objective ability--I could give a great estimate on how fast I could run 200m but not where that would put me nationally--other times we have a better idea of our subjective ability--I may be able to say that I'm faster than 95% of the people I've met but, having never timed myself, wouldn't have the first clue of how fast I could run 200m.

To me, #2 is by far the most damaging, though I haven't found a great solution to #4 either. #1 can be mitigated with good design, depending on how 'cruncy' the game system aspires to be. #3 can be overcome through a good social contract and repitition of play. #2 is less tractable.

The underlying problem is that you've taken away the players' ability to cite an external authority and, in so doing, you've only increased the power of GM-as-god. A lot of 'ifs' have to go in the right direction to make for good play, and that doesn't strike me as good design. Good design shouldn't mean that you have to get lucky in order to have good play.

With regard to statistics, we should all remember the phrase, "there are lies...there are damn lies...and then there are statistics." Anyone involved with the production of statistics should have a healthy understanding of just how many biases are unavoidable despite our best efforts. There is no perfect statistic--one reason that some designs have strayed away from supplying them, in favor of a more 'intuitive' and 'flexible' approach.

Example: The rules state that, with a Swim skill of '5', I can swim 1000m. Let's also posit for a moment the rules even go so far as to say that this is in a calm, warm body of water on a warm day. The questions that will arise during play often have conditions at variance with the baseline conditions. How far can I swim in an ocean with 25-foot swells, when the water temperature is 48 degrees and the wind is blowing at 50mph? Damned if I'd be able to swim 1000m then.

What happens next is invariably negotiation between the player and GM about how the conditions serve to limit the 'baseline' 'objective' statistic. Even if the rules state that I can swim 1000m without any further conditions, it is still implicitly open to negotiation. Few players would argue that this means that they could swim 1000m in plate armor, with an anchor attached to their midsection via a 10' length of iron chain, when their hands have been cuffed and their feet bound.

The fact that some type of negotiation is almost always required means that many experienced gamers, I would surmise, have found it easier to dispense with the idea of setting a statistical baseline in the first place. As long as the system they've developed supports their game play, then I'd say, kudos. I'm not against statistics in any way, used properly they can provide very valuable guidelines for the negotiation process.

I haven't given up on trying this but, darn it, I'm stuck on how it could really work well. Good luck with the system though!

Cheers
Chris

I'll toss a couple comments in here:

1. It can be hard to define a character when you don't have a list of skills. On the other hand, your proposed method relies on describing experiences from which one can derrive skills, so if someone says they have climbed Mt. Everest, we don't have to worry that he didn't write down "tent pitching" as a skill (whereas if he had put "excellent climbing" he might not have realized that "tent pitching" was an important skill).

2. The key in any system is communication between the GM as to the capabilities of the character. Now it is possible for the capabilities to be fuzzy, but if I've declared I led an expedition to Mt. Everest, we shouldn't be getting into an argument as to whether I have a good chance of estimating the danger of some climbing task, even if the system says that the GM doesn't need to give me the actual chance of failure (i.e. don't let me assume I probably have a 90+ percent chance of success when you're thinking I have a 20% chance of success).

Also realize the players used to systems with objective ratings will be constantly pressuring you for objective ratings...

Frank

I've done it, and it works well and is a lot of fun. But I'll never do it again. The reason is that it's a HUGE amount of extra work for the GM. Basically all the mechanics stuff that the players do, ends up in the hands of the GM, and then even very light mechanics (like Feng Shui) become excruciatingly tedious.

Now, if I understand you correctly, you want to get people to engage with the game at the level of narrative reality rather than mechanical reality. This is a good goal, but I don't think the specific technique you suggest is the best way to go about it -- at the end of the day you still have someone (the GM) translating actions into and out of a mechanical system. Instead, what you should do is look for ways to eliminate that translation entirely, and enable all the players to play with words and narrative rather than with numeric models.

One game you should look at is the Engle Matrix Game. In it, the players make arguments about what should happen in plain English and a referee rates them based on his or her perception of their credibility. The players don't have to fiddle with numbers and mechanics because the way they play the game is to talk about "the real stuff" directly. (You can read my review of it if it sounds interesting.)

neelk wrote:

One game you should look at is the Engle Matrix Game. In it, the players make arguments about what should happen in plain English and a referee rates them based on his or her perception of their credibility.

neelk wrote: The players don't have to fiddle with numbers and mechanics because the way they play the game is to talk about "the real stuff" directly.

ffilz wrote:
Also realize the players used to systems with objective ratings will be constantly pressuring you for objective ratings...

Frank

dredd_funk wrote:
2) It doesn't just facilitate the idea of GM-fiat, it removes any access the players have to an exra-GM authority (the 'rules') that they can use to lend credence to their version of events, creating a huge disparity in control.

dredd_funk wrote: 3) With players--by far I would guess--more used to having a specific idea of their skills, they may be very unhappy not being able to accurately predict how well their character can perform.

dredd_funk wrote: The underlying problem is that you've taken away the players' ability to cite an external authority and, in so doing, you've only increased the power of GM-as-god.

dredd_funk wrote: A lot of 'ifs' have to go in the right direction to make for good play, and that doesn't strike me as good design. Good design shouldn't mean that you have to get lucky in order to have good play.

dredd_funk wrote: The fact that some type of negotiation is almost always required means that many experienced gamers, I would surmise, have found it easier to dispense with the idea of setting a statistical baseline in the first place.

dredd_funk wrote: Good luck with the system though!

Ah Gawd... The paperwork...

Once, in an effort to remove my players from their character's stats and have them focus instead on their character's personalities and deeds, I took away their Vampire character sheets. I kept them in a nice neat little folder and told them I would make all of the adjustments neccessary to their characters over the course of the game.

Holy Mother of Blessed Gawd did that suck. Dice rolling became a moot point, taking away half the Vampire system; either I rolled the dice, or told the player to roll X-dice, after looking it up on their sheet. Neither of those was particularly interesting. Advancement, injury, all of the standard book keeping you expect your players to do on a regular basis... Impossible in this kind of game. It all has to be done by the Game Master.

Which brings us to two rather important points:

1) Keep the rules as simple as humanly possible, to limit the huge amount of book keeping involved.

2) Why are we using numbers at all?

Keep the Rules Simple
As I recall, the Pool involves a dice-pool betting mechanic in which any action can use as many dice as the player likes, but once those dice are used, they're gone. There was, as I recall, a way to regain dice, but I cannot be arsed currently to look up what that is. Anyway, it works, but the system is quite removed from the Game Mastery games we're talking about right now.

Here is what I suggest:
Character creation consists of
I Am: A description in three points (objective or subjective, it matters not) of who or what the character is.
I Am Not: A description in three points of what the character is not.
I Can: Three things that the character does well (objectively or subjectively, or add more things and make a bit of both; whatever)
I Can Not: Three things that the character either does poorly, or cannot do at all.

All of the points must be in the realm of possibility and relativity to the I Am statement. To say "I am a human, I cannot fly," is rather redundant. Saying "I am a human, I cannot eat," is more possible, and presents an interesting challenge for the character to overcome. It is a point that would need a great deal of expounding upon, and would be abused without end ("I am a warrior, I cannot sleep"), so obviously rules would need to be made to limit this kind of thing; I am only presenting the barest of bare bones here.

All rolls are made according to these statements. If a character Can do something, he or she gets a bonus that the Game Master keeps to him or herself (let's say +3 for now). If a character Can Not do something, the character is disallowed or penalized in performing that action. If something is completely against the character's I Am or I Am Not statements, they are also penalized. Everything else gets a fair shake.

Who's Line is it Anyway? Option
I'm a big fan of Game Master fiat. I realize that makes me incredibly unpopular here, but I feel that Conditional Authorship makes for a much more enjoyable story experience.
My favorite option, therefore, is the Who's Line is it Anyway? Option. In this option, the Game Master has his or her players roll based on numbers he or she keeps on a piece of paper (really just a doodle or something), and dictates the results. The points don't mean anything.
But that's just my opinion on the matter.

Kris
"8000 points to Mr. Edmunds for the hair."

SlurpeeMoney wrote:

Here is what I suggest:
Character creation consists of
I Am: A description in three points (objective or subjective, it matters not) of who or what the character is.
I Am Not: A description in three points of what the character is not.
I Can: Three things that the character does well (objectively or subjectively, or add more things and make a bit of both; whatever)
I Can Not: Three things that the character either does poorly, or cannot do at all.

Bill, we do something like this in the On-the-Fly character generation for Multiverser that we introduced in demo play and try to get out to our players through other means. (It's a shame we didn't have it for the rules, but at some point you have to publish, and after that you just provide support.)

It's helped by the facts that 1) new players don't really understand the number system we use when they start and 2) it's rarely necessary to create a second character, as your first one will last forever and remain interesting. But even so, it's worth consideration.

For attributes, we ask players to pick out any for which they are among the best of the best--ninety-eighth percentile, one in fifty or better. Those we focus on getting as accurately as we can in the system. The others we figure are somewhere between below average to considerably above average, and we can place them as we need them. Similarly, with skills, we pretty much allow amateur skills to be added on the player's statement that they are things the character can do. At the start, we look for professional and expert skills, where we clearly define "professional" as "could be paid to do this" and expert as "professionals seek advice from you". There are other nuances between the below average, average, or above average professional or expert, but these are easily addressed.

However, everything gets turned into numbers and handed back to the player; and I'm a fan of this for a very specific reason that I think has not yet been mentioned.

If I'm looking at a musical score (something at which I have some skill, which is why I picked this example), I have a pretty good idea subjectively how difficult that will be for me to play or sing. I can't tell you that there's a 70% chance that I'll be able to perform it in three days; I can tell you that I think I can do it.

Presumably if I'm playing a character who is a musician, he can do that, too; but there are some insurmountable obstacles to getting that subjective information to me. First, there probably isn't a piece of music for me to examine; he's examining the music, and making the assessment. Second, I can tell you whether I think I can play a particular piece of music, but I'd have a lot of hubris if I decided to tell you how much practice James Galway would need before he could perform it, even though I've heard him play. Even my assessment of the abilities of musicians with whom I perform is one step removed, and could be way off. There is really no way I can adequately give the character's assessment of the difficulty of a piece of music to him that doesn't really exist in any tangible form.

Numbers overcome this. They give us an objective basis for making a subjective assessment. Now I can say that my character has a 2@5 instrumental music ability, which combined with his other numbers and subtracting the difficulty rating of this piece gives him a 60% chance to play it right on the first reading, and a 93% chance to play it right given three days of practice. In other words, because I can look at those numbers, I know it's as reasonable for him to say, "I think I can play it if you give me a few days to learn it" as it is for me to do so relative to a real piece of music for myself.

You seem to be suggesting making the entire thing subjective. "I've played Flight of the Bumblebee; this is more difficult than that, but not by much, so I think I can play it." Now the referee makes a subjective assessment of how much more difficult this is than that, has the player roll the dice, and determines from that whether he successfully plays this piece.

Either you're going to have to dump the dice and go with a karma/drama blend on the mechanics, or you're going to have to find a way to define the translation from the subjective to the objective pretty clearly. A great deal depends on the referee's ability to make those assessments of how difficult climbing K-4 is compared to climbing Everest, which while not apples and oranges is also not something which is easily quantified on the fly. It's much simpler to say that this character has a stat of X in mountain climbing and has successfully climbed Everest as part of building up that stat, so he has a chance of climbing K-4 that is determined by subtracting the difficulty rating of K-4 from the mountain climbing stat.

Objectivity is rather important in this process, and that's what the mechanics give us. If all I know is that I swam the English Channel once, and now I'm faced with trying to cross the St. Lawrence Seaway, I have no basis for deciding whether the risk is reasonable. How does crossing the one compare with the other? It's an entirely subjective assessment that I would make by looking at what was known about them, and remembering what I felt like after crossing the one (thus would I think I could have gone farther if necessary). I can't get that from my character, so I need to use the numbers instead, which tell me what my chance of successfully making the crossing would be--or at least which point me in the right direction (Multiverser includes at least one number unknown to the player in its calculation of chance of success in skills).

That's my thinking. I hope it helps.

--M. J. Young

dredd_funk wrote:
A lot of 'ifs' have to go in the right direction to make for good play, and that doesn't strike me as good design. Good design shouldn't mean that you have to get lucky in order to have good play.


No luck involved. Logic, experience, role-playing.

If I'm looking at a musical score (something at which I have some skill, which is why I picked this example), I have a pretty good idea subjectively how difficult that will be for me to play or sing. I can't tell you that there's a 70% chance that I'll be able to perform it in three days; I can tell you that I think I can do it.

MJ, Dredd and everyone else:

I really appreciate the intelligent feedback given on this topic thus far. I can't disagree with anything said here, really. The system has the potential for GM abuse and has a big hill to climb to gain acceptance. I don't even know if it can work. What I'm going to do this week is post a version of my game with this system (the game is called Land Without a King ad is a historical RPG set in 1141 England. It has been posted here a few months ago with a VERY different ruleset).

I'm also going to be giving away free hardcopies (yes, you read that right) to the first 25 people willing to playtest it and give thorough, honest and objective feedback, as well as suggestions on how to make it better. I'll mail copies out with a feedback form. It will be printed from a color laser printer on some linen paper.

Hi, Bill.

Writing a role-playing game that is closer in style to improvisational theater is a fine goal. I'm still not convinced that using numbers while hiding them from the players is the best way to get there. One of the strengths of improv is that the players know as much as the audience at the moment that they're doing it--no more, and no less.

You say you've never played a game without numerical ratings, so I'd like to point you to some.

If you're looking for mechanics to support improv, it seems to me that leaving numbers behind completely may yield the most fruit. Have you read Jon Tynes' Puppetland? If not, do so right away! This game uses no numbers, but has firm rules--such as dictating how the GM and the player must describe what's going on in the gameworld--that work toward creating an "improvised storybook" experience.

I'd also recommend reading Paul Czege's wonderful The Valedictorian's Death. Play centers around creating an improvised murder mystery. While I'm suggesting games, I can't fail to mention Ralph Mazza (posts as Valamir) and Mike Holmes' Universalis, and Vincent Baker's (posts as lumpley) Matchmaker.

BTW, could you please refrain from posting line-by-line replies in the future? The Forge's etiquette guidelines frown upon this practice.

Michael,
Sorry about the line by line replies. My understanding was that these were frowned upon because of potential flaming and taking things out of context, which I haven't done. I just felt it was easier to read a reply if you know specifically what was being addressed. No biggie, I'll just stop doing it.

Anyway, I have changed some of my ideas regarding having the GM "hide" the skill numbers. This won't be the case any more. The GM will describe the situation, listen to the player's intent, ask what experience the PC has to address the situation, reflect on the PCs appropriate in-game history, then assess a degree of difficulty. Most of the time he will say something like "okay, roll a 15 or higher". The player can accept the ruling or discuss why he thinks he might be better than what the GM has judged. So there won't be any hidden numbers, the GM won't have to keep a massive amount of stat sheets, etc. After a session or two, the GM will have a much clearer idea of what each PC is capable of and these exchanges will become shorter. This also can take into account improving skills ("well, the last time you tried to climb the wall you needed a 16 or better and succeeded. This time you'll only need a 14 because of your past experience with it.")

Hi, Bill.

That sounds much more on-target for your stated goal. Personally, I'm fond of games that explicitly create opportunities for player/GM collaboration. I look forward to the PDF you mentioned.

So here's a problem. By relying on memory to recall that last time you did a task similar to this one, you needed a 15+ to succeed, you are risking either inconsistency, or assuming everyone remembers the numbers that you don't want to record.

I think it's much simplere for the player to have a number on his sheet and then you modify it as appropriate. Of course even then, you still have the memory inconsistency problem, which is why D&D these days gives examples of DCs, and in many cases even sets a formula for the DC.

Now one might argue that some inconsistency has value, but I think that's what the dice do, they introduce an uncertainty that means you aren't consistent in what you can do (unless it is so easy you can always succed, or the system has something like D&D's Take 10 rule).

My thought is that resolutions that occur on a regular basis are worth codifying so they remain fairly consistent. Then rely on GM subjectivity to deal with the oddball cases.

But that's just my current thinking, perhaps there is a something to be said for getting away from this rigid thinking.

Frank

ffilz,

You have a very valid point. In my experience, however, I feel that gamers don't forget this type of thing even if the GM does. I know that none of my players would ever forget a successful attempt at just about anything! Gamers of all types are so possessive of their characters and their accomplishments that I can't imagine them letting a GM forget something important. I hope.

Hmm, it depends on how many subjective calls the GM has to make, and how important they are to the player (of course we really only care about the ones that are important to the player). I agree that we tend to remember things (but we often remember wrong), but also consider that in systems where most resolutions are objective, we don't need to remember (and perhaps all we remember is that our impression of the difficulty based on the objective numbers was validated). If you increase the number of subjective decisions, then more needs to be remembered.

You may find players recording these numbers... At which point I would ask if it really makes sense to try and avoid having an objective number in the first place.

Frank

ffilz,
You could be right. Only playtesting will tell. I think that all systems have a lot of "yeah, but"s inherent in their style and mechanics. For instance, its very easy for me to rip D20 apart with a number of "yeah but"s... but the people inclined to play that don't let it bother them ("yeah, but if hit points don't really just represent the ability to withstand physical trauma but the skill to turn aside a blade and other such things, how come a fall from 200' affects an 8th level cleric less than a 1st level fighter with the same CON?").

A D20 player will likely hate my idea of no stats, as will a Harn player, etc. My hope and inclination is to say that anyone who would be truly interested in playing a game of my type isn't going to let this potential 'forgetfulness' bother them. In my mind, I'd rather play a game that wasn't loaded with paperwork, stat obsession, etc, than a game with those things that quantifies everything. If that makes any sense... which it may not!

I shared what seems to be your goal and if I might summarise what I wanted to achieve. It seemed to me that it was utterly unrealistic for characters to know their odds of succeeding in tasks, and they way they considered options just didn't seem to gel with how real people make decisions. The example I think of is jumping over a chasm or balancing on a beam - where the fear of falling is the thing to overcome, rather than the physical feat. What numbers do is to make everything predictable, even if the only thing predictable are the odds. It seemed to me that there would never be a situation in a game where a beginner character might say 'yes, lets do it, how hard can it be?" with an expert saying "no, it is not possible, and I should know".

What I decided was that, in some senses, experts often are not actually capable of much more than beginners but that they more accurately know their limitations, know what would fail and therefore avoid trying certain manuevers, etc.

What I wanted to develop was a system where experts knew their skill rating and beginners did not. So a beginner might try a dangerous leap, and fail, while an expert would know he would not be able to make the jump and would not attempt it. A "Master" would know the exact result of any action before it was attempted, a beginner might try it and achieve the same result as the Master but only by luck.

My solution was to give characters a 'tolerance' on their ability, representing how much the variance might be between 'actual' and 'real' ability level. I did not come up with an elegant game-mechanic for this, nor did I play test it, so I have no idea if this is in any way useful, but I guess what I am really saying is that your aim (if it is what I think it to be) is shared by at least one gamer.

On the character as a narrative description idea, which is to my mind, a slightly different concept to what I am referring to above, I like it in principle but think it very dependant on the setting of the game, it might work well for a PBeM where everyone has plenty of time to consider, but would be terrible for Face to Face dungeon crawl. It might be good for the MGF convention scenarios where all the characters are essentially the same (soldiers in the same unit, undergraduate sages) except for their special abilities.

Keith Nellist

nellist wrote:
What I wanted to develop was a system where experts knew their skill rating and beginners did not. So a beginner might try a dangerous leap, and fail, while an expert would know he would not be able to make the jump and would not attempt it. A "Master" would know the exact result of any action before it was attempted, a beginner might try it and achieve the same result as the Master but only by luck.

contracycle wrote:
One methodology might be to have task difficulty numbers themselves concealed by tasks. When confronted by a task, the first thing to do (assuming you have the time) is to carry out a task to assess the difficulty of the task you really want to perform.

If the difficulty of the "difficulty identification" task is set at or about the same level of the intended task itself, more experienced performers would be more able to discern task difficulties and thereby be more aware of what they can and cannot do.

Let me see if I can better illustrate the type of system I'm thinking of. I'll compare a the same character using D20 stats and this theoretical "no stats" system. I'll use the Harn setting (since it's my favorite). These are both abbreviated (the skills lists are not complete, just a sample).

The character is a Tulwyn barbarian tribesman from the Athul wilderness.

D20 stats:
ABILITIES
STR 15
INT 9
WIS 12
DEX 13
CON 15
CHA 8

SKILLS
Balance +3
Climb +6
Craft (fletching) +3
Craft (stonecraft) +2
Craft (leatherworking) +4
Handle Animal +3
Heal +3
Hide +6
Intimidate +5
Knowledge (Salt Route geography) +4
Move Silently +3
Survival +7
Swim +5


NO STATS SYSTEM:

ABILITIES
STR: has lean, hard muscles accustomed to climbing and hard working. Considered one of the stronger members of his tribe. Less 'explosively' powerful than he is tireless in his ability to test the endurance of his strength (holding heavy weight for long periods of time, muscles don't tire easily)
INT: less knowledgeable than civilized men, but able to grasp basic concepts of other cultures (can recognize Kaldorian script versus Sildarin script, etc).
WIS: has strong instincts with the natural world and the tactics of rival tribes. Has little grasp of the military and social morays of places like Kaldor or Tharda and therfore has little of what may be termed wisdom in dealing with such peoples. Very perceptive in reading his tribesmen's feelings and truthfulness; none at all with foreign cultures. Extremely perceptive and aware of changes in his native environ; can notice the absence or presence of certain native animals and can 'feel' changes in the earth. Unlikely to notice anything out of the ordinary with foreign travelers (for instance, would not notice if a Kaldoran knight was lacking a family crest on his surcoat).
DEX: lithe and sure footed on rough terrain and in trees. Good hand=eye coordination when throwing familiar objects such as spears, rocks and knives. Less adept at navigating unfamiliar terrain such as sand, scrub and ice.
CON: Tough as nails, especially in cold weather. Not as good in extreme heat and/or humidity (of which he has little experience). Very resistant to pain. Tends to catch ill during the spring and autumn, when he is subject to allergic reactions from changes in the air.
CHA: not what a civilized person would call friendly or cultured. Gruff, short with words and suspicious in nature. He is, however, considered fairly handsome by native standards and possesses a confidence that inspires his tribe members.

SKILLS:
Balance - used to climbing trees and has some experience balancing along limbs when preparing ambushes. Used to navigating wet rocks as well (often has to cross streams or rivers).

Climb - climbs deciduous and coniferous trees often. Understands what limbs are strong and which are likely to break. Has some experience with climbing rocks and cliffs, although nothing sheer (like a castle wall).

Craft (fletching) - sometimes fletches arrows for his tribe and has done so on occasion in the wilderness when need arose. Not a craftsman by any stretch, he can make an adequate - if unremarkable -arrow.

Craft (stonecraft) Has some ability with carving stone into arrow or spear heads. Has no experience with shaping stone to make much else.

Craft (leatherworking) Can make his own leather clothing from the hide of deer and other wild animals. Has no experience with cattle but this would present little proble, except perhaps with initial skinning and tanning.

Handle Animal - has some experience with handling horses (having ambushed many Thardic riders and stolen thier horses), no experience with cattle, swine, foul or other traditional civilized beasts. Feels more comfortable with wild animals, which he often 'handles' in the roughest manner (before killing and skinning them).

Heal – has knowledge of the traditional healing techniques of his tribe, including herbs, salves and the like. Can bind a wound and stop most (non-lethal) bleeding. No knowledge beyond basic ‘first aid’, and certainly has little understanding of disease, illness, or infection.

Hide – knows the Athul wilderness extremely well and can use this understanding to good effect when hiding there. No experience hiding in civilized regions, such as manors, towns, cities, etc. Has a better feel for using the cover of trees, bushes, and other natural camouflage than in hiding in the shadows of buildings, etc.

Intimidate - very scary fellow to travelers and even rival tribesmen (although less so). Can strike fear into his enemies with his savage demeanor and unruly appearance. Fellow tribesmen consider him a leader who commands respect and some intimidation.


Knowledge (Salt Route geography) He has extensive experience with the geography of the salt route from the Ramala Gap to just west of Pesino. He has never traveled beyond these points and therefore has only second hand insight into these areas.

Move Silently- is skilled and experienced at stealth in leafy forests, especially in the hilly oak forests of Athul. Has snuk up on many an unsuspecting traveler on the salt route. Has less experience in mountainous terrain and none at all in tundra and desert.

Survival - has spent countless nights alone in the Athul wilderness in all seasons and in all types of weather. Knows how to find or build shelter, hunt animals, fish, and find water. Was once forced to fend for himself for two weeks in the Athul mountains during a harsh winter. Has never seen the sea and has no knowledge of surviving off it.

Swim - Has swam the southern tip of Lake Benath and has some experience in swimming the rivers of Athul. Can float on his back for rest and can 'crawl'. Has good understanding of currents and how to swim with/against them. Has never swam in the sea and would be unused to its swells and tides.

Very popular thread...

Anywhoo, I love doing hidden values with characters. I usually roll everything in my D&D games (which means that I'm not playing with typical 'D&D gamers') as to ambiguate the stats of NPCs. It might be very interesting to actually make someone's character for them. My Players could likely trust them to correctly interpret and build their character (especially since I help them build their characters already).

Maybe I'll try it on the next game I run.

John Uckele wrote: Very popular thread...

Anywhoo, I love doing hidden values with characters. I usually roll everything in my D&D games (which means that I'm not playing with typical 'D&D gamers') as to ambiguate the stats of NPCs. It might be very interesting to actually make someone's character for them. My Players could likely trust them to correctly interpret and build their character (especially since I help them build their characters already).

Maybe I'll try it on the next game I run.

One problem that I see in your system is that it does not account for character advancement as well as other systems, and character advancement is a major element of most RPGs. If a character does not really know how good/bad they are at something, how do they know what to improve?
For example, using your home video example, how would that crappy cinematographer (I hope that's the right word for that profession, but I honestly don't know) know that they needed to improve if they didn't know they were horrible?

zephyr_cirrus wrote: One problem that I see in your system is that it does not account for character advancement as well as other systems, and character advancement is a major element of most RPGs. If a character does not really know how good/bad they are at something, how do they know what to improve?
For example, using your home video example, how would that crappy cinematographer (I hope that's the right word for that profession, but I honestly don't know) know that they needed to improve if they didn't know they were horrible?

I've just got to say that I love the descriptive version of the character. I can see problems, but it is much more interesting for me, and even gives more of a feel for how certain abilities come into their own.

Keith Nellist

nellist wrote: I've just got to say that I love the descriptive version of the character. I can see problems, but it is much more interesting for me, and even gives more of a feel for how certain abilities come into their own.

Keith Nellist