D&D calls them "Abilities", GURPS, RuneQuest and the White Wolf System calls them "Attributes", whilst Rolemaster and the Hero System calls them "Characteristics".

Roll 3d6 six times and allocate in order; Strength, Intelligence, Dexterity, Wisdom, Constitution and Charisma....

We know what they are in game terms. We know that the provide a foundation of what a character can do.

But what are they supposed to represent? Genetic traits? Learned traits? Should this represenation be consistent? If not, why not?

What is the "right number" and distribution of such "stats"? GURPS has four; Rolemaster has ten - why such variation? Most games don't differentiate between manual dexterity and bodily agility (and thus end up with cheetahs who can pick pockets and mend watches?).

What's their relationship between stats and skills? In RQ a character with a Dex of 30 gains +20% to their attack rolls. Using a similar scale, a GURPS character would effectively gain a bonus of more than 100%. Why is there such variation between two systems both which claimed to be realistic?

Random (the genetic or social "die" is cast!) or allocated (e.g., point-based)? Second-generation players ("you have your mother's eyes and your father's strength")?

How would players react to the idea of randomly rolling their sexual orientation (could be educational for some....)? What about randomly determined alignment?

Well from my perspective (and most of the folks who hang out here) the "Right" answer is the one that best matches the game's mechanics with the intended purpose of play...regardless of what that means or its relationship to any philosophical musings on "reality".

The "Wrong" answer is any system (no matter how well in works) that was designed that way "just because" with no real thought as to promoting the game's play goals.

Aside from that you're really left with nothing more than personal preference. So to keep this thread from becoming a general "tell me what you think" opinion poll (which is a no-no at the Forge), do you have some specific questions or areas that you want to zero the discussion in on?

BTW: Indie-Design is only to be used for actual games being actually designed for actual publication (i.e. release to the public). General questions like this belong in RPG Theory. I'm sure one of the moderators will be around to move it presently.

Hello,

You won't be surprised to discover that we've discussed this issue pretty heavily at the Forge too, and we're not alone. This isn't meant to shut down the current conversation, but maybe we'll all do better to review some of the ground that's been covered.

Choosing and defining the stats (this one has important internal links, including one to an essay by John Kim)
Traits and skills threads please (this one has pretty much all the links to earlier discussions)

Best,
Ron

Valamir wrote: The "Wrong" answer is any system (no matter how well in works) that was designed that way "just because" with no real thought as to promoting the game's play goals.

Hiya,

Callan and Ralph are speaking wisdom. Callan, as a support point, the single value used in Trollbabe for each character is merely called her "Number" and the only mechanic that modifies it is called the "Modifier." Re-rolling it is called the "Re-roll." I purposely left all Color off the numerical features of the game.

Lev, you might not be familiar with Trollbabe. The game offers an extreme example of the idea that the numbers associated with a role-playing character themselves mean nothing in the game-world - until they're utilized in a scene, in which case what they mean is determined on a case-by-case basis.

The game which inspired me most about this were Dust Devils and Hero Wars (now called HeroQuest), but Trollbabe takes it a step farther by collapsing all values into one number. Primetime Adventures then steps even farther from Trollbabe, putting the character's one number (Screen Presence) firmly into the player-level of understanding and usage, and it cannot be mistaken for anything to do with the character's abilities at all.

Best,
Ron

Noon wrote:
I get the feeling a reflexive design practice is actually to go into freeform sim exploration, imagining the world or the specific game world and what would exist there and write down what you find in such an exploration.

So the blunt suggestion that they should determine these stats in relation to the games real life goals (something at a very metagame level), is incredibly jarring. Which leaves game design stagnating.

On the flip side, it'd be interesting to play an RPG where your characters stats were described as X, Y and Z, or such like, with no color at all...and yet it still worked.

Hmmm... Interesting.

From the outset I must point out being a stubborn simulationist means the "determine according to flavour the game" doesn't quite cut it with me. OTOH, I love games which provide flavour from the stats (e.g., Call of Cthulu's SAN). Likewise, whilst I think a dramatic attribute like Primetime Adventure's is a good idea, I find the idea of this representing the character's abilities, rather than an abstraction of the player's influence in the plot, to be a little ahh, strange. I should also say I have no truck with the argument that "universal" systems are doomed to failure axiomatically.

The essay on nature and nurture, whilst incredibly short, does provide something of a foundation. To my addled brain, there should be a clear distinction in a game system between the two. Sure, physical strength has a great deal to do with nurture as well. Being the third bastard child of a peasant usually meant that no matter what your gene's said your strength could have been you would turn out to be a runt.

So what about the profound influence of the "social die", when compared to the "genetic die"? This one is a little trickier because it seems there are few derived statistics. So designers tend to use skill abstractions rather than derivations from a memetic trait. I'm still pondering on CHA in particular here. To what extent is Charisma learned versus innate? I know that the pentecostal religious tradition (for example) considers it innate ("the gift..."), which is probably related to "voice" or the in the Irish tradition ("... of the gab"). GURPS (Basic, 3rd, p19) considers it innate but didn't have an attribute for it! Why, for the sweet love of design, I do not know..

Another matter which I think "solves" the GURPS problem as Mike's Standard Rant #4 described it (and yes, it is a huge problem) is the lack of distinction between stat and skill. I don't care how skilled one is, even if they've spent six years doing nothing else except studdying that one skill (boring, eh?). You simply cannot jump ten meters with a DEX/AGI of 8 on a 3-18 human scale.

Ralph,

I fully agree. I just think most new gamers (and many old gamers) don't intuitively reach for that blend.

The freeform sim exploration, then coming back and looking amongst what was explored for material that might be useful as game structure, is the technique I use myself.


lev_lafayette,

Does this help at all? In providing a different means of answering what stats you should have or what is the right number of stats? Edit: I cross posted with you. I'll read your post now.

You simply cannot jump ten meters with a DEX/AGI of 8 on a 3-18 human scale.

lev_lafayette wrote: The essay on nature and nurture, whilst incredibly short, does provide something of a foundation. To my addled brain, there should be a clear distinction in a game system between the two. Sure, physical strength has a great deal to do with nurture as well. Being the third bastard child of a peasant usually meant that no matter what your gene's said your strength could have been you would turn out to be a runt.

So what about the profound influence of the "social die", when compared to the "genetic die"? This one is a little trickier because it seems there are few derived statistics. So designers tend to use skill abstractions rather than derivations from a memetic trait. I'm still pondering on CHA in particular here. To what extent is Charisma learned versus innate? I know that the pentecostal religious tradition (for example) considers it innate ("the gift..."), which is probably related to "voice" or the in the Irish tradition ("... of the gab"). GURPS (Basic, 3rd, p19) considers it innate but didn't have an attribute for it! Why, for the sweet love of design, I do not know..

Ralph,

Ummm, I think it's okay to have the jump distances for sim purposes, as I imagine lev would have. Learning that because you have X in trait Y gives you X jumping distance, grants a pleasurable sim buzz.

lev_lafayette: The thing is...jumping distance is not that interesting (relative to many other things). Don't end up taking up book space on something when it's not that interesting and you only added it because it came up, rather than you making a concious descision on adding it in.

Note: If your making a RPG that's like the comp game pitfall, then jump distance will be pretty damn interesting. Just noting this so as to show how the goal of the book indicates what deserves focus and what doesn't.

Noon wrote: Ralph,

Ummm, I think it's okay to have the jump distances for sim purposes, as I imagine lev would have. Learning that because you have X in trait Y gives you X jumping distance, grants a pleasurable sim buzz.

I agree, as I noted, that it absolutely CAN be alright to include rules for jumping distances. But I don't think "Its for Sim purposes" is an adequate reason. That makes it way too easy to include everything and the kitchen sink "for sim purposes". Its important for the designer to think about it harder than that.

Sim does not equate to crunchy rules that model reality. i.e. Having crunchy rules that model reality does not automatically facilitate Sim and the desire to play Sim does not automatically require crunchy rules that model reality.

If one is going to include crunchy rules that model reality (and I feel like Seinfeld here repeating "not that theres anything wrong with that") I think you need a much more compelling reason than "its for Sim purposes".

Sim design also doesn't need to have huge amounts of subsystems and charts, either.

Bit of a tangent:
Chris Engle's The Matrix Game (which may or may not be a roleplaying game), is an exceedingly gamist design. However, to achieve that gamist goal, its core mechanic relies upon a (supremely) simulationist technique.
You won't find any large amounts of charts in Matrix ( really, only one core chart), and arguably it is a very generalist design that can be used for a variety of settings ( the sort of venacular usage of "universal" system). I highly recommend taking a peek at The Matrix Game as an example of a sim mechanic that utilizes an almost unlimited amount of "crunch" but almost no charts ( all of the crunch comes from the players' ability to form convincing arguments based on their own knowledge and the situation presented by the scenario played).

Robert

Hoy, :)

Noon wrote: Learning that because you have X in trait Y gives you X jumping distance, grants a pleasurable sim buzz.

As I was reading Ralph's excellent discussion of jumping distances, I was considering whether to throw Multiverser into the mix on that; then he very kindly brought the game into view, so I decided that indeed it might help.

One of the "tricks" Multiverser uses is to let the referee decide which of several approaches to resolving a matter he want to use.

Let's suppose we've got that jump situation. The player's character paper might have a specific statement on it as to how far he can jump normally (a skill definition) and how good he is at that (a skill ability level). We can roll the dice and determine whether he is "successful".

But what do we really need to know?

If the jump is because he's participating in some sort of athletic competition, we need to know how far he jumped, and that quite precisely. In that case, knowing whether or not he successfully jumped his 9'4" good standing broad jump is really of relatively minor interest to us. What we really want to know is did he do better than that, worse than that, by how much, or did he choke and fall? Multiverser provides a means of determining exactly how far the character jumped based on the roll, if that's what you want to know.

On the other hand, if he comes to a chasm in a cave complex, what are the odds it's going to be exactly 9'4" across? What if it's described as 7' across, with a landing area about three feet wide on the other side? Frankly, if he jumps 9'4" he's going to crash into that opposite wall and fall into the chasm. What we want to know is not whether he can jump 9'4", but whether he can correctly gauge and execute a jump onto that landing on the other side. That should be relatively easy for someone who can jump 9'4", but it's not automatic. So we give the guy a hefty bonus on his chance of success, and we roll the dice. If it succeeds, he made the jump; if it fails, he misjudged it, or slipped, or otherwise didn't make it. We've still got relative success and relative failure built in, so we can tell how bad it is if he missed (did he trip on take-off and is plunging down the middle, or did he slip on landing and is hanging on to the edge trying to scramble up?). In that situation, knowing exactly how far someone did jump is a lot less interesting than knowing whether they made the jump or not; and knowing how far they can jump doesn't help as much as it might appear at first glance.

What complicates this is the nature of setting design. After all, why is that chasm 7' across? Why isn't it 10', or 4'? The answer, ultimately, is that I thought 7' was a good challenge for the character. I don't as much care that it's 7' as that it is an obstacle likely to create a specific degree of tension or challenge within the play of the game. Given that, why should I even have to decide exactly how wide it is? I need only convey to the player how difficult it would be for his character to make this as a jump and what other options he might have. I can say, "It's not that wide, but it is wider than you are tall; I'd give you +20 on your jumping skill if you want to try to jump it." Neither of us ever have to know the width of that chasm, as long as we agree that it would be this difficult to jump it and certain other options are excluded.

Does that help?

--M. J. Young

Ralph, I think you've missed the point. The matter I referred to was the lack of differentiation between stats and skills (the former being effect, the latter being ability to reach that effect). OK, so it's a sim argument and if you don't like Sim-based justifications, then there's no debate...

That said, there are a few things about a sim reason which I think you may have misrepresented a little...

It is not necessary to know exactly what centimeter a character can or cannot jump. But it is sloppy and unrealistic design when a skill rating defies principles of abstract simulation.

See the problem is, using D&D for the example, a DEX 8 character can make a 10 meter jump, without much difficulty or inhuman skill level. Now I don't think that's on. The defining and limiting characteristic on how far one can jump is not skill, it's their stat (or as I prefer to call them, trait). Now how well they jump is a different matter...

Nor does it mean that this has to be particularly complex or "crunchy" as the vernacular seems to be here. Simulation, to me, demands abstraction in the first instance, so compelling reasons for particular rules to me is a self-evident truism. Not everything is detailed "for Sim purposes". But dammit, if a rule is just nonsense - or a principle (such as effects being determined by skills rather than stats) - then it should be ditched.

None of this of course, is meant to impede on narrative or gamist approaches. Sim doesn't mean make it impossible to play. One can have good simulation and speedy resolution - and that is a design feature

Lev,

What about long jumpers? Or high jumpers? Even if you think that
this is about "traits" it's pretty clear that you actually have two
different traits at work in these two different activities. And
they'll be different from sprinting, and different from distance
running, and whatever.

So, how do you resolve this? 1) You either lose the granular
difference between the two and roll all of these "effects" into a
single trait that covers them, or 2) You have a large number of "core"
traits to cover the range of differences, or 3) You compromise by
having a small number of core traits and supplementing them with
something else, possibly "skills".

<snip> But it is sloppy and unrealistic design when a skill rating defies principles of abstract simulation. <snip>

lev_lafayette wrote: Ralph, I think you've missed the point. The matter I referred to was the lack of differentiation between stats and skills (the former being effect, the latter being ability to reach that effect). OK, so it's a sim argument and if you don't like Sim-based justifications, then there's no debate...

But it is sloppy and unrealistic design when a skill rating defies principles of abstract simulation.

See the problem is, using D&D for the example, a DEX 8 character can make a 10 meter jump, without much difficulty or inhuman skill level. Now I don't think that's on. The defining and limiting characteristic on how far one can jump is not skill, it's their stat (or as I prefer to call them, trait). Now how well they jump is a different matter...

Valamir wrote:
...is insufficient. You are not articulating a foundational design principle here. At best you are articulating a personal preference - which may actually BE a true preference, or may simply be an artifact of what you're already familiar with and thus most comfortable with. In other words, right now you're just assuming that these things are a design feature.

They CANNOT be design features until you first define what the overall purpose of your game is, what your game play goals are, and what specific elements of game play you want the rules to support...and most importantly...why.

"because it makes for a good Simulation" is not an adequate definition of the game's function.

That simply because you CAN make rules that are an accurate simulation* you SHOULD.

The error goes on to assume that once you have your rules set that provides a nice accurate simulation you can then go ahead and use it for whatever game you need to because if the rules accurately model physics they'll work well for anything.

Step 3) NOW start to design the actual mechanics refering back constantly to step 1 and 2. IF and ONLY IF step 1 and 2 included strong justification for rules that provide an accurate simulation as part of the necessary design aesthetic should you be worried about such things as the relationship of Skill to Stat. If there is such a reason, great. If not, don't waste your time on trivium.

LordSmerf wrote:
What about long jumpers? Or high jumpers? Even if you think that
this is about "traits" it's pretty clear that you actually have two
different traits at work in these two different activities. And
they'll be different from sprinting, and different from distance
running, and whatever.

This is an incredibly problematic statement. What exactly are you trying to simulate? If you are trying to simulate a world in which jumping distance is a skill (a la The Matrix), then I'm not seeing a problem.

Why don't just assume that the discussion is already at step three, rather than engage in an off-topic tangent?

lev_lafayette wrote:

Valamir wrote: That simply because you CAN make rules that are an accurate simulation* you SHOULD.

Which, if it doesn't distract from play, actually supports play. The inverse of the argument (that because we can make realistic and playable rules we shouldn't) is nonsense.

Here's an idea. Yes, you do have to compromise to an extent. I wouldn't want one trait per DNA sequence. Say you're using AGI to represent maximun potential application of leg strength. You could still have separate skills for long and high jump, but the effect would be determined by the AGI. This is significantly different from having the skill determine the effect as is the case in some or having the skill determined by the trait.

Valamir wrote: Because there are already about a zillion games which do "accurate simulation" already and the game world needs another one like it needs a hole in the head.

The fact that you want to bypass all of the really important fundamental design questions in order to skip to the trivium.

Its akin to building a ship and debating whether it should have 2 masts or 3 before you even decide what you're building the ship for.

But I've said all I can say on that matter. Since apparently you aren't interested in discussing the fundamental logic behind your question, I'll bow out of the thread.

LordSmerf wrote: This means that any rule that does not contribute directly to attaining the goal of the game (whatever it may be) necessarily is a distraction from the point of play.

This is also problematic. You know that you're going to have to compromise, but there's not a good way to know how much is too much. The reason is it is different for different people.

Hi lev,

Let me make sure I'm understanding you:

Baseline assumptions for discussion:

1) We're talking about games that rate, measure and model abilities of the characters- not things like "dramatic influence", "player plot points" etc. as the focus of resolution

2) That these abilities are also being rated by innate ability & trained ability seperately

3) That all the above also is something that promotes the goals of this particular game design.

The miscommunication that is happening between you and Ralph is that these baseline assumptions were not stated at the onset. There are many game designs that benefit by the above axioms, and there are many more which do not, simply because they were adopted without consideration for the actual design goals of the game. An example of a functional game that completely lacks any of the above would be Nighttime Animals Save the World. All Ralph is saying is that not all games require, or benefit by those assumptions.

So, assuming we are going with the above assumptions, your questions were rather hitting quite a few different topics:

But what are they supposed to represent? Genetic traits? Learned traits? Should this represenation be consistent? If not, why not?

What is the "right number" and distribution of such "stats"? GURPS has four; Rolemaster has ten - why such variation? Most games don't differentiate between manual dexterity and bodily agility (and thus end up with cheetahs who can pick pockets and mend watches?).

What's their relationship between stats and skills? In RQ a character with a Dex of 30 gains +20% to their attack rolls. Using a similar scale, a GURPS character would effectively gain a bonus of more than 100%. Why is there such variation between two systems both which claimed to be realistic?

Lev wrote:

Ralph wrote: Its akin to building a ship and debating whether it should have 2 masts or 3 before you even decide what you're building the ship for.

I know what a roleplaying game is for, and I know what particular roleplaying games are for. In this case the analogy is more of a question of "will this design float?"

Bankuei wrote:
Baseline assumptions for discussion:

1) We're talking about games that rate, measure and model abilities of the characters- not things like "dramatic influence", "player plot points" etc. as the focus of resolution

2) That these abilities are also being rated by innate ability & trained ability seperately

3) That all the above also is something that promotes the goals of this particular game design.

There is no "universal answer" for what is best for game design. Each game will be unique according to its design goals. The reason RQ and GURPS are different despite both attempting to model realism is:

1) they have very different resolution systems
2) the designers had different research material and beliefs of what "realistic" is
3) the designers took very different approaches towards solving the balance between modeling physics and playability

Hi lev,

A normal car, a baby carriage, and a mars explorerer robot all have 4 wheels- why do they all work differently?

A similar scale doesn't mean much. The resolution is VERY different, just from % rolls vs. 3D6 under a shifting number. We're talking the difference between a linear probability and a bell curve.

"Realism" as anyone, anywhere understands it is based on what materials they're looking at and consider more credible + their own life experiences. Check out all the debates over how ballistics work and you have a perfect example of real people, who fire a lot of guns, who research into actual physics- and still come up with different answers. Even experiments are often biased and under different conditions- despite the ideal of the repeatable experiment.

Which one is more true? Well, I suppose you could go research into general physics, grab tons of data and match it average results given by any system. You'll have to check the data and figure out what to keep, what not to keep, which are likely biased("Car accident info from a public study funded by General Motors... hmm...").

In the end, you'll have to do the work of a real researcher. No one is a master of all fields of physics and human interactions- and no one can give 100% accurate info on everything- AND compare it to the odds that show up in a game system. The sheer logistical impossibility of being able to test and verify everything means "reality" has limited applications in terms of game design.

Again- even if our goal is realism, we have to ask, "How much time/effort towards resolution will hit a playable balance between realism and play?" "What aspects of play are most important to fit what evidence to create 'realistic'?"

Or- for a perfect example- consider ranged combat in GURPS. It's harder to hit a target moving lateral(or, presumably vertical as well) to you than one standing still, or moving in a straight line towards or away from you. This makes perfect sense. But the modifiers and the odds given to you- do you think the folks at SJ games set up experiments over 100's to 1000's of subjects to discover how much the % to hit goes down based on a target's movement? And did they average the degree of angle at which a target would be moving to the shooter? And did they map that accordingly to the bell curve distribution in GURPS? The idea makes sense, but the numbers were pulled out of thin air. Even the US military doesn't know the exact % by which lateral movement reduces accuracy. It's too complex and too minute of detail to bother researching- instead it just makes more sense to consider the general causes and look into minimizing it's effects in real life.

Reality may exist for all of us, but you can see as soon as we're talking about modeling it with the human brain(and not, say, a bank of Cray supercomputers), that we have to set aside reality as it is, and look at what it means to us. We have to look at what our game design goals are, what gives the "feeling" of realism and then start talking about how the resolution mechanics interface with it.

Chris

I agree with Chris. And Ralph, for that matter.

Also, reality has data available. In the game, you make up most of the data anyway. What's the wind speed? Are you going to simulate a whole continent full of weather, or determine what it is at that point in time anyway? Does the character have something in his eye when he's about to shoot? Is he getting a cramp from running while he's preparing to fire? Is he actually breathing right? Has he learned that before and does he remember to apply it? What did he have for breakfast, and is his stomach upset? Is his mind still distracted from breaking up with his girl friend earlier that day? All those things matter for a single fired shot. How many are you going to simulate, and how many are you determining?

Let me suggest something: What really matters when we're simulating situations in a game is not so much how many factors and real-life physics we include, but that the outcome seems plausible. When I fire a gun at someone's chest from point blank, I expect some serious injury. But back in the days of playing Mechwarrior, my players would have shootouts at 10 feet with fully automatic weapons and shotguns. I fire, you fire, we subtract saome HP and continue. That is frustrating.

So, when I run a game, I don't care so much whether I've simulated all of the factors. I care that the outcomes seem plausible and that character behavior is influenced by the possibility of these outcomes.

As a side note, most modern scientists will tell you that "truth" can only be defined in a pragmatic way (a la William James) nowadays. Gone are the days when we thought that truth was a direct representation of reality. All of our scientific theories are only "true" insofar as they are useful for our interaction with reality through the prediction of future events within the interpretation of the theoretic framework itself.

So--this leads back to what has been said. The system is more "true" that has more cash-value (in James' terms), i.e. is more useful. What's more useful? Whatever satisfies the purpose of the game.

lev_lafayette wrote:

LordSmerf wrote: This means that any rule that does not contribute directly to attaining the goal of the game (whatever it may be) necessarily is a distraction from the point of play.

That's true enough and you'll find no dispute from me on that level. Nevertheless, assuming that a rule does contribute to play (which to me is a trivial assumption), can we state that an accurate rule is better than an inaccurate one, assuming playability is the same? That a rule which does not require additional suspension of disbelief (such as our ten meter leaping old man with a limp) than what already exists?

This is also problematic. You know that you're going to have to compromise, but there's not a good way to know how much is too much. The reason is it is different for different people.

No argument from me again. Of course, the degree of complexity is going to vary from gaming group to gaming group. That's what house rules are for. However the principle is a clear distinction between traits (potential effect) and skills (application of trait for a specific action) is one which I think is important and, dare I suggest, somewhat novel.

To condense my understanding of the thread thus far...

We ask "What is the goal of your game?". You answer "Realism".

This is like saying "What do you want to study in college?" and you answer "Liberal Arts."

Well, ok. Fair enough. But if I happen to be a historian, I don't have any reason to help you out even if you happen to want to study history.

You need to narrow it down for us some more to get some valuable input. That is, (setting aside the question of what a realistic model even means), what is it, in the theoretical game that you're talking about, that you want to model realistically?

xenopulse wrote: Let me suggest something: What really matters when we're simulating situations in a game is not so much how many factors and real-life physics we include, but that the outcome seems plausible. When I fire a gun at someone's chest from point blank, I expect some serious injury. But back in the days of playing Mechwarrior, my players would have shootouts at 10 feet with fully automatic weapons and shotguns. I fire, you fire, we subtract saome HP and continue. That is frustrating.

So, when I run a game, I don't care so much whether I've simulated all of the factors. I care that the outcomes seem plausible and that character behavior is influenced by the possibility of these outcomes.

lev_lafayette wrote: But what are they supposed to represent? Genetic traits? Learned traits? Should this represenation be consistent? If not, why not?

What is the "right number" and distribution of such "stats"? GURPS has four; Rolemaster has ten - why such variation? Most games don't differentiate between manual dexterity and bodily agility (and thus end up with cheetahs who can pick pockets and mend watches?).

What's their relationship between stats and skills?

John Kim wrote:
I've got an essay on my System Design page entitled "Nature vs Nurture in RPGs" which tackles the issue. I'm mildly opposed to attributes in this sense (i.e. Dexterity, Agility, etc.), because I don't think this topic is particularly fruitful -- i.e. there is nothing to be learned. I would suggest discarding abstract categories (i.e. "Dexterity"), and replacing them with functional abilities (i.e. "Covert Skills").

John,

Interesting points. Let me reverse my argument: I don't think anyone enjoys the game if the result of an action is completely implausible. If you learn from the game, that means you figure out why the result is plausible. But there's just nothing plausible about someone standing right in front of you, hitting you (as neither of you are moving) directly with a shotgun or a burst from a fully automatic weapon, and you mostly shrugging it off. There might be freak accidents--but the mechanics make it a rule, not an incredibly unlikely event, that this happens. Therefore, the rules create implausible expectations, i.e., the expectation that I don't have to fear for my life and limbs when someone with a shotgun aims it at me from 5 feet away.

And you might be right, it could be a personal preference. But for me, it then matters little whether the actual shooting and injury is determined by calculating wind factors, organ damage, and all kinds of other stuff, or is much more abstract but still provides a plausible result (strong possibility of serious injury or death). The result can still be plausible even if the method is not highly detailed.

And my idea of "plausible" is somewhat malleable, of course, depending on whether the game is expressly cinematic or more "realistic" (have to be careful with this word now :). I have my own ideas on gun plausibility mostly from having been a marksman for many years, but that doesn't tell me much about actual combat. Except for the experience of one of my neighbors being shot on the street and me watching him bleed out.

Anyway. Maybe it all just shows that I'm slowly realizing that task resolution ain't doing it for me anymore, because the modeling of outcomes is either too time consuming or not plausible enough.

LordSmerf wrote: I don't think that I'd enjoy this game. Why? Because I like to play melee combat specialists, but I like to play combat specialists who are physically small. It's some crazy aesthetic preference, it's just what I do. You're saying that if my tiny character comes up against someone with equal training then my character will lose.

xenopulse wrote: Let me reverse my argument: I don't think anyone enjoys the game if the result of an action is completely implausible.

But there's just nothing plausible about someone standing right in front of you, hitting you (as neither of you are moving) directly with a shotgun or a burst from a fully automatic weapon, and you mostly shrugging it off.

Anyway. Maybe it all just shows that I'm slowly realizing that task resolution ain't doing it for me anymore, because the modeling of outcomes is either too time consuming or not plausible enough.

xenopulse wrote: Interesting points. Let me reverse my argument: I don't think anyone enjoys the game if the result of an action is completely implausible. If you learn from the game, that means you figure out why the result is plausible. But there's just nothing plausible about someone standing right in front of you, hitting you (as neither of you are moving) directly with a shotgun or a burst from a fully automatic weapon, and you mostly shrugging it off.

xenopulse wrote: And you might be right, it could be a personal preference. But for me, it then matters little whether the actual shooting and injury is determined by calculating wind factors, organ damage, and all kinds of other stuff, or is much more abstract but still provides a plausible result (strong possibility of serious injury or death). The result can still be plausible even if the method is not highly detailed.

And my idea of "plausible" is somewhat malleable, of course, depending on whether the game is expressly cinematic or more "realistic" (have to be careful with this word now :).

xenopulse wrote: Anyway. Maybe it all just shows that I'm slowly realizing that task resolution ain't doing it for me anymore, because the modeling of outcomes is either too time consuming or not plausible enough.

lev_lafayette wrote: Can I just say I really like your comments on that page (short as it is), however I do think the conclusion is problematic, as it doesn't dispense with the problem that a well-trained individual can do things which are simply beyond human capacity. Of course, a way around that is to have species/age specific limits, but you know what players are like about limits...

Another issue I can arising is the scaling and differentiation between ability and effect. I gave a somewhat tongue-in-cheek example of a rat with a jumping skill of 100% (brilliant!) but an AGI of less than 1. Said rat would do really well at the act of jumping but wouldn't be amazing in terms of distance. How would a skill group resolve that issue?

John Kim wrote: I'm fine for using stats for directly measurable things like height, weight, and perhaps bench press force. These sidestep the abstract nature-vs-nurture problem of abstract stats like "Dexterity" and "Intelligence".

You seem to want two different stats: one for jumping distance, and one for jumping accuracy. You suggest that jumping distance should be based purely on attribute (implied inborn or genetic), while accuracy is purely skill (implied trained). I don't agree with the latter. Both distance and accuracy improve with training.

I would tend to have only one jumping skill which provides a modifier for both distance and determines accuracy.

lev_lafayette wrote:

John Kim wrote: I would tend to have only one jumping skill which provides a modifier for both distance and determines accuracy.

Sorry, but in a word; yuk! It allows for all the problems I've suggested in this thread. In a nutshell, that characters can "train" themselves to the point of implausibility. Again, I refer to our hypothetical rat... What does your single skill translate to in a real world example.

In the simulation system I have suggested which differentiates between effect and ability, the rat could jump less than 1m, but with exceptional accuracy. How would you simulate that wiith a single skill that determines both accuracy and distance?

John Kim wrote: But anyhow, sure, that's fine as a preference. But if you're simply not interested in that side of things, please don't hijack lev's thread to expound your own preferences.

Oh chill out, everybody. Chilly formal asshole-ness is still asshole-ness. The Cop has shown up; behave, you know how.

For this thread to continue, the goal is to help Lev achieve his goals with the topic. If you don't think they're achievable, shuddup and find some other thread; that case has been made and it's up to him to process it, not up to you to repeat it.

Constructive interaction. Do it.

Best,
Ron

lev_lafayette wrote: But this is getting way OT from the initial propositions. What is the sim basis for attributes? What is their sim effects on outcomes? They're really the two questions I'm posing.

John Kim wrote:
Ah, a bit of miscommunication. I said that the single skill would be a modifier to distance. i.e. There would be a base distance based on stats (at least height and weight), then a modifier for skill applied. Obviously, it should be scaled such that maximum realistic skill results in maximum realistic human distance and accuracy. You claim that maximum skills are unenforceable, but I think that obviously if you allow skills to go up infinitely then you are going to have unrealistic affects.

It is not terrible, though, and if I was modifying a traditional attribute system I might go with it. My typical nit is that systems tend to base on Strength attribute (i.e. HERO, GURPS, D20), which makes weightlifters the best jumpers.

LordSmerf wrote: Attribute are the maximum attainable result, you never ever use them directly. Then you have skills for how well you can utilize your attributes. So you have (say) a long jump skill which can never be higher than whatever attribute determines jumping distance. So the skill can continue to rise right up to the point where it matches the attribute, but you just can't get any better than that. Would that do what you're talking about?

lev_lafayette wrote: Now, having (more or less) nailed down the principles for the differentiation between stats and skills... Onward! - To defining the stats themselves!

LordSmerf wrote:
Again, what's the game about? Do you want to differentiate between mathematical aptitude, artistic aptitude, linguistic aptitude, etc.? Or do you just want to roll them all into "Intelligence"? Now, you seem to be focused on physical things, so let's leave the mental/spiritual stuff aside and do body work.

Weight lifter and Long jumper (upper body/lower body)
Sprinter and Distance runner (fast twitch/endurance)
Beefy bruiser and Numble dodger (strength/nimbleness)
Sprinter and Long jumper (running fast/jumping far)
Push up master and Pull up master (triceps/biceps)
Ballet dancer and Wood carver (gross muscle control/fine muscle control)

A couple of things...

The reason I asked about an "Intellegence" stat is that there are clearly different aptitudes when it comes to thinking, and there's good evidence that they are genetic. Some people have a gift for languages, some people have a sort of intuitive understanding of mathematics, etc. You can roll all of these into a single catch-all stat, but you're making things less "realistic", which is totally fine. If it's not important to your game to differentiate, then do not differentiate. To do so would be a detriment to your game.

So, you have four physical stats, which is cool. The Burning Wheel has roughly analagous stats: Power (Strength), Forte (Constitution), Speed (Agility), Agility (Dexterity). I think it's a very nice split myself.

However, from reading your earlier stuff I thought you were dissatisfied with this kind of a split because it doesn't allow for the difference between (say) upper body strength and lower body strength, which are limited genetically and don't maintain the same proportion for everyone (i.e. having a maximum potential bench press of 100kg may or may not give you a maximum leg press of 200kg, it varies).

Based on your last post I've reinterpreted your position as follows: "I don't like games that use an uncapped, learned ability to determine physical limits (jumping distance, maximum weight lifted, etc.), and I don't like games that combine gross muscle control (your Agility) and fine muscle control (your Dexterity) into a single stat." Is that basically what you've been saying?

Thomas

LordSmerf wrote:
The reason I asked about an "Intellegence" stat is that there are clearly different aptitudes when it comes to thinking, and there's good evidence that they are genetic.
Some people have a gift for languages, some people have a sort of intuitive understanding of mathematics, etc.

So, you have four physical stats, which is cool. The Burning Wheel has roughly analagous stats: Power (Strength), Forte (Constitution), Speed (Agility), Agility (Dexterity). I think it's a very nice split myself.

However, from reading your earlier stuff I thought you were dissatisfied with this kind of a split because it doesn't allow for the difference between (say) upper body strength and lower body strength, which are limited genetically and don't maintain the same proportion for everyone (i.e. having a maximum potential bench press of 100kg may or may not give you a maximum leg press of 200kg, it varies).

Based on your last post I've reinterpreted your position as follows: "I don't like games that use an uncapped, learned ability to determine physical limits (jumping distance, maximum weight lifted, etc.), and I don't like games that combine gross muscle control (your Agility) and fine muscle control (your Dexterity) into a single stat." Is that basically what you've been saying?