I have started the reworking of AA and already I've hit a snag.  Here's the deal;

Ron suggested that the dice pool for task resolution was a bad idea (which I agreed with, seeing as I only put it there because I could think of nothing better at the time).  By eliminating the dice pool and adding a second die for degree of success task resolution gets simplified.  Here's the problem; with that scheme, stat levels no longer have any bearing on chance of success.  I like for them to have some effect; given equal levels of skill, a person with higher manual dexterity has a better chance of picking a lock, for example.

So, what I need is a way to reincorporate stats into the task resolution system.  I've thought of adding the stat to the d10 roll (to the Chance Die) and upping difficulties accordingly, but I'm open to further input.

Hello!

As you can see, I split this one off from [Alien Angels] Ronnies feedback. It'll help focus the discussions, and besides, the game is now into its new development, graduated from simple Ronnies feedback.

I've been feeling bad about not following up on Alien Angels lately. So I'm glad you posted.

I suggest that you can get a little radical at this point. You have rightly ascertained that attributes are not important to your revised resolution ...

... so (ready?) ... Lose'em.

Wah! Ack! Run around in circles! What? No attributes? How will I visualize my character? How will I make them up? I love setting up attributes! Every role-playing game has attributes!

I have a secret to share with you. The only numbers and descriptions that matter are those which help resolution and reward to function. None of that other crap matters.

So ... what might help is to abandon the attributes, but include some new "skills" which are attribute-like, such as "brawny" or "agile" and stuff like that. Anyone without such skills is considered to be not-amazingly-brawny or whatever. In combination with the more traditional skills, you'll get 100% the same kind of "character-visualization" and detail during play, but with tons better elegance and clarity for the system.

Really. Almost all (not all) of those games with attributes, then skills, then figure out some combination of numbers that arrive at the target number or whatever, are broken. If what I'm proposing is too radical, then we can talk about the exceptions.

Best,
Ron

Ron wrote:
Hello!

As you can see, I split this one off from [Alien Angels] Ronnies feedback. It'll help focus the discussions, and besides, the game is now into its new development, graduated from simple Ronnies feedback.

You have rightly ascertained that attributes are not important to your revised resolution ...

... so (ready?) ... Lose'em. [snip] The only numbers and descriptions that matter are those which help resolution and reward to function. None of that other crap matters.[snip] Almost all (not all) of those games with attributes, then skills, then figure out some combination of numbers that arrive at the target number or whatever, are broken. If what I'm proposing is too radical, then we can talk about the exceptions.

Hello,

Before talking about the functional attribute/skill games, I should clarify that you can get that "Hands + Tech" nuance to resolution with a skills-only system.

In fact, let's call this the Abilities model, to avoid the terminological problems caused by calling it "skills-only," and also because that's what HeroQuest, the most developed game that uses this system, calls them.

Say your character has a great Hands ability and a decent (oh) Security Systems ability. It so happens this particular system requires some quickie hand-eye work to bust properly. So! You roll Hands first, derive the degrees of success in some way, and then use those as a bonus for the Security Systems roll. It works very, very well (in fact, I was one of the pioneers of this concept using an attributes-only system, with Sorcerer, but never mind that). Note that someone with good Hands but no Security System, and someone with Security System but no Hands, cannot do what your character just did.

It's called augmenting in HeroQuest, and that system by no means provides the only or best way to do it, mechanically, so there's room for you to bring in your own vision of how it would best fit your game.

OK, all that said, let's talk about a couple games in which attributes and skills are treated differently, but functionally.

1. Obsidian. In this game, you might have 4 dice in, say, Agility. You buy skills which are associated with Agility and have dice scores of their own, which are what you roll. You never roll Agility per se. Its only purpose is to set the expensiveness of upgrading and buying new Agility skills - the higher your Agility, the cheaper the costs.

2. Swashbuckler. In this game, your four attributes are rated in dice size (d6, d8, d10, d20). Your skills are rated in d6 units, so when you roll (for instance) Impressive Entrance based on Brawn, you roll the d6's for the skill plus the single attribute die, and add'em all up.

There are others, too, but I'll bring them up in a bit. I'm mentioning these two because they represent two extremes: the first one basically takes the attributes entirely out of resolution, reserving them as currency-setters for the improvement system; the second keeps them in resolution with only a subtle, specific difference between them and the skill dice.

Best,
Ron

Hello!

What Ron said have made me take a second look at your game.

I'm not sure if I'm talking nonsenses, but I should first say that your list of skills may be highly simplified. My feeling is that your examples of concepts are directly related to the categories of skills. Warrior -> combat skills, Artist -> artist skills, Leader -> Interaction skills, and so on.
It may be my preferences, but I would not find the need to distinguish which are my best skill between the different information skills, or interaction skills, or combat skills. This would only diminish my character versatility in the situations where they are needed.

I don't know if this will work for your idea of the game, but I would mix traits and the general categories of skills to create a simplified list of general skills which woudl be related to the different kinds of activities/conflicts you will like to see handled differently in your game. You may lose some color in the way, and that feeling of fine-tuning needing during character creation that some players like. But I will say that the process of creation may be simpler, still interesting and more directed to what your are expecting to happend in the game.

Perhaps this is not what you like for your game, in that case just ignore it.
Arturo

Arturo wrote:
your list of skills may be highly simplified.

My feeling is that your examples of concepts are directly related to the categories of skills. Warrior -> combat skills, Artist -> artist skills, Leader -> Interaction skills, and so on.

I would mix traits and the general categories of skills to create a simplified list of general skills which would be related to the different kinds of activities/conflicts you will like to see handled differently in your game.

Hi,

Um, I will, but this is a very busy time off-Forge. Dancing as fast as I can.

In the meantime, check out the Roll 3d6 ... what is this? thread, and most especially the linked older threads I provide in it, plus the essay by John Kim that's referenced as well. The conclusion we came to is that the nature/nurture, innate/trained issue is a confounding one - it makes games worse, not better. When a designer puts it in there, it's because he's used to it and thinks he should or must, not because it drives or functions toward any real fun in play itself. But hey - don't work on that here, just check out the threads.

Best,
Ron

tygertyger wrote:
This makes all tasks a matter of skill.  I'm leary of this -- and I freely admit that it's a personal preference -- because of my own feeling that the system should reflect the rl difference between innate ability and learned ability.  In the system as written Traits are innate and skills are learned.  A system with no Traits, IMO, assumes that innate ability in every area is the same for everyone and can only be improved with training and practice.

Christopher wrote:
It sounds like you're saying that the difference between innate ability and learned ability is a central premise for your game.

Or are you seeing a side to this that I'm not?  Way up at the top of this thread it looks like you're fishing around for a way to use stats, just because.  Is that just how games are supposed to work or do you see a real purpose?

Hiya,

There it is! The solution!

Use the "abilities" of the active character for the rolling, but use the attributes of the target for difficulties. It works very well.

All I'm saying, and it's hard to see, maybe that this is all - is not to fold the attributes and skills of a single character into the resolution roll.

I think you might consider as well that what I'm calling "ability" is not a skill. I'm not saying, lose all attributes and only keep skills. I am saying instead, call everything an "ability" and accept that all of them represent some combination of innate/trained input, which is not necessary to quantify for functional play.

Best,
Ron

Ron wrote:
Use the "abilities" of the active character for the rolling, but use the attributes of the target for difficulties. It works very well.