Split off from the "Do you believe" thread and the Dreamspire thread is a topic near and dear to my heart.

Traits and Skills.


I think most of us are willing to take as a given that game designers who stick to the Trait + Skill paradigm simply because "thats the way RPGs have 'always' been" need to broaden their horizons. It is likely that an initial adoption of this design as the automatic default is creatively limiting.

However, there is a fairly common attitude that a game which sticks to a system where both Traits (attributes, etc) and Skills are present is, if not exactly wrong, at least missing an opportunity to do something better.

Many related comments have been made on this topic before, but I think it might be good to get them all in one place for future reference.

I'm thinking that a thread which highlights the pros and cons of the Traits + Skills paradigm as well as discusses the pros and cons of alternative ways to define character capability would be both useful and an enjoyable topic.


To get things started, I'll begin with the traditional Trait + Skill paradigm. In this you have a list of Traits (attributes, whatever) which all characters have in common, which then is related to a list of skills (proficiencies, abilities, whatever) which are different from character to character.

How the lists are determined and how they are related to each other was for many years the only differentiation between character creation systems.

We've all seen these so I won't define or give a myriad of examples for them all.

What are some advantages of such a design.

1) Trait lists can be constructed to focus player attention on features and attitudes of the game world. Skill lists (sword vs gun, etc) have always done this, but one of the best examples of focusing attitudes by using Traits is Legend of the 5 Rings. The organization of the Traits into Rings and way players are encouraged to keep them in balance (at least in the 1ed I'm familiar with) does a great job of mechanically supporting the setting flavor.

Sorcerer Traits also do this but it isn't really a Trait + Skill system, more of a Trait OR Skill system with only 1 Trait thats very skill like (Lore) and 1 Skill thats extra broad (cover)


2) Familiarity. While some game "snobs" might look down their noses at this as an advantage, the long time dominance of D&D clones, current rash of d20 products, etc provides ample evidence that gamers are attracted to things that are familiar. Familiarity at least with the concept (Trait + Skill is a fairly widespread concept) makes learning the specifics of how a given game employs the Trait+Skill principal much easier.

IMO, unless there is a clear benefit to be gained by an innovation, innovation for innovation's sake just leads to a smaller target market. In other words unless ones goal is specifically to see how far the envelope can be pushed, "when in doubt, stick to the familiar".


3) Flexibility + Granularity that few other design techniques can match. When you have a game where the scope of the game is broad there are a wide range of potential character activities. In a game which focuses on a specific limited range of activities other activities outside of that focus can be discouraged, avoided, or handled very abstractly. For instance, given Sorcerer's focus the game isn't going to provide much in the way of mechanical support for a couple of non Sorcerous characters having a water skiing contest. The mechanical resolution for this would be very abstract and this is acceptable because all players should realize how far outside the scope of the game that activity is.

However, sometimes there is a legitimate desire to have a broad scope of activities in a game, and I don't mean the oft heard claim of "well characters could do anything they want". For example, Dreamspire sounds like it will have a pretty tight focus on setting and overall situation, but within the setting a wide range of activities are possible. If the desire is to handle those diverse activities with equal granularity than a Trait + Skill system provides a great way of covering a lot of potential situations needing the fewest amount of special rules.


4) Such systems are easy to expand to cover new situations and easy to modify where desired while maintaining the same level of granularity. Many alternatives to Trait + Skill are equally expandable, so this isn't so much of an advantage as a matching feature. However, many alternatives that are easily expandable, are so because they have a very low level of detail. Trait + Skill systems have the ability to set a desired level of detail (low or high) and then extrapolate that same level of detail across.



There are probably some more advantages, but that enough to get started. I'd love to see this thread continue with what are some disadvantage, what are situations where Trait + Skill isn't appropriate, and for those situations what are the pros and cons of alternatives...i.e. what are you gaining and what are you giving up by using an "alternative" to the traditional system.

Hello,

First off, here's a thread that's worth reviewing, I think:
Attributes or skills, but not both?

Second, I'd like to clarify something about my argument that most people miss: what I am criticizing is not the concept of an "attribute" or the concept of a "skill," but that they are often separated into mathematically distinct entities - either in terms of how they're "paid for" or otherwise derived, and/or in terms of what they actually do, structurally, in play, in most designs.

Functionally, what happens are breakpoints. The more mathematical derivation, especially using ratios, of skills AND attributes, and how they factor into an Effective Value (target number, e.g.), the more the Effective Values turn into "clusters" of strategically effective points interspersed among a range of "dumb" values.

That's the problem I am isolating. Games like Zero, in which both Brawn and Ranged Combat are featured as equivalent game mechanics entities do not have this problem.

So it's really not "attributes vs. skills" at all. It is, needlessly complex degrees of layering in order to derive an Effective Value, which usually result in strategic breakpoints. I've listed lots of games which use more-or-less attributes like Amber, Sorcerer, and Everway; as well as lots of games which use more-or-less skills, like Castle Falkenstein, The Dying Earth, and Zero. All of these are entirely functional.

Some more traditional attribute/skill systems have solved this problem in interesting ways. In L5R and The Riddle of Steel, the attribute is a number of dice, and the skill is some aspect of using what the dice roll (the "keep" mechanic and the target number, respectively). In Shattered Dreams, one rolls a d12 for skill and a d12 for attribute; the effect is determined as one of four possible outcomes (awesome flub, almost made it, almost missed it, awesome success). I have found all of these to be functional as well.

Best,
Ron

(editing this in) An early thread that's very relevant here is Currency. Please excuse the cranky beginning between Jack and me (we are friends now!) and also note that this thread precedes the big GNS essay; some of my points about Currency are made better in the essay. However, most of my attributes/skills points are made in the thread.

Certainly have reviewed that thread, but (where it doesn't venture off topic which is pretty early on) it is focused explicitly on applying the issue to narrativist games and I was going for something broader.

Beyond that I think you've combined two seperate issues into the problem you're isolating.

Discussing a system that uses Traits and Skills both vs a system that uses one or the other or something else entirely is IMO a completely different topic from how those Traits and Skills are paid for / rolled for.

Having min max breakpoints is a function of point based character design which has nothing really to do with Traits + Skills as a resolution mechanic.

Further you are defining the difference between Traits and Skills as a mathematical difference in the way they're resolved and pointing to games that have 1 mathematical method as being superior. We could quibble about exceptions, but I wouldn't disagree with the principal.

But again, I think that is a different issue (or perhaps more accurately a sub set issue).

The key difference between labeling something a Trait (attribute etc) vs labeling it a skill in almost all systems which make the distinction is that a Trait is something which all characters have in common, while a skill is limited to characters who know that skill.

Hi Ralph,

If I'm not mistaken, the only trait/skill "problem" occurs when the mathematical hassles I described (and Mike has also described) arise. If said hassles don't arise, due to various design decisions, then all is good.

So I guess I'm not seeing what you're raising as the issue. If we're not talking about (a) Currency/derivation hassles and (b) how the most common concept of attribute/skill feeds into that ... then there's no "over-riding distaste for attribute + skill design" to talk about. Except for the (a + b) that I just described, I don't have or see your stated "... fairly common attitude that a game which sticks to a system where both Traits (attributes, etc) and Skills are present is, if not exactly wrong, at least missing an opportunity to do something better".

For those who aren't following me: if a game does use distinctive traits and skills in its design, and if it does not fall into the Currency traps that Mike and I are both heartily sick of, then ... um, it's cool. It's a good game. I'll happily play it, attributes and skills and all.

I do think that such games can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Best,
Ron

Valamir wrote: Having min max breakpoints is a function of point based character design which has nothing really to do with Traits + Skills as a resolution mechanic.

Hmmm, for some reason this is going in circles. I wasn't raising an issue to attack or defend, I was presenting a topic for discussion. My initial post was not a rant against the "anti-trait+skill brigade".

It was an attempt to start a discussion on the pros and cons of different ways of measuring character effectiveness in a game. I started with a discussion of the advantages of including Traits + Skills in a game simply as a natural place to begin.

Pendragon uses both Traits and Skills in a way where they don't relate to each other and are never used in conjunction.

D20 uses both Traits and Skills in a way where the values aren't related to each other but are used in conjunction

GURPS uses both Traits and Skills in a way where the values are related to each other and are used in conjunction.

Sorcerer doesn't really use Skills at all (Cover is really no different than a Trait with a choice of profession as a descriptor). All of the scores are held in common by all characters.

The Pool uses "skills" but not "traits" in the sense that there is no common package of traits which all characters share.

What I was looking for is a discussion of the pros and cons of these different measures of character effectiveness, when is one way more appropriate to a games goals than another, when is it just a matter of personal taste, what does a certain alternative do better than another, what does it do worse.

Apparently when I said

I'm thinking that a thread which highlights the pros and cons of the Traits + Skills paradigm as well as discusses the pros and cons of alternative ways to define character capability would be both useful and an enjoyable topic.

Valamir wrote: The key difference between labeling something a Trait (attribute etc) vs labeling it a skill in almost all systems which make the distinction is that a Trait is something which all characters have in common, while a skill is limited to characters who know that skill.

An obvious con to two level systems is that they are more complex, surely. Almost certainly there will be some additional math to be done, often required to be done in play. And certain versions make understandng the odds of an outcome less intuitive, which some people do not like.

These are not things that bug me, personally, but I hear a lot of grumbling about complexity out there all the time.

Also, to extend the argument, it a two level system is good, why not a three, or four, or Nth level system? Why is two seen as optimal?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Also, to extend the argument, it a two level system is good, why not a three, or four, or Nth level system? Why is two seen as optimal?

Mike Holmes wrote: An obvious con to two level systems is that they are more complex, surely. Almost certainly there will be some additional math to be done, often required to be done in play. And certain versions make understandng the odds of an outcome less intuitive, which some people do not like.

Also, to extend the argument, it a two level system is good, why not a three, or four, or Nth level system? Why is two seen as optimal?

Paganini wrote: A bit more math yes, but it can be done before play if you are clever. :) Again, D6 is a good example. Attributes and skills are rated with six sided dice. When you give a value to a skill, the skill's value is added to the attribute associated with that skill. So, if you have an Awareness attribute of 4D, and you put two dice in the Search skill, then your search skill is actually 6D. Since attributes are defined at chargen and do not change, you never have to do math during play. You just look at your character sheet and use the skill value if it's listed, or the attribute value if it isn't.

It actually isn't, if you talk to people who are hardcore skill fans (that is, people who actually take psychology classes to find out how skills are spread, how people learn, and so on). Those folks tend to like skill tree systems, which are definately N level systems. :)

My favorite use of Attributes + Skills is DreamPod 9's use in Heavy Gear and Tribe 8... They justified their view as : Skill means success more often but talent makes higher degrees of success.

For example: The artists that you see do portraits and caricatures on the street do that all day. They are extremely proficient at producing that style of art in very short periods of time. You could say that they have a hight skill level. Another artist is hit or miss, spends months doing preliminary paintings, sketches, half done versioins, and every so often kicks out a masterpiece. Lower skill, more talent.

This made more sense to me for the reasoning behind splitting the two and their use(as opposed to the straight "add'em together" approach used by most games).

Chris

Mike Holmes wrote:
And then subtract dice for penalties and bonuses due to situation. Now I'm doing math in terms of thirds of dice in the middle of combat or something.

All systems suggest doing as much math before hand. Some don't allow that as the character is allowed to back a particular Skill with multiple Stats depending on the situation. This trades off doing more math in-game for increased flexibillity.

Yes, I've used skill trees of varying depths, including infinite. I should have said "seen as optimal by so many" or "are more frequently used" instead of "seen as optimal". Obviously not everyone sees them as optimal.

Well, Men of Teak uses stats and skill for the reason of familiarity. My personal philosophy for designing Men of Teak was to not change much from the norm unless it was important to change. Of course mine is old school gamist fun that mainly trims off things that get in the way of a the action or promote playing that runs contrary to kung fu action.

Bailey wrote: Well, Men of Teak uses stats and skill for the reason of familiarity. My personal philosophy for designing Men of Teak was to not change much from the norm unless it was important to change. Of course mine is old school gamist fun that mainly trims off things that get in the way of a the action or promote playing that runs contrary to kung fu action.

Paganini wrote: However, it does eleminate the breakpoint problem that we were discussing.

Mike Holmes wrote:
How do you get around the currency problem? Is it one of the solutions I mentioned, or have you found some new and innovative way to solve the problem. If so, you can't keep it a secret. The world must know!
Mike

Bailey,

I suggest we start then with the essay itself, which at least attempts to explain Currency. Tell me where it goes kerflooey for you or otherwise needs clarification.

I also suggest that you start a new thread for this purpose.

Best,
Ron

Okay, lets see here. There are three (or up to seven depending on how playtest goes and how you define stats) types of stats in Men of Teak.

First are the traits. These are innate and determine the degree of success.
Second are abilities. These determine chance of success.
Techniques are special martial abilities. These are unique in that they assist chance of success and damage in combat.
Drives are stats that influence the chance of success depending on why the character is performing their action or influence damage of a (super move).
Character style and powers are also stats but not numerical ones.

The things derived from these are the super meters, wound points (I said it was old school) and stun threshold. The derived things are multiples of other stats or generated by adding stats.

Every value of a stat will have an effect on the derived value, and the derived value cannot be purchased directly (to avoid your soybean trading to an extent).

It has experience points which reward attendance, which is dependent on how important of a session it was. Success is not given a reward since I consider it a reward in itself, and (as this is old school gamist) would reward unbalanced characters with the opprotunity make characters even more unbalanced.
The Drives are increased with roleplaying rewards (there is no ability to cash in Drives to get any other type of stat. Also each Drive is increased in its own way inspired by the reknown of L5R).

What should be noted is that I like stats that are Effectivness related. Metagame stuff is tied to Effectiveness with the Drives (motivations form bonused). Resource values exist in the Wound Points (how many till you drop), experience points, Actions (can take as many actions as the Cool score) and super meter (charge up and get one super move when it's full) but I'm not happy with having resources. Even three seems like too many for a game with a focus on manoevers over resource management in action.

Breakpoints currently exist in there's an upper level for stats, and after that there isn't much use. I don't really think of this as a problem because I have qualms with an upper limit on the game. It isn't supposed to be infinitely scalable or even to pretend that it is a la Champions.
Soybean counting is a problem in that both Trait and Technique affect damage in combat. It was one of the things early playtesters wanted, and it kinda makes sense but it screws with balance (and I have said that this is old school gamist).

The only solution I've got so far is to nix the double hit in effectiveness that Techniques provide (but that is not optimal as it interferes with my vision of what things should be presented as important by the game system.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Paganini wrote: However, it does eleminate the breakpoint problem that we were discussing.

So far the new version [of D6] sounds pretty good.

<SLASH>

Is the new system different (I haven't looked at it, having heard that it was pretty much the same thing).