Let's say we're talking about traditional RPGs where there's a GM that runs "the world" and a number of players, each of which has their own character.  Let's further say that the task-resolution system for the game is Attribute + Skill + Roll versus a Difficulty Number.

Which attributes would you choose to have for such a game?  Are there any attributes you would be appalled to see combined (say, dexterity and strength)?  Are there any attributes you think most systems include but shouldn't?

Bonus question:  How would you have players "buy" these attributes?

Before people jump in and ask big metaphysical questions about player experiences, creative agendas and other stuff like that...

What preconcieved notions have you had so far?

How many attributes do you want?

How many skills do you want?

Personally, I used a system with 4 attributes [physical, social, mental, spiritual] in a project because it used a deck of cards with 4 suits.

My current project uses only d6s, so it uses 6 elemental aspects that drive the characters [they're pretty close to "attributes", but not quite].

As for skills, do you want the skills to be subsets of the attributes [eg. D&D 3.5 skills], or can they be mixed and matched [eg. Old World of Darkness].

Again, my personal preference is for the second system, and I'd make sure there were at least five times as many skills as there are attributes. Conversely, I'd make sure the skills were only about a fifth as wide in scope as the attributes. It's hard to talk in quantifiable numbers like this, because there will always be players who try to adapt their best skill into every situation their character encounters.

In a hypothetical system; a lot of systems would make the attributes five times more versatile, but only two or three times more expensive to purchase.

Some good recent systems have allowed players to pick their attributes at the beginning of play, but through a campaign only skills can be bought with experience. Attributes become like a character's genetic coding, skills are what the character does with that coding.

Just some ideas...

V

This probably isn't the answer you want but: it depends on what the game is meant to be about. A game that is about politicians conniving for power over the course of decades is going to have different answers to those questions than a game that is about looting dungeons in near real-time.

Because the question you're asking right now is akin to: let's say you're playing a traditional board game that uses two dice for moves. How many pieces should it have? How large should the board be? Are there any elements of such games you think should be discarded? How should players get turns?

Well, to be fair... he did say traditional RPG. :)
Traditional to me speaks of the sort of game that measures physical, mental and magical attributes. Maybe even social.
So you could have an attribute for each one... though magic doesn't have to be a separate attribute if your system doesn't intend to tread on that sort of ground. Such a small number breeds simplicity but also makes character more generic. That is, without some sort of Advantages/Disadvantages system.

I think the following would generally work well; Body, Coordination, Intelligence, Will. That is, for an RPG based on exploration and killing. Body for physical damage and hit points. Coordination for physical defense and accuracy. Intelligence for mystical power and efficiency. Will for mystical defense and mystical points. I don't usually like measuring social abilities but such things could be handled by a trait/advantage/disadvantage sort of system.

Numbers are pretty arbitrary until you attach meaning to them... but I like working within 100. It is easy to compare such numbers to the %die which is neat because that is my preferred method of random number generation. If the game is meant to convey a console RPG sort of feeling, the numbers begin pretty low but steadily increase at each level.
I am writing a game where I am using Shining Force as inspiration, the character sheets are hardly more than half a page yet it is meant to be a very tactical experience. The Attribute numbers in that game are pretty low. For instance, a 14 is considered to be a very high attribute. It is all still based on the %die but attributes do not climb every level. Each attribute is multiplied by a certain number and is considered the base for particular statistics (melee power, accuracy, etc...) in order to place some importance on character generation.

When buying Attributes... I like distribution methods as opposed to random generation. I also like the distribution to always be 1:1.

Yeah, considering that some RPGs are fairly narrowly focused I realized that my question might not have been specific enough.

My system is intended to be a universal engine supporting your "typical" settings/genres like sci-fi, supers and fantasy.  The attributes, therefore, should describe intrinsics that are common to all characters across these genres.  Currently, I have six attributes that have scores going from 1 to 10.

Body - Your character's toughness and constitution.  Things like poison resistance, holding your breath and your hit points come from this.

Physique - Your character's innate athletic ability.  A combination of what might be called Strength and Dexterity in some other games.

Will - Your character's mental fortitude.  Used in situations where your character's inner resolve is tested (say, resisting the effects of a charm spell in a fantasy game)

Mind - Your character's mental acuity.  A combination of what might be called Intelligence and Perception in some other games.

Charisma - A representation of the average character's gut reaction toward you.  Your physical appearance.

Presence - Your force of personality.  Affects your ability to persuade or intimidate others.  Also how well you relate to others (empathy, for example).

So, that gives a bit of background.  Now, on to actual play and player reactions...

In my initial play-testing and discussions I have found that some players are confused about where one attribute begins and another ends (how do Charisma and Presence relate to each other, for example).  I have also found some players are adamantly opposed to conflating a character's strength with their dexterity, or how intelligent a character is and his perceptive abilities.

Up until now, apart from this confusion or controversy, the mechanics have seemed to be functional in actual play, but I am more and more wondering if this isn't just a coincidence.

For example, I use a point-buy system for my attributes, and when making checks it's a straight attribute plus skill plus roll versus a difficulty.  Because I have one combined attribute for athletic ability and two attributes governing social matters, this opens the door for some serious min-maxing.

Hopefully this gives everyone a bit more to go on as to what I mean.

The game I'm currently working on is more or less a "traditional" fantasy RPG, though I have attempted to include every possible action in my skill set, things like the sciences, art, theology, crafting, etc., so you could play a game about farming or managing a business or life as a student, etc. just as easily as dungeon crawling.  I use a number of Attributes, and Attributes do not change after character creation, except due to temporary effects or debilitating injuries (leg chopped off, for example).

Strength - The amount of force a character can exert in an instant.  Affects damage with certain weapons (most/all melee, some ranged), and how much weight you can lift.

Endurance - The amount of punishment a character can sustain before it begins to impede that character.  Allows you to run, fight, carry heavy objects etc. for longer before fatigue wears you out, and allows you to sustain more damage (numerical damage values are converted into injuries which penalize the character, with the severity (rank) of the injury depending on the damage dealt and the Endurance of the damaged character).

Agility - A character's dexterity and coordination.  Used in many tasks requiring fine motor skills and/or precision, including hitting enemies in combat, balancing, crafting fine goods, etc.

Speed - How quickly a character can sprint.  Allows you to cover more ground in less time when you need to.  Beware, fatigue does apply, so you can't sprint continuously.  (Walking speed is considered the same for everyone, Speed may also affect run speed, though.)

Intelligence - A character's ability to handle abstract concepts (in some ways, a mental version of Strength).  Allows you to easily learn skills related to abstract concepts (science, art, magic, etc.), and easily manipulate abstract concepts, such as math, science, magic, etc.

Willpower - A character's mental strength (in some ways, a mental version of Endurance).  Allows you to resist mind-affecting effect (mind-control, fear, insanity, etc.) and use certain types of magic.

Cunning - A character's aptitude for practical thinking (in some ways, a mental version of Agility).  Allows you to easily learn practical skills (combat, crafting, persuasion, etc.), and to use practical thinking effectively (planning, deception, etc.).

Charisma - A character's likability and charm.  Allows you to handle social encounters with greater ease.

Size - A combination of a creatures size and weight.  Larger creatures gain an advantage in Strength, Endurance, and Speed, while smaller creatures gain an advantage in Agility.  All humans, excepting those with growth defects (which are available to PCs), are the same Size.  (Mostly, Size is just to scale between creatures much larger or smaller than the PCs.)

Spirit - A character's magical aptitude.  Absolutely necessary for good magic users, can also cause unexpected effects from mundane actions (a "magical touch").  Spirit is used in conjunction with magic skills (which depend on either Intelligence or Willpower) to cast spells, both tests must be passed to cast successfully.  It may be possible to increase Spirit by accessing forbidden magic.  Spirit is generated secretly by the GM and kept hidden from the player (ooh, mysterious, at least, that's what I'm aiming for).

Faith - A character's strength of belief in God.  Used instead of Spirit for Holy Magic, can also cause unexpected effects ("divine intervention").  Unlike all other Attributes, Faith changes according to your actions, requiring you to act according to your religion to maintain it.  Faith is also kept hidden from the player by the GM.

Obviously, I can see some of these being fused together, like Strength and Endurance, or Intelligence and Cunning (which was actually what I originally had, then decided to split "Intelligence" into Intelligence and Cunning).  I wanted to have more diversity among characters, though.  Attributes remain fixed after character generation to represent that character's genetics.  Skills, on the other hand, can increase indefinitely, so enough practice and your Attribute becomes less important for that particular skill.  Note, however, that Intelligence and Cunning affect how quickly you learn skills.  Currently, I have it set up to use d100 rolls, but I've been considering switching to a dice pool system, due to it being simpler and because of a certain mechanic I would then be able to implement.

Vordark wrote:
In my initial play-testing and discussions I have found that some players are confused about where one attribute begins and another ends (how do Charisma and Presence relate to each other, for example).  I have also found some players are adamantly opposed to conflating a character's strength with their dexterity, or how intelligent a character is and his perceptive abilities.

I say, take a hint from some other games, Like Warhammer Fantasy Role-play. You had a to-hit statistic, I forgot what it was called, and a missile-to-hit, and so on. Instead of trying to give your attributes abstract names that have to be defined carefully and involve a fair amount of overlap, just be extremely specific in naming conventions. For example, instead of strength, you could have Physical Offense. Instead of consititution, Physical Defense. Then, let the individual players give these terms nicknames of their own. So long as they work the same mechanically, it all works out. Now, this of course reduces a bit of the verisimilitude, in the sense that your terms remind the player's they are playing a game, not rating a fictional person's abilities (even though they are doing both in any case) but I feel the clarity makes up for it. Alternatively, use the abstract words, but be explicit in the definitions as to exactly what each stat is used for.

Just a thought. Or, do what I did, and throw out the attributes all together and just use moralities as your attributes. In my system, if you want to do something, your character has to be invested in it. His physical strength isn't important, his devotion to a cause is. But, for a traditional game, your system is probably better suited.

Just my thoughts,
--Norm

About 25 years ago I had a game with:

Strength - physical power
Agility - grace and balance
Manual Dexterity* - nimble fingers
Reflexes* - reaction time
Endurence -fitness* and health
Reason - abstracted thought and logic
Wit - mental reaction time
Will - resist magic, and other coercive effects
Spirit - magical strength
Faith* - adherence to a divine path and the earned divine favor
Charm - personality
Charisma* - leadership and inspiration
Comeliness* - physical attractiveness
Voice* - singing, entertaining

This was based off of my experienced with Thieves Guild, Flashing Blades and Chivalry and Sorcery 2nd Edition.
There were racial mods for most traits.
Traits cascaded til you had modifiers to most traits above you on the list.
It was adorable.

I thought I would share since Spirit and faith reminded me of my old design.

* denotes an attribute or feature of an attribute I later moved to the role of modifiers or advantages on basic values proded by another attribute or a base human ability.

To my eyes, the large number of randomely generate traits reflect a world view that you couldn't really control your opportunities or health in the medieval era, and so special people seem to just be gifted by fortuna.

Vordark wrote:
My system is intended to be a universal engine supporting your "typical" settings/genres like sci-fi, supers and fantasy. 

The attributes, therefore, should describe intrinsics that are common to all characters across these genres. 

Luke:  I can't say that I'm very good at marketing, but I'll try to answer your questions as best I can.  I really hope this doesn't come across as proselytizing. :)

Luke wrote:
Why should I play your game over GURPs, BRP or D&D? Seriously, what differentiates your universal system from all other universal systems?

Why should I play your game over Mutants and Masterminds? In other words, what does your universal system have to offer me over a custom-built hot rod of a system?

Vordark wrote:
In my initial play-testing and discussions I have found that some players are confused about where one attribute begins and another ends (how do Charisma and Presence relate to each other, for example).

Vordark wrote:
2.  Simplicity.  I believe that Genesys is very easy to learn and use.  More so than most other games that I have played or run.  Intertwingled with this simplicity is a heavy emphasis on consistency as well.  Wherever possible I have chosen to create a general rule to cover many situations as opposed to treating these situations differently.  This minimizes the number of exceptions that must be committed to memory.

Vordark wrote:
2.  A well-designed plug-in must exist for those elements that define the hot-rod system (a super powers plug-in, a magic system plug-in, etc.)

Vordark wrote:
1.  The core rules of the Genesys System must be more appealing than the hot-rod system's overall.
2.  A well-designed plug-in must exist for those elements that define the hot-rod system (a super powers plug-in, a magic system plug-in, etc.)
If either of these conditions aren't met in full, I don't believe Genesys would be suitable for that particular application.

Kyle:  Thanks for the response!  Most of what you wrote seems to be more a critique of universal systems in general, and not Genesys, but I did want to respond to one point.

Kyle wrote:
In my experience simplicity does not mean a system is good or wanted. I think it is a false assumption that you want the system to be simple for simplicities sake. I have played many different systems (roleplaying, boardgames, wargaming, etc) and complexity is rarely an issue. It is how the rules interfere with the fun of the game. If the rules interefere with how fun a game is, then it is a bad system. If the rules make the system fun, and it is fun to play, then I would call that a winner. It also matters on how the rules reinforce the setting that determines the simplicity or complexity of the system, which because you are making a catch-all you will have a hard time addressing this issue.

I use nine attributes in a system I've used for a few games over the years. Three main attributes with three sub-attributes. Throwaway NPCs only need the three main ones because each operates relative to the average of the three subs. PCs prioritise main attributes in character creation.

MIND
- Reason
- Intuition
- Charisma

FITNESS
- Strength
- Stamina
- Quickness

COORDINATION
- Agility
- Finesse
- Grace

It's pretty attribute-heavy rather than skill-heavy.

Just my own two cents, maybe people disagree ..

One of the very first system-shocks I had when first coming to the Forge was the surprising amount of symmetry in people's systems. (Of course, I thought I was the only person on the planet for these ideas to have occurred to.) My own system, also, had symmetry of attributes - namely,
    physical  [ strength (offense), dex (defense), con (health) ]
    mental    [ intelligence (offense), etc.
    social    [ confidence (offense), etc.

You can see the pattern. The struggle to force my game into these symmetrical patterns was also one of the first things I dropped, precisely because it seemed like everyone was trying to do this, and it made me wonder what the point of it all was. I quickly came to believe (and still strongly believe) that there really is no point for it beyond the aesthetics. In fact I'd go so far to say that it must be a stage that all (or at least most) of us potential game designers go through. I have since discarded the idea of aesthetics in favour of functionality. Who cares what it looks like (within reason) as long as it accomplishes what I need it to do, to meet my goals for the system.

My current system has four physical attributes, no "core" mental attributes, and social attributes that are invented by the player during the game as the situations come up (within some rules). It sure as heck ain't symmetrical, but it certainly does the job I need it to do far better than a symmetrical attribute group could.

Daniel

Most (not all) traditional RPS use:

Physique or Strength & Constitution
Reflexes or Dexterity & Agility
Wits or Intelligence & Perception
Presence or Charisma & Willpower

Other attributes will occasionally be added in, Looks, Luck, Karma etc but most games fit into that pattern. Note that in these example many of the names have been changed but they still fit the pattern.

DnD
Strength & Constitution
Dexterity
Intelligence
Charisma & Wisdom

Burning Wheel
Power & Forte
Agility & Speed
Perception
Will

a|state
Strength & Health
Dexterity & Agility
Intelligence & Awareness
Personality & Willpower

Dragon Warriors
Strength
Reflexes
Intelligence
Psychic Talent
and Looks tacked on the end

I'm not sure if it will be any use to you Vordark but I use this chart of four to eight stats as the starting point when I am designing a system. If it is going to be combat heavy I will probably use four physical stats and two mental/spiritual stats. For a game of political intrigue you could probably reverse that. In a game of psychological horror you will probably want to focus on your characters ability to deal with stress and horror (Will) and also their persuasion/social abilities (Charisma) but intelligence and Perception can probably be merged into one stat (Wits) for simplicity and you only really need to know vaguely how fast your characters can run and how much damage they can take (so Physique and Reflextes are plenty, maybe even too much).

Some games match them up even further:
Tristat/BESM
Body or Strength & Constitution & Dexterity & Agility
Mind or Intelligence & Perception
Soul or Charisma & Willpower

It is interesting as well to note some of the game which deviate from this structure. For example:
GURPS
Strength & Health
Dexterity
Intelligence

One of the most common complaints about Gurps is that it has no stat covering Willpower or Charisma. They have tried to cover for this with Advantages but they have never managed to everyone's satisfaction.

Other games that throw this attribute arrangement out include the World of darkness games, the Silhouette games from Dream Pod 9 all of which I feel have too many stats, some of which are redundant. The Silhouette attributes are particularly unbalanced:
Build & Fitness
Agility
Creativity & Perception & Knowledge
Influence & Willpower & Psyche
and Appearance

Six mental/social attributes but only three physical ones in a fairly cinematic, action-heavy game? When running Tribe 8 I doubled the cost of advancing Agility relative to the other stats and it was still briken!

This table of 4/8 stats is far from the only way to do it but I certainly find it a good guide. using it to look at your stats we get
Body
Physique (which I would call Reflexes)
Mind
Presence & Charisma & Willpower

So that is a heavy emphasis on the less tangible stats at the spiritual/social end of the scale. I would say that in most settings you will have significant overlap and redundancy in your Presence and Charisma stats and overall your stats are leaning more towards subtle horror or intrigue and won't be a lot of use in a cinematic, tactical or action-heavy game.

Which attributes would you choose to have for such a game?

If the expected "value" of stats given what you know about the setting for which they are designed is pretty even, then I suppose I'd call that some kind of balance. This automatically assumes that players will be trading one description of their characters ability for another. There are other assumptions, like those that do not allow point assignment sharing between different types of stat, up to and including those that assign stats randomly.

If you have random stats, it could be argued that balance forms no obstacle, assuming they stay random for the entire course of their use (being able to add points to them at your leisure through xp puts them in the first category again).

But why bother creating that balance in the first place? Well for some players, many in fact, setting the attributes of their character is about building up their character's identity. Having to concern themselves with what the right stat mix is in some "objective" sense nullifies the choice they have in deciding the stat combination that looks right to them. In other words it's about removing the pragmatic from their decision making process, leaving it almost totally aesthetic.

If the above is true, and it is true for some players, then one way to improve a system is to adjust the costs for the different stats until you have a cost scheme you think is fair, then split the stat that costs more into smaller pieces, or merge the weaker/cheaper stats together. The choice is then stripped of it's investment connotations.

I would stay away from doing the latter (joining stats) too much though, as a classic reason for differentiating stats is to be able to say "my character is ___ but not ____".

So he is fit and healthy but not good at lifting, or he is good at making speeches but not at unprepared conversation. Stats allow us to say that in numerical form, and I suspect that many stat and skill lists could be created based on variations on that principle, starting at "just some guy"! If we could make rules for defining those boundaries that worked pretty well I think we'd have a great advantage!

Incidentally I'm not talking about "more than human/less than human", but where each stat is nuanced by the addition of a distinction that increases it's value on one side an decreases it on the other, with the rules helping to solve the battle of how it applies! I'm fond of the idea of "lowest difference wins" where if one is +1 and the other -2, then the +1 becomes the most common, dividing up the ambiguous region largely in it's favour. This can easily lead to +1 vs -6 with one extreme weakness that enemies would give their left arm to know.

These threads always make me think "Why has the question gone straight to what attributes to have? Where was the discussion on "Should I have attributes at all?" or even "How do I want to handle things? Attributes come to mind as a handling method, but its just one method and there are probably other methods I don't know about or haven't been invented yet"

Perhaps they have... but decided to resort to a familiar method instead?

Callan wrote:
These threads always make me think "Why has the question gone straight to what attributes to have? Where was the discussion on "Should I have attributes at all?" or even "How do I want to handle things? Attributes come to mind as a handling method, but its just one method and there are probably other methods I don't know about or haven't been invented yet"

Reading the stuff above leads me to conclude: There is no set of attributes that will gel perfectly with any type, style or genre of game. If you haven't already, consider making many or all of the attributes players need to write down somewhat modular, or put more bluntly ignorable.

Have some allowance in your system for removing the requirement for having a value for an attribute entirely, for the case where the attribute is almost universally unimportant (Strength for a setting where physical actions are significantly devalued), or alternatively where the attribute is almost universally important for all characters and you don't want players to involve themselves in trying to maximise it (for my system, Intelligence where I want it to be assumed all player characters are smart enough to learn any traditionally Intelligence-based skill they wish).

Where the attribute would be used for resolution, suggest Game Masters assume a value fairly applicable to all player characters (it's fair to assume a hacker in a barfight will not be exceptionally stronger than any other hacker unless otherwise specified). For where a player really wants that attribute to be more defined for their character specifically, and it's not going to give them an edge in normal conflicts - a suspiciously brawny hacker, perhaps - provide, or allow the GM to create, a Trait/Advantage/Widget to allow this differentiation without making every other player need to generate more numbers.

I see this as increasing the complexity of the rules the GM sees, and their decision process, to decrease the requirement of players to get involved in the messy world of working out what attributes are really applicable. In my opinion, this is worth it, but it may clash with the objective of making the game approachable to an inexperienced or less rules-writing Game Master.

Devenger wrote:
or allow the GM to create, a Trait/Advantage/Widget to allow this differentiation without making every other player need to generate more numbers.

How about breaking down a list of every possible attribute you could have for a game or every general (not skill-specific) thing about a person you would want to simulate.

The entire below list is descriptions only, avoiding conventional attribute names. It's up to the level of detail of simulation and the feel of the game as to how many of the attributes are used, which are rolled together into a single stat, which are necessarily correlated and therefore should be derived.

Please feel free to add to the list, there's obviously going to be hundreds more.

The Master List

1. Absorb and retrieve information
2. Charm or otherwise favourably influence others by body language, verbal qualities and behaviour
3. Project presence
4. React quickly to changes in situation
5. Immediately notice or intuit details
6. Reason and calculate with available information
7. Dodge out of the way of something
8. Brute force/explosive muscle power/lift
9. Muscle stamina/carrying capacity
10. Running speed
11. Physical bulk/mass
12. Sense of balance
13. Fluidity of movement
14. Quickness of gross body movement
15. Quickness of fine body movement
16. Physically absorb injury by muscle tone
17. Physically absorb injury by muscular/skeletal flexibility
18. Maintain presence of mind under mental stress
19. Maintain presence of mind under physical trauma
20. Original thought, imagination
21. Practical/mechanical deduction, problem-solving
22. Decision making, objectivity
23. Fine motor skills
24. Resist physical fatigue
25. Resist mental fatigue
26. Physical attractiveness

Two things:
Note: I am attracted to creating game designs more along the sim-what happens if you do this style of play, meaning I like Attributes, and probably like more challenges to the characters abilities than a purely story creation focussed player would enjoy.

1) To have or not have? As has been mentioned, many many games get by on assuming that you will have some average level of ability in any thing. Even Gurps can be reduced to all Traits, as they assume 10s in the four basic stats, and from there you can proceed through their various charts. How much detail is a matter of game design, whether you show values at an assumed level is more a matter of taste. That said, certain genres really seem to pop on certain traits, and I personally prefer to know that you are only average in said traits, just as a flavor reminder.

2) The ultimate way I have tried to generate a maximum number of traits is similar to many efforts.

I named every single minute stage or type of a conflict I wanted (which went something like this: prediction, apperception (based on a usage of appercevoir meaning spotting as soon as possible), analysis of content, choice of response, correct tactical choices of action, power of action, finesse of action, resistance via finesse (eg dodge), resistance via protection (eg an overriding social concern), resistance via toughness (eg a tough mind), a health track of some sort.

Then I define every arena of conflict and action I could want: physical, interpersonal, intellectual, spiritual, magical, societal, political, military, economical.

That makes a huge grid which you can try to fill in if you desire. Very quickly you will see that certain combinations make no sense to you, or perhaps to your desired game. Likewise, I found that in my anecdotal understanding of real life and fiction, certain traits were always linked, and two or more grid squares were merged. Then I usually agree that many of the arenas aren't necessary, or could be handled in a different fashion. You'll note that the larger arenas at the end end up better for describing groups and their abilities, which is intended as I like group conflicts.

Usually I end up with a design where the most basic physical traits of the body are rated as an attribute, and everything else is an advantage that requires no mentioning unless you have it.