Hello!

I am working on a pen and paper rpg, and I wanted to get opinions of the eight base stats.

The goal here is to have eight stats that cover actions that can be taken as comprehensively as possible.

Every 'skill/talent/power/etc' is based on a Stat roll. The game is intended to be rules light, so I have avoided averaging stats together, and that sort of thing.

So, with those limitations, Do these 8 look ok to you?

Strength:        Muscle power
Toughness:    Physical resilience.
Finesse:       Manual dexterity and Accuracy.
Mobility:       Movement and evasion.
Willpower:       Mental Focus and stubbornness.
Reason:       Problem solving and logical reasoning ability.
Awareness:    Perception and quick witted thinking.

Thanks!

darn it!  Imissed stat 8!

Presence Charm, manipulation, and intimidation. 

I guess it all depends on how you want your system to work. I think you have more or less covered everything. Some of your terms are more specific while others encompass several things.
Strength is an example of the former
Presence - the latter.
Still I believe that you can make it work, though personally I would try to separate everything out
everything you want to encompass as a single base stat. then decide if there are any that can be combined.
so say you end up with 20 stats.
From there slice it back down to the lowest number you can.
I ended up with 11 myself.

How would you have a fist fight happen - with stat rolls?

Hope it helps.

Brent

If they didn't look ok to me, what would happen?

If you asking if they fit within 'how it's done' then no, they don't look ok to me. There is no 'how it's done' that I'm aware of. As such nothing you'd show would be 'ok' in that sense. It's impossible to be so.

It looks good to me.  The question I would ask is, do those stats focus attention on what you want attention focused on?
For comparison, here are the stats in my system (also 8...)
Strength (as yours)
Endurance (your toughness)
Dexterity (close to your finesse, but also handles move)
Reaction (the AC from mobility, everything from awareness, and affects initiative too)
Intelligence (close to your reason)
Wisdom (close to your willpower)
Charisma
Appearance (between the two cover your Presence).

So we are pretty similar, but I put twice as much focus on social statistics, and you put about 50% more focus on speed/awareness.  I would expect your system to be faster paced, with more swashbucklers and movement abilities.  My system gives a lot more options for social skills-even in combat, and has more of a social focus. 
Is that your intent?

When ever I am making a RPG I usually ask myself these questions (but probably not in this order):
1. How am I or the players going to use these stats within game play?
2. How are these stats going to affect interactions in battle?
3. Are there events in this game where a stat will give a character an advantage?
4. Do I have any stats which are vague or cover too much? Or just the opposite, do I have any stats that cover too little or is way too specified?
5. How often will these stats be used during game play?
6. Is there more of a reason to this stat other than to have it?

I am sure there are other things I ask myself, mostly about my sanity but that's a daily occurrence.

Hi Bill,

Whenever I contemplate the integrity of an RPG system or subsystem, there are three elements I am predominantly concerned with, regardless of style or preference:

* Efficiency - The rules of the game should be written in concrete and concise language.  Furthermore, a game's system should be no more complex than is necessary, and the output of the system should be in good proportion to its complexity.

* Consistency - A game should have a fundamental set of rules from which all other rules are based upon.  Any two subsystems should not have fundamentally different values.  Furthermore, components within a subsystem should maintain a consistent framework of logic.

* Color - The rules of a system should reflect the values and aesthetics of the setting(s) they are intended to model events in.

Because the attributes you want feedback on are out of context, I cannot make an assessment of them in regards to the elements of color and efficiency.  However, I do see some flaws in the consistency of your subsystem’s logic.  Necromantis has pointed out that some of your attributes are specific whereas some are broadly defined, and I’m inclined to agree. 

Case in point: “Reason”, by your definition, applies specifically to deductive ability,  but “Awareness” encompasses a large body of traits, such as inductive reasoning (quick wit) as well as the average acuity of all five senses.  Also, the nature of the attribute “Strength” is quite cut and dry, but “Toughness” , as defined by “Physical Resilience” can imply stamina, the ability to take a hit, or your general level of health (as a side note, wouldn’t the increased muscle and bone mass of a high strength score improve your toughness?). 
Finally, “Presence” introduces a third logic, which is to combine natural traits, such as “Charm”, with learned skills that are influenced by those natural traits, such as “Manipulation”.  If you have a subsystem of skills in place that are influenced by attributes,  then to have presence as you have defined it would be inconsistent.

In my opinion, all attributes within the subsystem should either be broadly defined or specific, but not both, unless if you want to have two subsystems, each with a singular logic.  In this case, you can have a subsystem of core attributes and then a subsystem of attributes which are derived from the core.

Ok,

Looks like I need to provide more information about the system!

 

1) Core game mechanic is all 'actions' are a stat roll.  Example: A charcater wants to determine if someon is lying. That would probably be a Reason stat roll opposed by a Presence stat roll.

2) All stat rolls are opposed by another stat roll. (or an appropriate environmental roll set by the gamemaster)

3) The eight base stats need to 'reasonably' cover any possible action.

4) 'Skills/talents/powers/etc...Each are tagged to a base stat for useage, and another(or same) base stat for opposition.

Comments: I do not believe the eight stats can be particularly specific based on rule 3 above.

Need to keep the number of base stats at about 8; can't have too many. Creates conflict with precision of base stats vs clunkiness of game system.

Stats that I do not like to 'Combine'

Willpower, Reasoning, Memory, and Perception--------Most people have very different degrees of these; feels 'wrong' to me when I combine these.

Manual Dexterity and Agility. You can be good with fine work with your hands, and not be a gymnast, or have fast reaction time.

I can live with Muscle being combined with a "How well you take hits to the face' Stat conceptually, but not mechanically. Strength/Con together potentially makes  an 'uber' stat

One question to ask is if you compared a group using these written rules against the very same group simply come together to group author with no written rules to speak of, would both sessions end results be different to each other? Or would they be pretty much the same?

I think generally most people (whether it's the GM or player) can figure out how to sidestep GM determined stat vs stat rolls, to make the session end up exactly as if they had no written rules at all.

Bill,

How you compose attributes is a matter of preference.  The manner of organization, however, is a matter of consistency in logic.  I could imagine that players will focus on developing complex attributes for their versatility while the simple or specific ones get neglected.

Callan wrote:
One question to ask is if you compared a group using these written rules against the very same group simply come together to group author with no written rules to speak of, would both sessions end results be different to each other? Or would they be pretty much the same?

I think generally most people (whether it's the GM or player) can figure out how to sidestep GM determined stat vs stat rolls, to make the session end up exactly as if they had no written rules at all.

Ar wrote:
Bill,

How you compose attributes is a matter of preference.  The manner of organization, however, is a matter of consistency in logic.  I could imagine that players will focus on developing complex attributes for their versatility while the simple or specific ones get neglected.

Bill wrote:

Callan wrote:
One question to ask is if you compared a group using these written rules against the very same group simply come together to group author with no written rules to speak of, would both sessions end results be different to each other? Or would they be pretty much the same?

I think generally most people (whether it's the GM or player) can figure out how to sidestep GM determined stat vs stat rolls, to make the session end up exactly as if they had no written rules at all.

I am experienced in free form roleplay, and also experienced with game mechanics. However, i am not sure I understand what you are saying. perhaps you can explain more?

If I understand what yu are saying (not sure) The stat vs stat rolls should be as 'natural' and 'unobtrusive' as possible, perhaps similar in some ways to freeform roleplay.

Sometimes I feel like instead of making people think in a new direction. which is clearly your goal Callan.
You just sidetrack threads with stuff that has already been decided by the poster.
He wants rules. I don't think it could be more clear. Stat rolls for all resolutions.
3rd sentence in the 1st post. Clear as crystal.

analogy:

Tom: I am hungry - I'd like a biscuit.
Bill: A bowl of soup will satisfy your hunger just as well. Will it not?
Tom: Yes? whats your point?
Bill: That your hunger would be gone - the how, matters not.
Tom: yeah, but I want a biscuit. As I said with my opening statement.
maybe you missed the part where I said "I'd like a biscuit"
Bill: there is no spoon.

Now replace "biscuit" with rules (or stat rolls for deciding everything)
and replace "bill" with a sidetracking annoyance .. and my point is made.

haha ..
just realized that in my choice of mock names I happened to choose Bill as one of my fictional examples.
This is only coincidence. 
When I say

and replace "bill" with a sidetracking annoyance .. and my point is made

Necro, your taking up some sort of 'police the thread' authority that I just haven't granted you - and your taking up alot of space doing it. I'd say you haven't read me correctly, but it'd seem to legitimise the authority your trying to claim if I attempt to explain myself - step down from your self appointed thread mod position and we can talk. Private message me if you have a concern.

Back on track and what I thought I'd already said, rules that have no effect on the outcome of a session aren't much use. Will these stats and stat rolls really change the outcome of a session? Or if they wont really, and this is what I was trying to be subtle about and simply imply (but it seems I was too subtle), search for rules that really do affect the outcome of the session. There, now I sound pushy in saying it rather than letting the conclusion come naturally and at it's own pace (assuming it would).

Necromantis wrote:
haha ..
just realized that in my choice of mock names I happened to choose Bill as one of my fictional examples.
This is only coincidence. 
When I say

and replace "bill" with a sidetracking annoyance .. and my point is made

I was NOT referring to the poster. 

Callan wrote:

Bill wrote:

Callan wrote:
One question to ask is if you compared a group using these written rules against the very same group simply come together to group author with no written rules to speak of, would both sessions end results be different to each other? Or would they be pretty much the same?

I think generally most people (whether it's the GM or player) can figure out how to sidestep GM determined stat vs stat rolls, to make the session end up exactly as if they had no written rules at all.

I am experienced in free form roleplay, and also experienced with game mechanics. However, i am not sure I understand what you are saying. perhaps you can explain more?

If I understand what yu are saying (not sure) The stat vs stat rolls should be as 'natural' and 'unobtrusive' as possible, perhaps similar in some ways to freeform roleplay.

What I mean is if you took the same group and A: ran a free form game with them and B: ran a game with a set of rules and each game was pretty much the same and had the same end result, the rules used were pointless. There was no point to having rules, as the freeform game and game with rules pretty much turned out the same way. Well, I can't see any point, anyway?

Is it reasonable of me to think that if something doesn't change anything about an activity, there's not much point to doing it?

Thanks for considering my post, Bill. To me atleast, I think comparing the difference between play with a rule and play without it will be help produce something you can use. Good luck with your project :)

Your eight are fairly traditional, resembling the AD&D I played as a kid.  That's not a bad thing.  But it makes me wonder if your setting is also similar.

Naturally, your eight stats potentially have some huge "holes" depending upon the setting.  Which stat would handle vehicle driving and combat?  Intuition?  Physical attractiveness?  Knowledge of trivia or cultural lore?  Education- and experience- dependent situations such as etiquette, wilderness survival, or building a robot?  Group situations such as helping a dozen people move stealthily though the woods or survive a week in a tundra?

I expect you can brainstorm just as well as I can, and none of those situations occur frequently in your adventures and so any "holes" they show in the stats are unimportant in practice.  But I'll ask anyway, to be sure, since attention to detail and actual game use is that what these discussions are for.

I am rethinking the base stats; I may end up with 12. There can't be 'holes' for this system to work as intended. The stats have to cover any type of action.

So my new list of stats is looking like this. The logic behind these twelve stats is to isolate areas where people can be different. Such as a person having superior reasoning ability should not automatically have high willpower.

For structure, there are 6 'physical' and six 'mental' stats. Each group of six composed of two groups of three loosely related stats.

I am actually working on two very different systems, one is superheroic and more rules light.

The other an 'old school' system; swords and sorcery.

It remains to be seen if the same base stats will be workable for both games.

Muscle Brute muscle power
Toughness Constitution
Stamina Endurance

Reflexes Reaction time
Finesse Precision and accuracy
Mobility Agility and leaping around

Reason Logical reasoning ability
Willpower Stubbornness and focus
Memory Recall of details

Charm Social manipulation
Empathy Are you a sociopath?
Perception Awareness

Looks good and pretty complete to me. As long as you didn't have to fit your idea into this 12-grid just to have one - some people do this, no offense meant - it's  good work.

Does your game feature a special athmosphere or is there another reason why you don't use the classic - and in my view more self-explaining - attribute names? I'm asking out of curiosity and because you even used some of them as explanations.