Hey! I'm new to the forums, as I've only recently stumbled into The Forge (while very prematurely looking up information on game publishing)...but my system, which is well into its development, still has a few big kinks to work out - this thread's subject being one of the bigger thorns in my side, and I'm hoping to get some insight into how to fix the problem (err...no pun intended). My current playtest group isn't sure how to deal with it in the context of the system without making fairly substantial changes.

The basic issue is like this: I have 6 Attributes, and each Attribute contributes to a related static, non-rolled Defence - there are no opposed rolls. Various attacks target varying Defences, depending on the type of attack/action. I'd like to avoid adding more Attributes as I find more than 6 to start to get unnecessary and more properly reflected by skills or other characteristics.

The Attributes are: Physical: Agility, Might, Fortitude; Mental: Determination, Insight, Presence.
Their Defences are: Physical: Reflexes, Brawn, Resilience; Mental: Resolve, Perception, Composure.

When rolling, 3d6 is added to the Skill + the most closely relevant Attribute to what specific task the character is trying to do with the skill (so skills are paired with different attributes, depending on the task). Most of the Attributes and Defences are pretty self-explanatory, but after playtests it's become clear that Insight seems too good. Originally, it was more encompassing of all things intelligence-related, but I have recently limited its use a little more to help mitigate its power.

Now, the Insight Attribute represents mental quickness and wits. It's used for "on the spot" knowledge checks and, as you can see, for the Perception Defence which is used to defend against subterfuge, stealth and other sneakiness. It isn't a pure intelligence stat, as you don't use it for all things intellectual; the general rule is that Insight is used for quick rolls in situations where a character should be able to know something off the top of their head, identify something immediately upon seeing it, and so on. In situations involving any sort of study, research or the like, Determination is used (the idea is that research is more about keeping focussed on your task than thinking up brilliant ideas off the cuff).

Under this concept, "raw intelligence" isn't measured as a statistic. Low Insight would make a dull-witted character, but high levels of a Skill would still make them a veritable genius in that particular field. But here's the thing: Insight is used to identify anything on the spot. You could pair it with Unarmed to identify someone's fighting style, or roll it with Survival to identify poisonous plants - not to mention all the skills that are almost "pure knowledge" skills, like Occult, History, or Science. Because of this, a perceptive character requires a high Insight. A knowledgeable character might not require a high Insight to be knowledgeable (as their knowledge and experience is represented entirely by their skill levels rather than by their attributes), but players aren't likely to give their scholarly character a low Insight, because that would penalize their quick "Do I know something about _____?" or "Do I recognize _____?" type checks. On the flip side, other players have felt obliged to put points into Insight due to its wide applicability, even if they didn't want to make particularly intelligent characters. There are traits/qualities which can make a character more or less perceptive without requiring the player to increase their character's Insight to high levels as well, which also helps.

Knowledge- and perception-related rolls are among the most commonly rolled checks in most games that I've played in, which makes Insight come up a lot, even with the limitation of Insight being used for on-the-spot checks only.

My players still give me feedback that they feel it's used too often (though I admit my games tend to be knowledge-heavy), but I'm unsure how to solve the issue without subdividing Insight into two separate Attributes, which would cause a cascading effect through the system if I had to add another Attribute, Defence and so on (not to mention the physical/mental duality I'd set up). Is the change in Insight from "intelligence and perception" to "mental quickness and wits" enough mitigation? Does this seem balanced, or does Insight still seem to unfairly dominate the non-combat/social part of the game?

I hope I provided enough information, and I apologize for the wall of text.

Just an opinion: to me it sounds like you're treating it as "telepathy" instead of "insight".

Let's say a character with a high insight grew up in the Renaissance period and comes across a dead computer. *Regardless* of his stat, he should know nothing about it, possibly interpreting it as an art piece.

This is an extreme example but it would apply to regular games and day-to-day life. A character in a D&D-like world with a high insight who's heard about magic but never learned anything about the mechanics of how to use it shouldn't suddenly be able to cast spells off a scroll.

Dan

Hmm...I guess I mustn't have been as clear as I hoped. I'm not known for brevity and sometimes I can get off track. Sorry about that. >.>;

Your example actually wouldn't arise at all. Knowing about a computer would require having the skill related to computers, which wouldn't be available in a Renaissance setting. As Insight is mental quickness and wits, a high Insight means nothing when it comes to what or how much a character knows - that aspect is dealt with entirely by the skills the character has.

Skills in my system determine, entirely, what you can do and what you know. The Attributes are used depending on how you're going about using the skills. This is why Insight is used for on the spot knowledge checks - it's the character quickly coming up with an immediate answer or useful fact, which requires quick thinking and fast processing of all the relevant information, taking in the immediate situation, etc. The character's Skill level is determinative of how much they actually know of the subject, however.

I guess a more technical definition of the Insight attribute would be "speed of information processing, sensory or otherwise."

I hope that helps clarify things.

Chris

Hi BinaryCat,

Welcome to the Forge!

The easy solution, that many rpgs do, would be to take different skills and assign them to one of the mental stats according to type. 

For example, if you had a character trying to identify some ancient magic, it makes sense it would be tied to Determination, since it's going to rely on the book learning they did previous, rather than a quick "Oh, I get it!" moment right now.

Other possibility- limit the -amount- of information based on other mental stats.  Example: "Roll Insight + Fighting to identify their style, but you only get a number of 'facts' based on your Determination".  This means someone with high Insight will often know a lot of tidbits while folks with high Determination will know things in-depth.  (I'm assuming Presence is the social stat?  If so, it can be used for facts about people, motivations, etc.)

Chris

Thanks for the welcome, Chris. :D

Though I'd considered divvying up the uses a bit more between the mental stats, that's an angle I hadn't considered, effectively allowing Determination to include "data retention" while Insight includes "processing speed." Determination, which represents focus and strength of will, could expand to include memory and book learning. (I find this would be particularly appropriate if the character actually took some time and really studied said ancient magic.)

The other possibility is also interesting, though I'd be concerned about it slowing down play somewhat: "Okay, you succeeded on your Insight roll. You know the following - oh wait, what was your Determination, again?" Though I'm certain there's a way I could find to smooth out speed bumps like that.

You are correct; Presence is the predominant social attribute, though all three mental attributes can apply, depending on the situation. I could see adjusting it's definition to be a bit more receptive as well as active - understanding people, as well as influencing them, so a character might roll Presence + Deception against an NPC's Composure to realize they're nervous or hiding something (as opposed to Insight + Deception, which is what would be used under my current Attribute definitions).

Another solution is to make tests of on-the-spot, immediate recognition-type actions use a different mechanic, one that relies solely on the relevant skill. In other words, change how you use Insight. Consider:

GM: You see X.

PC: Do I know anything about X?

GM: Use a knowledge skill.

PC: Does Folklore [e.g.] tell me anything about X?

(1) GM: Yes, it tells you . . .

OR

(2) GM: X is a pretty obscure thing; roll 9 or better on 2d6 [or whatever suits your game]
     (a) on a success, go to (1)
     (b) on a failure, go to (3)

OR
/
(3) GM: No. Use a different skill.

That's an interesting possibility too, Bill.

I actually have a dice mechanic in the system already for simple checks like that, actually. I'd implemented it with a narrow scope in mind, but I could see how it might be broadened to include these kinds of knowledge checks.

The mechanic is called a "critical check." Effectively, you roll your 3d6 using the critical success and failure range of a specific skill, but all you're checking for is a critical result. (The critical range of a roll changes depending on how competent you are in a skill - range for failure decreases and range for success increases as you increase in skill mastery.) The GM is also given the power to adjust the critical ranges for more difficult/uncertain tasks, so particularly obscure knowledge would just suffer an increase in the critical failure range on the critical check.

In the case of implementing it for off the cuff knowledge checks, a nil result would give the character the basic facts about what they're seeing, based on the skill they're using - critical failure would result in misinformation, while critical success would result in much more information. There might be an additional bit of GM judgment involved, in that if a character doesn't have the skill at a high enough level, they might just not be able to make the check at all - but a substantially increased critical failure range would work, as well, and always give the player a chance at success.

Using this method, though, I could see an Insight + Skill roll following a non-critically-failed "basic knowledge" critical check, in order to give more information (a critical success would just provide information as if the character had succeeded on the Insight + Skill roll as well). However, doing that would add another roll to the process, basically giving the characters a "recognition" roll before they can make their in-depth knowledge roll, which I could see players objecting to.

Doh. Just realized there's no editing of posts allowed. >.>;

Just wanted to add: thanks for the suggestions, guys! I'll bring them to my friends' attention and see what they think about these solutions.

Hi BinaryCat,

Better yet, once you get some playtesting in, post about a session or two over in the Playtesting forum.  A lot of things that aren't immediately apparent become clear with actual play.

Chris

Could the problem be that you have too many "Knowledge-and-perception-related rolls" in the game?
What are these rolls really for?

I don't see a problem.  Think about how dominating strength-type attributes are when it comes to combat scenarios in RPGs.  Let everything have their own niche.  As I've gathered from your posts so far, insight is like the jack of all trades, but master of none - stick with that.

@NN: I've considered that as a possibility, to be honest. I don't run combat-heavy games in any system, not even 4e D&D; it happens when it happens, but I don't make it a requirement in a session, and sometimes (in other systems) several sessions would go by without a combat. Outside of combat, my plots tend to be heavily embedded in my (very) detailed campaign setting, and require a lot of knowledge on the part of the characters (and thus players) to solve, so knowledge checks are very common as the party goes about, collecting clues to what's going on and so forth - though I don't require rolls for things a character should reasonably know, based on their skills and background.

@Ar Kayon: That's also a good point. Agility and Might dominate physical combat, while Presence dominates the social sphere. Similar to what NN mentioned, my players might be foreseeing that Insight will be far too common only because I tend to use knowledge checks frequently in my games.

Well, armed with these suggestions, I'll be running the first true playtest session either tonight or tomorrow (instead of just test combats and character creation). Hopefully my players with give some useful feedback on which of these options they think work best, and I'll post my results over on the other board. Thanks!