Topic: Character Creation
Started by: kevin671
Started on: 10/19/2002
Board: Indie Game Design
On 10/19/2002 at 4:21am, kevin671 wrote:
Character Creation
O.K., by request, I've moved my post here.
Character Creation
Character attributes are as follows:
Mental Group
Perception
Intelligence
Physical Group
Strength
Vitality
Athletic Group
Dexterity
Reaction
Spiritual Group
Psyche
Weird
Each stat begins at 4. Players then recieve 24 points to customize characters.
SKILLS
How They Work: Skills are devided into 2 tiers. Tier 2 skills are easy to learn, and may be used untrained. Tier 1 skills are diffcult and time consuming to learn, and often require special training. They may not be used untrained.
Sample Tier 2 Skills: Climbing, Swimming, Unarmed Combat, Armed Combat, Driving a car.
Sample Tier 1 Skills: Flying a jet fighter, Nuclear Physics, Genetics.
Skills do not have ranks, a character either has a skill or does not.
SKILL CHECKS: are made using the stat most appropriate for the situation. For example: A character in a quickdraw duel would use use his Reaction score, and would recieve special benefits for having the appropriate skill.
UNTRAINED SKILL CHECKS: Untrained skill checks may only be made with tier 2 skills. A player must roll UNDER his stat (ie: His margin of Success MUST be at least +1) in order to succeed. Thus, an unskilled character is not subject to Complications. They ar also not subject to Critical Success. Treat any natural 1's as normal successes. Untrained checks are susceptible to critical failure.
On 10/19/2002 at 4:59am, Kester Pelagius wrote:
Re: Character Creation
Hellow kevin671,
My only question is...
kevin671 wrote: O.K., by request, I've moved my post here.
Character Creation
Character attributes are as follows:
Mental Group
Perception
Intelligence
Physical Group
Strength
Vitality
Athletic Group
Dexterity
Reaction
Spiritual Group
Psyche
Weird
Why this specific organisation?
I mean "Athletic" is just a adjective used in relation to "Physical", remember "PE"? Physical Education? (Also called Athletics?)
Otherwise it seems fine. You have pairs of Main Attribute/Secondary Attribute in each grouping.
Kind Regards,
Kester Pelagius
On 10/19/2002 at 1:08pm, kevin671 wrote:
RE: Character Creation
Actually....there are no secondary Attributes in this game. They are all "main attributes". As far as using the groupings the way they are goes, I'm still working on what to call the groupings. Note that the groupings have no actuall in-game effect, they are just there for simplicity sake.
On 10/19/2002 at 4:40pm, ethan_greer wrote:
RE: Character Creation
kevin671 wrote: As far as using the groupings the way they are goes, I'm still working on what to call the groupings. Note that the groupings have no actuall in-game effect, they are just there for simplicity sake.
In that case, I'd recommend doing away with the groupings. That would eliminate the need to come up with what to call them. Plus, if they serve no mechanical purpose I don't see how having them defined simplifies anything. Just a thought.
-e.
On 10/19/2002 at 7:07pm, Kester Pelagius wrote:
RE: Character Creation
kevin671 wrote: Actually....there are no secondary Attributes in this game. They are all "main attributes". As far as using the groupings the way they are goes, I'm still working on what to call the groupings. Note that the groupings have no actuall in-game effect, they are just there for simplicity sake.
Maybe it's just me, but going by your current groupings...
Isn't Perception a subset ability of of Intelligence? (Sort of.)
Doesn't Vitality depend from Strength?
Also Reaction is pretty much a adjective for what Dexterity is...
You've grouped your skills into naturally complimentary associations.
Nothing wrong with that. But if you really don't want/intend to use such groups I agree with the above post. Just drop the group classifications.
Stick with the standard "physical" and "mental" examples used in most games and you should be fine.
For those of us who may have missed the original thread a few annoying (aren't they all :)) questions:
How do you intend to use/apply these attributes in play?
What is your character generation method? (Rolled, points, etc)
Will I have fun playing this game or spend most of my time in character generation only to end up rerolling a character because the game kills them off every other round?
Uh... if I can think of any other annoyin' questions I'll post them for your reading enjoyment. (jk)
Kind Regards.
On 10/20/2002 at 3:54am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Character Creation
Kester Pelagius wrote: Isn't Perception a subset ability of of Intelligence? (Sort of.)
Doesn't Vitality depend from Strength?
Also Reaction is pretty much a adjective for what Dexterity is...
I disagree completely.
I'm not lower than the top one half of one percent of the population by intelligence, according to testing; but I can walk through a room and not know if anyone was in it or whether there were things on the floor that I stepped on or over. Perception is about relating to the environment, noticing what is around you, collecting information; intelligence is about processing from what you know.
I have never been listed as strong by anyone but my own children; but if vitality is about stamina, I did over a thousand miles in wilderness canoeing and hiking in a very few weeks of summers within a span of years something significantly less than a decade. How much you can do and how long you can keep going are not the same thing.
And I have often said that I have terrible dexterity but great reaction speed. I drop things all the time; I'm clumsy. But if they're breakable they will always land on my foot, and if they're heavy they will always hit the floor. In the time it takes for a microphone or a drinking glass to fall from my waist to the floor, I can work out how to get my foot under it so it won't break; if it's a mike stand base or an iron frying pan, it will never hit my foot.
There is much debate in game design over how finely to discriminate charater abilities. I tend to go for more rather than less, because I think it provides a much more rounded character. Obviously Kester goes the other way. That's a valid choice; it's not so obvious as he implies.
--M. J. Young
On 10/20/2002 at 4:38am, kevin671 wrote:
RE: Character Creation
M.J: Thanks for sharing your insight and examples.
Kester: To address some of your questions.....
1. The attributes are applied in play during skill rolls. Since my system doesn't use skill ranks, the way I determine outcomes for skill checks is that you roll under the relevent attribute.
2. Character Gen is accomplished by spending points. Each attribute starts at four, and then 24 points are added as desired. I haven't decided how many starting skills a character gets as yet.
3. Character creation was intentionally designed to be quick, so even if ye olde GM is a Sick Fuck who enjoys developing interesting ways for your character to die. Conversely, the system uses a "wound ranks" mechanic for damage resolution. Looks something like this:
Wound Points per Rank are determined by adding HALF of your Strength to your Vitality. Each wound rank recieves this number of points.
SO: wound points= vitality + (Strength/2)
Still no word on the wound rank situation.....
On 10/20/2002 at 9:38am, Christoffer Lernö wrote:
RE: Character Creation
Anther note about attributes:
It's always possible to argue about the differentiation between one trait and another. Maybe I have a great immunesystem and never get sick, but I can't get up the stairs without panting.
And so on and so on. My personal opinion is that attributes should be differentiated if there is heavy emphasis on their detailed value in play. For example, a western game should almost certainly differentiate between reaction (for the gun draw) and dexterity (for impressive stunts on the horse and stuff like that).
So, just like the amount of rules you put into a part of your game tends to weigh the focus towards using them, detailed attributes signals to the GM and players that there is a reason why the game designer thought it important to measure it. (Even though that sometimes isn't the case :) )
On 10/20/2002 at 5:54pm, Kester Pelagius wrote:
RE: Character Creation
Greetings M.J.,
Hope this post finds you in good health and good humor.
M. J. Young wrote:Kester Pelagius wrote: Isn't Perception a subset ability of of Intelligence? (Sort of.)
Doesn't Vitality depend from Strength?
Also Reaction is pretty much a adjective for what Dexterity is...
I disagree completely.
Getting out my Pillow of Fluffy Fun Smashing ;)
M. J. Young wrote: I'm not lower than the top one half of one percent of the population by intelligence, according to testing; but I can walk through a room and not know if anyone was in it or whether there were things on the floor that I stepped on or over. Perception is about relating to the environment, noticing what is around you, collecting information; intelligence is about processing from what you know.
In the real world, yes. In the game world, no so much.
Intellegence/Intellect, in most RPG game mechanics, is just a simplified measure of overall mental prowess. Now, I've seen this snowball into flames in the past when mentioning real world examples, like how Idiot Savants might be more perceptive than the average Joe, in some things, yet are typically considered to be just that: idiots.
Life ain't fair. In real life the lines seem clear, yet when examined with Sherlock Holmes patented magnifying glass they really aren't. Because even a blind person can have a very good perception of their external world.
Alas, since most game do not provide a "Sight" Trait, perception usually gets lumped under one of the mental traits. Then again some would argue, as I have seen done, that it does take intellect to be able to percieve the differences in the world around them. (In regards to a blind person.) So who is right?
The answer, from a game design standpoint, is this: It doesn't matter.
You go with what rules you have. And, based upon the groupings I saw, I called them as I saw them.
Was my perception of the mattered flawed?
Perhaps. But the wonderful thing about perception is that everyone percieves things differently, at least in real life.
M. J. Young wrote: And I have often said that I have terrible dexterity but great reaction speed. I drop things all the time; I'm clumsy. But if they're breakable they will always land on my foot, and if they're heavy they will always hit the floor. In the time it takes for a microphone or a drinking glass to fall from my waist to the floor, I can work out how to get my foot under it so it won't break; if it's a mike stand base or an iron frying pan, it will never hit my foot.
Sounds like this entire paragraph would be great for the basis of creating a game mechanic! :)
Luck. The etheral "power" of the Jedi (which some might argue Jar Jar had, since things went his way, even if he was clumsy). Or one could argue for this being perceptual accuity.
In relation to FRP rules design I'd label it Luck and reseve Perception for things "seen".
Why?
Because GMs need one skill to roll against for those moments when players start to pester them about "what do I see now" or "there has to be a secret door here, where is it, let me look again, do I find a secret door, tell me what I see". A throw away mechanic? Sure, it can be.
It all depends on how you apply it.
M. J. Young wrote: There is much debate in game design over how finely to discriminate charater abilities. I tend to go for more rather than less, because I think it provides a much more rounded character. Obviously Kester goes the other way. That's a valid choice; it's not so obvious as he implies.
Ok. Let's dissect this.
Character abilities are one thing, character Traits (read: primary definging Stats) are another.
Remember all that a Stat is is a Statistic, more broadly a statistical measure of an ability or trait.
That said one can condense most RPGs down into the following formulae (more or less, and very over simplified) :
1. There is a difference between "abilities" and "skills".
2. Abilities are always Traits
3. All Traits should be primary Stats
4. Skills can be abilities, but as subsets of Traits
Presently I am working (or was till some poorly programmed piece of *&^ shite !*&*& shite !!@! began to annoy me royally) on a game in which abilities are pretty much just defining skills. At least in relation to traditional RPGs. In other words they don't depend from a set of primary Stats, rather they are what define the character.
Of course I am talking about my Pixies game. Then the premise calls for simplicity. Thus, rather than have a hoarde of defining Stats, I simply decided to cull abilities from the description of said fey creatures. It works, but only becaus the game isn't overtly complex.
Then again most systems aren't really designed this way. They try to be a little bit of everything. Problem is, as M.J. so astutely pointed out, you really can't cover the dynamics of real life so simply.
Which is perhaps why so few game designers try.
And that, dear friends and Forgeites, is why certain systems apply to certain types of gamers, while others get reviled and basted over pits of glowing embers.
Kind Regards.
On 10/20/2002 at 8:18pm, talysman wrote:
RE: Character Creation
Kester Pelagius wrote:
Intellegence/Intellect, in most RPG game mechanics, is just a simplified measure of overall mental prowess. Now, I've seen this snowball into flames in the past when mentioning real world examples, like how Idiot Savants might be more perceptive than the average Joe, in some things, yet are typically considered to be just that: idiots.
Life ain't fair. In real life the lines seem clear, yet when examined with Sherlock Holmes patented magnifying glass they really aren't. Because even a blind person can have a very good perception of their external world.
Alas, since most game do not provide a "Sight" Trait, perception usually gets lumped under one of the mental traits. Then again some would argue, as I have seen done, that it does take intellect to be able to percieve the differences in the world around them. (In regards to a blind person.) So who is right?
sorry to just take a part of your post and fixate on that, kester, but I thought I might mention a game mechanic I once started working on several years ago, then abandoned. I was working on a fantasy game that would use a hermetic four-element motif throughout both magic and combat; I defined four stats: Might, Heart, Sense, and Will. Sense was associated with Air and was primarily sensory ability (perception); knowledge or intellectual capacity was not a seperate stat, but was represented as modifiers to the Sense stat.
not really that important a comment, I know, but I just wanted to let you know that other people have tried inverting the "standard" way of divvying up ability scores.
On 10/20/2002 at 8:36pm, Kester Pelagius wrote:
RE: Character Creation
Greetings Talysman,
How's life been treating you?
talysman wrote: sorry to just take a part of your post and fixate on that, kester..
No problem.
That's what good discussion forums are for.
talysman wrote: ..but I thought I might mention a game mechanic I once started working on several years ago, then abandoned. I was working on a fantasy game that would use a hermetic four-element motif throughout both magic and combat; I defined four stats: Might, Heart, Sense, and Will. Sense was associated with Air and was primarily sensory ability (perception); knowledge or intellectual capacity was not a seperate stat, but was represented as modifiers to the Sense stat.
not really that important a comment, I know, but I just wanted to let you know that other people have tried inverting the "standard" way of divvying up ability scores.
Quite right. Quite right.
Of course, as you know, I was referring to (cough) *mainstream* (cough) published games. I wont name any names, I'm sure everyone reading this knows the exact sort of sysTemS which led to my Remarks.
Of course the main problem is that really interesting ways of applying abilities to create unique game mechanics usually come from just this sort of system. Meaning it's a game mechanic created for a specific game, usually set in a defined setting with a very genre specific milieu. Which, sadly, means such games too often get overlooked by the average gamer.
For instance I have a nice little game of swashbuckling adventure set in the Spanish Main called Skulls & Crossbones. My gaming group of old (would have to jump in the way back machine to find them now) really liked it. Some more than others. Of course the mechancis were typical of games of the 80s, save for combat. Combat had you WRITE down your moves-- IE: Parry, Dodge, etcetera-- then compare them. I think there was also a chart involved to determine success.
Anyhow the point being some really liked this. Others prefered the methods they had grown used to. But you know no one seemed to mind that, for a few weeks, Skull & Crossbones became our campaign!
BTW: Just so you know, I think what you outlined sounded interesting. In fact it might be the next best thing in gaming. You never know. So don't give up on it! :)
Kind Regards.
On 10/21/2002 at 3:58am, kevin671 wrote:
RE: Character Creation
Thank you all, for the kindly supplied words of wisdom...... I still agree with M.J. in that I feel the stats make sense as they are. I also think that they all qualify as "primary" statistics, purely for simplicity sake.
On 10/21/2002 at 7:25am, contracycle wrote:
RE: Character Creation
Perception is a funny one. Different people do have widely varying ranges of eyesight and hearing, and yet for the most part these are ignored by RPG design. Even though this is often a valid thing to measure, in that it would affect say shooting range and career choice (eyesight requirement for pilots, frex). Hearing would be directly relevant to being bushwacked in the dark. Blue Planet does include stats for each of the five senses, but its relatively rare.
Perception as a mental funciton is also complex. A big chunk of our brain is dedicated to vision and there are lots of interesting thoughts on how brains process visual data. IIRC we only actually focus on a small section and "paint" the rest of the image we "see" in our minds. A TV or monitor, of course, is an easily accessible sample of our synthetic vision, in that only one (more or less) pixel is actually lit at a time, but as long as the whole image is drawn in less than 1/60th of a second we will perceive it as a whole image.
However, none of this HAS to be modelled by Sim concerns. HeroWars has no real mechanism to sim everyones eyesight and I'd expect almost all perception tasks to be based on something more tenuous. L5R puts Perception under the Water ring and Awareness under Air, exploiting its metaphysical origins to represent these.
On 10/21/2002 at 1:50pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Character Creation
For a really detailed discussion of senses, see Hero System fifth edition. GURPS also is pretty detailed when it comes to this subject.
As for a game like Hero Wars, I assume that lots of players will take abilities such as Alert, Excellent Eyesight, and the like.
And in Dunjon, senses are crucial skills, as they are easy to employ in a Directorial manner.
Just some notes.
Mike
On 10/21/2002 at 3:31pm, kevin671 wrote:
RE: Character Creation
I don't want to "devide" perception into the 5 senses because it adds to the complexity of my system. My vision was to have a simple but functional set of rules, and delving too deeply into the nuances of statistics, and how to devide them doesn't relly gel with that. Perhaps I'll consider "stating" out things like eyesight and hand-eye coordination in another game, but not in this one.
I do like the idea of taking these things into consideration, but the designing would be really tricky.
On 10/22/2002 at 4:36am, M. J. Young wrote:
Perception
I didn't take Perception as being precisely sensory, but being more like something covered by Intuition as I understand it. It's not really how well you can see or hear, but more a matter of your level of external awareness.
My eyesight is horrible; it's been estimated as something near 20/500, which is legally blind. It's not a problem, though. I've been wearing glasses since fourth grade, and wouldn't trade them in for anything, and with them my vision is 20/15--considerably better than most people. My hearing has a lot of strengths; I use to tune pianos. But none of this makes me perceptive. That's something I have to make an effort to practice--noticing the world around me does not come naturally.
Maybe I misunderstood the concept, but when I think of perception I'm not really thinking about sensory accuity.
For more on this idea and how it integrates with play, I've got an old RPGnet article entitled Intuition and Surprise.
--M. J. Young
On 10/22/2002 at 4:57am, Kester Pelagius wrote:
Odyssey of the Game Designer's Social Club
Greetings Mike,
Mike Holmes wrote: And in Dunjon, senses are crucial skills, as they are easy to employ in a Directorial manner.
I think you hit the nail right on the head with that one, Mike.
Senses manifest as *skills* in most RPGs. Even Perception, when available as a Stat, is usually optional or provided as a after thought attribute. Harkening back to AD&D 1st ED we had a Perception Stat way before one was ever introduced in Dragon as an optional rule. Of which, I believe, two versions were.
I'm not sure, it's been so darn long, but there were other optional states included in UA of a similar vein. Comliness, I think, was one. One of those Stats that most people thought was covered by Charisma.
Just a few examples off the top of me noggin.
Kind Regards.
On 10/22/2002 at 5:06am, Kester Pelagius wrote:
Re: Perception
Greetings M. J.,
M. J. Young wrote: I didn't take Perception as being precisely sensory, but being more like something covered by Intuition as I understand it. It's not really how well you can see or hear, but more a matter of your level of external awareness.
Right or wrong most probably do.
Perception is, after all, how one percieves things. To most that means sight, how well they see.
M. J. Young wrote: Maybe I misunderstood the concept, but when I think of perception I'm not really thinking about sensory accuity.
Not thinking about sensory accuity!? E-gads, man, what's that leave us then? (jk)
As for intuition and surprise, those are seperate things. Just like Comliness can be seperated from Charisma. Of course naming your attribute Appearance is probably the best way to go, for clarity.
I suppose, when it comes right down to it, all that really matters is how the game designer defines the attribute.
So, to get back onto topic, those groupings. Fine. Just be sure that you-- no, not you, M.J., the other guy-- define what those attributes represent with clarity that even those of us wearing glasses (yep, me too!) can understand. ;)
Kind Regards.
On 10/22/2002 at 4:32pm, kevin671 wrote:
RE: Character Creation
Uhh.....I just noticed something about my original post......I didn't include any "social" attributes......
Social Group
Charisma
Appearance
That should about round out the attribute list nicely.......
M.J.: RPG's do not necessarily represent the real world.......If they did, we wouldn't need RPG's. In classic RPG's, the "heroes" go about saving the world on a regular basis. The focus is more on the "quest" than on the character attributes. Now, a game based on real life, on the other hand, might stat out each individual "sense" or trait that a particular character might have......might look something like this:
Eyesight Hearing
Touch
Taste
Smell
Reflexes
Dexterity
Hand-Eye Coordination
Agility
Strength
Stamina
Constitution
Vitality
I mean.....right here we have 13 attributes, and I could go on. Stating out each aspect of a characters attributes would make an unwieldy character. Now imagine a GM trying to deal with a small group of such characters, plus NPCs.......sounds like a rough time to me.......