Game Mechagnic Thugnderdome

[kerplunksploosh]

Two game mechanics enter, one leaves!

Boring stuff:
I, like so many others on this forum, have cobbled together my own roleplaying system, and as I learn more about game design, the need to rework everything I've done seems to grow. I'm also intrigued at the LACK of innovation I've seen.

Caveats: I'm assuming RPGs work better with a focus in mind. It'd be difficult to have atlatls and starship-mounted plasma cannons work in the same system, no offense Ewoks and GURPS. I'm also assuming (wrongly) that mechanics are modular and we can look at them independently of other mechanics.


For this mechanical tournament, the scope is going to be classic fantasy with an emphasis on cooperative (PC and DM) storytelling. If this discussion series doesn't completely fall flat, steampunk, cyberpunk, and space/scifi mechanics can come next.

Anyway, first up: Hit points. Even the most pacifist of campaigns will start to strain credulity if the Last Argument of Kings is never employed. That means fighting, which means folks get hurt. Here's the strength of HP. They're quick to dish out, quick to record, quick to adjust to if they drop or raise, and in short--they're quick. Helpful for a fast-paced combat system, which has its own pros and cons, but on the whole is a Good Thing. Also, they help randomize combat; a sword makes you lose 1d8 Points on a Hit. That could be just an extra strenuous dodge, a scratch, or a deep, puncturing wound. It lets weapons be more varied.

Weaknesses: They are an abstraction. It's less pronounced at low numbers, but whenever a dagger does 1d4 damage and a character has 30 Hit Points, one could say the PC would need to be stabbed about 12 times to fall. How much of Hit Points is actual physical damage and how much of it represents stamina/ability to keep fighting is blurred, made even more blurry by the fact that often a warrior can fight as well at 1 HP as he can at 100.
A 'bloodied' character status that reduces fighting ability when you reach half HP or less helps fix this, but doesn't address other wounds like broken arms, severe burns, etc. Also it sounds like 5e is also making some spells have Hit Point thresholds, which is making the role of Hit Points more involved without sacrificing its main advantage of speed.

Challengers to Hit Points? List their pros and cons! List more pros and cons to Hit Points! Feel free to invent brand new mechanics altogether!

Next up when I get bored of this. Ability Scores! No cow is sacred!

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Against: Hit points hurt role-play. You should care when your character is injure; hit points are an abstraction that take you out of the game, as thy're just an arbitrary number to be lost and re-filled.

I like Wounds. Done right, a wound system doesn't add that much complexity to play, but allows for more tactical depth, greater realism, and lets a player better role-play injury. Having lost 5 HP is not something we, as humans, can understand or relate to. Having a light wound to our arm, however, is.

[Grinner]

Wounds are fine, but I like it when complexity is eliminated wherever possible.

I'm usually also fine with hit points but on one of two conditions. Either they must be a largely static value, only increasing or decreasing with a change in a base value like Constitution, or the game itself must address the implications of ever-increasing hit points.

One interesting variant I've found is the Injury variant rule of D&D's Unearthed Arcana. It eliminate hit points altogether by handling the character's health as Fortitude checks.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Think about your character being really beaten up.

With HP, you have a handful of HP - maybe even as low as one. That doesn't say much, though, especially when you're still casting spells, running up mountains and smacking people with swords as well as ever. The closer you get to death - i.e., the periods where you should have the most immediate emotional investment in your character - are also the times when the system most divorces your experience from reality.

With wounds, it gets more interesting. "Every part of my body is injured." "I'm limping and bleeding from a scalp wound." "My right arm is connected by a few spaghetti-sized strands of flesh." "My back is broken."

These things have a degree of emotional resonance; rather than being simply a fixed abstract quantity, you know the specifics of how your character is hurt, the pain or disability that they're experiencing. Every wound is now something serious to be avoided, and you may actually remember the wounds you survived.

In my system, I have a Scar mechanic specifically to encourage this. Near-fatal wounds can't be entirely healed by normal magic - they can be mostly healed, but will leave a scar in the form of a permanent light wound, that takes something akin to Regenerate to fix. So, your character will actually keep the memory of their fiercest battles with them.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

I like these two systems myself:

Wound/Vitality: In 3.5 games I run, the Players' Constitution Score is the only amount of HP they will ever get, barring an increase in said score. When rolling for more HP every level, you instead roll for Vitality Points. In short, VP represent a "Hero Shield". A successful attack against a player is now regarded as an unsettlingly near miss, leaving a scratch at most but potentially throwing the hero off their game. Critical Hits do damage directly to HP/Con, representing a solid hit. I sometimes add penalties after a Crit to represent injuries. The Wounds system is also very, very lethal, which I like.

Statuses: I ran a Mutants and Masterminds game a while back, and I rather liked the combat system. Basically, you had an extra Save, called Toughness. If you were hit, you could roll to avoid damage. A Successful Toughness Save meant you rolled with the hit or took no damage at all (Superman gets hit by a train, doesn't flinch). Missing the roll by less than 5 adds a Bruise, which inflicts a -1 penalty to future Toughness checks. These can build up quickly. If you miss by 5 or more on your save, you become Staggered, and suffer -2 to all Rolls thereafter, and missing the DC by 15 or more is basically a one-hit KO. On the plus side, it works like a Superhero Comic (which is what the system was designed for). On the downside, it can also be pretty lethal if you flub a roll.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Leaving aside the tired old immersion arguments, on the pro side of HP: they're instantly familiar from pretty much everything, and they're good for non-gritty/lethal combat, which some people want.

Con: level bloat is a thing. Damage needs to scale to match increasing health, and the balance has to be really tight to prevent rocket tag or slogging matches.

[JCarter426]

I was just thinking about hit points yesterday. My work-in-progress, makes-sense-in-my-head system is similar to Wizards' vitality/wound points, more by coincidence than design (great minds and all).

Stamina represents a character's vigor, how much exercise they're up to. It would affect their ability to both attack and defend. Hits are not hits exactly; the character blocks but this tires them out, so they take damage to their stamina. A character with low stamina is tired, out of breath, etc. A character with no stamina is unconscious or otherwise unable to put up a defense.

Vitality represents a character's physical shape; if a character has lost any vitality points, they're bruised, bleeding, etc. A character with no vitality points is dead or dying.

For every hit taken, a character absorbs some part of the damage with their stamina, similar to damage reduction. (Exact mechanics to be determined at a future date. :smalltongue:) Anything left after that deals proper damage to their vitality. Critical hits deal equal damage to stamina and vitality, but not any extra damage beyond that.

This is only related tangentially, but certain abilities would be fueled by stamina. I'd also limit the ability to raise either stat - no hit dice for every character level.

The system would be adjusted depending on the type of game. I'm designing it primarily for a game with death, but death is cheap (it's a long story), but you don't always want death at all. For example, in a video game with companion NPCs, 0 hit points might be dying rather than dead, and zero stamina might not render you unconscious, merely unable to avoid being hit - picture yourself bleeding so much you've lost all coordination in your arms, but you still go down swinging.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Leaving aside the tired old immersion arguments, on the pro side of HP: they're instantly familiar from pretty much everything, and they're good for non-gritty/lethal combat, which some people want.

Actually (Apart from my tired old immersion arguments :P ), one of the reasons I prefer wounds is that I *don't* like lethality in my games - or, rather, I prefer to keep death rare and meaningful. With HP systems, the only consequences of damage are the cost of healing and the risk of death, and the first is usually minimal. So, in order to make combat interesting, a certain fairly substantial risk of death always has to be present.

With wounds, taking damage can have other detrimental effects - attribute damage, lost actions, action penalties, etc. Furthermore, I find it easier to scale the cost of healing with the severity of the wound; in most HP systems, healing your first point of damage is no more expensive than healing your last. With wounds, though, you can say that a certain source of healing will fix "Light" wounds, but have no effect on more severe wounds - forcing the party to seek a doctor or more skilled healer. This allows being wounded to have a similar mechanical cost to dying (expensive treatment, party down-time), without making death itself meaningless from a story perspective.

[kerplunksploosh]

I'll need to take a look at Serenity again, but I just had a thought. The wound system in Exhalted IS a hit point system, but with negative effects at various levels, and I'm willing to bet now that they all are, in one fashion or another.

Still, appears to be a large demand for status ailments that trigger with a certain amount of damage, including but not limited to long-term injuries, slower healing, and immediate reduced capabilities... in short, make damage have more impact both immediately and long-term. Is there any love for body-part specific tracking of wounds, say on a Paper Doll on a character sheet, or would that be considered too in-depth?

Mostly moving on to Ability Scores...

STR of Ability Scores
PRO: Randomizing character generation. Some times I want to be surprised by who I'm playing next... is it a rogue? Does he get sick often, but is otherwise charming and clever? They are immensely helpful tools in determining a character's personality, backstory, and quirks.

PRO: They are a catch-all in rules-light systems, as I don't need to look up how long one of my players can run without resting, or if Milton notices the hidden door - I can instead look at a PC's Ability Score and rule from there.

CON (no pun intended... ok, I lied). If randomized AND a major influence on other character abilities, you're likely to have lopsided characters in a group, which WILL cause tension. Not only that, but you may roll a charismatic, sickly rogue... which you've played before and don't want to play again. It's good to get outside your comfort zone now and then, but no one likes being shackled.

CON: Even if distributed, they're vague. Everyone's had the Int or Wis debate, and maybe even some debates about Str vs Con. I can't exactly say the fewer scores you have, the vaguer they get (Mind/Body), but more scores do help get rid of ambiguity.

CON: A physically weak player can play a strong character, but the same isn't true for intelligence or charisma. This can be overcome by a 'roll your Diplomacy, you diplomacy the heck out of the guard', but... I can't say that's bad storytelling, but it feels dry and uninteresting.

So, opening it to the forum again, should rules become specific enough that Ability Scores are obsoleted? If not, what would be a good number to have, and what are the best candidates for them? I personally favor them for their ability to rule on weird situations. I use 6 largely because it's classic, but 6 does allow for specificity and wiggle room. I use STR/AGI/CON/INT/WIS/WILL, and only symmetry keeps me from putting perception in there (is it a mind stat, or body stat? Is it a problem if body stats outweigh mind stats? etc.)


Next up will be Alignment (and other character personality mechanics).

[FreakyCheeseMan]

A while ago I switched my system over to a straight tri-stat system - Strength, Agility and Intelligence. Did so as part of my campaign to simplify every element as far as it could reasonably be simplified; the way I put it together, the three are hardly even relevant, but they shape the other abilities and skills you can get.

So, for instance, you won't normally add Strength to damage- but, the Power Attack ability has a Strength requirement.

I may go back on this yet, though, especially if I see particularly compelling arguments one way or the other.

[JCarter426]

I use 6 largely because it's classic, but 6 does allow for specificity and wiggle room. I use STR/AGI/CON/INT/WIS/WILL, and only symmetry keeps me from putting perception in there (is it a mind stat, or body stat? Is it a problem if body stats outweigh mind stats? etc.)
Split it into physical and mental perception? That brings it to eight.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Split it into physical and mental perception? That brings it to eight.

Usually I try to split it as offensive and defensive (Strength is your ability to deal damage; Con is your ability to resist it; Intelligence is your ability to exercise mental power; Will is your ability to protect your mind from influence.)

But then I have no idea what to do with agility or charisma.

[JCarter426]

What would be offensive perception, though? Heat vision?

[FreakyCheeseMan]

What would be offensive perception, though? Heat vision?

Hmm... maybe stealth?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Usually I try to split it as offensive and defensive (Strength is your ability to deal damage; Con is your ability to resist it; Intelligence is your ability to exercise mental power; Will is your ability to protect your mind from influence.)

But then I have no idea what to do with agility or charisma.

Something like:
Str vs Con
Int vs "Cunning"
Cha vs Will
Agl vs "Awareness" (not the best, but eh)

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Something like:
Str vs Con
Int vs "Cunning"
Cha vs Will
Agl vs "Awareness" (not the best, but eh)

Int vs. cunning vs. will seems pretty bad. Plus, "Will" as defense against charisma... no.

Actually, I'd say that any real list of stats should start by cutting charisma out altogether. It's not that it's an unimportant concept, but it's a very ambiguous one - you can be an imposing force without being likeable, or persuasive without being pretty, or have a wealth of internal power (Sorcerers) without being the least big skilled at social interactions. So, I say, cut charisma and distribute its remains across other character features.

[JCarter426]

Hmm... maybe stealth?
Er... wouldn't that be defensive? Trying to see things vs trying not to be seen? I see it more as a skill, anyway. Although I'm not entirely sold on perception as an attribute in the first place, so don't listen to me.

Int vs. cunning vs. will seems pretty bad. Plus, "Will" as defense against charisma... no.
You don't see charisma and will going together? The ability to manipulate someone vs someone's resistance to being manipulated?

Actually, I'd say that any real list of stats should start by cutting charisma out altogether. It's not that it's an unimportant concept, but it's a very ambiguous one - you can be an imposing force without being likeable, or persuasive without being pretty, or have a wealth of internal power (Sorcerers) without being the least big skilled at social interactions. So, I say, cut charisma and distribute its remains across other character features.
Well, I'm with you there. I can't decide what to do with it myself. I've tried to rationalize it as the strength of a person's soul, but it really doesn't make that much sense.

I should note though, I like the idea of multiple caster types, so whatever mental attribute replaces charisma should still be a casting attribute, in my opinion.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Int vs. cunning vs. will seems pretty bad. Plus, "Will" as defense against charisma... no.

Charisma is your ability to project your personality. Will is your ability to resist outside influence. How's that not a natural pair? And "book learning" (Int) being opposed by "common sense" (Cunning) is a common trope in fiction.

I'm not going to deny that "charisma" is a somewhat loaded term, but I think it's a fundamental enough aspect to deserve its own stat. One thing I did in my own system (STaRS) was to split the standard charisma stat into presence (force of personality) and manipulation (how well you can choose your words, essentially). It was a good choice from a RP end, but, on the other hand, the distinction was something I had to explain every single time I tried to introduce the system, so... make of that what you will.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Charisma is your ability to project your personality. Will is your ability to resist outside influence. How's that not a natural pair? And "book learning" (Int) being opposed by "common sense" (Cunning) is a common trope in fiction.

I'm not going to deny that "charisma" is a somewhat loaded term, but I think it's a fundamental enough aspect to deserve its own stat. One thing I did in my own system (STaRS) was to split the standard charisma stat into presence (force of personality) and manipulation (how well you can choose your words, essentially). It was a good choice from a RP end, but, on the other hand, the distinction was something I had to explain every single time I tried to introduce the system, so... make of that what you will.

D&D players get into enough arguments about Intelligence vs. Wisdom... I'd prefer to keep things as clear-cut as possible.

Willpower as a defense against charisma works, except that most of of the time ( at least in D&D) that players roll will saves, it's not against someone being persuasive, it's against a spell that could come from any source. But, you're right, I shouldn't have dismissed that one so quickly.

Actually, this is reminding why I went with a tri-stat system. So, here goes.

Reason 1: Simplicity
Not the best reason, but the most obvious. It's also helpful for quickly describing enemies - that guy's a bruiser, that guy's lithe and quick, there's something in that guys eyes. It makes it easier to communicate relevant information to players, without breaking character, or trying to find some way to describe that a guy looks weak and slow but really healthy, or that the still-rotting lich is strangely attractive.

Reason 2: No Dump Stats
When you have only three stats, they all mean something, and any character will suffer by sufficiently dumping one. Whereas, in D&D, it's easy to have a character that has no reason to have charisma, or intelligence, or any of a number of other stats. So, if the Wizard wants to have a casting stat in the stratosphere, he actually has to pay for it with something significant - adding depth to the system.

Reason 3: No Ambiguity
With Strength, Agility and Willpower, there isn't a lot of argument about what each means, or who would qualify as one or the other.

Reason 4: Freedom of Role-Play
Sometimes someone wants to play an intelligent barbarian, or a stupid wizard, or a wise sorcerer. They may want to do these things for role-play reasons, rather than mechanical ones, which is great - any time players want to role play, it makes the game more interesting and fun. The mechanics should not penalize them for doing so.

Earlier, I listed my stats as Strength, Agility and Intelligence - I think I'm gonna change that to Strength, Agility and Will, because "Will" is a vague enough term that it could be tied to any character. By divorcing the mechanics from the role-play, it expands what sort of characters players can create.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Er... wouldn't that be defensive? Trying to see things vs trying not to be seen? I see it more as a skill, anyway. Although I'm not entirely sold on perception as an attribute in the first place, so don't listen to me.

Stealth vs. Perception as offensive and defensive could go either way. I'm just trying to keep to myself (Defensive stealth) while someone is hunting for me (Offensive perception); I'm trying to sneak up on you (Offensive stealth) while you're just trying to stay on guard (Defensive perception.)

As for them being stats- it depends on the system and the style. In a certain kind of game, stealth could absolutely matter more than physical strength or constitution.

In a large enough system, I like perception as a stat for a lot of reasons. First, it's unambiguous. Second, it really is relevant - in martial combat, a huge amount of what goes on is not how well you execute your moves, but how well you predict what your opponent is about to do. If you can see their attack forming, you can win without being stronger or faster. That's why some of the very best fighters actually look kind of lazy. Add in all the stuff about countering stealth, identifying spells, seeing hidden doors, spotting enemies before they spot you... perception is certainly important enough to be part of a six or eight stat system, and unlike charisma, it's quite unified in what it means.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Int vs. cunning vs. will seems pretty bad. Plus, "Will" as defense against charisma... no.

Actually, I'd say that any real list of stats should start by cutting charisma out altogether. It's not that it's an unimportant concept, but it's a very ambiguous one - you can be an imposing force without being likeable, or persuasive without being pretty, or have a wealth of internal power (Sorcerers) without being the least big skilled at social interactions. So, I say, cut charisma and distribute its remains across other character features.

Like the others have said, Will vs Char is yin-yang perfect. They fit together as opposing stats.

As to Charisma: It's the most fluffable stat, that's my takeaway. Using the OotS comic, we have Xykon, Elan and Hinjo (presumably) who all depend on Charisma, being a Sorcerer, a Paladin and a Bard, respectively. Charisma is a measurement of their Personality's effect on the material world.

Elan's Charisma is expressed (ie; fluffed) as him being genuinely charming and nice to other. It affects them, wither positively (Haley) or negatively (Nale, Roy). Xykon expresses his Charisma as pants-wetting terror, bullying people into doing what he says. And Hinjo inspires the Paladins to serve him and their order faithfully.

Plus, Charisma is realistically the only social stat in a game based around combat. Cut that, and you cut all diplomacy/social interaction beyond "I hit it with my sword."

[JCarter426]

Stealth vs. Perception as offensive and defensive could go either way. I'm just trying to keep to myself (Defensive stealth) while someone is hunting for me (Offensive perception); I'm trying to sneak up on you (Offensive stealth) while you're just trying to stay on guard (Defensive perception.)
Eh... yeah, I guess I was in that mindset already. It's not as clear, but I guess they're clearly opposites either way, so it probably doesn't matter.

As for them being stats- it depends on the system and the style. In a certain kind of game, stealth could absolutely matter more than physical strength or constitution.
Well, my feeling is if it's that important to the game, the game will probably have more specific rules regarding stealth rather than one catch-all attribute for it. Furthermore, attributes shouldn't be one catch-all thing; they should affect more than one thing. It just doesn't seem a broad enough concept to warrant an attribute. Perhaps something more like agility or grace.

In a large enough system, I like perception as a stat for a lot of reasons. First, it's unambiguous. Second, it really is relevant - in martial combat, a huge amount of what goes on is not how well you execute your moves, but how well you predict what your opponent is about to do. If you can see their attack forming, you can win without being stronger or faster. That's why some of the very best fighters actually look kind of lazy. Add in all the stuff about countering stealth, identifying spells, seeing hidden doors, spotting enemies before they spot you... perception is certainly important enough to be part of a six or eight stat system, and unlike charisma, it's quite unified in what it means.
See this is what I was talking about; as you say, if it does a lot of things, it probably warrants a stat.

However, I'm uncertain of perception because I don't think it's unambiguous. What if you have a detective who's hard of hearing? Or... Daredevil - he's blind but all his other senses are through the roof.

Plus, Charisma is realistically the only social stat in a game based around combat. Cut that, and you cut all diplomacy/social interaction beyond "I hit it with my sword."
Well, that's a good point. However, most of the characters you listed don't primarily use their charisma for social interaction; they use it to cast magic spells, their equivalent of "I hit it with my sword." If I were to have a purely social stat tied to magic, I would restrict it to the realm of enchantments. I don't think charisma is a purely social stat; it has some social aspects, but it's also the "and anything else you can think of" stat.

Actually, that gave me an idea. Would any of you base the schools of magic on different attributes, rather than giving each character a single casting attribute? Charisma for enchantment, perception for divination, etc?

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Like the others have said, Will vs Char is yin-yang perfect. They fit together as opposing stats.

As to Charisma: It's the most fluffable stat, that's my takeaway. Using the OotS comic, we have Xykon, Elan and Hinjo (presumably) who all depend on Charisma, being a Sorcerer, a Paladin and a Bard, respectively. Charisma is a measurement of their Personality's effect on the material world.

Elan's Charisma is expressed (ie; fluffed) as him being genuinely charming and nice to other. It affects them, wither positively (Haley) or negatively (Nale, Roy). Xykon expresses his Charisma as pants-wetting terror, bullying people into doing what he says. And Hinjo inspires the Paladins to serve him and their order faithfully.

Plus, Charisma is realistically the only social stat in a game based around combat. Cut that, and you cut all diplomacy/social interaction beyond "I hit it with my sword."

I never said that charisma wasn't important - I just said it shouldn't be a primary attribute. I'd prefer to see the things generally associated with charisma cut up and divided across skills, feats, etc, for a number of reasons.

First, a lot of those social options depend as much on the player's playstyle as on the character. I've been in games where the bard was the only one with a charisma that made social actions reasonable, but the guy playing the bard was a sociopath (If you're reading this, you know who you are). If you instead make social options something that a person invests in directly, it lets the players who like that stuff go for it regardless of the base class they play.

Second, again, the ambiguity. So many different things are covered by charisma, that having a single attribute is an ungainly blanket statement. Instead, I'd just have traits that a character can pick up independently.

And, finally, there's the issue of dump-statting. Charisma is by far the most common dump stat, since most classes don't benefit from it in combat. You sound like you want to have more socialization in a combat-focused game; good, so do I. But having charisma as a stat actually does the opposite- it encourages players towards antisocial characters, in order to retain combat efficacy.

Cutting Charisma as an Attribute does not remove socialization from the game - it just means that you're no longer paying for the ability to socialize with the same set of points as everything else.

[kerplunksploosh]

If it's something that needs to be explained to most people, something's wrong. It may be as simple as poor terminology, but I'd suspect you're splitting Cha into too many separate bits, Grod.

Let me mention what I did with Charisma in my own system. Rather than have it as a stat, I turned it into a skill, as follows...
When speaking to NPCs, you may 'take back' something you just said, once per conversation, hopefully so you can say something a little more charming. The comment that you take back never happened. NPCs will tend to regard you more favorably and are encouraged to give you the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, you are able to attract minor followers, the number and/or strength of these followers based upon your level. Followers can be alienated or killed, but 'lost' followers still count towards your total.

The reason I don't have Stealth or Perception or Comeliness or Luck as a stat is because I've turned them into skills also, with specific and narrow effects. The reason I don't have Strength as a skill is because it feels like it should affect so many more things than a skill could do. This could be the start to an alternative to Stats... A character is completely average in all respects unless they pick the disadvantage Weak, or the advantage Strong. This would do away with my beloved random-generation, but *shrug*, it's an idea.

As far as the tri-stat system is concerned, is it Intelligence or Will? How do you determine hardiness and perception?

The absolute biggest things for a stat system to cover, in my opinion, would be strength, grace, hardiness, brains, awareness, maybe will, and some of these could be relegated to secondary mechanics (like I did with Charisma).

[FreakyCheeseMan]

As far as the tri-stat system is concerned, is it Intelligence or Will? How do you determine hardiness and perception?

I think I'm going to make it Strength, Agility and Will, specifically because the term "Willpower" is so open to interpretation. A character's "Intelligence" will be an issue of how the player plays them.

Hardiness is just an issue of Strength (If you're big, and you're in shape, you can take more hits.)

Perception is treated as a skill. If I were making a system with more stats, perception would be among them - it just seems to me to apply to so many things, and be one of the most useful. From what I know real combat, keeping track of your surroundings and reading your opponents attacks is critical.

[Grod_The_Giant]

If it's something that needs to be explained to most people, something's wrong. It may be as simple as poor terminology, but I'd suspect you're splitting Cha into too many separate bits, Grod.

Yeah, one of these days I'll go back and smoosh Presence and Manipulation back together. Probably put Dexterity (hands) back in to keep the numbers even.

[JCarter426]

I think I'm going to make it Strength, Agility and Will, specifically because the term "Willpower" is so open to interpretation. A character's "Intelligence" will be an issue of how the player plays them.
That's a bold move. How do you determine a character's skill points or their magical talents?

Hardiness is just an issue of Strength (If you're big, and you're in shape, you can take more hits.)
I thought the same ever since I was introduced to the D&D system, but quite recently I've changed my mind. I've come to see Constitution not as toughness but endurance. There are plenty of athletes who are small of build, from whom a punch wouldn't even hurt me, but they are all still in great shape.

Probably put Dexterity (hands) back in to keep the numbers even.
Eh, I understand the desire but that seems too specific. I see Dexterity more as coordination than speed in the first place, though.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

That's a bold move. How do you determine a character's skill points or their magical talents?

Skill points aren't tied to intelligence - I've known plenty of idiots with impressive skill sets, and plenty of geniuses who couldn't change a tire. Magical power is a function of Will, which I'm... semi-okay with. It doesn't quite match the fluff of my setting, where magic really is the result of intelligence. *Shrugs*


I thought the same ever since I was introduced to the D&D system, but quite recently I've changed my mind. I've come to see Constitution not as toughness but endurance. There are plenty of athletes who are small of build, from whom a punch wouldn't even hurt me, but they are all still in great shape.

Sure - if we're talking about endurance towards sustained effort, rather than endurance towards damage. But, that almost never comes up in D&D anyway - if it's not bleeding or broken, it's not worth keeping track of.

[kerplunksploosh]

Wow, I missed a bunch. I'll probably let it sit the night and sift through this in the morning.

Charisma not being unified as a stat has more to do with implementation than the stat itself, methinks. They stretch its definition for sorcerers, etc. Regarding Daredevil's perception score, well, one could also have a high-STR character missing a few fingers or a hand, a high INT character that was insane, or a high DEX character that has shaky hands, but otherwise good coordination. I don't know if it's possible to have a stat that can't self-contradict slightly. Breaking INT into INT and WIS helped some, but then... yay confusion. Self-contradiction isn't bad, and might even make more interesting characters.

To avoid dump stats, each stat must have some use for all characters. In my system, Strength helps with Armor and carrying capacity (as well as damage and other things), so casters will feel the effects of a low STR. Intelligence affects the number of combat maneuvers one can have, so fighters don't want to neglect that, either. I struggled enough making omni-utility for 6 stats, 8 would be too much for me (although probably doable). As for 3 stats? Easy peasy.

I'd also argue that Intelligence is a social as well as combat skill, and heck, even Constitution (not going to shake your hand after you sneezed in it!)... but I get your point. Charisma, unless it lets you tame monsters or outright prevent fights (and DMs and players generally don't let that sort of thing fly), is largely noncombat-oriented.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Actually, that gave me an idea. Would any of you base the schools of magic on different attributes, rather than giving each character a single casting attribute? Charisma for enchantment, perception for divination, etc?

That actually sounds like a really cool project. Although, there are (in 3.x anyway) 8 different Schools of Magic. If you use those you might have to double up weaker schools or make two new attributes.


Skill points aren't tied to intelligence - I've known plenty of idiots with impressive skill sets, and plenty of geniuses who couldn't change a tire. Magical power is a function of Will, which I'm... semi-okay with. It doesn't quite match the fluff of my setting, where magic really is the result of intelligence. *Shrugs*

Easy enough to fix. Make Magic into Skills. Have people decide between mundane skills like Use Rope and Magical ones like Flight. The magic skills would need lower caps and other restrictions to prevent abuse, but I think it fits.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Easy enough to fix. Make Magic into Skills. Have people decide between mundane skills like Use Rope and Magical ones like Flight. The magic skills would need lower caps and other restrictions to prevent abuse, but I think it fits.

Er... now I'm confused.

The mental stat is going to be tied to spellcasting somehow... prerequisites for spells, something like that. Otherwise, why bother having a mental stat at all? I'm just a little annoyed about what to call it - Intelligence, Will and Mental have all been tossed around my head.

This is all for a system I'm building from the ground up - if you look back over the hombrew forums, you can see some of the mechanics I listed (Look for the threads that don't have any replies. :P)

[Ninjadeadbeard]

The mental stat is going to be tied to spellcasting somehow... prerequisites for spells, something like that. Otherwise, why bother having a mental stat at all? I'm just a little annoyed about what to call it - Intelligence, Will and Mental have all been tossed around my head.

This is all for a system I'm building from the ground up - if you look back over the hombrew forums, you can see some of the mechanics I listed (Look for the threads that don't have any replies. :P)

I know that feeling. All too well.

*Stares into distance*

But my point was that you seemed to have issue reconciling having WILL be the spellcasting stat since the fluff of your setting had magic depend more on Intelligence. If Skills were divorced from the mental stat, why not spells?

[JCarter426]

Skill points aren't tied to intelligence - I've known plenty of idiots with impressive skill sets, and plenty of geniuses who couldn't change a tire.
Well, different class skills... although I'm not entirely satisfied with the basic intelligence to skill point system either.

Magical power is a function of Will, which I'm... semi-okay with. It doesn't quite match the fluff of my setting, where magic really is the result of intelligence. *Shrugs*
Ah, I see.

Sure - if we're talking about endurance towards sustained effort, rather than endurance towards damage. But, that almost never comes up in D&D anyway - if it's not bleeding or broken, it's not worth keeping track of.
Ah, did I forget to mention I wouldn't tie constitution to hit points?

I'd also argue that Intelligence is a social as well as combat skill, and heck, even Constitution (not going to shake your hand after you sneezed in it!)... but I get your point. Charisma, unless it lets you tame monsters or outright prevent fights (and DMs and players generally don't let that sort of thing fly), is largely noncombat-oriented.
Well, Intelligence means skill points, and skill points can be applied socially, but they can also be applied to Use Rope.

That actually sounds like a really cool project. Although, there are (in 3.x anyway) 8 different Schools of Magic. If you use those you might have to double up weaker schools or make two new attributes.
That, or change the schools. I'll have to think more on this.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

I know that feeling. All too well.

*Stares into distance*

But my point was that you seemed to have issue reconciling having WILL be the spellcasting stat since the fluff of your setting had magic depend more on Intelligence. If Skills were divorced from the mental stat, why not spells?

So, two reasons.

First, that would leave Will kind of useless - defense against certain magical effects, and that's it.

Second, that would leave casting as not requiring any Attribute investment at all. I'm building a classless system where anyone can cast, but it should be something they have to pay for, at least a little, and investing in the mental stat is part of that payment.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Eh, I understand the desire but that seems too specific. I see Dexterity more as coordination than speed in the first place, though.

Well, the list as-of-now is Agility, Awareness, Cunning, Manipulation, Presence, Smarts, Speed, Strength, Vigor and Will. It's pretty granular, but stats in the system are pretty much the only unified mechanism for defining characters, so... (there's a link in my sig if you're interested).

FreakyCheeseMan, the advantage of a tristat system is, as you say, simplicity, but you lose a lot of granularity and definition that way. By the time you get down to three stats, I'd almost rather dump abilities altogether and do a FATE-style "all in the skills" build.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

FreakyCheeseMan, the advantage of a tristat system is, as you say, simplicity, but you lose a lot of granularity and definition that way. By the time you get down to three stats, I'd almost rather dump abilities altogether and do a FATE-style "all in the skills" build.

It's still very open to being changed, but the model I have works like this:

Stats are the terrain, abilities are what you build on it.

So, your stats have very little direct impact on the game; Strength adds to power attacks and resisting getting pushed around by forces, but right now, that's it, and I may strip those. However, stats serve a prerequisites for different abilities, which are what make all the difference.

So, a person with a STR of 2, a AGI of 0 and an INT of -1 is going to define a range of builds. As the class system I'm using is extremely weak, these will sort of define the archetypes. A focused strength build is a bruiser, a mix of strength and agility is a light fighter, an agility focus is a thief, a strength/intelligence build is a front-lines caster, etc.

I also think that raising stats will be more expensive, the higher they get. I'm hoping this will balance MAD vs. SAD builds; some players will want to stay focused on their primary stat in order to unlock the high-level goodies, but others will prefer to go for a range of options. If I do things right, different combat builds will be effective against different options, and it will matter more "What you're doing" than "How hard you're doing it"; so, keeping your options open can actually result in a more effective character, than simply picking one shtick and focusing on it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

So, your stats have very little direct impact on the game; Strength adds to power attacks and resisting getting pushed around by forces, but right now, that's it, and I may strip those. However, stats serve a prerequisites for different abilities, which are what make all the difference.
It, ah... if stats are a big part of qualifying for abilities... which are a major part of the game... it sounds like the stats are too.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

It, ah... if stats are a big part of qualifying for abilities... which are a major part of the game... it sounds like the stats are too.

I said that stats had very little "Direct" impact - i.e., the impact they have is through abilities, rather than direct numerical advantages. They're certainly important, but they're not referenced in most of the actions a player takes.

[JCarter426]

Isn't that kind of the reverse of how it is? Stats represent your innate abilities, a starting potential. And they're the most general descriptors of your character, so they get added to almost everything. They determine how well you can do anything before training, not whether you can do it.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Isn't that kind of the reverse of how it is? Stats represent your innate abilities, a starting potential. And they're the most general descriptors of your character, so they get added to almost everything. They determine how well you can do anything before training, not whether you can do it.

>_> I almost feel like we're about to get into a nature vs. nurture debate here. Oh joy.

So, in my system, a character is defined almost entirely by a set of abilities- and ability being the equivalent of a good feat, significant investment in a skill, or a small set of spells. Abilities generally come in tiers - "Fire Magic I, Fire Magic II, Fire Magic III".

With a few exceptions, Tier 1 abilities don't have a high prerequisite- you can get by with average, even a little under. But, an absolute dunce is not going to be able to cast spells, and a genuinely slow/clumsy person is not going to be able to dodge melee attacks - not without improving their agility, first. Upper levels do require higher stats - there's a ceiling of an ability that you can't breach, unless you've raised your stats up high enough first.

I would say that this is pretty realistic- if your mind or body aren't that well suited for a particular task, you're going to have a hard time developing at that task, without first raising the relevant stat. In real life, I'd point to dancers as an example; my ex girlfriend trained in ballet for some time, but eventually hit a ceiling simply because her feet were the wrong build for ballet. Another one of my friends had been dancing her entire life and into college, but eventually hit that point where her body just wasn't able to take it to the next level. I've seen the same happen to other people in terms of mental attributes - they learn mathematics happily up to a point, but there capacity for complexity and abstraction gives out, and it's like they've hit a brick wall.

So, that covers "Stats as prerequisites", and leaves "Why don't I still have stats add bonuses."

The answer to that one is mostly mechanical. Based on the chance system I'm using, and my self-imposed rule of keeping numbers as small and significant as possible, it would simply be too powerful. In D&D, a +3 bonus is the difference between something happening 25% of the time, and something happening 40% of the time; in my system, a +3 bonus is the difference between something happening 25% of the time, and something happening 75% of the time. So, even with small stat ranges, giving stat bonuses would simply be too much of an advantage.

I'm also trying to encourage breadth-over-depth character builds; players should go for a variety of tools, rather than a single very powerful one. Stat bonuses would take emphasis away from that- it would only be worthwhile to invest in skills for which you already had a strong stat bonus, and as such, it would only be worthwhile to invest in stats for which you already had the related skills.

[JCarter426]

I just don't see the point of stats if they're only used to determine prerequisites, mechanically speaking. If you aren't going to put points into an ability, you aren't going to put points in it; it doesn't matter whether you are able to or not because you're not going. If the stats don't affect anything else, then from whence comes the need to keep them balanced, as you said before?

[FreakyCheeseMan]

I just don't see the point of stats if they're only used to determine prerequisites, mechanically speaking. If you aren't going to put points into an ability, you aren't going to put points in it; it doesn't matter whether you are able to or not because you're not going. If the stats don't affect anything else, then from whence comes the need to keep them balanced, as you said before?

Um... what? Whether or not you *can* put points in an ability plays a pretty big part in determining whether or not you *will*.

The stats need to be balanced in terms of what options they unlock. If you get way more useful benefits from Strength than from Agility, then that makes Strength better and Agility worse, and in turn, makes Strength-based abilities better and Agility-related abilities worse (because Agility abilities have a stat tax in a stat you don't want anyway.)

Remember the first line of my description - Stats are the landscape, Abilities are what you build on top of it.

[JCarter426]

But that's my point. If they only determine prerequisites, they only determine which abilities you can learn, not how well you can use the ones you have. It leaves open the possibility for a build with absolutely no points in one stat with the others at their maximum, because it does not detrimentally affect the character's learned abilities. Even if it limits what you could do in theory, it in no way affects what you can do now.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

But that's my point. If they only determine prerequisites, they only determine which abilities you can learn, not how well you can use the ones you have. It leaves open the possibility for a build with absolutely no points in one stat with the others at their maximum, because it does not detrimentally affect the character's learned abilities. Even if it limits what you could do in theory, it in no way affects what you can do now.

*Blinks* Except that the stats determine what abilities you even have access to now...so, yes, your stats do affect what you can do now. Maybe examples/context would help.

So, the stat system has very, very small numbers. Right now, I'm planning that a level 1 character would be 1/0/0 or 1/1/-1; at worst, with one of the races that has modifiers, they could get to 2/1/-2. I think that -3 or -4 in any stat means incapacitation, so going down to -2 is putting yourself dangerously close; one debuff and you're down.

The other cost of such extreme builds at level one comes with available defenses. Even at level 1, a character will pick a handful of defensive abilities, to cover him from different sorts of attack. For instance, a player might pick armor to resist conventional attacks, a counterspell ability to resist magical attack, and a high movement speed to allow him to keep away from enemies with armor-piercing attacks. However, these defenses do have some prerequisites - so, if you have a negative score in a stat, you may not be able to get defenses at all, against certain types of attacks, leaving you with a major vulnerability. Not necessarily insurmountable, but something that will require creative defense or expensive items to compensate.

So, that leaves what happens as you level - when you have the chance to raise your stats, you'll generally have a choice between focus or generalization. For example, focusing agility may give you additional sneak attack damage, or focusing mental could give you more spells per turn. However, there are also potential benefits from generalization - with both agility and intelligence, for instance, you could use invisibility to get yourself into better positions for sneak attacks, which you couldn't have done if you'd just drilled agility.

All of this is still a work in progress, so some of it is likely to change. I mentioned that Strength determined your ability to resist force effects; I imagine I'll add more things like that for different stats, where stats affect certain defenses, but, even with that one, a low strength is a big weakness. A force mage could increase gravity over such a character, and pin them to the ground, or more easily throw them into obstacles or off of chasms. Such unbalanced characters could be powerful, but vulnerable.

[kerplunksploosh]

I'm loving this. What role do stats have, new ways of doing them, and all that jazz. also, drunk. morning should be good for wordings.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

I'm loving this. What role do stats have, new ways of doing them, and all that jazz. also, drunk. morning should be good for wordings.

This site totally needs a sub-forum solely for drunk posts.

[playswithfire]

Some somewhat disjointed thoughts, which all assume a system somewhat like D&D 3.5 (since that's what I know) but with the variations they describe.

Without naming each stat and applying connotations to those terms that could muddle their definitions, what if there were six stats that could be described as:

Physical
Power - how hard you hit/how much you can lift, etc
Control - how accurately you hit/how well you can dodge/fine motor, etc
Resistance - how well you take a hit, etc

Mental
Power - how powerful your spells are, how much you can influence others
Control - how accurate your spells are; needs another thing
Resistance - how well you resist spells and the influence of others


The physical side works a lot like the current STR, DEX, CON model, other than Dexterity the stat that factors into attack bonus as well as armor class. Armor Check penalty would probably also apply (in some way, maybe halved) to attack rolls.

The mental side gets a bit muddier since I'm treating magic as an effect of the mind, though it can have physical results. If the mental side were to work similarly to the current hit point model on the physical side, spellcasters would use a spell point system (bonus points based on the Mental Resistance stat) and mental assaults (not all magic, but probably anything tagged mind-affecting, maybe illusions, maybe other things) would reduce their spell points like taking a hit reduces hit points. Plus side, spellcasters would no longer be able to be SAD quite as easily since different stats govern different aspects of their magic (how much they can do, how well they can target it, and how powerful the effects are).

On skills: What if, instead of gaining 2, 4, 6, or 8 + INT skill points per level, you picked 1, 2, 3, or 4 stats (can choose the same stat more than once) and gained skill points equal to your bonus (without magic mods) for that stat, BUT the points you gain can only be used on skills that have that stat as their primary? Class skills would still apply.

I, personally, see two things that might need to be addressed if this were to be applied to 3.5 vs being an aspect of a new system:
1. This most likely leads to more skill points, but is that addressed by them being limited to particular skills?
2. This could make Intelligence an easier dump stat for most characters. Maybe INT can be used (in some reduced way) to gain ranks in non-INT skills? Maybe just the non-people skills?

Sorry this is a bit rambling.

[JCarter426]

*Blinks* Except that the stats determine what abilities you even have access to now...so, yes, your stats do affect what you can do now. Maybe examples/context would help.
Yes, yes. For example, when creating a character, there are a feats you know you probably aren't going to take. Let's go with Power Attack, since you mentioned that before. Even if I know I'm not going to be taking Power Attack, I'll still raise my Strength to at least 10 so I don't have a penalty when I try so much as knock on a door. But if all Strength is good for is to determine whether I can take feats like Power Attack, then I wouldn't have to put any points in Strength at all.

All of this is still a work in progress, so some of it is likely to change.
No, no, no, I'm not criticizing... I'm just saying I don't understand the system. I do like the idea of tying these to one's stats more obviously; it's something I've been trying to do for a while, actually. Even though intellectually I know there is some connection, that every penalty can be offset by a stat, it never really feels like that's true, or that the right stats are being applied. I feel like stats should do more than limit what you can do later on; I hate limits. There are already a lot of prerequisites built into the system. You need weapon proficiency to use a weapon at all and you need to take a feat to attempt a certain maneuver, and that feat might have a stat prerequisite, whereas in real life I could pick up a sword with no training and attempt it. I might not succeed, but I can still try it... and I probably would succeed against an unarmed opponent who wasn't expecting it. As the system is now, I couldn't even try it, even though there's always a chance I would succeed due to the randomness of the system.

I mentioned that Strength determined your ability to resist force effects; I imagine I'll add more things like that for different stats, where stats affect certain defenses, but, even with that one, a low strength is a big weakness. A force mage could increase gravity over such a character, and pin them to the ground, or more easily throw them into obstacles or off of chasms. Such unbalanced characters could be powerful, but vulnerable.
Hmm, interesting.

Without naming each stat and applying connotations to those terms that could muddle their definitions, what if there were six stats that could be described as:

Physical
Power - how hard you hit/how much you can lift, etc
Control - how accurately you hit/how well you can dodge/fine motor, etc
Resistance - how well you take a hit, etc

Mental
Power - how powerful your spells are, how much you can influence others
Control - how accurate your spells are; needs another thing
Resistance - how well you resist spells and the influence of others


Power/Control/Resistance matches Sorcerer/Wizard/Cleric pretty naturally. Their number of spells might rely on a single attribute, but the effects of the spells depend on all three. Interesting. I think it needs work to make them more applicable to non-casters, though.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

No, no, no, I'm not criticizing... I'm just saying I don't understand the system. I do like the idea of tying these to one's stats more obviously; it's something I've been trying to do for a while, actually. Even though intellectually I know there is some connection, that every penalty can be offset by a stat, it never really feels like that's true, or that the right stats are being applied. I feel like stats should do more than limit what you can do later on; I hate limits. There are already a lot of prerequisites built into the system. You need weapon proficiency to use a weapon at all and you need to take a feat to attempt a certain maneuver, and that feat might have a stat prerequisite, whereas in real life I could pick up a sword with no training and attempt it. I might not succeed, but I can still try it... and I probably would succeed against an unarmed opponent who wasn't expecting it. As the system is now, I couldn't even try it, even though there's always a chance I would succeed due to the randomness of the system.

So, as far as the mass of prerequisites goes, there's actually not as much in my system as in D&D, because my system barely has classes.

You pick a class - fighter, thief or magic user - at level one, but all that does is give you a few preset abilities (Spellcasting if you're a magic user, etc), plus a handful of limited-choice abilities (Proficiency with a given weapon if you're a fighter, a selection of spell schools if you're a mage, etc,). You'll also get one of two free abilities, that you can pick anything with. After that, classes are never referenced at all; they only exist at all to make things a little simpler on new players and DMs, an advanced group could do it all by point-buy.

So, that means that a mage can start learning to use a sword, or a fighter can start learning to cast spells (There's a "Spellcasting" ability, which is required for any magic - so, fighters would have to take that one level, but the next they could start some basic casting.) In fact, I'm trying to actively encourage those sorts of "Cross-class" builds.

I've been going back and forth about "Untrained" maneuvers, and whether I want to have rules for them at all. In favor is... basically what you said. Against is that it complicates an already complicated rule system; I'm trying to keep it that there are a lot of options available, but each player only needs to know about a small selection of them.

You do get the opportunity to raise your stats, but it's more difficult than just raising abilities you already qualify for. If it helps, think of this as being part of the extra difficulty of learning something you're not naturally good at.

[kerplunksploosh]

What is SAD/MAD? I cannae find a definition anywhere.

I'm trying to organize my thoughts here. I'd say if you're going to bother with a stat system, stats should have at least one of a number of things... -Omni-utility (A Fighter cares about INT, a wizard cares about STR... not equally, of course, but they at least care about them)
-Roleplay Guidance (If I have a high DEX, then I'd naturally be more willing to cross the chasm by this rickety rope bridge... and as a DM, if some bizarre situation arises, I can resolve it by stats if nothing else)
-Broad effects (Strength does more than just +damage, it affects carrying capacity, bend bars, climb, intimidate, damage reduction, etc... If Strength only added +damage, then it is better as a Skill/Ability thing.)

So, number of stats. I think as low as 2 could accomplish all of those things. With 8, or 10, omni-utility becomes difficult to impossible although it helps with roleplay guidance. I'm wondering if this is something that we should examine our homebrews each in turn... that way we don't have sad, unreplied-to threads :)

Anyway, I'll examine FreakyCheese's tristat system. Omni-utility is there, as I'm assuming if that wizard wants Additional Health as an ability, he needs at least 1 STR, and 2 STR for Additional Health 2 (for example). With just 3 stats, I do think you're losing some useful subtlety like where intelligence, perception, and health falls... but if the system decrees health belongs to Strength, perception to Agility, and brainyness to Will, the players will get used to it quickly enough. Broad effects, well, your Abilities define your character. That's a large reach indeed. Conclusion: 3 is a bit small, but certainly workable.

My attempts at making omni-utility were a bit shaky at 6 stats, so I'm going to say 8 stats is getting to be too many... although having different spell schools based off of different stats WOULD help that a lot. Playswithfire, my system does somewhat mirror what you proposed: Intelligence as mental Strength, Wisdom as mental Agility, and Will as mental fortitude. It has symmetry, but I do tire of the Wisdom/Intelligence confusion. Maybe it'd be better if I just lumped them into one stat.

Anyway, any arguments for doing away with stats altogether? I'm thinking stats still have their place, with a range of 3-6 as optimal, from what I've heard so far. I don't know how FATE plays out, and what it's good or bad at.

I suppose the last I'm going to mention on stats is, in order of importance, what should they be? Strength, Intelligence, Agililty, Health, Will, and... I don't know after that.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

What is SAD/MAD? I cannae find a definition anywhere.

Single Attribute Dependent vs. Multiple Attribute Dependent. In D&D, you really want builds that are SAD, like wizards - intelligence is all they need. Monks, meanwhile, suffer from being MAD - a good monk needs wisdom, agility, strength and constitution in order to function.



Anyway, I'll examine FreakyCheese's tristat system. Omni-utility is there, as I'm assuming if that wizard wants Additional Health as an ability, he needs at least 1 STR, and 2 STR for Additional Health 2 (for example). With just 3 stats, I do think you're losing some useful subtlety like where intelligence, perception, and health falls... but if the system decrees health belongs to Strength, perception to Agility, and brainyness to Will, the players will get used to it quickly enough. Broad effects, well, your Abilities define your character. That's a large reach indeed. Conclusion: 3 is a bit small, but certainly workable.

Pretty close- Perception would be keyed off of mental stats, if it was keyed at all. It might just be an ability chain with no prerequisites.

Additional Health would be keyed off of STR, I haven't decided what's needed for what, yet, but probably what you said. Each level of additional health gives you a freebie wound slot on every body part.

[JCarter426]

So, as far as the mass of prerequisites goes, there's actually not as much in my system as in D&D, because my system barely has classes.

You pick a class - fighter, thief or magic user - at level one, but all that does is give you a few preset abilities (Spellcasting if you're a magic user, etc), plus a handful of limited-choice abilities (Proficiency with a given weapon if you're a fighter, a selection of spell schools if you're a mage, etc,). You'll also get one of two free abilities, that you can pick anything with. After that, classes are never referenced at all; they only exist at all to make things a little simpler on new players and DMs, an advanced group could do it all by point-buy.

So, that means that a mage can start learning to use a sword, or a fighter can start learning to cast spells (There's a "Spellcasting" ability, which is required for any magic - so, fighters would have to take that one level, but the next they could start some basic casting.) In fact, I'm trying to actively encourage those sorts of "Cross-class" builds.
I see. That certainly does change things quite a lot.

I've been going back and forth about "Untrained" maneuvers, and whether I want to have rules for them at all. In favor is... basically what you said. Against is that it complicates an already complicated rule system; I'm trying to keep it that there are a lot of options available, but each player only needs to know about a small selection of them.
Right, I can understand ruling in favor of the less complicated choice.

You do get the opportunity to raise your stats, but it's more difficult than just raising abilities you already qualify for. If it helps, think of this as being part of the extra difficulty of learning something you're not naturally good at.
Yeah, I can never decide on whether stats should be able to raised. On the one hand, if they represent your innate talent, you shouldn't be able to raise them. On the other hand, one can theoretically raise one's Strength and Constitution by working out a lot, even Intelligence can be represented by going to school. Some are harder to justify than others, but if you can raise any you should be able to raise all of them.

You shouldn't be able to raise them too much because you can get into the superhuman territory, it also widens the divide between character levels. I'm talking about something like Planescape: Torment, which gives you a point every level. Even a point every few levels can be too much alongside magic items. So I'm also leaning towards can be done, but it costs more.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Yeah, I can never decide on whether stats should be able to raised. On the one hand, if they represent your innate talent, you shouldn't be able to raise them. On the other hand, one can theoretically raise one's Strength and Constitution by working out a lot, even Intelligence can be represented by going to school. Some are harder to justify than others, but if you can raise any you should be able to raise all of them.

You shouldn't be able to raise them too much because you can get into the superhuman territory, it also widens the divide between character levels. I'm talking about something like Planescape: Torment, which gives you a point every level. Even a point every few levels can be too much alongside magic items. So I'm also leaning towards can be done, but it costs more.

Hrrrm... actually, yeah, you make a good point. My notion of a STR 3 character is pretty much Gregor Clegane from SoIaF, and it wouldn't make sense that anyone not already built could train to that level.

Maybe I'll say that abilities you lack the stat prerequisite for cost two ability points instead of one, but stats can't be raised.

[JCarter426]

I could see that. Sort of like the class skill system.

I could also see raising stats, but at a higher XP cost. That doesn't necessarily mean you need a classless, entirely point buy system, though; the system I'm working on, for example, separates class levels and racial levels. Base attack bonus, hit points, attributes, and everything of that nature is raised only through racial levels; skills, feats, and spells would primarily be raised through class levels and would depend on the type of level. This is all in theory, mind; I haven't decided what can be raised, just how it would be raised if it could be raised.

The ability to raise stats is less important if they're used primarily for determining prerequisites, though. That would be one advantage to the system.

[Zeful]

Some somewhat disjointed thoughts, which all assume a system somewhat like D&D 3.5 (since that's what I know) but with the variations they describe.

Without naming each stat and applying connotations to those terms that could muddle their definitions, what if there were six stats that could be described as:

Physical
Power - how hard you hit/how much you can lift, etc
Control - how accurately you hit/how well you can dodge/fine motor, etc
Resistance - how well you take a hit, etc

Mental
Power - how powerful your spells are, how much you can influence others
Control - how accurate your spells are; needs another thing
Resistance - how well you resist spells and the influence of others


The physical side works a lot like the current STR, DEX, CON model, other than Dexterity the stat that factors into attack bonus as well as armor class. Armor Check penalty would probably also apply (in some way, maybe halved) to attack rolls.

The mental side gets a bit muddier since I'm treating magic as an effect of the mind, though it can have physical results. If the mental side were to work similarly to the current hit point model on the physical side, spellcasters would use a spell point system (bonus points based on the Mental Resistance stat) and mental assaults (not all magic, but probably anything tagged mind-affecting, maybe illusions, maybe other things) would reduce their spell points like taking a hit reduces hit points. Plus side, spellcasters would no longer be able to be SAD quite as easily since different stats govern different aspects of their magic (how much they can do, how well they can target it, and how powerful the effects are).

On skills: What if, instead of gaining 2, 4, 6, or 8 + INT skill points per level, you picked 1, 2, 3, or 4 stats (can choose the same stat more than once) and gained skill points equal to your bonus (without magic mods) for that stat, BUT the points you gain can only be used on skills that have that stat as their primary? Class skills would still apply.

I, personally, see two things that might need to be addressed if this were to be applied to 3.5 vs being an aspect of a new system:
1. This most likely leads to more skill points, but is that addressed by them being limited to particular skills?
2. This could make Intelligence an easier dump stat for most characters. Maybe INT can be used (in some reduced way) to gain ranks in non-INT skills? Maybe just the non-people skills?

Sorry this is a bit rambling.

Attributes for a game are mostly determined by what that game's goals are.

Let's say I wanted to build a Starship RPG, where most of the system is describing ship-to-ship battles and the wear on the ship in doing so. What Attributes do I need to do this with? Well, I only need 2: Reaction and Aim, everything else is the ship. But that doesn't work well if I want a group of 6 people in the same ship. A character that's designed to board other ships, or the one that pilots it, or the one that runs damage control and keeps the ship up all need different attributes than the gunner. And here we see the choice I have to make regarding the game's design and how attributes interact with them. If the ships are assumed to be large warships (Star Trek's Enterprise), then differing player roles can split the party, while smaller ships (Firefly's Serenity) have the players double dipping as it were. Though it is possible to remedy by making larger warships environments that the smaller, player controlled ship has to move through.

So with a focus on smaller ships and boarding I have a better focus on what attributes I need to make this game happen. I not only need speed of reaction and eventual accuracy, but I'm also going to need other attributes for dealing with physical resilience, as well as intellectual aptitude. "Reaction" still exists, because everyone can use it, and it's important because of that. Aim on the other hand is turned into "Precision" which can be used for piloting and engineering, just differently. But now I need to add-- we'll call it "Body"-- for physical resilience-- which can also deal with the relevant stuff from "Strength"-- like holding open a door, pulling someone up, grappling and subduing opponents-- that aren't the focus of this hypothetical system. As well as "Intellect", and the reason's for it's addition has to do with other subsystems and genre constraints that haven't been touched upon yet; how would "Reaction", "Precision" or "Body" fit with hacking into a computer database, or haggling a lower/higher price for ship parts?

So I have 4 attributes. Reaction, representing reflexes and reaction speed. Precision, representing fine motor control and it's impact on aim. Body, representing physical strength, durability, and how resistant you are to environmental effects, and Intellect, which deals with skills. Is there anything missing from this list that would be necessary in a ship or boarding environment that can't be covered by the ship? And if there is something missing; can it be added under one of the additional attribute or does it need one of it's own?

This is why it's important to understand what your system's goals are, as it defines what your players should be capable of.

[kerplunksploosh]

Yeah, for the purposes of this mechanic-by-mechanic breakdown, it's a moderately magical standard fantasy, where player and DM cooperate. Scifi and/or universal systems are outside our scope, way too complicated!

[Zeful]

Yeah, for the purposes of this mechanic-by-mechanic breakdown, it's a moderately magical standard fantasy, where player and DM cooperate. Scifi and/or universal systems are outside our scope, way too complicated!

Except that wasn't my point. I was illustrating how the goals of the system, what is engaging the player, is important to stats. Because you can put down as many as you want.

For example a game with attributes of Strength, Vitality, Dexterity, Agility, Intelligence and Magic should have different mechanical goals and assumptions from D&D's Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma system. They're presenting vastly different profiles to the player.

[kerplunksploosh]

Eh, I wouldn't say your example would really be all that far off from traditional D&D. I don't even think freakycheese's tristat model is all that far off from traditional D&D. Your example would probably be better for a game that assumes more thieving/crafting (because of the breakdown of Dexterity and Agility), with a bit of innate magic in everyone (Xanthian, perhaps). It's different, but not vastly different...

D&D tries to be a general system for a fantasy setting, sure. Within a certain scope, a general system works just fine. If a group wants to play a Harry Potter type game, the necessary stats would be different... but not hugely different. Strength (for times that you don't have magic), Dexterity (for potion brewing and wand reaction time), and Intelligence would still be useful. They'd also be useful in a magicless fantasy game. I can see a D&D type general system working just fine for either end of the spectrum, although I can't see it working alongside lightsabers and planetary bombardment.

Someone mentioned FATE and its statless system. I can imagine it working, but as I have no experience with it, could someone chime in with its strengths and weaknesses? That's probably the last hurrah for this particular topic, before going into Alignment, And Other Personality Devices! (dun dun dun)

[JCarter426]

I agree the applicability of stats largely depends on the setting. Charisma feels even more out of place in Star Wars than it does in D&D (though my experience with Star Wars d20 is limited only to the video games.) And custom stats could really add flavor to the system. An Avatar RPG, for example, would work well with the four elements as stats; I also have an idea for a system based on the seven deadly sins. But I do try to aim for a universal system - and I mean more than just fantasy; I'd like a truly universal system like GURPS, but not like GURPS at all because I disagree with a lot of the design choices.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

I agree the applicability of stats largely depends on the setting. Charisma feels even more out of place in Star Wars than it does in D&D (though my experience with Star Wars d20 is limited only to the video games.) And custom stats could really add flavor to the system. An Avatar RPG, for example, would work well with the four elements as stats; I also have an idea for a system based on the seven deadly sins. But I do try to aim for a universal system - and I mean more than just fantasy; I'd like a truly universal system like GURPS, but not like GURPS at all because I disagree with a lot of the design choices.

I don't think you're going to achieve that - not if you want them balanced, anyway. Depending on the setting, Strength may be pivotal, or it may be completely useless; intelligence may be reasonable for one stat, or it may be so all-important that it requires several.

If you're trying for a universal system, I'd go in the opposite direction; try to make stats less a core part of the system, and more like weapons or spells, things that change based on the particular setting.

[JCarter426]

Well, maybe, but that won't stop me from trying. :smallwink:

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Well, maybe, but that won't stop me from trying. :smallwink:

You might consider one of the ideas I toyed around with a bit; rather than having the character determine what stats are used for what, have it be a function of the action itself.

So, for instance, a dagger would automatically add DEX to attack, not STR. Each spell would have its own casting stat, etc. That way, stats would still be relevant, but it would be much more fluid to change them out, or add new ones, based on the setting.

[JCarter426]

Those are good points, but I don't want to make it too complicated. It's harder if you have to learn new rules for every item in addition to learning the item.

The idea is simplicity adds to applicability. For example, any system with combat must have some form of attack modifiers, so Dexterity, whatever it ends up being called, is always going to applicable. By limiting the stat choices to the most basic needs, it should reduce any translation problems. The three mental attributes are troublesome, though. I do like the symmetry, but they aren't all relevant even in some fantasy settings, so for a setting without magic they would be especially redundant.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Those are good points, but I don't want to make it too complicated. It's harder if you have to learn new rules for every item in addition to learning the item.

The idea is simplicity adds to applicability. For example, any system with combat must have some form of attack modifiers, so Dexterity, whatever it ends up being called, is always going to applicable. By limiting the stat choices to the most basic needs, it should reduce any translation problems. The three mental attributes are troublesome, though. I do like the symmetry, but they aren't all relevant even in some fantasy settings, so for a setting without magic they would be especially redundant.

That could be a good argument for Perception as a mental stat. It's one of the few things that is pretty relevant in any setting.

[JCarter426]

Eh, true. I've been leaning towards it for a while now, but I'm still wrestling with it. It could, as you say, count as an attack and defense modifier, and I'd love to see a video game with dynamic aural and visual input based on your character's senses. However, I get caught up in the specifics.

[kerplunksploosh]

I discovered Crusader Kings 2 :(

Well, with no more to say about stats, moving onto alignment and other personality mechanics. Here's the first big push away from D&D (and these mechanics will probably be more universal in roleplaying, no matter the genre).

Alignment was one of the first attempts at a personality mechanic. I'm fairly neutral about it (har har), partly because it has two axes, and most morality systems nowadays only have one... so it has that much going for it. It is ambiguous, which could be a good or bad thing by itself, but the only teeth I've seen with the mechanic make it bad. Losing all of your experience for the level, losing class abilities (even if justified)... these are harsh penalties for something vague, and that just leads to arguing, which is not in line with the goal of 'Player and GM cooperative storytelling'. Worse, such harsh penalties actually discourage character growth and subtlety.

I want to like Alignment as a thought experiment. I think the division of law/chaos and good/evil are natural breaks, and it makes a handy guide to if certain factions would affiliate. But beyond that, I don't think it has much use as a game mechanic.
--
I've also seen something called the Three by Three. List three allies, three enemies, three neutral contacts, and hand it to the DM. This doesn't inherently do much for role-playing, but it does help give PCs, oh, I don't know, families, relatives, lovers, and friends, as well as rivals and feuds. Fleshing that out for a player indirectly helps play a character better. However, like Alignment, it doesn't have much in the way of teeth, AND it's largely up to the DM to keep them straight and introduce them into the narrative. I could write at length about my dwarf's clan, but if the adventure takes us away from that, then all I've done is write more character history. Nice, but not significantly useful. Unless I've added an NPC that I know will be useful AND is close by, I won't seek him out--it's extra DM burden.
--
I believe Exhalted has Virtues. Temperance, Compassion, Valor, and Humility. You have so many points you can spend in them (or elsewhere if you wish to be immoral). If a situation arises that calls for great valor, you roll against your Valor score and if you fail, you run away. I like this setup, but Valor seemed to be far more useful than the others... and the others could actually be purely negative (A destitute thief who is otherwise righteous asks you for sanctuary. Roll compassion and you have to provide). If the virtues were more balanced in utility, and/or provided advantages as well as disadvantages at each stage, players would think about how they want to play their character first, and then would be strongly encouraged by the mechanics to play that way, of their own accord. Oh, and I forgot - It works. If you have poor Valor, you don't get into fights that you have a chance of losing.

I've played around with a couple of ideas for personality mechanics myself, but first I should ask, "Is this even necessary?" Is it just my group that sees certain archetypes built over and over, either because it suits the personality of the player, or because it's optimal given the game system? Isn't that boring and un-fun? Is using personality mechanics the best way to address this?

[FreakyCheeseMan]

So, pros and cons on alignment. First, the cons.

Cons

Alignment is ambiguous; different players can define different acts in their own way.
Alignment is setting-dependent. In some settings, it may make sense; in others, it may not.
Alignment is over-simplified.
Alignment isn't needed. People can role-play without it.
Tying abilities or class features to particular alignments penalizes people for character development.


Pros

Alignment provides a hook towards getting people to consider their character's personality, rather than just mechanics.
Alignment provides a simple, unified language for describing players.
Game-wide alignment restriction (No Evil) can be used to prevent games getting bogged down by in-party conflict.

[JCarter426]

Just one thing to add in favor, from a purely mechanical point of view: alignment works well with magical items. Whether it be user restriction or a special damage type, it's a simple mechanic that's easy to justify in universe, and fits with a lot of mythology, such as holy swords and talismans for warding off evil.

But I could go without alignment. I think the point of a game with an alignment system should be to force you to question your choices, not to reward or punish you for following or straying from a specific alignment.