PDA

View Full Version : How Many Brain Lobes Would You Like?



Tequila Sunrise
2008-10-11, 10:43 AM
Do you like your character to have 3-6 different mental stats, as is usual with RPGs, or would it make your rp experience simpler/more fun to take a page from Diablo and roll them all into one stat called Energy?

The idea is that Energy represents your character's best brain lobe, so to speak, depending on his/her class and how you rp him/her. For example if your character is a D&D-esque wizard with a high Energy, it means that he has a good memory and is quick on the uptake. If your character is a con-artist rogue with a high Energy, it means that she's confident, magnetic and knows how to gain others' trust.

The Pros
--No more worries about mental dump stats. Energy would modify magical defense DCs and social/perceptive skill bonuses, so it has value for every character.
--No more arguments over differing interpretations of what each mental stat means. More freedom to rp your character's mental ability how you see fit.

The Cons
--Not good for simulationism. I should note that part of my mission statement for the RPG I'm writing is to "roughly reflect reality." As in, your 20th level character will probably die if he falls off a thousand foot precipice just like anyone else, but he can do heroic things like cut a bloody swath through an army of orcs.

Opinions appreciated,
TS

AstralFire
2008-10-11, 10:59 AM
I think 1-2 is the optimal amount. The more categories you provide, the more arbitrary each one of them seems to get, since well, the brain is currently well beyond that kind of categorization. Will and Clarity are a common split. Mine uses Morale/Energy (Spirit) and Self-Control/Will (Composure), with everything else being left up to flavor.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-11, 11:04 AM
I'm in favor of an even split between mental, physical, and social stats. The mental stats I'd use, personally, are intelligence, knowledge, perception, and willpower.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-11, 12:03 PM
None.

Pendragon's ability scores/attributes are my favorites. Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Size, and Appearance. Representing intelligence, charisma, etc. as attributes is silly, when they're actually sets of learned skills and behaviors. (That's why we have "intelligences" rather than "intelligence.")

AstralFire
2008-10-11, 12:12 PM
...Your physical attributes are also shaped by your life, though. Just as much as your mental ones.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-11, 12:59 PM
...Your physical attributes are also shaped by your life, though. Just as much as your mental ones.

Yes, but things like hit points, damage, etc. are less easily modelled with skills. "Intelligence" is an empty term, but "general health" and "height and weight" are attributes that are not learned.

The exclusion of intelligence (compared to other Chaosium games) is the big leap in Pendragon; it's one of the most annoying attributes in any game, because it doesn't actually correspond to anything at all.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-11, 01:01 PM
Yes, but things like hit points, damage, etc. are less easily modelled with skills. "Intelligence" is an empty term, but "general health" and "height and weight" are attributes that are not learned.

The exclusion of intelligence (compared to other Chaosium games) is the big leap in Pendragon; it's one of the most annoying attributes in any game, because it doesn't actually correspond to anything at all.

Tell that to Call of Cthulhu investigator.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-11, 01:09 PM
Tell that to Call of Cthulhu investigator.

That's the thing. It serves no purpose in Call of Cthulhu except to determine past experience, and to give you an Idea roll. The attribute itself is useless, and Idea rolls could be replaced with the relevant skill or Luck rolls in almost any circumstance. "Intelligence" stands for "experience," which translates to "skills."

AstralFire
2008-10-11, 01:17 PM
Yes, but things like hit points, damage, etc. are less easily modelled with skills. "Intelligence" is an empty term, but "general health" and "height and weight" are attributes that are not learned.

The exclusion of intelligence (compared to other Chaosium games) is the big leap in Pendragon; it's one of the most annoying attributes in any game, because it doesn't actually correspond to anything at all.

I agree that intelligences and charisma are difficult to model properly, yes, hence why I don't even try. I do think some things are easier to represent though. (Willpower and mental endurance, for example! :smalltongue:)

bosssmiley
2008-10-11, 01:25 PM
None.

Pendragon's ability scores/attributes are my favorites. Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Size, and Appearance. Representing intelligence, charisma, etc. as attributes is silly, when they're actually sets of learned skills and behaviors. (That's why we have "intelligences" rather than "intelligence.")

I broadly agree with this (if not with Tsoltha-lanti's reasoning). GURPS did similar IIRC: Str, Dex, Health and Willpower.

As for the Intelligence and Charisma elements of a character, my personal preference when designing a fantasy heartbreaker game would be to hark back to old school-style play and keep those as things dependent on player skill. Go ahead, convince the DM you deserve a roll. :smallbiggrin:

Once you open the door to Mental and - especially - Social stats you constantly run the risk of ending up with some outright bullsh*t stats (like Fading Suns' Introvert vs Extrovert or Human vs Alien opposed pairs :smallconfused: ) clogging up gameplay.

Ravens_cry
2008-10-11, 01:25 PM
Unless you start your game as a level -1 fetus, your character is going to have past experiences. And depending on your beliefs on reincarnation, even then. Intelligence is basically your book learning, and how well you are at that. Some kids can get A's easily, others struggle for a a C+.
Yes, intelligence is hard, if not impossible to quantify, but so is Charisma and Wisdom. Much of mechanics is trying to tangify the intangibles. Is this an impossible goal? In many ways, yes. But one can approximate. You the player isn't heroically strong and full of manly dexterities, and you may not be the brightest brick of the heap or the most observant. The fun of RP is playing something your not, doing things your not.

Grey Paladin
2008-10-11, 01:28 PM
That's the thing. It serves no purpose in Call of Cthulhu except to determine past experience, and to give you an Idea roll. The attribute itself is useless, and Idea rolls could be replaced with the relevant skill or Luck rolls in almost any circumstance. "Intelligence" stands for "experience," which translates to "skills."

Intelligence is not what you know- Intelligence is how fast you learn.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-11, 01:31 PM
I broadly agree with this (if not with Tsoltha-lanti's reasoning). GURPS did similar IIRC: Str, Dex, Health and Willpower.
On the other hand, one of the (few) major kludges in GURPS is using a series of advantages and disadvantages that give you +X or -Y on your reaction roll, instead of simply calling it the Charisma attribute.

If you have a good DM, intelligence and charisma scores simply work. If you don't have a good DM, such scores are the least of your problems.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-11, 01:35 PM
I broadly agree with this (if not with Tsoltha-lanti's reasoning). GURPS did similar IIRC: Str, Dex, Health and Willpower.

Naw, GURPS has ST, DX, HT, and IQ (it's the best two-letter notation for it, but the connotation that it corresponds to IQ, and that IQ corresponds to anything at all after age 15, is even more offensive). Ridiculously, IQ = Willpower, although you can vary this up and down...

Well, that's the edition I remember. The new one might be a bit different.


Unless you start your game as a level -1 fetus, your character is going to have past experiences. And depending on your beliefs on reincarnation, even then. Intelligence is basically your book learning, and how well you are at that. Some kids can get A's easily, others struggle for a a C+.

You're talking about the results of socialization and attention span now. Learned behaviors and discipline. Or IQ, maybe. IQ correlates very well with grade-school success, and with absolutely nothing after that. "Book learning" is not intelligence - book learning is represented by skills. (Various knowledge skills in various RPG systems.) Test-taking as a specific example is even worse, because that measures ability to memorize things by rote.


Yes, intelligence is hard, if not impossible to quantify, but so is Charisma and Wisdom. Much of mechanics is trying to tangify the intangibles. Is this an impossible goal? In many ways, yes. But one can approximate. You the player isn't heroically strong and full of manly dexterities, and you may not be the brightest brick of the heap or the most observant. The fun of RP is playing something your not, doing things your not.

That's why Charisma and Wisdom are just as useless attributes, best represented by skills like Perception/Spot, Sense Motive/Human Perception, Fast Talk, Intimidate, etc.

The attributes are completely unnecessary to roleplaying a clever or social character, especially when they're just simplifying what are actually learned skills into one absolute number.

(Charisma is a skillset? Heck yes. There's a huge industry built around getting people to pay in order to teach them how to be "charismatic" - to fast-talk, to persuade, to convince, to use and read body language - and it can definitely be done.)

Cuddly
2008-10-11, 01:39 PM
I don't get why intelligence is "unmeasurable" and an "empty term", when strength, dex, and con have some sort of meaning.

Take, for instance, a Yupik eskimo, who can withstand subzero temperatures, hunt caribou with a spear, and do pull-ups on a nail with his pinky, but easily dies from smallpox or gets drunk very easily.

I always wonder, when I see these statements, if the person claiming that you an measure physical stats, but not mental ones, has ever had any experience with a sport, or physicality of any kind.

If intelligence is unmeasurable, then strength, etc, must be too. Sure you can bench 215 lbs, but how does that translate into climbing a precipice or being in a sword fight?

Cuddly
2008-10-11, 01:41 PM
IQ correlates very well with grade-school success, and with absolutely nothing after that.

[Citation Needed]

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-11, 01:42 PM
If intelligence is unmeasurable, then strength, etc, must be too. Sure you can bench 215 lbs, but how does that translate into climbing a precipice or being in a sword fight?

It don't. Those are skills again.

I won't bother with the ad hominems, both because they're, you know, ad hominems, irrelevant, and impossible to respond to in any case. Rock on, champ - we're all in awe of your physical prowess on the Internet.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-11, 01:43 PM
"Book learning" is not intelligence - book learning is represented by skills.

This, however, gives the problem that one either needs an exhaustive skill system (which leads to balance problems of its own), or a way of estimating how well a character fares with a "learning" that's not on the list. The latter can plausibly be done with an intelligence or knowledge score.

Cuddly
2008-10-11, 01:46 PM
It don't. Those are skills again.

Then your strength, dex, con stats are as equally irrelevant to your cut mental stats. You know, since it's all skills.


I won't bother with the ad hominems, both because they're, you know, ad hominems, irrelevant, and impossible to respond to in any case. Rock on, champ - we're all in awe of your physical prowess on the Internet.

Then why did you resort to ad hominems? I'm not really sure why you are so upset. There are all sorts of cases where a "strong" person is weak in a bunch of other regards. My sister, for instance, can do maybe 15 push-ups, but she can climb 5.12a. I know guys who can bench 300+ pounds, and can hardly get up a flight of stairs.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-11, 01:57 PM
My sister, for instance, can do maybe 15 push-ups, but she can climb 5.12a. I know guys who can bench 300+ pounds, and can hardly get up a flight of stairs.

I believe that the only reason why climbing is considered a strength skill in D&D (as opposed to a dexterity skill like in every other game I could think of) is that otherwise there wouldn't be any strength skills :smallbiggrin:

But yeah, your example is valid. People can e.g. have eagle eyes for distance vision, but be oblivious to nearby detail. Or be an agile dancer that's nevertheless incapable of moving silently.

hamishspence
2008-10-11, 02:03 PM
Adventurers are all expected to have similar endurance, but different cargo capacity depending on Str. As in, by rules, you should be able to manage an 8 hour march, with 33lb on your back (str 10) every day for weeks on end, and Str determines the maximum you can carry without ever getting exhausted.

So, in that sense, its not just your Clean and Jerk lift load, its your Endurance March load.

But, unlike in D&D, real people are rarely if ever that good at endurance marching.

Ascension
2008-10-11, 02:04 PM
I like mental stats because they provide guidelines for playing characters who mentally aren't me. Oh, sure, I can play characters who aren't me without stats, but having numbers for it gives me a better idea of what this not-me person is mentally/socially capable of. It's obvious that the 18 CHA bard should be significantly more charming than me and the 8 INT barbarian shouldn't be coming up with complicated plans, but it's not so obvious that the 13 CHA rogue should be a bit more charming than human average, or that while you don't make a good WIS based caster at WIS 14, you are wise enough to spout off cryptic fortune cookies if you want to.

The numbers give me a baseline standard to stick to, a reminder to try to keep characterization consistent. It's not a necessary reminder, but it's still appreciated.

AstralFire
2008-10-11, 02:45 PM
@Cuddly: For similar reasons, I also leave out physical ability scores except for pain/injury endurance (Life). I just don't really like ability scores.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-10-11, 03:28 PM
Thank you all for your opinions. To clarify, the way I use abilities vs. skills is this: abilities represent your character's natural aptitude and ultra-generalized learned behavior. For example someone with a high charisma was mostly likely a talkative and outgoing person right from birth who then built on that talent during childhood and adolescence by learning general social skill boosters like "always appear confident" and "smile when talking to people." Those talents make the character generally likable, but doesn't make her exceptionally good at charisma-related specialties; aka skills. Skills represent learned behavior aimed at specific purposes. For example a character with ranks in Diplomacy has learned a large number of behaviors that really shine when she's trying to sweet-talk others like "use 'I' statements rather than 'you' statements" and "listen first, then give suggestions."

Likewise, Intelligence represents how quickly a character can [potentially] learn new information, while knowledge skills represent actual training or experience with a particular subject. Talent and experience do work best together, but they are not by any means mutually exclusive.

Also, if it matters, my list of skills will look a lot like 4e's skill list. With the notable addition of the Combat skill, and the replacement of the 'half level + ability' mechanics with a really simple skill point system.

TS

Jack Zander
2008-10-11, 03:44 PM
Thank you all for your opinions. To clarify, the way I use abilities vs. skills is this: abilities represent your character's natural aptitude and ultra-generalized learned behavior. For example someone with a high charisma was mostly likely a talkative and outgoing person right from birth who then built on that talent during childhood and adolescence by learning general social skill boosters like "always appear confident" and "smile when talking to people." Those talents make the character generally likable, but doesn't make her exceptionally good at charisma-related specialties; aka skills. Skills represent learned behavior aimed at specific purposes. For example a character with ranks in Diplomacy has learned a large number of behaviors that really shine when she's trying to sweet-talk others like "use 'I' statements rather than 'you' statements" and "listen first, then give suggestions."

Now I'm confused. This is exactly what most RPGs (including DnD) do. What's your beef now?

Tequila Sunrise
2008-10-11, 04:40 PM
Oh, I don't have a beef with the way that most RPGs handle abilities and skills. I was just clarifying for the benefit of the debaters, in case it made a difference to them.

TS

vicente408
2008-10-11, 05:59 PM
Intelligence and knowledge are two different things. The "body of experience" and learned skills/information would be considerered knowledge. Intelligence is generally defined as a person's mental ability to learn and understand. Intelligence has a biological factor; some people are naturally more capable at learning and absorbing new information and at problem-solving. Intelligence is also influenced by surroundings and experience; you can, with time, become better (or worse) at learning and thinking critically, but your "baseline" ability is something that you are born with. I'd say that it is justified in including Intelligence with other "physical" stats. Wisdom and Charisma are far more abstract, and generally only represent things that are "learned" skills. A person isn't born naturally persuasive, he or she learns what works and what doesn't when trying to convince people. Some people may be born with a mental structure that makes him or her more easily able to recognize those techniques, but it is still mostly a matter of experience. Wisdom is ever more like this, as common sense and "sagely wisdom" are entirely dependant on life experience as opposed to natural ability. You aren't born wise, you learn wisdom.

SilverClawShift
2008-10-12, 12:00 AM
my personal preference when designing a fantasy heartbreaker game would be to hark back to old school-style play and keep those as things dependent on player skill. Go ahead, convince the DM you deserve a roll. :smallbiggrin:

That's the thing. I don't really want to play a character who's crippled by stage fright and nervous in social situations. I want a character who charm their way into noble court and sway the king himself with their singing.
I also don't really want to play a character who's limited to knowing things that I allready know. I don't know how to make a suit of armor from scratch, but I hope my artificer character does.

Not trying to sound snooty, just my view.

Jack Zander
2008-10-12, 12:39 AM
Wisdom and Charisma are far more abstract, and generally only represent things that are "learned" skills. A person isn't born naturally persuasive, he or she learns what works and what doesn't when trying to convince people. Some people may be born with a mental structure that makes him or her more easily able to recognize those techniques, but it is still mostly a matter of experience. Wisdom is ever more like this, as common sense and "sagely wisdom" are entirely dependant on life experience as opposed to natural ability. You aren't born wise, you learn wisdom.

Then what about natural leaders? In elementary school the other children would follow my lead all the time, and I certainly hadn't learned any persuasive abilities at that point. Even today I get people to vote me into positions I don't even try to get. And as for Wisdom, can't someone's senses simply be sharper? Some people are naturally gullible and some simply have bad awareness, while others may have been born yesterday but sure don't act like it.

hamishspence
2008-10-12, 06:29 AM
You could say Knowledge is your RAM and Intelligence is your processing speed :smallbiggrin:

As for charisma, the "Born leader" is a common trope. It is the sort of thing that is heavily boosted by learning though.

Cuddly
2008-10-12, 01:47 PM
Intelligence and knowledge are two different things. The "body of experience" and learned skills/information would be considerered knowledge. Intelligence is generally defined as a person's mental ability to learn and understand. Intelligence has a biological factor; some people are naturally more capable at learning and absorbing new information and at problem-solving. Intelligence is also influenced by surroundings and experience; you can, with time, become better (or worse) at learning and thinking critically, but your "baseline" ability is something that you are born with. I'd say that it is justified in including Intelligence with other "physical" stats. Wisdom and Charisma are far more abstract, and generally only represent things that are "learned" skills. A person isn't born naturally persuasive, he or she learns what works and what doesn't when trying to convince people. Some people may be born with a mental structure that makes him or her more easily able to recognize those techniques, but it is still mostly a matter of experience. Wisdom is ever more like this, as common sense and "sagely wisdom" are entirely dependant on life experience as opposed to natural ability. You aren't born wise, you learn wisdom.

Sort of like natural aptitude (high wis score) and years of experience (5 ranks in spot)?

I don't get why people can't accept that intelligence has as much a biological basis as physical fitness.

Grey Paladin
2008-10-12, 02:06 PM
Cuddly: Because it tends to go against the mantra many keep hearing in Western schools and ideologies: everyone are born equal.

Ralfarius
2008-10-12, 10:28 PM
Einstein's brain is way more wrinkly than probably any of ours.

Fishy
2008-10-12, 11:08 PM
I'd come at it from a gameplay perspective than a simulation exercise. We're not neuroscientists, and even they don't have a complete picture of how the thing works.

For my money, if you're going to use statistics, White Wolf does a good deal better than D&D's kludge. They just sat down and defined the various ways that characters can compete with each other, and gave each arena three stats. Strength is physical power, Stamina is physical endurance, Dexterity is physical finesse. Presence is social power, Composure is social endurance, Manipulation is social finesse.

Intelligence is mental power, Resolve is mental endurance, Wits is mental finesse. Problem solved.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-13, 04:44 AM
Cuddly: Because it tends to go against the mantra many keep hearing in Western schools and ideologies: everyone are born equal.

That's a common fallacy which frankly is put forward by people who are somewhat less than equal in the intelligence department.

People are equal to the law. People are not identical. It is really quite okay to admit that certain people have skills that other people don't have - in fact, not recognizing this leads people to neglect their skills.

Grey Paladin
2008-10-13, 07:22 AM
I was referring to the modern West's tendency to treat eugenic philosophies as lies conjured by demons due to their association with Nazism/Racism, but go ahead and continue with the ad hominems.