Skills/attributes 2

Here it is: does effective character design in an RPG need BOTH quantified skills AND quantified characteristics?

And let me clarify: yes, Sorcerer has "skills," in the form of the Cover. Yes, Amber has "skills," in the form of Warfare. Yes, Everway has "skills" in the form of specialties. Yes, Over the Edge has "skills" in the form of one or more attributes. BUT! None of them uses a NEW mechanic to quantify them -- skills in all of these RPGs are "another characteristic" and use the same characteristic-based mechanism to determine success or failure.

Same applies in reverse for lots of other games: Castle Falkenstein, Zero, and others all have NO CHARACTERISTICS, just skill lists. And yes, sometimes a given skill seems a lot like an attribute, like Brawn in Zero, for example. But again, in numerical terms, such things are treated exactly as "another skill."

My claim/suggestion is that an RPG does indeed do well to define a PC with one or the other method -- but that having BOTH (two separate sets of numbers, often at different scales, each of which are usually combined in some way to determine how "good" you are at something) is actually obstructive. I think it cannot help but contribute to mini-maxing and other abuses.

Exceptions (very weird, non-traditional ways to resolve actions using skills and characteristics): Talislanta, Shattered Dreams, Ars Magica (1st ed). More on these later if necessary.

All opinions and comments are welcome!

RICH:
I've got to say I like Attributes AND Skills, Ron. Everybody has strength, agility, health, intelligence. These are universal, and a game should provide some metric for comparing them among characters. On the other hand, skills are much more individualized, and substituting them for universal characteristics jars my suspension of disbelief.

CAVEAT EMPTOR: I'm a "reality-based" gamer...I generally prefer GURPS, CORPS, etc. to more free-form games.

GARETH:
> Here it is: does effective character design in an RPG need BOTH quantified skills AND quantified characteristics? > > And let me clarify: yes, Sorcerer has "skills," in the form of the Cover. Yes, Amber has "skills," in the form of Warfare. Yes, Everway has "skills" in the form of specialties. Yes, Over the Edge has "skills" in the form of one or more attributes. BUT! None of them uses a NEW mechanic to quantify them -- skills in all of these RPGs are "another characteristic" and use the same characteristic-based mechanism to determine success or failure. > > Same applies in reverse for lots of other games: Castle Falkenstein, Zero, and others all have NO CHARACTERISTICS, just skill lists. And yes, sometimes a given skill seems a lot like an attribute, like Brawn in Zero, for example. But again, in numerical terms, such things are treated exactly as "another skill." > > My claim/suggestion is that an RPG does indeed do well to define a PC with one or the other method -- but that having BOTH (two separate sets of numbers, often at different scales, each of which are usually combined in some way to determine how "good" you are at something) is actually obstructive. I think it cannot help but contribute to mini-maxing and other abuses.

Hmm...personally, I think there should be certain basic traits that everyone has some ranking in. Strength is an obvious one. Everyone can lift things, but some can lift bigger things than others. Stats are basically a baseline set of skills that everyone possesses.

I still prefer stat+skill systems though. They feel more realistic, create more...concrete characters. My problem with skill-only characxters is that they feel like they are composed solely of the basic idea of the character, and have nothing outside that basic concept. Example: I'm going to play an investigative journalist. In a skill-only game, I'd just have stuff like writing, phtography, fast talk, connections etc. In a stat+skill game, I'd have all that, as well as some idea of how strong, fast, smart etc, the character was. More detail in characters is ALWAYS good, imho.

JARED:
> Hmm...personally, I think there should be certain basic traits that > everyone has some ranking in. Strength is an obvious one. Everyone can > lift things, but some can lift bigger things than others. Stats are > basically a baseline set of skills that everyone possesses.

I don't think stats and/or skills are necessary. I've been futzing with two games now that kinda toy with the standard stat + skill thang...one is a futuristic game where genetic engineering has made everyone virtually equal in ability and social stratification has divided the work force into different camps (Management, sales & marketing, R&D and "Implementation") so skills are dependant not on personal achievement in those areas but rather which cell you work for. In that game, the 4 "attributes" (one for each work group, natch) define not what you can do (run fast, fight, speak persuasively, etc.) but how well you manage your capabilities (it's waaaay abstract...blame my friend Jon...it's his idea).

The other game is a psychological/fantasy game where all the characters are basically the same because they're all young kids (yeah, I know some kids are naturally bigger/smarter/cuter than others but this isn't a simulation, it's a game...). Therefore, there are only three "Qualities" that matter -- courage, imagination and luck...

GARETH:
> > Hmm...personally, I think there should be certain basic traits that > > everyone has some ranking in. Strength is an obvious one. Everyone can > > lift things, but some can lift bigger things than others. Stats are > > basically a baseline set of skills that everyone possesses. >

> I don't think stats and/or skills are necessary. I've been futzing with two > games now that kinda toy with the standard stat + skill thang...one is a > futuristic game where genetic engineering has made everyone virtually equal > in ability and social stratification has divided the work force into > different camps (Management, sales & marketing, R&D and "Implementation") so > skills are dependant not on personal achievement in those areas but rather > which cell you work for. In that game, the 4 "attributes" (one for each > work group, natch) define not what you can do (run fast, fight, speak > persuasively, etc.) but how well you manage your capabilities (it's waaaay > abstract...blame my friend Jon...it's his idea). >

> The other game is a psychological/fantasy game where all the characters are > basically the same because they're all young kids (yeah, I know some kids > are naturally bigger/smarter/cuter than others but this isn't a simulation, > it's a game...). Therefore, there are only three "Qualities" that matter -- > courage, imagination and luck... >

Hmm..both of those games, though, could use stat+skill systems. In addition to courage, imagination and luck, you could add catapult firing, climbing etc...to differentiate more between kids. I guess stat+skill adds an extra level of detail, whihc may or may not be appropriate for a game.

GRIMTOOTH:
> My claim/suggestion is that an RPG does indeed do well to define a PC with > one or the other method -- but that having BOTH (two separate sets of numbers, > often at different scales, each of which are usually combined in some way to > determine how "good" you are at something) is actually obstructive. I think > it cannot help but contribute to mini-maxing and other abuses.

I think a good game needs both. There are people who have never played a sport, say tennis, but are at the skill of an average experienced tennis player their first game. These people with the same training, end up being far better at the sport. They just have a natural skill in the area of agility and maybe speed. I've always liked this idea. I mean, a cocky cardplayer may challange an NPC because his skill in cards is exceptional, but the NPC beats him because his high intelligence caught bluffs and such from the player.

RAN:
> Here it is: does effective character design in an RPG need BOTH quantified > skills AND quantified characteristics? >

[...] >

> My claim/suggestion is that an RPG does indeed do well to define a PC with > one or the other method -- but that having BOTH (two separate sets of > numbers, often at different scales, each of which are usually combined in > some way to determine how "good" you are at something) is actually > obstructive. I think it cannot help but contribute to mini-maxing and > other abuses. >

[...] >

> All opinions and comments are welcome! >

Well all right then... :)

I think Ron's claim has, um... partial validity. *IF* (and I can't emphasize that "if" enough) one's prime directive in designing a game is a particular model of efficiency that involves fluid, simplified, quick mechanics, then yes, I agree that one should use either a set of stats OR a set of skills.

However...

Not everyone always favors a quick and fluid approach. Why? Well, I'm sure there's a thousand different answers to that question. I'll try to supply only one.

Those of you familiar with DragonQuest know it was designed by a team of people who were well-versed in designing wargames, and much of DragonQuest is very codified, very wargame-like. Now, there are certain kinds of stories that DQ would be ill-suited to develop, but some types of scenarios work well with it -- and better, I believe, than a more fluid, "single"-based set of mechanics (DQ having the traditional stats & skills setup). Believe it or not, some folks actually like delving into wargaming aspects while engaging in a fantasy roleplaying game, and DQ suits those people well. As with most things, it's a question of taste and style.

I should mention that I think this question ultimately relates to the question of "What is the purpose of playing a RPG?" If streamlined storytelling is your sole aim, then you're going to lean towards a certain variety of game mechanics. If other things have importance in your game, then you might look in other directions -- but that's a line of thought for another post.

RON EDWARDS:
Ran wrote,

>I think Ron's claim has, um... partial validity. *IF* (and I can't >emphasize that "if" enough) one's prime directive in designing a game is a >particular model of efficiency that involves fluid, simplified, quick >mechanics, then yes, I agree that one should use either a set of stats OR a >set of skills.

There it is -- I definitely agree that my claim makes sense ONLY in the context of a narrativist system that minimizes all other (simulationist, gamist) elements in order to maximize narrativism.

>Not everyone always favors a quick and fluid approach. Why? Well, I'm sure >there's a thousand different answers to that question.

The DQ example is a good one, but how does this sound? (1) Gamism absolutely requires the potential for strategy. This is a factor in character creation as well as resolution, that is, people like to be able to set-up in their favor as well as "play" competitively.

So my OBSERVATION about stats + skills works fine; it's just that Gamists like it that way -- i.e., with potential for mini-maxing, which from that perspective is raw material for strategic advantage.

(2) How about Simulationists? Here's where the point raised earlier matters: a simulationist is uncomfortable with the idea that having the skill "Blacksmith" at a certain level simply carries with it brawny arms. Or that having a high physical score and a vague concept-statement "blacksmith guy" provides the character with all kinds of unspecified skills regarding horses, bargaining, grades of metal, and so on. No! says the simulationist, I want a score for every one of those, so this guy is "explained" by the system just right.

>I should mention that I think this question ultimately relates to the >question of "What is the purpose of playing a RPG?"

Sorcerer is certainly written for players/GMs with a very specific answer to this question: Narrativism. So let's re-cast my claim and continue the discussion. Given that Ran is absolutely correct in pointing out my bias -- OK, from exactly that perspective, why have skills AND stats in the way I described?

And let's keep it from being purely theoretical by using examples: anyone who's played Castle Falkenstein, Over the Edge, Everway, Amber, Zero ... what do you think? What was lost or gained by ignoring numbers for stats-or-skills? How does that compare with the usual setup?

RON EDWARDS:
Grimtooth wrote,

>There are people who have never played a >sport, say tennis, but are at the skill of an average experienced tennis >player their first game. These people with the same training, end up being >far better at the sport. They just have a natural skill in the area of >agility and maybe speed. I've always liked this idea. I mean, a cocky >cardplayer may challange an NPC because his skill in cards is exceptional, >but the NPC beats him because his high intelligence caught bluffs and such >from the player.

Well, let's take Sorc for an example. There you'd have a guy matching his high Will against the other guy's Cover (e.g. Gambler). As a GM, I might provide a penalty on this, especially if it were on the gambler's turf, but it's certainly possible - the rules allow the scenario above to happen with no problem.

Same goes for (e.g.) Castle Falkenstein, a skills-only system. In that game, whatever skill you DON'T have at a stated level (Excellent, Poor, etc), you automatically have at "average." So the non-gambler guy might get a good draw of diamonds (= roll for mental performance, in other games; CF uses playing cards) and so hose the gambler. Or maybe he simply changes the confrontation by matching his high skill at Psychology to the gambler's average skill, which is pretty much what is described above.

See? The idea is that a characteristics-only system or a skills-only system does NOT prevent that scene from occurring. In fact, in practice, I've found it's the traditionally-designed games (GURPS being the most obvious example) in which the players can't improvise well and merely scan up and down their sheets to discover what they're "allowed" to do. The Sorcerer (Amber, Over the Edge, Everway) method or the Castle Falkenstein (Zero) method permit lots more imaginative and flexible ways to deal with threats, I think.

I know I've over-generalized a little there, and that I'll be inundated with cries of protest -- but let's try comparing actual play situations from actual systems. I'm very interested in what people's experiences have to teach us.

GRIMTOOTH:
> Well, let's take Sorc for an example. There you'd have a guy matching his > high Will against the other guy's Cover (e.g. Gambler). As a GM, I might > provide a penalty on this, especially if it were on the gambler's turf, but > it's certainly possible - the rules allow the scenario above to happen with > no problem.

Actually, despite what I said, I think Sorcerer'd be better with only Stats. ::shrugs::

RAN:
> > > Hmm...personally, I think there should be certain basic traits that > > > everyone has some ranking in. Strength is an obvious one. Everyone can > > > lift things, but some can lift bigger things than others. Stats are > > > basically a baseline set of skills that everyone possesses.

> Hmm..both of those games, though, could use stat+skill systems. In > addition to courage, imagination and luck, you could add catapult firing, > climbing etc...to differentiate more between kids. I guess stat+skill adds > an extra level of detail, whihc may or may not be appropriate for a game.

Several people have responded with similar thoughts... I have to throw in that I think you can have that level of detail without using a stat+skill system. Over The Edge is a good example of a system that uses "traits" in character generation, particularly in regards to the Central Trait, which represents a major set of life experiences (often a "career" or "profession," but definitely not limited to that line of thinking), which can encompass heightened physical abilities, specialized knowledge, skills, unusual abilities, etc. Amazing detail can be accomplished without having an established set of stats to go along with one's skills.

RAN:
> And let's keep it from being purely theoretical by using examples: anyone > who's played Castle Falkenstein, Over the Edge, Everway, Amber, Zero ... > what do you think? What was lost or gained by ignoring numbers for > stats-or-skills? How does that compare with the usual setup? >

Although I characterize myself as none of Ron's categories, as previously discussed, I see great advantages in a system like Over The Edge's. One weakness here -- and a comment Ron will surely interpret as shamelessly Gamist ;) -- has to do with "tactical situations." You and your PC buddies are running around a forest, a castle, or a city block with the intent of doing mayhem of some flavor upon NPC persons, who are likely trying to return the favor.

Using a narrativist perspective, there are no "specifics" of the situation: a player might say "I leap up from cover and run towards Mr. X, with the intent of hitting him over the head." The GM judges whether the character is close enough to Mr. X to do that in one round or turn or whatever, and informs the player.

Many players are uncomfortable with this, because they need to *see* the layout of the area in order to act appropriately. It's not a question of trusting the GM to provide the necessary information: it's just that some folks need the visual input.

Of course, there are problems with having a "tactical map," esp. those relating to players being able to see things that their characters aren't able to see, but that's another story.

RON EDWARDS:
Ran wrote,

>One >weakness here -- and a comment Ron will surely interpret as shamelessly >Gamist ;) -- has to do with "tactical situations."

...

>Many players are uncomfortable with this, because they need to *see* the >layout of the area in order to act appropriately. It's not a question of >trusting the GM to provide the necessary information: it's just that some >folks need the visual input.

Good point! Let's run with this -- because such tactical considerations, and ORGANIZING THEM DURING PLAY, does indeed often have narrative value. So! It's getting off the characteristics vs. skills issue, into more of a narrativism-in-general issue, but let's check it out ...

Tactical stuff -- when is it worth it? How can it be run from a narrativist bias -- which means, without gumming up story flow and making sure players get to contribute? Again, I'm thinking examples. What games do this well?

(Rolemaster surely does NOT. A fellow player timed it once, during actual play. It took five and a half minutes of real time for the GM to determine the result of slinging a stone across a stream. He thought this was fun role-playing; we were paralyzed by the conflicting demands of killing him and killing ourselves.)