Skills/attributes

Does an RPG ever need BOTH characteristic scores AND skill scores? Sorcerer is built similarly to Amber, Over the Edge, Everway, and the old Fantasy Trip, in that any skills known or assumed to be known by the character are handled straight off characteristic scores. There is no formal skill list. (all of these games have at least an adjective or two to describe the character's field of expertise, providing some limits)

The other way to go, which is to have ONLY a skill list and no characteristics at all, as in Castle Falkenstein, Zero, and a few others. (all of these games do sneak in a descriptor or two such as Brawn or Charisma, but they're handled numerically exactly as skills)

As far as I can tell, mixing these options has been a sure road to mini-max hell ever since Day 1 of RPGing. And I can see absolutely no benefit that makes up for it. Yes, I know "realistically" one is suppose to have every, last, possible, conceivable human variant written into the rules ... but who needs a weakling with battle-axe skill? (or other contradictions) If you really want to limit the character dramatically, subtract what you want gone from his abilities using Disadvantages or their equivalent.

OK, rant's over. What do you think of this idea? Can you think of any RPGs you've played where both types of descriptor really pulled their weight (I can think of 3)? **********

PATRICK: > Does an RPG ever need BOTH characteristic scores AND skill scores? >... > The other way to go, which is to have ONLY a skill list and no > characteristics at all

I think this comes down the Gamemaster's preference in his flavor of RPG. You can say that if a guy has running level 10, jumping level 8, swimming level 9, and if the average in my example is 5...then maybe you can say this player character is very ATHLETIC. It leaves much to interpretation, but it can be reasonable for a RPG that is not simulation focused, but more story focused.

> RPGs you've played where both types of descriptor really pulled their > weight (I can think of 3)?

Hmmmmm. Traveller? **********

RON EDWARDS: >> RPGs you've played where both types of descriptor really pulled their >> weight (I can think of 3)? > >Hmmmmm. Traveller?

Traveller's been through several incarnations, so I'll go back through them to see ... I had in mind the following: - Shattered Dreams. In this game, both characteristics and skills are rated at 1-12 and (with a minor conversion) rolled on a d12. So to do something, you roll 2d12 and check 1 die vs. the skill and the other vs. the characteristic. If you succeed at both, you aced it; if you blow both, you fail miserably; if you get the characteristic only, you barely make it; if you get the skill only, you barely miss it. - Talislanta. In this game, characteristics are only modifiers to skill rolls -- in other words, you have "+2 strength" which plays no game roll at all unless you're performing a strength-based skill, in which case you get a +2 on your roll.

Anyway, in case it wasn't clear from my earlier post, I think EITHER skill-only OR characteristic-only works really well. ********

RAVEN: >Does an RPG ever need BOTH characteristic scores AND skill scores?

I'll answer this with a resounding "Yes"! I can't see a game system without either, and when I do see one, I immediately add the missing element in, in the most convenient way possible. Course, "does it need them" and "does it handle them well" are two different questions...

>As far as I can tell, mixing these options has been a sure road to mini-max >hell ever since Day 1 of RPGing. And I can see absolutely no benefit that >makes up for it.

Other than that of definition? That just because a character happens to have a genius-level intelligence they aren't a brain-surgeon? Or that just because they're a brain-surgeon with a PhD, it doesn't mean they aren't a raving idiot?

>Yes, I know "realistically" one is suppose to have every, >last, possible, conceivable human variant written into the rules ... but >who needs a weakling with battle-axe skill?

I've know them IRL...or moreso, folks with no talent or raw ability doing things that they obviously can't do because that's what they trained themselves in. Not really a contradiction, IMO, just a poor choice.

>you really want to limit the character dramatically, subtract what you want >gone from his abilities using Disadvantages or their equivalent.

Actually, I hate disadvantages and advantages (made oh-so-popular by WW...bleah). You want to talk about munchkinizing a game, there is your ticket to the on-ramp to gaming hell. Ads and disads and such should be there because the player wants them to be there, so they can roleplay them...not for game-mechanics reasons ("I have a two-point disad...can I buy that cool ad yet?") Many a time have game-mechanics screwed up an otherwise good concept.

>OK, rant's over. What do you think of this idea? Can you think of any >RPGs you've played where both types of descriptor really pulled their >weight (I can think of 3)?

My experience with RPGs is almost completely with AD&D, which needs excuses to explain away things like why a two-hundred year old elf only knows four skills (and other assorted nonsense). Beyond that, I have played some SAGA, Immortal and mostly my own gaming system variant(s).

However, from what I have seen of other systems, "the Window" handles it well, and likely because it so loosely defines everything, including skills (which end up being defined by the player and narrator). This, I think, is possibly the best way to handle it, hands down. I have also played SAGA, which defines NO skills for the character, basing everything, pretty much, on ability scores. There are a few mechanics in there to keep all characters from doing everything they want (swing swords, cast spells and pick locks, or whatnot), but they are light enough to be ignored in many cases. Immortal has a large list of skills, and a good system for setting up which of those your character knows...however, there are some mechanics problems with them when the characters grow in supernatural power. Those bugs are being worked out last I heard, so hopefully it will handle it better in 2nd Ed. My own gaming systems tend to attempt to make skills reliant on ability, providing a bonus to them...that is: "Sure, you're smart, but if you can't count, those smarts are of limited use." The effect I try to generate is that characters have a basic raw talent with certain things, but in order to utilize that (in most cases) to an effective degree, they need to be trained; and their training is going to be limited to particular types of skill with that ability. It balances out.

However, in the final analysis, I do not like games where everything is based around a character's attributes and skills are loosely defined or non-existant. For example, I make a character: "I'm Jack the Strong." Well, Jack-the-Strong, can you smith? How well? Are you athletic? Can you climb mountains or swim? Ever built a house or repaved a street? Are you a grunt or a trade-apprenctice? Ever swung a sledge-hammer?

Anyways, I hope you see my point...by the time you get around to answering these questions, and things like this will come up, you might as well have a skill list. If you don't, you might as well hand the PCs a platter of weighted d6's because their character will be able to do damn-near everything when the situation calls for it ("Yeah, he went to college and learned alot of stuff" or "...well, see, his uncle was a gardener...his father was a smith...his mother taught him reading...his brother was a soldier...his sister showed him needlepoint..." or rather, "Swordmaster today, gourmet chef tomorrow!") **************

RON EDWARDS: >>Does an RPG ever need BOTH characteristic scores AND skill scores?

Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan wrote: >I'll answer this with a resounding "Yes"! >I can't see a game system without either, and when I do see one, I >immediately add the missing element in,

Oh boy, controversy! Let's see if we can dissect this a little ....

Me: >>mixing these options ... I can see absolutely no benefit that >makes up for it.

>Other than that of definition? That just because a character happens to >have a genius-level intelligence they aren't a brain-surgeon? Or that just >because they're a brain-surgeon with a PhD, it doesn't mean they aren't a raving idiot?

Perhaps we're running into a crucial RPG issue here, as laid out on the roleplaying-styles website http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~jhkim/rpg/styles/newfaq1.art

According to this view, which I agree with, roleplayers are an uneasy mix of Gamist (how do I win?), Simulationist (the system must produce an imaginary reality), and Dramatist (all is subordinate to making a good story). A given individual tends to one of these fairly heavily, in my experience. More importantly, a given RPG tends to be written to satisfy only one or one-and-a-half of them. None of these is the "right" way to play ... but people with different expectations and priorities are going to have a hard time playing together, and a game that tries to satisfy one approach will not be fun for people with another (and a game that tries to satisfy all three usually ends up being incoherent).

I confess to being a thoroughgoing dramatist. My question is not, "CAN a person be a dumb rocket scientist," but rather, "What are good rocket-scientist characters like IN STORIES?" Sorcerer is certainly written from this perspective, not from the "universal system" ideal to generate any and all possible types of human from the rules.

>I've know them IRL...or moreso, folks with no talent or raw ability doing >things that they obviously can't do because that's what they trained >themselves in. Not really a contradiction, IMO, just a poor choice.

That such a possibility exists in the real world is undisputed, and conceivably in many a game world. From a Simulationist perspective, therefore, a game system is remiss unless it takes such people into account. My apologies if I've misread you, but the POV I'm reading here is coming from that perspective. (which is not bad! Just different from a Dramatist's)

>Actually, I hate disadvantages and advantages (made oh-so-popular by >WW...bleah). >You want to talk about munchkinizing a game, there is your ticket to the >on-ramp to gaming hell. >Ads and disads and such should be there because the player wants them to be >there, so they can roleplay them...not for game-mechanics reasons ("I have >a two-point disad...can I buy that cool ad yet?")

Good point. As an unreconstructed Champions veteran (pre-4th edition) I well remember how out-of-hand point-crunching can get. You might be interested in Feng Shui, where a player is welcome to diminish the scores or ability of the starting archetype -- but gets no benefit for doing so.

>My experience with RPGs is almost completely with AD&D, ... Beyond that, I have played some >SAGA, Immortal and mostly my own gaming system variant(s). > >"the Window" ... it so loosely defines everything, including skills >(which end up being defined by the player and narrator). This, I think, is >possibly the best way to handle it, hands down.

Both Maelstrom and Over the Edge use what Doug Bolden calls the "loose elements" concept, that is, the actual scores/skills are defined by each player for each character (FUDGE includes this as an option as well).

>I have also played SAGA, which defines NO skills for the character, basing >everything, pretty much, on ability scores. There are a few mechanics in there to keep all characters from doing everything they want >My own gaming systems tend to attempt to make skills reliant on ability, >providing a bonus to them...that is: "Sure, you're smart, but if you can't >count, those smarts are of limited use."

Sounds a lot like Talislanta.

>However, in the final analysis, I do not like games where everything is >based around a character's attributes and skills are loosely defined or >non-existant. >For example, I make a character: "I'm Jack the Strong." Well, >Jack-the-Strong, can you smith? How well? Are you athletic? Can you >climb mountains or swim? Ever built a house or repaved a street? Are you >a grunt or a trade-apprenctice? Ever swung a sledge-hammer?

Well, this is interesting, 'cause Sorcerer is such a game. The character is faced with problem best handled physically. OK, first thing to check is the Cover: does someone with that "story identity" have the specialized skill to cope? If so, roll Cover. If not, time to check the Stamina description: athlete? combat veteran? health nut? If one applies, roll Stamina. If not, roll Stamina vs. considerably more dice (or permit the player to roll only one die vs. original difficulty).

All the characteristics-only games DO have SOME guidelines for what the PC is especially good or bad at.

>Anyways, I hope you see my point...by the time you get around to answering >these questions, and things like this will come up, you might as well have >a skill list. If you don't, you might as well hand the PCs a platter of >weighted d6's because their character will be able to do damn-near >everything when the situation calls for it

I do see your point, but here's where we disagree .... again 'cause I think my POV is biased toward Dramatist and yours (as presented here, not necessarily in your actual play, which I don't know) sounds more Simulationist. But Everway, Over the Edge, Sorcerer, TFT, and so on have taught me that there really isn't much gained by specifying skills to lists IF you've got usable numbers already from characteristics (and vice versa, from Castle F and Zero and other games). Did you find SAGA to present major problems during play?

Whew! Thanks for the discussion -- lots of food for thought here. ***********

RAVEN: >Oh boy, controversy! Let's see if we can dissect this a little ....

>According to this view, which I agree with, roleplayers are an uneasy mix >of Gamist (how do I win?), Simulationist (the system must produce an >imaginary reality), and Dramatist (all is subordinate to making a good >story). A given individual tends to one of these fairly heavily, in my

I haven't read the whole theory yet (only this small part mentioned above), but I'm tending to agree.

>interested in Feng Shui, where a player is welcome to diminish the scores >or ability of the starting archetype -- but gets no benefit for doing so.

Now that's something you see in few games (SAGA has that little rule also...you can decrease scores to play a particular race or whatnot if your scores are too high, but there's no advantage to do so (other than getting to play the race you've chosen)).

>Both Maelstrom and Over the Edge use what Doug Bolden calls the "loose >elements" concept, that is, the actual scores/skills are defined by each >player for each character (FUDGE includes this as an option as well).

I like this concept, a great deal...though I'm enough of a structure-hog to enjoy some skill lists or definitions. I hate unstructured RPing...like the on-line Inns and such (oh look, a WW Vampire meets an elder dragon of AD&D...btw, is there a storyline here, or are you all just sort of playing out some mindless, plotless soap-opera with alter-egos?)...blech..! Sorry if I offended anyone who does, but those are my feelings on them.

>>providing a bonus to them...that is: "Sure, you're smart, but if you can't >>count, those smarts are of limited use." > >Sounds a lot like Talislanta.

I have unfortunately never played Talislanta, though I've wanted to in the past, so I couldn't say.

>>climb mountains or swim? Ever built a house or repaved a street? Are you >>a grunt or a trade-apprenctice? Ever swung a sledge-hammer? > >Well, this is interesting, 'cause Sorcerer is such a game. The character >is faced with problem best handled physically. OK, first thing to check is >the Cover: does someone with that "story identity" have the specialized >skill to cope? If so, roll Cover. If not, time to check the Stamina

Now, this handles the problem a little bit. I, personally, would write up a short list of skills that each common Cover might have access to, by no means a complete or restrictive list, (and I admidt it's been awhile since I read through my copy of Sorcerer (Bad Raven! Bad!)) along with determining if a given characteristic would help out the Cover roll.

>I do see your point, but here's where we disagree .... again 'cause I think >my POV is biased toward Dramatist and yours (as presented here, not >necessarily in your actual play, which I don't know) sounds more >Simulationist.

In play, I'm definitely a Dramatist...however, I'm probably more of a Simulationist/Dramatist if I go from the way I play my AD&D character (sure, he's a knight; no, he doesn't have the disguse or hiding in shadows skills...but he does them anyways, and fairly commonly, and almost always successfully...it is a sort of unspoken agreement that those are part of the character's repitoire). Maybe saying, "I like my rules realistic (for a given paradigm), and I like my games to have story" is the best way to describe it.

>But Everway, Over the Edge, Sorcerer, TFT, and so on have

TFT?

>taught me that there really isn't much gained by specifying skills to lists >IF you've got usable numbers already from characteristics (and vice versa, >from Castle F and Zero and other games). Did you find SAGA to present >major problems during play?

Actually, I've found it to be one of the best systems I've ever used. I'd take it over AD&D any day, and I've spent more than one night converting systems into it. I just recently wrote up the rules for using it in a Dark Sun game and put (most) of them on my webpage. The basic premises are bare enough and simple that you can tack things on and alter things without screwing up the entire system, and it works for every system/style the discussion group has tested it with (heroic fantasy, gothic fantasy, superhero, space opera and modern horror). I think there are some minor problems with it, but a very little work more than irons them out.

>Whew! Thanks for the discussion -- lots of food for thought here.

Definitely! :) And I think that we agree more than we disagree, we're just a little more biased towards our polarities. ***********

RON EDWARDS: Raven wrote, >I hate unstructured RPing...like >the on-line Inns and such (oh look, a WW Vampire meets an elder dragon of >AD&D...btw, is there a storyline here, or are you all just sort of playing >out some mindless, plotless soap-opera with alter-egos?)...blech..! >Sorry if I offended anyone who does, but those are my feelings on them.

Sure didn't offend me. I'm with you; I call it "poncing about in capes." It's the main reason I avoid e.g. the Amber MUSH or anything like it.

>I, personally, would write up >a short list of skills that each common Cover might have access to, by no >means a complete or restrictive list

That's not a bad idea, although I was hoping my Fenster examples in Chapter 6 would do the job.

>Maybe saying, "I like my rules realistic (for a given paradigm), and I like >my games to have story" is the best way to describe it.

Ever run into problems during play because these ambitions occasionally conflict?

>TFT?

The Fantasy Trip, 1980, originally the Microgames Melee and Wizard (1977-8). From Metagaming, run by Howard Thompson; written by (surprise!) Steve Jackson, outstanding illustrations by Liz Danforth. Arguably one of the most influential games EVER (the first non-rolled character system, the first 3d6 system ... basically the unacknowledged foundation for Champions (1981), which in turn became the model for GURPS (1986), which then was the model for 4th edition Champions (1989), etc).

Question for others: where do YOU stand in the Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist trichotomy?

Ron ***********

RAN: > Question for others: where do YOU stand in the > Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist trichotomy? > Ron, could you define those terms for the people in the back row? ***********

RON EDWARDS: >> Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist trichotomy? >> >Ron, could you define those terms for the people in the back row?

Gamist: priority is to win a contest. Interested in "fairness" but also in rules that provide advantages to the cunning. Narrativist: priority is to get a story created and told. Fairly comfortable with "GM says so" as a major game mechanic. Simulationist: priority is for the RPG system to "produce" a functional reality using the mechanics alone. Often concerned with "realism" at least in terms of the given world's parameters.

This PARTICULAR set of jargon isn't mine to claim as author. Here's the link to check out the original: http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~jhkim/rpg/styles/newfaq1.art

Figure I'll put this link up at the Sorcerer site today; something tells me it'll be referred to again.

Important point: these terms can apply to players, but I believe they also apply to RPG design, in the sense that the authors ALWAYS have unspoken assumptions about these priorities. I would say ... - Gamist: Rifts, Throwing Stones (in arena sub-group of rules) - Narrativist: Everway, Prince Valiant, The Whispering Vault ACE="Arial,Helvetica">- Simulationist: GURPS, DC Heroes, Pendragon

(I'm admittedly a biased Narrativist) ***********

RAVEN: >>a short list of skills that each common Cover might have access to, by no >>means a complete or restrictive list > >That's not a bad idea, although I was hoping my Fenster examples in Chapter >6 would do the job.

If it is in the Master rules, I'm out-of-luck...I haven't ordered my copy yet (waiting for a paycheck). And glancing at the pre-published copy I picked up, there is no chapter six Hence, I can't comment.

>>Maybe saying, "I like my rules realistic (for a given paradigm), and I like >>my games to have story" is the best way to describe it. > >Ever run into problems during play because these ambitions occasionally >conflict?

Actually, and I suppose surprisingly on your end, none that I recall. Just because I can't jump over the ten-foot high wall in a single bound doesn't destroy the story, unless, of course, you have a bad DM who writes horribly *structured, linear adventures.

A good plot is flexible enough to account for all variables (especially those you can't account for)...for example, in running my AD&D game, one of the players pulled something completely unexpected, something I would never have thought of (and didn't!)...didn't ruin the story, I just threw out where the plot was going and rewrote the parts that the action affected (ended up adding alot to the story).

Just like in real life, no one can do everything, and you are often brought up short of your goals by some unexpected detail that you have to overcome...so, just as in real life, you just need to try something else to attain goal. Also, in that vein of thinking, I realize that no rules-set can ever completely and accurately reflect reality, as well as be free of odd quirks or contradictions. Sometimes they are small, and you get past them, sometimes they are big, and you rewrite the gaming system (AD&D, for example)...so when it is absolutely necessary, I reserve the right to fudge things for a better story.

I recently did this in an adventure, as the die-rolls for the party were awful (4's and 5's), and the die rolls for their enemy were consistent 17's and 20's...this would have mopped them all over the ground and killed the whole thing pretty quick, so I fudged and pretended their final, desperate blows made it through the creature's defenses.

>Question for others: where do YOU stand in the >Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist trichotomy?

You already heard from me :) ***********

RON EDWARDS: Hello, I was gonna shut up for a while, but then Raven had to go and write something really interesting.

Re: using the Cover score >If it is in the Master rules, I'm out-of-luck...I haven't ordered my copy >yet (waiting for