Talking Characteristics

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by dracopticon

Aha! Interesting, I've never heard of the problem before being named like that.
And yes, the question is, is it possible to use with different tastes? Or is it to overbuilt? Read my reply to rust.

Erik Brickman.

Well, honestly, your explanation suggests to me that you should be looking at the skill system, not the attributes; a more general set of defaulting from extent skills strikes me as more appropriate than, effectively, increasing the attributes and then doing a lot of attribute rolls. Most of the attribute rolls in BRP (other than the Luck roll) already strike me as filling in for things that should be skills anyway.

[drohem]

Maybe look at shortening the skill list by make a few skills more broad and encompassing, rather than creating sub-divided characteristics.

Such as Athletics which would cover all physical skills like dodge, swim, climb, jump, throw, etc.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by drohem

Maybe look at shortening the skill list by make a few skills more broad and encompassing, rather than creating sub-divided characteristics.

Such as Athletics which would cover all physical skills like dodge, swim, climb, jump, throw, etc.

Which is, after all, just a different lumping/splitting issue.

[dracopticon]

Originally Posted by drohem

Maybe look at shortening the skill list by make a few skills more broad and encompassing, rather than creating sub-divided characteristics.

Such as Athletics which would cover all physical skills like dodge, swim, climb, jump, throw, etc.

Yes! Why not, that's a good idea and sounds a lot like the way I think with more powerful and encompassing attributes than more and more skills.

Erik Brickman.

[dracopticon]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Well, honestly, your explanation suggests to me that you should be looking at the skill system, not the attributes; a more general set of defaulting from extent skills strikes me as more appropriate than, effectively, increasing the attributes and then doing a lot of attribute rolls. Most of the attribute rolls in BRP (other than the anyway).

Yeah, you're probably right in some ways. If there's an effective enough skill-system things get much easier. But at the same time, why not stymie the "I can't do that because I haven't got the skill"-trends that more often than not happens? I can imagine that you can incorporate a lot of 'sub-skills' in the standard ones. But... why not make the attributes and skills into something more symbiotic than they already are? I'm striving towards it atleast, but it isn't easy.


Erik Brickman.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by dracopticon

Yeah, you're probably right in some ways. If there's an effective enough skill-system things get much easier. But at the same time, why not stymie the "I can't do that because I haven't got the skill"-trends that more often than not happens? I can imagine that you can incorporate a lot of 'sub-skills' in the standard ones. But... why not make the attributes and skills into something more symbiotic than they already are? I'm striving towards it atleast, but it isn't easy.


Erik Brickman.

Well, partly because it then means those traits can't be easily improved; on the whole in BRP, skills are the improveable parts of a character, attributes the non or hard to improve parts.

[Gnarsh]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

This is what's known as the lumping/splitting problem, and in the end it can't b e anything but "season to taste"; there's almost no defining trait for a character that can't be split down finer or lumped up together with something else; the question ends up being whether the distinction is important enough to justify the overhead.

Agree 100%

There are lots of different ways to look at this, and no one way is "right". For a period of time, we played around with The Fantasy Trip. We referred to it as "role-playing lite" due to its pretty simplistic game system (and a lethality that made RQ look positively tame). The point being that it had only three statistics. Str, Dex, and Int. Um... And it worked just fine. Each stat just had a broader interpretation is all.

Same deal going the other way. You can make more stats and narrow their definition in the process. IMO though, you're hitting a point of diminishing returns though. While there are some negatives to "lumping", you always gain something from increased simplicity. But as you increase the number of stats, splitting them into smaller and smaller bits, you're going to hit a point at which the benefits of the increased granularity are wiped out by the increase in complexity.

I can't say for sure whether 12 stats is the point at which that becomes a problem or not. Heck. I played Champions for years and that's got a whole slew of stats, so who knows? But then that game was ultra focused on the interaction of different abilities of the characters, where most RPGs tend to abstract things a bit more. Ultimately, I think that the game system and how well it utilizes and balances the stats is what's going to matter.


Oh. But for the record, I don't like the "morality" stat at all. Actually, the Pendragon traits system always bugged me as well (I had a GM that wanted to introduce that into our game and squelched it fast). I simply do not agree with having any sort of written stat that mandates character personality. Ever. I'm a firm believer in allowing the players to just decide what their character's personality is and let them play it. Obviously, that's coupled with rational and reasonable consequences and rewards based on how their play interacts with the world around them, but I have simply never seen the value in having personality traits of any type appear as stats on a sheet. The very idea of a player looking down and saying: "Ok. I've got a kindness of 13, so I'm going to see if I can roll against that to ensure that my character succeeds at doing something kind today...".

Ick! I'm sorry. That's just an absolutely horrific idea. Statistics should define the broad physical/mental capabilities of the character. Skills should define the degree to which that character has honed his/her ability to do specific things within that context. Everything else should be roleplayed. A characters chance to do something should be based on stats/abilities/whatever, but the choice of what to do should *always* be the players.

[dracopticon]

First of all, a big thank you for the thoughtful and very extensive answer, Gnarsh. I really liked to read it! Now, to the quotes and answers:

Originally Posted by Gnarsh

Agree 100%

There are lots of different ways to look at this, and no one way is "right". For a period of time, we played around with The Fantasy Trip. We referred to it as "role-playing lite" due to its pretty simplistic game system (and a lethality that made RQ look positively tame). The point being that it had only three statistics. Str, Dex, and Int. Um... And it worked just fine. Each stat just had a broader interpretation is all.

And don't forget Twerps who's got only ONE stat! Interesting to hear that The Fantasy Trip had a greater lethality than RQ (which in turn IMO always was more lethal than AD&D). WFRP is probably the most lethal RPG I've ever played and gamemastered. That TFT had a broader interpretation of what the stats stood for is really exactly what I'm aiming at with this thread. But I'm not saying this is the ultimate solution, but again, if I cover a lot of ground from the beginning with more statistics/characteristics/attributes and downsize the amount of skills, I think it'll be more playable.

Same deal going the other way. You can make more stats and narrow their definition in the process. IMO though, you're hitting a point of diminishing returns though. While there are some negatives to "lumping", you always gain something from increased simplicity. But as you increase the number of stats, splitting them into smaller and smaller bits, you're going to hit a point at which the benefits of the increased granularity are wiped out by the increase in complexity.

Maybe I am. But it isn't automatically a stunting of skills just because I empower the attributes with more possibilities. They can definately complement eachother. I'd like to have skills and stats on the same area of the character sheet.

I can't say for sure whether 12 stats is the point at which that becomes a problem or not. Heck. I played Champions for years and that's got a whole slew of stats, so who knows? But then that game was ultra focused on the interaction of different abilities of the characters, where most RPGs tend to abstract things a bit more. Ultimately, I think that the game system and how well it utilizes and balances the stats is what's going to matter.

That also sounds like the idea I'm promoting here. I've never played superhero-RPGs myself, but I can see where such a game needs to be "ultra focused on the interaction of different abilities".

Oh. But for the record, I don't like the "morality" stat at all. Actually, the Pendragon traits system always bugged me as well (I had a GM that wanted to introduce that into our game and squelched it fast).

I'm really sad to hear that. I think the Pendragon system of traits is a work of absolute genious. Sure, it "restraints" the free will in certain situations (doesn't real life?). AND: the greatest win is that it simulates real moral and value testing when characters get caught in personal tight spots, moral wise. And why not? Why should PC's be spared from that kind of testing? It's probably the most interesting part of roleplaying, in my view.

"Ok. I've got a kindness of 13, so I'm going to see if I can roll against that to ensure that my character succeeds at doing something kind today...".

Sorry, but it seems you've totally misinterpreted the whole meaning of using traits. Just consider this (I don't know if it's a better player-climate where you live but): there's a lot of players that don't understand how you even start to roleplay a character. They 98% of the time just 'roleplay' themselves. That is sad in my view. Here's where the traits come in handy because they act as 'handles' to a better roleplaying of the character. And in my experience, the traits model has helped a lot of players really PLAY their PC's personalities instead of themselves. Which is almost always much more interesting.

But that's my views on this. It's very nice to hear other views like yours.

Erik Brickman.

[TrippyHippy]

Originally Posted by dracopticon

That's exactly how I feel. Looks are the same as APP, that's why I want Charisma to balance the 'only-looks-side' of the PC.

APP, as you yourself said, is the same as looks. In other words only the exterior of a PC. Why then only have that? Is there no more in a character than the surface?

Personality is better shown by traits, like in Pendragon and with the MORALITY attribute in my view. And foremost: by how the player roleplays his or her character. But here, the traits and MOR values should be helpers.

Skills like Persuade and Fast Talk are only that: skills. And I want to avoid having too many skillls. That makes some areas impossible to know anything about. Ever. Which is bad, in my book.

Appearance is a constant, whereas 'Charisma' isn't. In the real world, appearance makes a huge difference to one's ability to progress: socially, professionally, romatically and otherwise. A pretty person has a lot more power of influence than a plainer person, and appearance is a measureable feature that people can instantly assess about themselves and others. Our society doesn't like to admit these things but they are real enough, with a large body of psychological studies to back this up.

When people talk in terms of 'charisma' or 'likeability', however, things are much more hazy. I mean, I like the Sex Pistols, but I wouldn't say that they were 'charismatic' by definition, or that everybody else would like them. The 'eye of the beholder', and all that.

Moreover, the things I like about people are not so much top do with an indefinable 'force of personality', it's much more to do with how I relate to what they have got to say. In this light, what I am actually liking about an individual relates to their Intelligence and their skill with self expression. Other people might be more impressed with other aspects - like their appearance, or education, their strength and athleticism, or maybe something more indefinable ("POW"). The ability to appeal to others is not an innate thing - it relates to who you are talking to, and your ability to express yourself. It should also be mentioned that there are also various courses you can attend to improve your skills of self-assertion, self expression or leadership, in the real world too.

The point is, that we do have all these things in the BRP system already. The problem, I think is that some of the traits, like Intelligence and Power, are actually very broad in scope. Modern educational psychology actually supposes many different types of measureable 'Intelligence' (verbal, mathematical, musical, etc) - but BRP only has one. 'POW' is also deliberately vague in representing all the non-cognitive-based aspects of personality - things such as 'Will', 'Luck' and 'Magic'. One could see POW as the EGO, in Freudian terms too.

Now, Pendragon is an interesting case, as it chooses to remove all these aspects and replace them, effectively, with a 16PF measure. In the context of that genre, it makes perfect sense. You won't find too many Arthurian tales with aspects such as IQ, Education or the EGO being referenced or revered. However, in a Cthulhu game, these aspects are quite relevant to the genre and provide a limited personality profile of a sort. In may ways, it really does depend upon the genre you are playing - but of course it's tricky to build a universal game system on the principle of having lots of variable stats that you switch around, determined by genre. It can reach a point where the 'system' is no longer that.

Knowledge means things we learn, by experience. We all carry different amounts of knowledge as a result of age, living situations, priority and opportunity. In my opinion, no way is knowledge "what you know already", automatically. Education is learning, people get educated, they learn. Can't get much more simple than that.

I'm not quite sure what you are arguing here. 'Knowledge' is 'knowledge', and that is what is represented by the Education stat currently.

You're probably right when you say "Stamina and Endurance are pretty much the same thing", but there's things built into the two that differ. Like I explained in my opening thread. That doesn't mean I'm right. They probably need to be worked on.

Perhaps. I guess my point is why do we need more stats to represent different apsects of the same stat, when one seems to function OK as it is?

The name change is to have ONE letter for each attribute different from the other. If you look, you'll see that they all start with a different initial. That makes it possible to abbreviate them with one capital letter.

I see this as an advantage to a degree, although 3 letter acronyms aren't really that hard to grasp either.

You welcome to my views though! Glad to be able to express them.

[Nightshade]

I've never been a big fan of manditory morality/personality stats either (I don't have a problem with voluntary ones in a disadvantage system); the Pendragon approach always seemed excessively mechanistic to me, and that's coming from someone who's a firm believer in mechanized social skills when it can be done fairly, so you know I'm not hesitant there.