Talking Characteristics

[dracopticon]

Here are one of the most central questions for me, as a RPG/BRP-system (clone-)builder: what characteristics are the best ones to have for describing characters to their fullest?

The original seven BRP characteristics STR, CON, DEX, INT, POW, SIZ and APP (+ the eighth of Education) I feel is a little limited for full range description of a character.

My own (written and rewritten) RPG version of BRP includes as many as 12 characteristics and are as follows:

AGILITY (=body motor activity)
BRAWN (=physical strength)
CHARISMA (=strength of personality)
DEXTERITY (=fine motor activity)
ENDURANCE (=physical toughness)
KNOWLEDGE (=capacity to learn)
LOOKS (=within own species)
MORALITY (=basic moral value)
REACTION (=speed of response)
STAMINA (=how big-boned and healthy)
UNDERSTANDING (=basic logical capacity)
WILLPOWER (=mental toughness)

I don't like it when a PC's litheness and general flexibility are described in one characteristic. I think there are one thing to be flexible and agile with your body, and another to be fast with just your hands (like when making card tricks or picking a lock), and finally you can have a tremendous reaction speed, but otherwise be sluggish with your body or hands. So therefore I think the best is to split DEX into AGI(LITY), DEX(TERITY) and REA(CTION).

Also, a character could be incredibly beautiful, but have as much personality as a pebble. Or the other way around, be magnetically charismatic and yet look like an old hag. So therefore, both LOOKS and CHARISMA is essential.

Likewise, CON needs to be split in my opinion. You can be very resistant against disease etc, but not be able to take the slightest pain.

And: why have a characteristic named MORALITY? The answer to that is the chance to have a fast value that can be tested in a morally tempting and testing situation. Also, some of these are hidden characteristics. The more obvious, like SIZE and BRAWN you can see more easily with the first glance of the PC when looking at their visage. But their MORAL fiber? No. So that's why some of these characteristics should be shown on the front of the character sheet, and some are hidden on the back.

The front ones, are:

AGILITY
BRAWN
CHARISMA
DEXTERITY
LOOKS
STAMINA

While these go on the back:

ENDURANCE
KNOWLEDGE
MORALITY
REACTION
UNDERSTANDING
WILLPOWER

(The same rule applies to other data that can be seen on the front: visible equipment and weapons, visible clothing and armor, carried pets, other visible paraphernalia, distinctive features, etc. The hidden stuff are the opposite, and also background info, magick knowledge and/or other stuff the player don't want to share with everyone right away and can be written on the back of the sheet).

And this is the plan with the characteristics (I like the word attributes more) right now. What do you think? I like all kinds of responses, except insolent ones. Speak you minds.

[rust]

From my point of view, additional characteristics would only make sense if
they had any meaningful impact on the playing of the characters.
Therefore there should be some kind of connection between the new charac-
teristics and the characters' skills or other forms of "performance".
I find your idea interesting, although rather overcomplicated for my taste,
but without more informations about the consequences of the additional cha-
racteristics during the game I would find it difficult to have an opinion.

[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.

[CthulhuFnord]

**Idea deleted for insolence**



As far as characteristics and mechanics... I'm of the less is more school of thought. Despite being an old hand at CoC I'm glad to see Edu become optional. It wasn't even considered in the pulp version of the rules I wrote up years ago. Heck sometimes I even wonder about the usefulness of the Size attribute.

Some of your attributes could be represented by skills instead. Despite some of issues I have with MRQ... I like the skills Resilience and Persistence. A person who doesn't get sick much but can't take a punch? Low Con coupled with a high Persistence score. Sure it's not too cost effective but it is do-able.

[TrippyHippy]

'Looks' and 'Appearance' are the same thing, except that one is in more layman's terms.

I always felt that there was no need for a Charisma score on the grounds that

1) we have APP already,

2) 'Personality' is represented by other traits like INT, EDU and POW (even the physical traits to a degree, as they describe how the character is to the rest of the world too). Intelligence, in particular, should describe ones ability to interact and communicate with others in a lucid manner. Power indicates force of personality, to a degree also.

3) We have skills for things like Persuade and Fast Talk.

A few other observations:

- Knowledge isn't the capacity for learning - it's what you know already. Currently it's represented by EDU.
- Stamina and Endurance are pretty much the same thing in terms of their effect on gameplay.
- A lot of your Characteristic range are merely the same as BRP, but with different names. Why are these names better?
- Morality is an interesting stat - although, it's something that's not easily definable, universal or easily measured as such.

[dracopticon]

Originally Posted by rust

From my point of view, additional characteristics would only make sense if
they had any meaningful impact on the playing of the characters.
Therefore there should be some kind of connection between the new charac-
teristics and the characters' skills or other forms of "performance".
I find your idea interesting, although rather overcomplicated for my taste,
but without more informations about the consequences of the additional cha-
racteristics during the game I would find it difficult to have an opinion.

Yes, in my view I think you're partially right, they only make sense when contributing something to the character concept. But. The general idea, and foremost: the reason why I'd like to have a lot of attributes (or characteristics) on the PC is because they're way too many skills and skill areas in the BRP system(s) yet produced. In Ringworld, who was otherwise a great BRP version, the skill numbered almost impossible amounts. Which is fine if you play a group of 25 players or so...

Ok, that's a bad joke. But seriously I do think that if you incorporate a lot of basic TALENT in the attributes (atleast if you have a medium to better level), you don't have to find a micromanaging skill for every situation. The best thing would be if the talent or atleast possibility fo a talent for the supposed situation is to be found in the attributes. Half of the work is already done by that.

And that is the main thought here: to simplify by "overbuilding" mechanics early on. Does that sound crazy?

Erik Brickman.

[dracopticon]

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.

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.

[rust]

No, definitely not crazy - although I would prefer an approach with less an
broader skills instead of additional characteristics.
In my opinion it is the purpose of the rules to make playing characters easy
for the players by providing them with guidelines. However, when you add
more and more details to the rules system, you come closer and closer to
the point where the entire apparatus goes belly-up and starts to hinder and
restrict the players instead of helping them.
Therefore I usually prefer to take away instead of to add, and in this case I
would probably take away "sub-skills" instead of adding characteristics.
But in the end this is a matter of personal taste, and your version will be just
as playable as mine, only in a somewhat different way.

[dracopticon]

Originally Posted by CthulhuFnord

**Idea deleted for insolence**

Hehe, I'd like to know what that was...?


"The less is more school of thought" is actually what I'm also a member of. But read my reply to rust, because I think there actually can be more simplified rules by "overbuilding" the first part, i.e. the characteristics from the beginning. That way you don't have to have one skill for every bit of little area that needs to be tested.

Edu is justified by how high tech-level the campaign is set in. My own setting of EBROS is a high fantasy world (with very little magic being available).

Size is somewhat of a hate/love characteristic for me. It's needed but a little bit too simple to be among the other characteristics.

Some of your attributes could be represented by skills instead.

Nope, that's exactly what I want to avoid. Again, by building more on the attributes/char, one should be less inclined to get stuck in the "skill-swamp".

Erik Brickman.

[dracopticon]

Originally Posted by TrippyHippy

'Looks' and 'Appearance' are the same thing, except that one is in more layman's terms.

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. So how can you say:

I always felt that there was no need for a Charisma score on the grounds that

1) we have APP already

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?

2) 'Personality' is represented by other traits like INT, EDU and POW (even the physical traits to a degree, as they describe how the character is to the rest of the world too). Intelligence, in particular, should describe ones ability to interact and communicate with others in a lucid manner. Power indicates force of personality, to a degree also.

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.

A few other observations:

- Knowledge isn't the capacity for learning - it's what you know already. Currently it's represented by EDU.
- Stamina and Endurance are pretty much the same thing in terms of their effect on gameplay.
- A lot of your Characteristic range are merely the same as BRP, but with different names. Why are these names better?
- Morality is an interesting stat - although, it's something that's not easily definable, universal or easily measured as such.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, you're definately right when you say "although, it's something that's not easily definable, universal or easily measured as such." But I'm working on it, I'm not 100% sure I'm gonna use it. We'll see how it works, if I get to playtest it. Thanks for your views! I like this opportunity to talk about it!

Erik Brickman.