The Gaming Den

Disclaimer: I'm going to do my best to explain what I mean, I hope you catch the gist.

We all know basic 'stats' are a huge part in a lot of RPGs, and I'm wondering what the board's real feelings on them are.

Are they something that really should be carried over into new iterations of rule sets?

If you would carry them over, would you expand them or shrink them?

I'm beginning to think that only Strength and some sort of Vitality stat should be consistently marked on any given character's sheet.

My breakdown:
Strength: Useful. Keep. Strength is used blatantly in a lot of adventuring situations. Carrying/Gear capacity, punching, kicking, lifting, pulling, breaking, contests of strength... It can also be used in an indirect way for intimidation, at the least.

Constitution: Maybe? Possibly retooled or broken up as Fortitude/Vitality? But some indicator of a person's health, resistance to poison/disease/shock, amount of abuse they can take... Obviously you need to be able to quantify those aspects.

Dexterity: Maybe if you want to break it up. Otherwise, no. Dexterity is obviously vague. A person's dexterity does not necessary equate to fantastic aim, reaction, speed, flexibility or acrobatics. Think the fat, bomb making, guy from Metal Gear Solid... 2? 3? He had dexterous hands, but wasn't exactly the fat guy from Shaolin Soccer who was flipping around like Jackie Chan and jumping feet into the air.

Intelligence: No. Smartness doesn't directly correlate to anything. A smart person can be terrible at everything that an "Intelligent" person is suppose to encompass in RPGs. A fantastic researcher is not necessarily the most prominent puzzle solver. A great tactician is not necessarily a great detective. These are attributes best left to character specifics.

Wisdom: No. A wise man is a natural wilderness survival guide? A wise woman can use her insight to dodge your punch and then break your face several different ways? I see what was trying to be done here, but I think it's at least better being split up and renamed... as character-specific traits.

Charisma: WTF, really? No. A 'Charismatic' trait that synergizes with a 'Leadership' feat... something along those lines. But spells being cast because of your pretty face / skills of persuasion? C'mon. ...well, maybe a person trying to persuade demons to do their bidding... or something.

So, really, I guess I'm trying to determine whether or not a system should really have the 6, 7, 8, 9 "base" stats. Or if things should be more modular and character based like GURPS.

Possibly... STR, VIT, REF, WILL as standards?

I've seen this briefly touched on before, but I haven't seen your full on analyses or rants. So I figured I'd ask!

I wouldn't cry if I see constitution go, nothing active involves CON, it's all HP and saving throws. Maybe split DEX into dexterity and agility, agility for gross movements like dodging and dexterity for fine motor control.

I agree with you on mental stats, they work OK in 3.5 if you don't think about them too much. If you replaced them with just skills I think it would work just fine. If you really wanted to keep mental stats maybe have just two, one for book smarts and one for street smarts, Intelligence and Cunning maybe?

Beyond the basic six, I've seen systems add a few others which are interesting. The first is Perception. Since a lot of skill checks a character makes will be perception most players max it out. If Perception was a stat a character would have to invest more meaningful resources to be good at it, allowing the Ranger's sharp eyesight to be a legitimate mechanical advantage. I've also seen a Luck attribute used, which can be used to buy rerolls or adjustments or just allow lucky characters to survive capricious events.

I will also add the set of stats you use should be tailored for the type of game you want. For instance if you want a simple hack and slash RPG then the mental stats aren't really necessary.

Except that of course, charisma and demons is a bad idea. You want intelligence when dealing iwht demons, because you need to be able to logic trap them into an agreement that's actually good for you.
You're not going to out charisma a demon, that's just.. silly.

sabs wrote:Except that of course, charisma and demons is a bad idea. You want intelligence when dealing iwht demons, because you need to be able to logic trap them into an agreement that's actually good for you.
You're not going to out charisma a demon, that's just.. silly.

You are going to out-charisma a demon because they are made out of living Chaos and they only respond to brute force (and Evil).

It's the devils who shouldn't respond to charisma and need to be trapped in logic traps because they are basically living computers made out of Law (and Evil).

Here's some musings from yesteryear on the subject.

codeGlaze wrote:We all know basic 'stats' are a huge part in a lot of RPGs, and I'm wondering what the board's real feelings on them are.

Are they something that really should be carried over into new iterations of rule sets?

I think that your question is way too broad. The kind of stats that I think are important for a D&D game, a Mouseguard game, and a Star Trek game are totally different. What game are you talking about?

Even if we define the game, the definition of stat is way too open. Do you consider, for example, Reflex or Hit Points or Edge/Luck or Experience Points to be a stat? Why or why not?

If you're going to tell me something like 'I don't have a game in mind; just generically' I'll just go ahead and tell you that your question is completely unanswerable unless you're only able to imagine a game paradigm in terms of an existing one. Judging by the responses in this thread, it'll probably be d20 D&D.

Lago PARANOIA wrote: I think that your question is way too broad. The kind of stats that I think are important for a D&D game, a Mouseguard game, and a Star Trek game are totally different. What game are you talking about?

Even if we define the game, the definition of stat is way too open. Do you consider, for example, Reflex or Hit Points or Edge/Luck or Experience Points to be a stat? Why or why not?

If you're going to tell me something like 'I don't have a game in mind; just generically' I'll just go ahead and tell you that your question is completely unanswerable unless you're only able to imagine a game paradigm in terms of an existing one. Judging by the responses in this thread, it'll probably be d20 D&D.

You're splitting hairs. You're thinking too granular, because the topic is broad.
Also, I'm speaking of core stat attributes (STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, CHA, PER, LUK, COM, AGI [...]). As well as possibly Fort/Ref/Will type stats.

I'm not asking "what should this stat be named in this genre?".
I'm asking whether or not having a set of static stats is worth having on each character's sheet, in any setting. And if they ARE worth having, if they should be split into MORE (MOAR!) stats or fewer (more broad) stats.

Yes, I primarily envision d20 in the conversation because it's what I'm most comfortable with. (But it has also been bastardized to fit genres aside from fantasy.)

A large majority of RPGs fall into a sweeping stat system. Where each character has points pumped into the stats that benefit them, while ignoring others. And at the same time those core attributes are a sort of hamfisted attempt at generalizing your character's, your hero's, capabilities.

So, again, I guess I'm trying to figure our where the minds of TGD stand on keeping or dismissing Attributes/Stats.

My stance, so far, is maybe Stats/Attributes should be a la carte. Only picking up the ones you're going to embellish on in some way.

With some very basic things common to each character sheet. Such as a place for HP, Ref, Will and Fort. (Or something akin to that.)

codeGlaze wrote:You're thinking too granular, because the topic is broad.
Also, I'm speaking of core stat attributes (STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, CHA, PER, LUK, COM, AGI [...]). As well as possibly Fort/Ref/Will type stats.

If you can't commit to a specific game or at least genre then your question is unanswerable.

For example, D&D as-envisioned simply can't function without a STR stat. STR is almost completely worthless in Star Wars. INT or just a general 'you're this smart' stat is an okay stat to have and track in D&D, in Star Trek it'd be so freakishly overpowered that you'll have to split it up.

Lago PARANOIA wrote: If you can't commit to a specific game or at least genre then your question is unanswerable.

For example, D&D as-envisioned simply can't function without a STR stat. STR is almost completely worthless in Star Wars. INT or just a general 'you're this smart' stat is an okay stat to have and track in D&D, in Star Trek it'd be so freakishly overpowered that you'll have to split it up.

So... Klingon warriors shouldn't have a strength stat? Or Wookies? Jedi?
Intelligence is sort of a joke. Intelligence as a stat seems like sort of a joke. Like nerds trying to make themselves out to be superior because they're so smurtz they can use the magikz! AND MAGIKZ IS BETTER THAN YOUR DUM SWORD!

Intelligence as a straight number stat simply making you more awesome at something (because you... somehow got smarter by killing that dragon/alien/person/blob of goo ) is terrible. Which is one of the reasons why I'm rather disenfranchised by the idea of core stats needing to be represented on EVERY character's sheet.

I apologize if I'm not communicating my thought properly. I'm trying, though.

edit:

Red_Rob wrote:Here's some musings from yesteryear on the subject.

Thank you, I'm looking through it now.

edit2: This may be the exact thing I've been asking about.

codeGlaze wrote:So... Klingon warriors shouldn't have a strength stat? Or Wookies? Jedi?

If they do then it certainly shouldn't be promoted to the same level as the other stats. Seriously, in Star Trek and Star Wars the number of times in which it was important to track the discrete differences in physical strength between two characters are small compared to the length of the series.

codeGlaze wrote:Intelligence as a straight number stat simply making you more awesome at something (because you... somehow got smarter by killing that dragon/alien/person/blob of goo ) is terrible.

What? How does D&D advancing intelligence by killing things discredit the basic idea behind the stat? 2E D&D doesn't even advance intelligence like that at all.

I've always liked White Wolf's stats minus the Social stats. So, we're left with Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Resolve, and Wits.

That shit makes sense to me.

Red_Rob wrote:Here's some musings from yesteryear on the subject.

The first post is almost exactly what I've been trying to get at.

This post by Frank (I knew either he or K had to of broached this topic before) voices a lot of my issues with stat granularity and by proxy, growth.

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=65743#65743

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

codeGlaze wrote:So... Klingon warriors shouldn't have a strength stat? Or Wookies? Jedi?

If they do then it certainly shouldn't be promoted to the same level as the other stats. [...]

I understand, and agree. Which is why I think the idea of Stattributes just aren't... efficient (for lack of a better word atm).

You pointed out (in that other (old) thread I'm reading) that a strength contest between Batman and Green Lantern (or Han Solo vs Chewbacca) would need some way of resolution. If you eschewed STR as a stat completely, we're back to the problem you point out back then.
If we had STR as a stat, it'd be largely useless in SW, but it would help resolve that arm wrestling contest.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

codeGlaze wrote:Intelligence as a straight number stat simply making you more awesome at something (because you... somehow got smarter by killing that dragon/alien/person/blob of goo ) is terrible.

What? How does D&D advancing intelligence by killing things discredit the basic idea behind the stat? 2E D&D doesn't even advance intelligence like that at all.

I suppose my problem with the stat is that it's painting with a broad brush, and that's probably what's irking me.
A spell caster doesn't get BETTER at casting spells because he's smarter. He gets better because of practice, maybe some research (which could tie into INT). Maybe he gets better because of raw talent.

That doesn't mean a mage is proficient at battle field tactics or engineering, though. Both of those require intelligence, experience, skill and/or talent.

This has probably all been covered more skillfully in that older thread, though.

I have to agree with - a lot of people actually - the stats a game needs are entirely dependent on the activities characters do in that game. For example:

* In a game where the PCs are nobility vying for power in an ancient and decedent empire, you could pretty much have one stat for "physical stuff", but you would absolutely want to separate out things like charm, force of personality, perception, social standing, planning ability, and so forth.

* In a 40K Space Marine game, more the reverse.

* In Shadowrun, guns pwn people, sneaking around is the order of the day, and acrobatic stunts are not uncommon. So agility and reaction are split up. In D&D, ranged weapons are less dominant and dexterity skills are more optional, so having two stats would make them underwhelming.


Now maybe you're saying that this is only a matter of pricing, and you can go HERO style with stats that cost different amounts. But you'd be wrong - some genres don't even have a purpose for certain stats, and putting them in there just adds clutter and makes your game look like Fantasy Heartbreaker #491.

For example, in a Mecha game I don't give a shit about the pilot's personal Strength score - that shouldn't even be a stat. In a Lucha Libre game, it's pretty important.

As for determining contests between non-stats:
1) Does either character have a relevant perk / background ability?
2) Otherwise just flip a coin.

codeGlaze wrote:If we had STR as a stat, it'd be largely useless in SW, but it would help resolve that arm wrestling contest.

A character sheet has only so much space.

codeGlaze wrote:A spell caster doesn't get BETTER at casting spells because he's smarter.

Why not? Or rather, why should it be a universal statement for all games?

codeGlaze wrote:He gets better because of practice,

This isn't true for all settings. Or rather, it's true in a trivial and a universal sense. But there's no amount of practice in, say, Star Wars or Naruto that will make you a better spellcaster without some extenuating factor.

codeGlaze wrote:That doesn't mean a mage is proficient at battle field tactics or engineering, though. Both of those require intelligence, experience, skill and/or talent.

I find this to be rather 3.5E D&D-centric interpretation of how intelligence should affect your casting stat. Your complaint would make absolutely no sense in a game that's supposed to model, say, Girl Genius.

I thought this thread was supposed to be a statement for how stats should operate across games in general, not one specific game paradigm.

The way I see it, there are approximately two uses for D&D-style ability scores:

1. Having a number that everyone shares means you can write rules that use that number. When you decide to add an environmental factor, like Magical Radiation, you can tie it to an existing stat and get some variation that way without needing everyone to suddenly gain a Magical Radiation Tolerance number or something.

2. Ability scores can work as a softer type of multiclassing restriction, sort of like Magic the Gathering's colors. Having people who can both stab and teleport be weaker at each than those who can do only one of the two is good, because they synergize very nicely. D&D does this, but then also has classes, which totally ruins the whole idea.

I think the best stat list I've seen for a D&D clone is Virgil's four from Parabellum:

Strength
Dexterity
Cunning
Presence

Each one maps to a defense so all stats matter to all characters at least somewhat.

Strength and Dexterity can each be mapped to an attack mode you may or may not care about and a physical defense you probably do (Strength increases HP, Dex increases AC). So there's some rough parity there.

The mental stats relate a bit better to heroes from other fiction. Outside of RPGs we almost never try to quantify the heroes' raw intelligence and we don't correlate piety with "common sense," but we do make a distinction between clever adaptable heroes and heroes who dig their heels in and stand their ground. (Metaphorically I mean. Literally physically doing that would be Strength.)

I hate using Cunning, because it shortens to Cun, and just looking at the syllable makes me twitch.

Personally I'd rename it Wits because hearing the same oral sex joke gets old after four hours.

In many instances a Feat like 'Superhuman Strength' which gives you +4 to athletics checks and unarmed combat checks would work just fine for the Han vs. Chewie arm-wrestling scenario. It's not important to measure Han's strength against Luke's against Boba Fett's against a Stormtrooper's, they're all roughly the same strength; their ability to do athletic stuff would primarily come from skills or combat experience, not differences in brute strength. So it comes down to 'super strong' or not.

In a supers game, however, it's important to know how Professor X, Batman, Wolverine, Spider-Man, Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, and Superman line up; it's worth including a Strength stat because characters will cover a wide spectrum and characters can be expected to have diverse levels of it.

So even something as basic as Strength would need to be thought of in the context of the game setting, not generalities.

Are they something that really should be carried over into new iterations of rule sets?

Yes. This. Stats and sub-stats and computed stats are core to each game system. I don't care if you change fatigue to HT and hit points to ST, change the costs, change whatever you want, but if you're going to be GURPS, you still have ST/IQ/DX/HT (and various things computed from that).

Same for D&D. Make Strength into the "hit point and damage" stat, Dex into the "combat skill" stat, Con into "perception, endurance, and recovery time", Charisma into "courage and leadership", Int into "knowledge, lore, logic, hard to deceive", and Wisdom into "whatever's left, generalised immunity to being magically mind-fucked and also clerics".

But to be D&D, you need those six, and AC plus hit points, and saves, and classes with levels. That's what D&D is. NB: 4e is not D&D.

My current darlings are
*Fitness
*Awareness
*Concentration/Focus
*Ego
*Size (much, much cheaper)

Muscle/Strength/Fortitude/Endurance, Grace/Agility, Perception, and Willpower are the basic heroic attributes of most characters. Heroes tend to be described in terms of all four, but also tend to have a couple of foci.

These attributes are also all things that you might have contests with, which makes them actually useful.

Depending on the game, you could throw in some combination of Wit, Charisma, Insight, Health, Speed, and Reflexes, which would otherwise be equal between most characters or subsumed into other attributes.

That's not to say that you need attributes. They're just damn' convenient.

Going back to that Star Trek game for a bit, I would have five primary stats (which would be called 'core skills'):

Core Skill	What it does
Social	Leading people, analyzing people, convincing NPCs to do stuff...
Science	analyzing new phenomena, ...
Engineering	making devices work, analyzing devices...
Biology	(includes medicine) healing people, analyzing creatures...
Body	all physical activities -- fighting, hiding, climbing, escaping handcuffs...

(These are loosely based on the common positions in the main cast.)

"Edge", as well as most equipment and stuff, would be crew resources, rather than character ones.

"Edge" would allow the group to make favorable plot points happen or have happened by chance (as opposed to by skill). Example: In Star Trek 2009, that time when Kirk heard about the intercepted Klingon communication and connected it to what happened to his dad, allowing the Enterprise to not be caught off guard when it warped into an ambush would be an example of the use of edge.

Other 'stuff' would use one of the following:

• Assumed to be possessed in adequate quantity by all characters, if such is appropriate (for the setting and genre). Example: landing a shuttlecraft -- it might take skill, but everyone important in the crew is assumed to be able to do that. The ability to remain 'cool under fire' would be another thing that all characters would be assumed to have unless some trait said they didn't.
• Handled by backgrounds, if it's not too important. Examples: most species, Geordi's visor-thingy, having different-than-standard standing with various groups, or special training.
• A special ability, which would have their own rules and stuff, if it's something that's both important enough to warrant it, and not appropriate for all the characters to have.

---

As for D&D, rename Wisdom to Awareness, and either merge STR and CON or make CON used for something active (like a pursuit/escape minigame).

I'm glad this thread was made, it asked a question I've been wanting to hear discussed in recent times on here. I've heard posters in the past mention in occasionally, like K saying should just do away with them all together, for being so archaic.

tussock wrote:But to be D&D, you need those six, and AC plus hit points, and saves, and classes with levels. That's what D&D is. NB: 4e is not D&D.

Eh, I think we should care about "Legacy" as much as we care about 5th edition, or theRPGsite? does about actual design (spoiler:which isn't much at all). Nowadays D&D's iconic trappings are in all other Fantasy media, so it'd be easy enough to include those features renamed with a proper Fantasy RPG going from 1-20th level power spectrum.

Anyway, I've recalled that future design would be indicating to do away with attributes like the main six, for they're all too limiting to PC's, and supposedly better represented by other things. Such as abilities, race, skills, and size, I'd imagine it would be simple enough to have "Athletics" or some kind of "might" skill for all str/con related tasks. That said, for strength, I always did enjoy the 3rd edition table which it described various examples of creatures with that kind of str score. So it was kinda cool to know ones warrior type might be as buff as an ape, and someday becomes stronger than a 45 str titan.

Though if you were to keep attributes, in regards to combining some, I recall in some thread or another, Frank had mentioned an HP system being: Static number by class +Con +Class's primary attribute. While I'm not sure how well that actually works, "Con" could easily be strength, and then use whatever other attribute, Or just have it be class + Primary class attribute, instead of bothering with a con stat at all. Though since with attributes, three seems to small, and anything past six is a bit much, I guess four to five attributes might be a sweet spot?

Least, this main suggestion is more geared towards a D&D-esque kind of game. For other genre's I'm sure it can hold to some degree as well, I recall "Spirit of the Century" RPG had done that to some success?

codeGlaze wrote:So, really, I guess I'm trying to determine whether or not a system should really have the 6, 7, 8, 9 "base" stats.

it should have as many as it needs to be broken down into. most go with 6 to copy D&D, some go fewer, some more. it really depends on the design.

the 6 quantifies the human body and mind:

STR: how well you can move other things
DEX: how well you can move yourself
CON: how well you can sustain yourself
INT: knowledge you possess
WIS: how well you can use knowledge you possess
CHA: how you present yourself

why do many other games use 6? if it aint broke dont fix it.

D&D always has and always should use the 6, because they are pretty much the lowest you can get, a 7th was attempted to be added but it didnt work because it was, imo, too magical. quantifying ones looks cant be done because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and you know that you dont go messing around where beholder eyes are.

if you wanted you could reduce the 6 to 3: body, mind, social(?); but that really confines things too much.

idiot savants couldnt exist with a high INT and low WIS. your ability to push and pull things as STR, doesnt really mean you have the same ability to do delicate things or agility that is DEX, nor does it mean perform or stay healthy for the same lengths of time (CON).

it really depends on how much detail a game want to be able to express on various aspect as to how many and which stats it will need.