The Campaign Builder's Guild

Every game system I've seen (admittedly, not a whole lot, but bear with me) gives characters abilities and skills.  I've been contemplating the possibility of a new game system for TCJ (my current project), and I'd like to share an assertion with you: Abilities are redundant.
[note]I don't necessarily believe this firmly, I'm arguing a point for the sake of presenting it, and I hope to read your thoughts on it.[/note]
At face value this assertion seems preposterous.  Abilities form the baseline of many (perhaps most) game systems.  A character's skills, combat abilities, ability to withstand damage, etc. are all based on abilities.  Having abilities seems obvious from a "realism" point of view: of course the "fighter type" is muscled and powerful, while the "wizard type" is intelligent but weak.  Indeed, having abilities seems to be presented as a given in most of the new game system threads I've read on this board (perhaps unsurprising considering their ubiquity).

It is my belief that abilities are made not only redundant by skills, but also ridiculous.  The argument is most clear when discussing physical abilities, so I will begin with that.  Imagine a very good football player; his "football skill" is very high.  Perhaps he is an epic footballer of legend.  What would his strength score be?  In "real life," it would certainly be high.  Have you seen a weak footballer?  Is there any professional football player who you would describe as weak?  Undoubtedly not.

You may argue at this point that professional football players are universally strong because their abilities improve their skills.  To use a D&D example, an athlete with 18 strength has more bonuses to his "Football skill" than a person with a low or average strength (humor me here and agree that Football is a STR-based skill).

But this is preposterous on its face.  In reality you would never call a physically weak person "skilled" at a physical task or a strength-based athletic activity.  Having a high level of strength is part and parcel of the "skill" of playing football; strength training is the basis of improving your skill in strength-related tasks.  We can expand the argument to break down the D&D system completely: how do you have an expert dancer with low DEX?  An expert chess player who is mentally handicapped?  A champion weightlifter with a Str of 3?

So we leave the D&D "abilities modify skill checks" system in the dust, but I believe the observations here are more far-reaching.  What I'm trying to assert here is that abilities, in general, are necessary components of skills, and as a result abilities are rendered superfluous in systems that track skills.  In any skill that you consider to be keyed to an ability, it is fundamentally inconceivable that you could have a high skill with a low ability (barring ex post facto intervention, like a champion weightlifter being hit by a ray of enfeeblement).  I challenge you to come up with an example of a skill in which you can be highly proficient with a naturally low score in the relevant ability.

In fact, abilities rise and fall with skills; an ability is a dependent variable, not an independent one.  Practicing strength-related skills makes you stronger.  It is commonly asserted in the medical community that one must engage in mental activity to "stay sharp."  People with "low charisma" can become masterful speakers with speaking coaches and plenty of practice.  If you stop practicing your skills, your abilities start to atrophy.  It makes no sense to have abilities modifying skills; skills modify abilities.

I put it to you that abilities are superfluous in any system that uses skills.  Many arguments for abilities can be easily countered by a thoughtful application of skill mechanics.  For example, a strong football player will probably be better than the average cubicle jockey at rugby, because he's in better shape - but there's no need to introduce a strength score, because you can solve this easily with 3rd edition-style synergy bonuses.  Athletic skills could give synergy bonuses to certain other athletic skills, so a character skilled in one will at least have a passing ability in the others because of his general level of fitness.

Often "general tasks" are assigned to abilities, like breaking open a door, on the basis that these are tasks using "brute" or "raw" strength/intelligence/whatever rather than practiced skills.  This dividing line is entirely arbitrary, however - what makes Jump a skill, while smashing a door down is an ability check?  Any task that appears to require an ability check can be easily assigned to a general skill, avoiding the use of abilities altogether.

It can be argued that some people just don't have a "talent" for a task; someone is "naturally" a klutz, or just plain dumb.  Even if we take this at face value (I don't necessarily - many people who say they have no talent just don't like X and therefore aren't motivated to practice it, and many people who are very talented say they just practice a lot), a "natural" talent or lack thereof can easily be simulated with a skill-affecting trait, like feats in D&D or advantages and disadvantages in GURPS.  Racial differences need not require abilities, as once can easily translate "-X strength" into "-X to all physical skills" (or just those that rely on muscle, rather than physical grace or flexibility).  One can have skills grouped by abilities (like Footballing and Weightlifting being "strength skills") without actually having ability scores.

Q.E.D. ;)

Your thoughts?

There is a natural difference between the two variables, though, even if they interact. For example, take the aging pro tennis player and match them with the up-and-coming rookie -- skill vs. youth/health. I think we start bumping into real-world vs. game-world problems here. In the real world, an active warrior will always be fit, but intellect does not behave like physical fitness. So while a wizard could easily bulk up and become a competent fighter, a warrior with a weak mind could never become a wizard. If we allow a character to increase their strength score through exercise than balance is shot in the foot.

My instinct is go with the freeform-esque solution, which states that a warrior character will be physically powerful, as will a wizard who makes a special effort to exercise. Balance, in this instance, is not a problem because focus has been shifted to how these characters live within the story, and not how many goblins they can kill.

It really depends on how abilities are factored into things. In most games, abilities are the only way for you to "break cap" with skills: In D&D 3E, a 1st level character was limited to 4 skill points in a single skill, so if they had an 18 in the ability score they then have a +8 in said skill.

In "Legend of the 5 Rings" (3rd Edition is the one I played) they had ability scores and skills. You rolled a number of d10s equal to the sum of your score and skill, but you only kept a number of dice equal to your skill. Having higher ability scores gave you extra chanced to roll high (especially since 10s followed the "and again" rule, letting you roll any 10 over again and add 10).

Another issue is that most systems would break if you allowed someone to raise everything their scores applied to as they would a skill.

I can understand what you're going for here, but I feel Ability Scores are important to conceptualizing characters, and adding diversity.

Besides, the "football" skill is about more than just raw strength, otherwise olympic weightlifters would all be football players (I'm pretty sure the NFL pays more than weight lifting competitions).

Redundant, perhaps. Ridiculous, I'd say no.

I've always seen it as the distinction between raw talent and practiced skill. If I can flip a coin through my fingers, will I be able to deftly maneuver a surgeon's scalpel? I doubt it, but I'll be a heck of a lot better than the guy who can barely keep a coin in his hand.

Going to your football example, I would argue that someone who knows the moves, has memorized the best way to block, or kick, or throw a pass, but can barely lift the bar can be as good of a football player as your strong shmoe. He's skilled, not talented. You're also making a rather large jump in that the system only 'breaks down' when someone without the ability (the talent) actively pursues a skill. In "Real life," your example would never have made it past little league; since none of them have the skill, his abysmal failure in the talent department would leave him with several broken bones and parents searching for a more creative outlet, never to put the needed skills in to make him a good football player.

A better example if your chess one. Computers are skill-based. They analyze the situation and carry out the best mathematical move. Chess masters do much the same thing, but they have talent, an ability to see and determine things that mathematics alone won't recognize.

I agree with you insomuch as that abilities aren't used as well as they should. However, they are still the best way to show that inborn talent. You yourself demonstrate the need for it by suggesting synergy bonuses. Disassociate that bonus from the skill list, and you have a set of numbers that effect a number of skills. They're abilities, all that you did was come up with a different (and interesting) way of generating them and hid them in the skill list stack.

Quote from: RaelifinThere is a natural difference between the two variables, though, even if they interact. For example, take the aging pro tennis player and match them with the up-and-coming rookie -- skill vs. youth/health.

skills[/i] be implemented in the same manner?

QuoteIn the real world, an active warrior will always be fit, but intellect does not behave like physical fitness. So while a wizard could easily bulk up and become a competent fighter, a warrior with a weak mind could never become a wizard. If we allow a character to increase their strength score through exercise than balance is shot in the foot.

My instinct is go with the freeform-esque solution, which states that a warrior character will be physically powerful, as will a wizard who makes a special effort to exercise.[/quote]always true[/i] that the warrior is physically powerful, there is no need to track his physical power separately from his skills as a warrior.  His skill doesn't just imply strength, it requires strength, so why quantify strength at all?

QuoteAnother issue is that most systems would break if you allowed someone to raise everything their scores applied to as they would a skill.

I can understand what you're going for here, but I feel Ability Scores are important to conceptualizing characters, and adding diversity.[/quote]Besides, the "football" skill is about more than just raw strength, otherwise olympic weightlifters would all be football players (I'm pretty sure the NFL pays more than weight lifting competitions).[/quote]does[/i] contribute to the extent that it is impossible to imagine a player who is both skilled and lacking in strength - strength is an irreplaceable part of the skill.  High skill both implies and requires high strength, so it's meaningless to track strength separately.

Quote from: Stargate525I've always seen it as the distinction between raw talent and practiced skill. If I can flip a coin through my fingers, will I be able to deftly maneuver a surgeon's scalpel? I doubt it, but I'll be a heck of a lot better than the guy who can barely keep a coin in his hand.

(Football example)[/quote]You're also making a rather large jump in that the system only 'breaks down' when someone without the ability (the talent) actively pursues a skill. In "Real life," your example would never have made it past little league; since none of them have the skill, his abysmal failure in the talent department would leave him with several broken bones and parents searching for a more creative outlet, never to put the needed skills in to make him a good football player.[/quote]A better example if your chess one. Computers are skill-based. They analyze the situation and carry out the best mathematical move. Chess masters do much the same thing, but they have talent, an ability to see and determine things that mathematics alone won't recognize. [/quote]I agree with you insomuch as that abilities aren't used as well as they should. However, they are still the best way to show that inborn talent.[/quote]You yourself demonstrate the need for it by suggesting synergy bonuses. Disassociate that bonus from the skill list, and you have a set of numbers that effect a number of skills. They're abilities, all that you did was come up with a different (and interesting) way of generating them and hid them in the skill list stack.[/quote]
If synergy bonuses were abilities, why did D&D include both with no apparent complaints about overlap?  Synergy bonuses avoid my main problems with feats, as discussed above - they appropriately model a character's fitness from one skill influencing similar skills and allow for certain "skill sets" without disassociating skills from abilities in a way that simply doesn't make sense ("20 ranks in Sleight of hand, and a dex of 3").  They also circumvent the problem of raising abilities; I've heard new players comment that it doesn't make much sense to have skills that constantly increase but abilities that almost never do, even abilities like Strength that can conceivably be "trained up" with some practice and dedication.

Remember that I'm not necessarily saying that talent and skill should be conflated or that talent isn't important.  I'm questioning whether abilities are the best way to represent talent in a skill, considering their (in my view) significant drawbacks and apparent inconsistencies.

I'm going to use an example here. I like the ability + skills = how good at something you are system. Here's why. Let's say I want to be a meat-head. Good. But I want a meat-head who can crack into computers but only has an int of 9. To overcome his smart deficiency he can dedicate some of his training to cracking computers. Will he be good at doing other brainy things? No. But he can at least crack into a computer. It keeps the whole, anybody can learn anything, but not everybody can learn everything. The same could be said for the nerd who practices his jump skill... a lot. And that's all he does.

Falcon, your example with jumping reinforces his argument. I am a nerd, I did some work on high jump and pole vault a few years back, and because I had to learn to run to get better at those, I became a better sprinter, which later helped my endurance in fencing.

A meat-head who has been taught the specifics of how to use a computer and has been shown how to do basic hacking (there are things wrong with this specific example) could also easily be thought of as inept until he learned to problem solve and be creative, which would help his general aptitude in mental areas.

Carp, I'm liking your idea more by the minute.

Quote from: RaelifinA meat-head who has been taught the specifics of how to use a computer and has been shown how to do basic hacking (there are things wrong with this specific example) could also easily be thought of as inept until he learned to problem solve and be creative, which would help his general aptitude in mental areas.

Carp, I'm liking your idea more by the minute.[/quote]
It's just an idea at present, but I want to try building a simple "proof of concept" system eventually.  I'm on the lookout for a system for TCJ, my current campaign project, and this might be just the thing, or at least inform my decision.

Just quickly chiming in. :P

For one, I once had the idea of a system that is completely attribute- and skillless, describing each character and monster purely with advantages/disadvantages/feats.

Second, I think removing attributes will just lead to a load of redundant skills. Especially if you consider all mental abilities. How would you describe one's ability to think logical or how good one's memory is?

Third, I think your example with the football players is a bit backwards. Think of it this way: those guys aren't strong because they are football players - they are football players because they are strong. ;)

Quote from: Ra-TielFor one, I once had the idea of a system that is completely attribute- and skillless, describing each character and monster purely with advantages/disadvantages/feats.

Second, I think removing attributes will just lead to a load of redundant skills. Especially if you consider all mental abilities. How would you describe one's ability to think logical or how good one's memory is?[/quote]Third, I think your example with the football players is a bit backwards. Think of it this way: those guys aren't strong because they are football players - they are football players because they are strong. ;)[/quote]
But they're strong because they practiced football (in addition to their other exercises and strength training).  At any rate, the point is not so much which one results from which, but that they necessarily go together - high skill, by definition, requires high ability.

My question is what will you use in place of abilities? Because you cannot go without something that shows the bodies natural tendencies and its effect on skills. So far all I can see is either a needlessly complex system of showing natural talent in regards to each and every skill through a set of formula. Or you could turn them into skills themselves. However then you still have attributes, just renamed as skills.

Nothing replaces abilities.  The point is that the very fact of having skills displays the body's abilities adequately.  A character with a huge "wrestling" skill is, by definition, quite strong.  There's no need to quantify that strength separately from his skill, because that would be redundant.  In other words, I sumbit that this:

Quoteyou cannot go without something that shows the bodies natural tendencies and its effect on skills.

dependent[/i] variables that are in large part determined by skills, and can be safely eliminated.  The abilities are necessarily implied by the skills and there is no need to track them.

I also believe that "the body's tendencies" are far overplayed in gaming systems, and that a few traits (like feats, remember) can easily describe notable talents (and the opposite).  If you want a strong character, give him plenty of ranks in strength-related skills.

Synergy bonuses would not require any formulae.  Skills would simply be categorized into types, eg. Physical (Coordination) for skills like Use Rope or Sleight of Hand, and having ranks in a skill would impart a synergy bonus to other skills in that same category (or something, I haven't thought about the exact mechanics yet).

Quote from: NomadicMy question is what will you use in place of abilities? Because you cannot go without something that shows the bodies natural tendencies and its effect on skills. So far all I can see is either a needlessly complex system of showing natural talent in regards to each and every skill through a set of formula. Or you could turn them into skills themselves. However then you still have attributes, just renamed as skills.

My understanding of his system is that there is not need to quantify the abstract abilities of Strength, Intelligence, and the like, because, for one, different skills use different kinds of Strength, Intelligence, and the like.  A weightlifter may not be good at long lumping, so it does not make sense to have "Strength" provide a uniform bonus to all things.  Rather by training the skill Jump, it is assumed that you train the muscles necessary to jump.  Because you have trained the muscles in your legs, this may provide synergy bonuses to swimming or climbing, because the new strength in your legs is applicable to other situations.  There is no need to turn "Strength" into a skill, because strength is implied in the skills that benefit from it.

I suppose I myself am not clear on how it incorporates natural talent.  Perhaps the initial ranks applied at 1st level (I am presuming a level based system which may not be correct) represent natural talent, while those added later represent training.  On the flip side, however, is there something inherently wrong with a system that does not presume natural talent?

Edit:  Guess I took too long.  At least (to my understanding) I understand. (How's that for redundant!)

QuoteEdit: Guess I took too long. At least (to my understanding) I understand. (How's that for redundant!)

complementary[/i]. ;)

You're exactly right with your explanation.  As for "Natural Talent," it exists in two fashions.

Firstly, "talent" can be to some extent abstracted within your skill choices.  Consider someone who plays a rogue in 3e with a maxed-out Move Silently score.  Some players, when describing their character, would say that he learned it over years of painstaking practice.  More, however, would probably just say "he has a talent for sneaking."  Talent is to some extent already reflected by the skills you decide to buy (and as you say, especially by those purchased upon character creation).

Really exceptional talents can be represented through traits.  3e already has feats that give bonuses to skills, and optional flaws that subtract from them.  Traits would be like these feats/flaws or dis/ads in GURPS, and would be used (sparingly) to accentuate particularly skilled or inept characters.

Carp... I can't believe I never thought of getting rid of Atributes and sticking with skills... Its such a perfectly simple and ingenious notion! You should definitely concept this out more, I know I would definitely be willing to help the system along. Until then, have this (you deserve it):  [spoiler] (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v614/RHO1/Awesomeaward2copy.png) [/spoiler]

Cool, i actually also had this idea a while back :) (although, admittedly, I didn't back it up in my head with as thorough a criticism as you have managed to make)
For good measure, if it's not apparent from the first few lines, i agree with you. I'm not saying that ability-dependent systems are  wrong, just that they aren't the only possibility. For my system-in-the-works i went for traits to show what "genetic capabilities" the character was born with (stuff like "muscular" and "astute"). The really great thing about this is that it doesn't limit your range of ability scores in any way; you can make a "bestial" trait to simulate animal intelligence, and "canine cunning" trait to make a slightly smarter animal capable of learning traits, without being limited to the 1 or 2 values of D&D. And effects, like the knockback caused by awesome blow, could now be built into the genetic trait of "enormous strength" (okay, these examples are mostly important to monsters, but i hope you get the idea).

I thought of doing something like this awhile back as well, but I never got around to it.  I think people accept the idea of stats/attributes because it seems more Real to them, but we are playing a game after all, and it only needs to be as real as we want it to be.  For purely mechanical reasons, having only skills, or skills + special abilities I think would work very well.

"You are only as good, as the ranks you put into skills.  You can be anything you like, all that limits you is where you put those ranks."

I relate ability scores to our DNA or the genes that Mom and Pop gave us.  My parents physical traits (or a mix thereof) defines my genetic makeup thus defining what I will be naturally skilled at.  If dad was 6'4" and a weight lifter I would likely have that same CAPABILITY to be strong, but not necessarily the ability to be a world class athlete unless I trained and practiced.  
Conversely, if my dad was a 5'4" 125lb weakling that got sand kicked in his face at the beach, it would be very unlikely that my genetic makeup would allow me to be a gold medal winning weight lifter, even if I trained 8 hours a day for life.
I look at the normal everyday folks walking around my world as the average person.  Tavern maids, shopkeepers, blacksmiths, etc.  The players I equate to people who, through some trait passed on by generations, have the capability to do something extraordinary and have trained the skills that allow it.  Their ability scores define what they could be if they set their minds to it.  
I also think ability scores allow some randomness in the class.  For instance, in Evercrack or WOW, where there are no ability scores, just about every top level tank is "built" one of two or three ways.  There is little variation in them other than their gear, this transitions across the majority of the classes in those games.  Obviously in a RP game there are many, many more variations than in a computer game, but a concern nonetheless.

Just my 2 Copper Pieces!

Is it fair to consider abilities to represent "raw talent" with skills representing specialized training? Consider the football example again. Just about anyone is able to pick up a football and throw it a distance. But, with increased training in "Throw (Football)" one would be able to refine this raw talent (Strength, Dexterity, etc.) and throw like a pro.

I've read through this a few times.
I love any 'out-of-the-box' idea.  And I do believe that this would become a playable system.  
But I don't agrree with all the logic being used here and have fundamental issues with the arguments.

[blockquote=PC!]So we leave the D&D "abilities modify skill checks" system in the dust, but I believe the observations here are more far-reaching. What I'm trying to assert here is that abilities, in general, are necessary components of skills, and as a result abilities are rendered superfluous in systems that track skills. In any skill that you consider to be keyed to an ability, it is fundamentally inconceivable that you could have a high skill with a low ability (barring ex post facto intervention, like a champion weightlifter being hit by a ray of enfeeblement). I challenge you to come up with an example of a skill in which you can be highly proficient with a naturally low score in the relevant ability.[/blockquote]
Sure. Most weightlifters are strong, but there are many strong people who are not weightlifters.  By definition, this makes strength separate from weightlifting.  
The abilities exist, therefor, independent of the skill.

also,  
[blockquote=PC!]But this is preposterous on its face. In reality you would never call a physically weak person "skilled" at a physical task or a strength-based athletic activity. Having a high level of strength is part and parcel of the "skill" of playing football; strength training is the basis of improving your skill in strength-related tasks. We can expand the argument to break down the D&D system completely: how do you have an expert dancer with low DEX? An expert chess player who is mentally handicapped? A champion weightlifter with a Str of 3?[/blockquote]
You are confusing the concept of a 'skill' as a definition of a learned ability/profession and the definition of 'skilled' as very adept at a particular thing ( a person can be skilled at a skill, but having a particular skilled Does not make you skilled at it).  This paragraph, when this definitions are made distinct, loses validity.  
Just because someone learns a skill does not make them extremely proficient at it.  Is everyone with a 'skill' (a learned ability) an expert, such as your dancer or chess player examples?  or do you wish to get rid of the whole range of talent levels?
In gaming parlance, a skill is a learned talent, but the ability to succeed at this talent may vary widely, from apprentice to journeyman to master to expert.  In your above paragraph, you seem to be using the words 'skilled' and 'expert' as synonyms.
I also point to the above paragraph where you challenge the assembled community to, "to come up with an example of a skill in which you can be highly proficient with a naturally low score in the relevant ability", but the key here is the term 'highly proficient'.  One does not have to be highly proficient at something to be able to preform a mundane application of a skill.  I can drive, but am not an 'expert driver'.  I can operate my computer, but am far from being 'highly proficient'.  I think those of you who have made fun of my typing will attest to this lack...
I may not call a physically weak person "skilled" at football watching them play, but that does not mean they do not understand the game better and might actually surpass the 'football skill' of an less experienced but more physically powerful person.  And this is going to be at the crux at why taking abilities out of the game will actually make it more complicated in the long run, trying to accomodate for this.


[blockquote=PC!]Additionally, not all skills need to have broad synergy like athletic skills would. Being good at one "smart" thing like philosophy doesn't necessarily mean you are any better at certain others (math, for instance). Hacking might have synergies with a few other select related skills, while jumping would synergize with a wide variety of athletic skills. Skill synergies were afterthoughts in 3rd edition D&D, but in a skill-based system they would become important parts of the system.[/blockquote]
One of the biggest problems with abilities is they are incomplete descriptions.  You may not have mentioned this specifically, but in my mind the biggest knock on abilities is that they are very rough estimations.  Even something so well known as the difference between muscular strength and muscular exertion is not seperate, though they are very different.  The same is more true in the mental realm, in that there are people with great recall with no problem solving ability or intuitive geniuses with little deductive ability.  Emotional intelligence describes this issue but is still really in infancy.

At the crux of this is a fundamental question on how you wish your players to percieve their characters and the world.  I've run a skill based game for a long time, and at the heart of this is the ability to find and learn new skills.  The abilities do not merely exist independently from the skill, they often precede it and predicate an advantage or disadvantage for a skill. As such, what you really propose is more of a question of how realistic a game you want to play.  My players, late in their careers, often pick up 'non-ideal' skills, or skills that they would like but that their attributes are not a perfect match for.  Drono Biddlebee is an ex-farmer from the Turnipers commune, and after a long, 13 year career, is learning restorative spell points from the Chruch of Amrist, in his new quest to become a priest of the God of the Autumn Harvest.  He's got a mediocre wisdom, so he does not have the 'natural aptitude' of some of the priests there, and will have to work a little harder to become even a decent journeyman with restorative spell points.  But this is the grist of a good game.

Again, love the iconoclasm, and the daring, and am honored to be included in the conversation.  

Two things occur to me:

1. This system might work really well with a classless system.

2. Skill overflow seems to be the biggest problem. If you have to develop a set of synergies for nearly everything, the skill list gets bloated with things like "baking" as opposed to "butchering" as opposed to "gardening" with a set of synergies for all of them.


Ra-Tiel got me thinking about covering this by packaging skills into groups, and then granting synergies through skillsets. One might be able to focus and train specific skills, but they'd soon max out without exploring the skillset a little further. Think of this like someone putting energy into philosophy, which doesn't really help them in day-to-day life very much at the start. In order to really understand philosophy, the character must branch out into basic logic, theology, literature and history. Now we start to see the synergies really kick in. Get it?

Quote from: Polycarp!So you can have a Sleight of Hand skill and a Surgeon skill, and though you don't have any ranks in the latter, your ranks in the former grant you a synergy bonus to the latter.  The same result is achieved without any of the inconsistencies presented by abilities.

or through your synerbilities, which I'll discuss below in more detail.

Quote from: Polycarp!I'm not sure how this is an argument against my point.  Are you trying to say that only characters with an inborn talent for a skill should be able to take ranks in it?

No. What I'm saying is that if you're going to be invoking reality to poke holes in a system, you can't selectively choose what aspects of reality you take. In a fully realistic scenario, no one who is not strong will take strength-related skills in any number. They will take skills that complement their abilities. The system remains sound.

Quote from: Polycarp!Computers are calculation-based.  They possess no skills as such.  They are programmed to do something and they do it; there is no intelligence or use of a skill involved, unless we're talking about futuristic AI or something.  I don't see them as germane to the argument about characters.

I would argue that many skills are extremely calculation-based, but that's leading down a side path that has nothing to do with ability scores.

Quote from: Polycarp!I disagree with this because I believe there are ample ways to show talent through mechanics without tracking abilities....What else have you tried? ;)

What have you tried except the synerbilities? Since you're the one advocating the removal of abilities, it falls to you to try these other methods.

Quote from: Polycarp!If synergy bonuses were abilities, why did D&D include both with no apparent complaints about overlap?

Because D&D synergies are not designed to be what you propose them to be, and indeed, are not. I'm not saying synergy bonuses in general are abilities, I'm saying YOURS are.

If you were to network all the strength, dex, whatever, scores together into a single synergy grouping, you now have a number that effects a certain number of skills equally, and can be used as a representation of your natural talent. If you want to do something that doesn't fall into a specific skill, you would conceivably use the appropriate synergy bonus, no?

Going back to ability scores, the main thing they do is:
-provide a representation of natural talent.
-allow unskilled checks to have a bonus.
-effect a certain group of skills with a flat bonus.

They. Are. Abilities. The only thing you've done is figured out a better way to generate them and buried them in the skill mechanics.


And so far, I think, you've only addressed how this applies to skills. What about attacks, defense, and everything else that abilities apply to?

Quote from: Polycarp!Nothing replaces abilities.  The point is that the very fact of having skills displays the body's abilities adequately.  A character with a huge "wrestling" skill is, by definition, quite strong.  There's no need to quantify that strength separately from his skill, because that would be redundant.  In other words, I sumbit that this:

Quoteyou cannot go without something that shows the bodies natural tendencies and its effect on skills.

dependent[/i] variables that are in large part determined by skills, and can be safely eliminated.  The abilities are necessarily implied by the skills and there is no need to track them.

I also believe that "the body's tendencies" are far overplayed in gaming systems, and that a few traits (like feats, remember) can easily describe notable talents (and the opposite).  If you want a strong character, give him plenty of ranks in strength-related skills.

Synergy bonuses would not require any formulae.  Skills would simply be categorized into types, eg. Physical (Coordination) for skills like Use Rope or Sleight of Hand, and having ranks in a skill would impart a synergy bonus to other skills in that same category (or something, I haven't thought about the exact mechanics yet).

And thus you haven't gotten rid of attributes. You have just given them new names and hid them inside the skill mechanics which are going to become extremely bloated thanks to needing a skill for every possible thing you could ever do (i.e. - fishing, jigging, fly fishing, trawling, deep sea fishing, etc etc... just to give one example)

[blockquote=HALF-ASS]And thus you haven't gotten rid of attributes. You have just given them new names and hid them inside the skill mechanics which are going to become extremely bloated thanks to needing a skill for every possible thing you could ever do (i.e. - fishing, jigging, fly fishing, trawling, deep sea fishing, etc etc... just to give one example[/blockquote]
Hey! what's wrong with a bloated skill list??  I just haven't gotten to the sub skills of fishing yet...give me time...

Howard Gardner has published a theory called the Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which states that people have different types of intelligence attributed to social interaction, linguistics, music, logic, etc. I'm using this for my system I'm designing, and I can say that so far it has seemed to eliminate the balance issues that have been previously mentioned between training to become stronger/tougher/more agile and natural intelligence. The theory is a useful one for roleplaying games, really. It allows for bonuses to certain types of skills and helps design a system where certain people learn certain skills faster without the training issue or any of the other issues related to mental ability scores (like whether a section of thought goes with intelligence or wisdom).

Quote from: Raelifin1. This system might work really well with a classless system.

No. What I'm saying is that if you're going to be invoking reality to poke holes in a system, you can't selectively choose what aspects of reality you take. In a fully realistic scenario, no one who is not strong will take strength-related skills in any number. They will take skills that complement their abilities. The system remains sound.[/quote]What have you tried except the synerbilities? Since you're the one advocating the removal of abilities, it falls to you to try these other methods.[/quote]They. Are. Abilities. The only thing you've done is figured out a better way to generate them and buried them in the skill mechanics.[/quote]ability scores[/i] as such, which are a very specific thing that exists in most, if not all, roleplaying systems I've ever seen.

All roleplaying systems are basically trying to accomplish the same thing - modelling a character for the purpose of gaming.  An ability-less system is no exception.  The fact that it has a mechanic that accomplishes some of the same things abilities do doesn't mean they "are abilities" unless, as I said, you define abilities so generally and amorphously that anything that quantifies "talent" is categorized as an "ability."  I'm arguing against a very specific thing, not the idea of "talent" in general.

QuoteAnd so far, I think, you've only addressed how this applies to skills. What about attacks, defense, and everything else that abilities apply to?

You have just given them new names and hid them inside the skill mechanics which are going to become extremely bloated thanks to needing a skill for every possible thing you could ever do (i.e. - fishing, jigging, fly fishing, trawling, deep sea fishing, etc etc... just to give one example)[/quote]seen[/i] how many skills GURPS has?

Shortly before my group was invited to playtest 4e, I had been working on a system that used Fortitude, Reflex and Will as the definitive system to determine abilities. Fortitude focused on Feats, Reflex focused on Skills and Will focused on Spells. I adapted a few of the ideas surrounding Adepts, Warriors and "Skillmonkeys" (for lack of a better term) to create a system that was strikingly similar to D&D, using current terminology through different interpretation. I used a general level model, just as 4E does, for BAB and general 1/2 level modifiers.

Basically, it turned the entire mechanics behind the d20 to a complex yet fluid paper/rock/scissors model, modified by feats, spells and skills on the d20.

Unfortunately, a lot of that was lost during my move in the shatstorm of boxes in my basement. Although, I believe the first iteration of the system was posted here on these forums, if I could find them...

First off, Joker, using Howard's theories as a basis is a very cool idea; pure genius.
Now, as to everybody arguing about whether removing ability scores is a good idea, i think the issue here is that Polycarp isn't so much removing the abilities as the scores. He mentioned himself that, in addition to the synergy idea which i'm not an overt fan of because of the complexity, you could use the genetic traits/advantages/perks/etc, that would, together with skill groups, essentially be able to simulate the same things as ability scores, just more flexible as they aren't generalizations.
Am i completely wrong or?

Quote from: Crippled CrowAm i completely wrong or?

more ably performed[/i] by existing mechanics, rendering ability scores themselves redundant.  It may be that I've been conflating "ability" and "ability score" when I should be drawing a distinction between them, as so far I've pretty much been using them synonymously.

"Existing mechanics" refers to the pairing of synergy bonuses and traits/feats, but I don't rule out the possibility that other mechanics or new mechanics would work as well or better.

I'm also making a "larger point" on roleplaying paradigms - "ability scores" are so ubiquitous that it seems almost past due that we should be rocking the boat.  Most new systems I've seen accept their presence as a given; we had a discussion in this forum not long ago about which ability scores to use, which accepts as its underlying premise that ability scores are necessary, which precludes any discussion on whether they are good.  Even if I'm utterly wrong about how to challenge that premise I think there is a fruitful discussion to be had in challenging it.

Many of the objections raised so far have been objections of implementation, which are hard for me to address because no system has been implemented yet.  These include "there will be too many skills" and "synergy bonuses will be too complex."  All I can do is respond "no, I don't think so" because nobody has any concrete examples to base it off of, including myself.  I hope to eventually rectify that with a proof of concept system, but for now I can only resort to arguments from comparison:

1. With Craft/Profession, D&D has an infinite number of skills, and other systems like GURPS have a huge amount as well; in addition, having many skills doesn't strike me as automatically bad (how many is too many?).
2. Synergy bonuses don't have to be complicated either; synergy bonuses in D&D, while not common, were relatively straightforward, and I don't see any reason that they would have to become more complex for an ability-less system.  Even if they were complex, synergy bonuses were generally not things you needed to constantly compute; you got a +2 bonus to Ride from your 5 ranks in Handle Animal, noted that on your character sheet, and never thought of it again.

edit:

Quote from: JokerHoward Gardner has published a theory called the Theory of Multiple Intelligences

I've started reading up on this and it looks very interesting.  I'm a bit critical because I feel it's very hard to distinguish "natural" intelligence from learning and thinking styles acquired through socialization and environment, but I could definitely see a system based around this.

Quote from: Polycarp!I don't accept this argument.  I know plenty of people who were quite "weak," but became interested in a sport, got into better shape, and now enjoy physical activities more than they did before - I'm one of those people.  I don't think your assertion is true, and even if it were it's an equal indictment of an ability system like D&D, in which a character with a Dex of 3 can still take ranks in Escape Artist.

That's not the same thing. I, and I can only infer most of the people on my side in this, are referring to genetic physical predisposition. Your example would be an example in taking skill ranks in it, not increasing your strength. You may get marginally stronger, but your body's capacity for building muscle hasn't changed.

It isn't an assertion, it's a logical line of reasoning.

Quote from: Polycarp!But I'm not the one categorically stating that abilities are the best.  All I'm saying is that abilities have problems and an ability-less system could potentially circumvent those problems.  I'm still exploring other methods, that's the very purpose of this thread!

I'm not stating that either. What I'm stating is that as far as I've seen, your proposal still has ability scores in everything but name, and is inferior to the current system which you are trying to improve.

Quote from: Polycarp!Ability scores, which is what I'm arguing against, are numbered scores that function as independent variables in order to influence skills and abilities.

So that's the working definition?

Quote from: Polycarp!The fact that they accomplish similar things doesn't make them the same thing, since synergies avoid the problems of ability scores that I've outlined.  You're arguing semantics with me at this point.

So my TI-83 is not a calculator, even though it accomplishes similar things as my pocket calculator, since my TI-80 avoids the problem of having to rely on solar power? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is red, I'm more inclined to call it a duck in a paint bucket than a robin.

Quote from: Polycarp!All roleplaying systems are basically trying to accomplish the same thing - modelling a character for the purpose of gaming.  An ability-less system is no exception.  The fact that it has a mechanic that accomplishes some of the same things abilities do doesn't mean they "are abilities" unless, as I said, you define abilities so generally and amorphously that anything that quantifies "talent" is categorized as an "ability."  I'm arguing against a very specific thing, not the idea of "talent" in general.

Fine. But what I'm saying is that for your system to actually work with any sort of speed and efficacy in-game, those synergy bonuses are going to separate out for practicality's sake, and appear handwritten in the sidebar.

QuoteYou may get marginally stronger, but your body's capacity for building muscle hasn't changed.

actually is[/i].  As far as I am aware there is nothing that reflects such an amorphous quantity as "your body's capacity."  If a weakling were raised by Vikings instead of Byzantine aristocrats, would he be stronger?  How much is based on his experience, environment, disposition, and early physical development as opposed to his talent or innate capacity?  I don't think this can be adequately addressed by a game system; certainly there is no ability system I've seen that tries that.

QuoteIf it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is red, I'm more inclined to call it a duck in a paint bucket than a robin.

Fine. But what I'm saying is that for your system to actually work with any sort of speed and efficacy in-game, those synergy bonuses are going to separate out for practicality's sake, and appear handwritten in the sidebar.[/quote]
Or they could be added to skills when you compute your skill bonuses, just like 3e synergy bonuses.  I'm not sure, because this is a problem of implementation, which I can't resolve without an actual model to comment on.

Quote from: Polycarp!I'm not going to swap analogies with you.  Ability scores are not synergy bonuses, and I see no reason why you would consider them to be.  If you think that "+2 to related skills" is an ability score just like "18 Str" then your definition of an ability score is so broad as to be unworkable.  If we can't agree on premises I'm not sure what else I can say.

no, but I do compare that to a "14 str" as you so put it. As far as abilities are related to skills, that's all abilities were in the first place. Like was said before, you just put them someplace different.

I'd actually like to see you describe how these numbers work differently in regards to skills in-game. Not how they're generated, not how they're increased or decreased. What can you do differently with yours that ability scores cannot cover?

Quote from: Stargate525no, but I do compare that to a "14 str" as you so put it. As far as abilities are related to skills, that's all abilities were in the first place. Like was said before, you just put them someplace different.

I'd actually like to see you describe how these numbers work differently in regards to skills in-game. Not how they're generated, not how they're increased or decreased. What can you do differently with yours that ability scores cannot cover?[/quote]is[/i] what roleplayers do in-game (in addition to roleplaying, of course).

I see no problem with having a larger list of specific skills (or a small list of vague skills) that have no basis on natural abilities or stats.  This would be easy to do as long as the mechanics work out for whatever dice or dice pool you are going to use.  The skills you have more ranks in define what your character is good at, as simple as that.

Leaving all the arguments for abilities or against them, it would be easy to make a rules lite system (or a heavy chunky one) completely ignoring stats.  

One might say that abilities are implied with characters that have a higher combat skill for instance, or that have a higher rank in jumping.  But they might also suck at climbing (because they put no ranks in it).  So be it.  

The bottom line, is who cares about reality.  Make the system you want, the way you want it to work.

Quote from: Polycarp!

QuoteYou have just given them new names and hid them inside the skill mechanics which are going to become extremely bloated thanks to needing a skill for every possible thing you could ever do (i.e. - fishing, jigging, fly fishing, trawling, deep sea fishing, etc etc... just to give one example)

seen[/i] how many skills GURPS has?

Because they actually aren't bloated. That argument is grabbing at straws a bit as honestly how often have you seen a DnD sheet with 42 profession skills listed on it. It can go without it. The system proposed cannot. If you want to be better at things you don't have a base to go from, you HAVE to have a separate skill for each new sub skill.

I digress though as that is not the fundamental point here. The point is that an attribute is an attribute even if you hide it in your skill system. You really have to have attributes in some form unless you want every person to have an equal predisposition towards everything (aka - my guy is just as likely to be good at mathematics as he is at ramming down doors or dodging arrows). So you can have your attributes as normal, hide your attributes as skills or skill synergy systems, or not have them at all and have everyone as clones who might choose to learn separate things. Right now you are on option two.

Quote from: NomadicBecause they actually aren't bloated. That argument is grabbing at straws a bit as honestly how often have you seen a DnD sheet with 42 profession skills listed on it. It can go without it. The system proposed cannot. If you want to be better at things you don't have a base to go from, you HAVE to have a separate skill for each new sub skill.

is[/i] true - and this is the best argument against an ability-less system so far IMO - that there might be "general tasks" which defy attempts to categorize them.  Obviously it's silly to have a "Door-Breaking" skill; ad hoc is fine for crafting and professions, not as fine for such general tasks.

I thought of two possible solutions:
1. Use an existing analogous skill.  D&D allows characters to attack an item; since combat would be a skill in an ability-less system, an appropriate combat skill could be used to damage items.  This may not work for all general tasks, however.
2. Create broad skills, like "Breaking Things."  Though this might work for some things, I don't like this approach because it would contribute to skill bloat in many cases.

Neither is entirely satisfactory.  I considered that a skill system might also have a "general roll," however, for use in situations where a broad skill was not appropriate and no skill seems to apply.  For instance, let's say you want to want to hold your breath underwater.  This is something accomplished in D&D with a Constitution check.  In the ability-less system, figure out what skill category the task would go into if it were a skill; in this case, something like "Physical (stamina)".  Then add the applicable bonuses/penalties from synergies and traits that affect your Physical (stamina) skills, and roll the dice.  DCs for general skills would have to be correspondingly lower, since you can't have ranks in them, but with that adjustment you have essentially duplicated the broad utility of the Ability Check without needing ability scores.

QuoteThe point is that an attribute is an attribute even if you hide it in your skill system. You really have to have attributes in some form unless you want every person to have an equal predisposition towards everything (aka - my guy is just as likely to be good at mathematics as he is at ramming down doors or dodging arrows). So you can have your attributes as normal, hide your attributes as skills or skill synergy systems, or not have them at all and have everyone as clones who might choose to learn separate things. Right now you are on option two.

abilities[/i], by which I mean ability scores, a specific mechanic.  Nothing is being "hidden," it's being assumed that ability scores are implicit within skills.  In no way do I mean to suggest that characters should have no innate talent or no "predisposition" for skills.  I'm arguing against a specific game mechanic, ability scores.

I also think I've addressed how characters can still be quite different in an ability-less system.  Since skills enhance other skills, it's easy to achieve a "strong" character who is good at physical tasks without actually making a strength score.  You'd have access to traits, like GURPS ads/disads, to further customize your character and give them talents and predilections.  I'm not certain how that is necessarily any more restricting than an ability system.

Indeed, in standard D&D everybody does have the same predisposition towards everything.  What lifts them above being "clones" are bonuses - bonuses from abilities, class powers, skills, feats, items, and so on.  Everyone is a "clone who might choose to learn different things."  Your example character is just like everyone else at doing those basic tasks - until you customize him, with all the aforementioned bonuses, including abilities.  My proposed system is no different - the character becomes unique through your customization.  Players still expand beyond "clones" with skills, synergy, traits, classes (assuming this isn't a class-less system), and so on.

Quote from: Polycarp!...but with that adjustment you have essentially duplicated the broad utility of the Ability Check without needing ability scores.

At which point I ask you why you are so averse to simply heaving them back to the top left corner of the sheet, as they're now explicitly doing everything ability scores are.

Quote from: Stargate525At which point I ask you why you are so averse to simply heaving them back to the top left corner of the sheet, as they're now explicitly doing everything ability scores are.

That is the subject of my OP: why ability scores are redundant and talents, etc. should be included in existing mechanics, i.e. traits and synergy bonuses.  That explains precisely why I am averse to ability scores.  As I have repeated, my objection is not to what ability scores accomplish, it is to ability scores themselves; that is, the way the system accomplishes these things.

I don't like to say "re-read the OP" because it can sound condescending, but I'm not sure what else to say.  I laid out my arguments there.

Quote from: Polycarp!That is the subject of my OP: why ability scores are redundant and talents, etc. should be included in existing mechanics, i.e. traits and synergy bonuses.  That explains precisely why I am averse to ability scores.  As I have repeated, my objection is not to what ability scores accomplish, it is to ability scores themselves; that is, the way the system accomplishes these things.

I don't like to say "re-read the OP" because it can sound condescending, but I'm not sure what else to say.  I laid out my arguments there.

I misunderstood you. I guess my part of the argument is closed, as I can see no reason for abilities to be rolled into a synergy bonus instead of kept separate.

Quote from: Polycarp!Neither is entirely satisfactory.  I considered that a skill system might also have a "general roll," however, for use in situations where a broad skill was not appropriate and no skill seems to apply.  For instance, let's say you want to want to hold your breath underwater.  This is something accomplished in D&D with a Constitution check.  In the ability-less system, figure out what skill category the task would go into if it were a skill; in this case, something like "Physical (stamina)".  Then add the applicable bonuses/penalties from synergies and traits that affect your Physical (stamina) skills, and roll the dice.  DCs for general skills would have to be correspondingly lower, since you can't have ranks in them, but with that adjustment you have essentially duplicated the broad utility of the Ability Check without needing ability scores.

I like this idea. Just saying.
This, of course, would result in you having a stamina bonus: the sum of the bonuses given to stamina-related checks by your traits and your synergies. But although this resembles an ability score, it adds a bonus to a specific class of checks, the major, and most important, difference is that these bonuses are derived from skills and not the other way around, as is the case with ability scores. So Polycarp!'s system basically covers both skill and natural predisposition. Admittedly, this leads to a bit more math being necessary to figure it all out. A way to simplify this could be to let the universal synergy bonuses to be keyed to specific skill point intervals. So if you have 5 ranks in a physical skill you get a universal +1 to all in that category and if you have 10 you gain a +2. To avoid powergaming you could key these bonuses to the total amount of ranks in a skill group. Still some math involved, but i like the system nonetheless.  
As to the people who can't see the benefits of this variant, the major benefit as i see it is that ability scores aren't limited to a select range. Instead, you could create a trait that describes your strength exactly how you want it. This would make abilities more than arbitrary numbers; instead they would be a both descriptive and mechanical part of your character, and the score would actually mean something for once.

As a final warning, i think we should be careful comparing this too much to D&D; this wouldn't work as variant to an already existing system if you ask me, but only as a stand-alone system.

Interesting idea. I had considered it in game design before but dismissed it in the past for a couple of reasons. One you sort of stumble on, and that's the need to have something to use for general tasks. If I want to break down a door, I might be able to do so even if I've no "break down door skill" (or even any weapon skill).

But also, there is the concern of how to handle non-human creatures. Creatures within the same norm of ability pose less problems than when you throw in fantasy creatures.

An ogre is not skilled with his club, at least not using any traditional definition of the word "skilled." But his club can be very dangerous because brute strength allows him to swing it fast and hard.

Another concern, related to skill bloat, is whether you really want to have to spell out every synergy. I think what SG was getting at, is that if things get complicated enough, it's easier to say these are strength-based skills so you add your strength mod to them, than to say:

Profession (sailor) synergizes with balance, rope use, rowboating, climbing, deckswabbing, and shanty singing. While balance gets bonuses from acrobatics, sailing, escape artist, and so forth.

Especially if you want variable bonuses, it just gets complicated. There is something to be said for elegance in design--sometimes it's more important than realism.

I think defining a system based purely off of multiple skills and sub-skills (such as "break stuff") overcomplicates things, and leans further toward just ignoring numbers and using a diceless, skilless, "let roleplay determine what happened" system.

All in all, D20 has it right and a lot of other games out there tend to follow suit with similar statistics. Although one can certainly argue that there is a lot of overlap between ability scores and their application, the standard six scores seem to work without overcomplicating things. However, there is still a lot of extraneous stuff in the system that can certainly be cut out, so to speak, without changing the intrinsic design of the system. To me, that's a much better start than throwing out everything and redesigning from the ground up, if not for mechanical familiarity to players (if the intention is marketability).

I seem to have missed a point somewhere; why is it that an overabundant skill list is an absolute necessity of a score-less system? Can't see why it wouldn't work with a smaller skill list? (okay, we can go into semantics and argue about whether it'll work at all, but that's not what this question was oriented at)

Quote from: PhoenixInteresting idea. I had considered it in game design before but dismissed it in the past for a couple of reasons. One you sort of stumble on, and that's the need to have something to use for general tasks. If I want to break down a door, I might be able to do so even if I've no "break down door skill" (or even any weapon skill).

But also, there is the concern of how to handle non-human creatures. Creatures within the same norm of ability pose less problems than when you throw in fantasy creatures.

An ogre is not skilled with his club, at least not using any traditional definition of the word "skilled." But his club can be very dangerous because brute strength allows him to swing it fast and hard.

The first point gets at what I think is the heart of the issue - if you don't have some measure of common attributes, then a lot of actions that don't have specific skills or rules may get lost in the shuffle. So you end up needing something: some way to infer unspecified abilities from related skills, or a set of common attributes, or just every character is the same.

The ogre issue doesn't bother me that much. Who cares what the ogre's Strength and skill is? What matters is that his club is dangerous, reflected in his attack bonus, damage potential, etc.

And this brings in the issue I have with character attributes. In D&D, for example, it is more advantageous to increase your primary attributes than skills, because of the breadth of bonuses they apply. In some ways, it makes more sense to keep the general purpose attributes separated somewhat from the mechanical effects. If you want +1 to hit and +1 damage, then buy feats or skills to increase your attack and damage. If you want to increase your character's ability on generalized Strength checks, buy that. It makes it easier to balance the game mechanics, because you don't have to balance out so many different ways of achieving the same end result.

sorry, I was away last night.


First, some love
[blockquote=PC!]I'm also making a "larger point" on roleplaying paradigms - "ability scores" are so ubiquitous that it seems almost past due that we should be rocking the boat. Most new systems I've seen accept their presence as a given; we had a discussion in this forum not long ago about which ability scores to use, which accepts as its underlying premise that ability scores are necessary, which precludes any discussion on whether they are good. Even if I'm utterly wrong about how to challenge that premise I think there is a fruitful discussion to be had in challenging it.[/blockquote]
Just wanted to start here, because this is displaying an understanding of the proper spirit of questioning a major pillar of the institiution of gaming.  Huzzah!

Now, please understand where I am coming from.  I don't play D&D.  Haven't for decades.  I play a skill-based classless system.  In creating the mechanics, I toyed with geting rid of abilities and with adding more sub-abilities (derived abilities) both. So I speak from the position of someone who has already toyed with this idea and discarded it.  
I also think, as I have said before, that you can create a system to do what you want it to do.  So it is not that I believe that the mechanics are impossible or the idea is totally invalid.  But I do believe that the sytem will be fundamentally inferior in areas of playablity.


Reduntant or Additive?
Sure. Most weightlifters are strong, but there are many strong people who are not weightlifters. By definition, this makes strength separate from weightlifting.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise. My argument is not that strength doesn't exist (that would be silly), it's that tracking it as a score is redundant, because strength is also a necessary part of physical skills.

I disagree. Fundamentally, I see strength as a useful part of physical skills, not a necessary one.  I believe that charactes with average or perhaps even below average strengths may attempt to learn physical skills.  
Moreover, in terms of reality and playability, I see different levels of this 'ingredient' changing the actual ability success score.

Again, I am not saying you cannot change the game mechanic and include the supposition that all people who learn physical skills are strong, but it is an added supposition and a supposition I looked at before and discarded as it removed a large chunk of my major game mechnic.



non Reductus ad absurdum, unanswered
'¦In gaming parlance, a skill is a learned talent, but the ability to succeed at this talent may vary widely, from apprentice to journeyman to master to expert. In your above paragraph, you seem to be using the words 'skilled' and 'expert' as synonyms.

You misunderstand. I was using "expert" to describe particularly egregious breaches of the system; I was giving examples of obviously flawed characters that could be made with a D&D style ability & skill system. I was using a reductio ad absurdum strategy to argue my point, not saying that "skilled" is equivalent to "expert." I argue that the ability system produces, in these extreme cases, an absurd outcome, and that therefore the original assumptions of the ability score system are incorrect.

I think you are correct in that I misunderstood the intention of your argument, but not what your argument is or what you communicated.  You cut of most of my response off, but it included a number of points which I considered very important and valid that you did not address.  

'Just because someone learns a skill does not make them extremely proficient at it. Is everyone with a 'skill' (a learned ability) an expert, such as your dancer or chess player examples? or do you wish to get rid of the whole range of talent levels?
In gaming parlance, a skill is a learned talent, but the ability to succeed at this talent may vary widely, from apprentice to journeyman to master to expert. In your above paragraph, you seem to be using the words 'skilled' and 'expert' as synonyms.
I also point to the above paragraph where you challenge the assembled community to, "to come up with an example of a skill in which you can be highly proficient with a naturally low score in the relevant ability", but the key here is the term 'highly proficient'. One does not have to be highly proficient at something to be able to preform a mundane application of a skill. I can drive, but am not an 'expert driver'. I can operate my computer, but am far from being 'highly proficient'. I think those of you who have made fun of my typing will attest to this lack...'
What about the journeyman and the novice?  You only use the extreme case in your examples, but how will you represent the non-heroic and non epic?  How will you represent the somewhat doltish son of wealth sent to school to learn finances if everyonw who tries to learn finances is assumed to be smart?

MORE FOOTBALL
'¦I may not call a physically weak person "skilled" at football watching them play, but that does not mean they do not understand the game better and might actually surpass the 'football skill' of an less experienced but more physically powerful person.

Skill for tasks like that goes beyond simple mental understanding. Football skills embrace a wide variety of physical, mental, and psychological exercises that, together, form an amorphous thing we call a "skill." D&D isn't held to this standard; why should an ability-less system be? Skills are already abstracted and I don't see any reason why abilities should not either become part of that abstraction or, at most, be represented with feat-style traits that modify skills.

Who cares what D&D does or does not do?  That is irrelevant to me, and I think, to this discussion.  Comparing your ideas to the D&D system is, despite what other adherents might say, setting the bar very low when comapring to a skill based system.  I agree with you that different 'ingredients', to use the term I used before, are embraced in amalgamation as part of a skill.  I think we also have to often include the teaching method and practise as the other major ingredients.
And in the Guildschool rules, we have a rule callde the 'attribute over' rule that takes into account the affect of thse ingredients.  

Realism, finally defined...maybe
'¦The abilities do not merely exist independently from the skill, they often precede it and predicate an advantage or disadvantage for a skill. As such, what you really propose is more of a question of how realistic a game you want to play.

I propose that an ability-less system is more "realistic" than a system with abilities, because the ability-less system rightly treats abilities as the dependent variables that they are. You're reading something into ability scores that doesn't actually exist - Ability scores do not represent what heights you can potentially reach given your natural talents, they represent what your abilities actually are. A strength of 8 actually means that your strength is 8, it doesn't indicate a "DNA potential" or anything like that. You have no way of increasing your strength save for those occasional 4-level bonuses (which don't even come into play for most NPCs in the campaign world, who are apparently incapable of gaining strength or charisma or anything else).

More realistic.  Slippery terminology, especially from someone is trying to reduce the amount of variables in a given situation.  And again, an ascertion of 'what I mean based' on D&D.   In my guildschool system, attributes can be changed based on focusing their development, using attribute kits much the same as we use skill kits.  This incudes Charisma, where the kit is jokingly refered to as the, "How to gain friends and increase your influnce' book.  I have no idea what you mean by '4-level' bonuses.
I will have to say that you might be right that your ideas for an abilities-free system with skills is more realistic than the class-based game system you are comparing it against, but less realistic than other classless, skillbased systems with abilities.

Dude...
'¦Again, love the iconoclasm, and the daring, and am honored to be included in the conversation.

I'm happy to have you.
Keep up the good work!

Quote from: snakefingThe first point gets at what I think is the heart of the issue - if you don't have some measure of common attributes, then a lot of actions that don't have specific skills or rules may get lost in the shuffle. So you end up needing something: some way to infer unspecified abilities from related skills, or a set of common attributes, or just every character is the same.

I disagree. Fundamentally, I see strength as a useful part of physical skills, not a necessary one. I believe that charactes with average or perhaps even below average strengths may attempt to learn physical skills.[/quote]You cut of most of my response off, but it included a number of points which I considered very important and valid that you did not address.[/quote]What about the journeyman and the novice? You only use the extreme case in your examples, but how will you represent the non-heroic and non epic? How will you represent the somewhat doltish son of wealth sent to school to learn finances if everyonw who tries to learn finances is assumed to be smart?[/quote]non-combat[/i] task, since combat has its own special case rules.  To use a quote from snakefing,

QuoteThe ogre issue doesn't bother me that much. Who cares what the ogre's Strength and skill is? What matters is that his club is dangerous, reflected in his attack bonus, damage potential, etc.

ranks[/i] (meaning learned talent) or abilities/synergy.  To paraphrase, "who cares what the somewhat doltish son of wealth's intelligence and skill are?  What matters is that he is good (or not good?) at finances, reflected in his bonus to skill checks."

On an important note, when I say "who cares," I mean that only from a mechanical perspective.  As a roleplayer I care very much about the personality of our spoiled little brat (;)) and his personality quirks.  That, however, is something that needs to come out in roleplaying.  Two fighters could have a total attack bonus of +11; that does not mean they are the same fighter.  In especially significant cases an ability-less system would allow for mechanical customization in the way systems like GURPS already do, with advantages and disadvantages (which I've referred to as a kind of "trait").

QuoteComparing your ideas to the D&D system is, despite what other adherents might say, setting the bar very low when comapring to a skill based system.

Be that as it may, it's the only system I've ever actually played with, so there's nothing more I can offer you.  I think there's a general assumption here that folks have rather broad RPG experience, and I do not.

This really disallows me from commenting on the last part of your post.  I can only comment on what I know, and I don't know that.  My argument so far has been based on 1) playing D&D, 2) reading the GURPS rules, and 3) reading other people's "new system" threads on this site.  If I assumed your argument was based on something it is not, it is only because I lack the requisite background knowledge to discuss it on your terms.

PS. "4 level bonuses" means, in 3rd ed D&D, the +1 bonus you are able to add to a single ability score at every 4 levels.  As a result, since most NPCs do not reach 4th level - let alone 8th, which (given even ability scores) would be what you needed to increase the actual bonus - most people in the game never become stronger, smarter, more charismatic, or less so (except when they get old and old age bonuses/penalties start to kick in).

Ok I understand what you mean. I feel that you just need some way to reflect innate ability. Like Vreeg said you can go without but the system will wind up inferior to one that has it (Having experience with this sort of system I can tell you that what he said is fact not assumption). So looking at what you have I am thinking it might be a dropdown style similar to guild school. Fine with me since I like that system. It might go something like:

[ic]
Muscular Strength - x ranks + x synergy = total
Arms - x ranks + x synergy + x muscular strength total = total
Legs - x ranks + x synergy + x muscular strength total = total
Back - x ranks + x synergy + x muscular strength total = total

Perception - x ranks + x synergy = total
Spotting - x ranks + x synergy + x perception total = total
Listening - x ranks + x synergy + x perception total = total
Scenting - x ranks + x synergy + x perception total = total
[/ic]

Note that the above is just a vague example as I am trying to figure out what it is you want in the system.

Quote from: NomadicIt might go something like:

Not quite, because in my proposed system there are no ranks in "muscular strength" or "perception."  My basic argument is things like strength and perception, while they do describe some skills, are not in themselves worthy of being separate because they are implied within those skills.

Rather, all skills in the "Perception" category are given a synergy bonus determined by how many ranks the character has spent in skills within the Perception category.  For general rolls, a roll is made as if it were a skill within the proper category.  For example, if you wanted to do break down a door, you would first decide that breaking down a door fit into the "muscular strength" category better than any other category.  Then, you would roll it as if it were a muscular strength-type skill, adding the synergy bonuses (if any) that you would normally apply to a regular muscular strength skill.

Basically, general rolls are a concession to the idea that every valid system needs some kind of ad hoc component in unforeseen circumstances.

On a somewhat related note, I've been thinking a lot about the "talent" line of thought put forward in this thread.  We all seem to agree, to a lesser or greater extent, that skills should have some kind of talent input.  What I'm wondering is if it actually matters.  If one artisan is better than another artisan, is it mechanically important whether his higher level of ability is based on learned skill or innate talent?  Obviously the dichotomy between the naturally talented youngster and the experienced elder is great roleplaying material, but is it necessary to have that show up in the mechanics, since ultimately (at least, in dice systems) players just want to make the roll?

Yes it is, and I can give you a real life example here. Ok first off I am a lefty (handedness) with certain mental peculiarities (asperger's, ocd, etc). These things I have had since birth basically. They predisposed me to be better at certain things. Am I good in a social situation, no my asperger's makes me bad at interacting with people and my left-handedness can get me curious looks in a fine dining environment (especially when I am bumping the person next to me's elbows constantly). On the other hand it makes me naturally better than someone else at artistic based design and creation. The first time I took part in an art activity (in kindgergarten) I was already drawing far more advanced things than other students (meanwhile I was doing bad in the social department as talking to me creates alot of awkward moments). I had not been trained here (0 ranks basically) however I was pre-disposed to be better at certain things (bonuses from inborn talent).

As I have grown older and experienced things my ranks as you could call them have grown. My abilities get better because of my training. However my abilities have gotten better faster than normal people in the art (and reading and certain other departments) because I am predisposed to them and catch on faster to new techniques. On the other end those I am predisposed against (speeches, socializing, etc) have developed much slower since I don't have the innate ability to catch onto their nuances well.

As it is you can ignore this and have a rank only system. However you will have issues with confused players wanting to know how much of their skill is natural talent and how much is learned (in the case of guild school natural talent helps your experience mod so that your skills level faster; something I feel meshes with real life well). Furthermore you need to avoid a system that becomes too 2d (its fun to have dynamic characters who are naturally predisposed to certain abilities and again it meshes well with real life).

Quote from: NomadicAs I have grown older and experienced things my ranks as you could call them have grown. My abilities get better because of my training. However my abilities have gotten better faster than normal people in the art (and reading and certain other departments) because I am predisposed to them and catch on faster to new techniques. On the other end those I am predisposed against (speeches, socializing, etc) have developed much slower since I don't have the innate ability to catch onto their nuances well.

The company I work for (and many others) use a tool to identify strengths and weaknesses called the Predictive Index.  The premise behind it is exactly what you describe.  People are predisposed to certain skills and have difficulty learning others.  The skills they are good at come easily and the more challenging skills for that individual can be learned, it just takes extra effort.  If you do not continuously train the challenging skills they tend to deteriorate faster than ones you have talent for.  
The interesting part about taking a PI is that all it is is a list of descriptors and you select the ones that you believe describe you.  I found mine to be freakishly accurate and once processed basically nailed my personality and tendencies perfectly.

Quote from: Hedgewriter

Quote from: NomadicAs I have grown older and experienced things my ranks as you could call them have grown. My abilities get better because of my training. However my abilities have gotten better faster than normal people in the art (and reading and certain other departments) because I am predisposed to them and catch on faster to new techniques. On the other end those I am predisposed against (speeches, socializing, etc) have developed much slower since I don't have the innate ability to catch onto their nuances well.

The company I work for (and many others) use a tool to identify strengths and weaknesses called the Predictive Index.  The premise behind it is exactly what you describe.  People are predisposed to certain skills and have difficulty learning others.  The skills they are good at come easily and the more challenging skills for that individual can be learned, it just takes extra effort.  If you do not continuously train the challenging skills they tend to deteriorate faster than ones you have talent for.  
The interesting part about taking a PI is that all it is is a list of descriptors and you select the ones that you believe describe you.  I found mine to be freakishly accurate and once processed basically nailed my personality and tendencies perfectly.

I will be happy to list PI as an effective predicitive tool once it is willing to go through peer review.  Currently, they have refused every attempt by the APA and other pscholological organizations to have their methodology and results analyzed.

True however that does not change the hard fact the people are predisposed towards being strong in certain fields and weak in others.

I had a further thought on the ogre example. A single-attribute system also does not allow for the creature with poor aim that really hurts when it hits.

The ogre's not very good with its club, but it swings for the fences.

Quote from: PhoenixI had a further thought on the ogre example. A single-attribute system also does not allow for the creature with poor aim that really hurts when it hits.

The ogre's not very good with its club, but it swings for the fences.

I don't know why you would think this.  There's no reason that, for instance, aim and damage could be represented by two different skills in two different categories.  I haven't even thought of how a skill combat system might work, so your conclusion seems a little premature.

Typically skill-based systems use your skill roll to determine base damage then add strength mod.

Having a separate damage-dealing skill is definitely skill bloat and really starts to feel like you are trying too hard to make something work over a simpler solution: Attributes.

Don't get me wrong, I like the simplicity of pure skill-based. But if you have to add more and more skills or tones of feats/advantages to compensate for not having attributes (or ability scores if you like that term), you've lost the simplicity aspect.

An even simpler solution would be to finally make good on all those complaints about D&D being too combat oriented and treat combat like any other skill - that is to say, abstract it. :)

i havent the time to go back and read the whole thread, and i'm not sure if this argument has been used, but Polycarpp, the football player became the football player because he was able to become a good football player because he was strong, and stayeed a football player because he was strong. Training in football then increased his stength.
  Abilities are just as important as everything else. Everything depends on abilities, but abilities depend on everything else.

Quote from: AtlantisAbilities are just as important as everything else. Everything depends on abilities, but abilities depend on everything else.

Once again, my point is not that abilities don't exist or don't matter, it's that there is no need for them to be tracked separately.  I agree that "everything depends on abilities [and] abilities depend on everything else," and I think that inextricable connection is a good argument for why ability and skill shouldn't be alienated.

It's occured to me that maybe what I really want is just this, a closer and more sensible relationship between abilities and skills.  I think removing abilities as a separate mechanic can accomplish this, and I really like the idea of synergy making skills self-reinforcing, but I think it's also likely that a system that tracked abilities would still be satisfactory if the relationship between abilities and skills was close and dynamic.  Having immutable abilities that give a fixed bonus to skills doesn't cut it for me, and as you can see in the OP it's the impetus behind this thread in the first place. :)

What you could do is make abilities much closer to the skill dynamic. Like I said with the guild school example, have abilities give bonuses to how fast related skills level. I have good strength, I am going to get better faster at things that require strength, etc...

Quote from: NomadicWhat you could do is make abilities much closer to the skill dynamic. Like I said with the guild school example, have abilities give bonuses to how fast related skills level. I have good strength, I am going to get better faster at things that require strength, etc...

I don't think it's ever a good idea to introduce a mechanic that could cause some characters to advance faster than others.  It forces players to min/max just to keep up with fellow players.

Quote from: Polycarp!

Quote from: NomadicWhat you could do is make abilities much closer to the skill dynamic. Like I said with the guild school example, have abilities give bonuses to how fast related skills level. I have good strength, I am going to get better faster at things that require strength, etc...

I don't think it's ever a good idea to introduce a mechanic that could cause some characters to advance faster than others.  It forces players to min/max just to keep up with fellow players.

well, it might not be a good idea, but it has been the primary mechanic for advancement for the Guildschool system for decades, and for over a hundred PCs.  It seems to work well, in practise.
I think you are still thinking of classes and levels.
Guildschool keeps experience in every skill, and the mechanism Nomad refers to is the experience modifier of a skill.  The origin of the skill, in terms of who taught it, has the most determinate of the EXPMOD, but the attributes come into play quite a bit as well.  And this allows us to have players get experience only in skills they use.
Generally, each PC has different skills they have very advantageous EXPMODS in, so there is none of this min/maxing you worry about.
 :-p
 

What vreeg said.

Because it seems relevant, I want to point out that how the Riddle of Steel (the core rules) handled skills seemed a neat innovation to me. That is, your skill determined the DC, while your attribute determined the number of dice you rolled. Use of a skill automatically improved it (lowering the DC, to a point).

The Seneschal could increase/decrease the challenge by modifying the number of dice you had, but your skill always determined the target number.

This methodology meant the player could choose what attributes to improve, while skills improved based on what they actually did. Further, skills were not linked to specific attributes, but could vary based on how the skill was being used. So some climbs might test endurance, while some might test agility, or even perception (that's a stretch, but it could happen).

Speaking of the Riddle of Steel, I still need to find a way to track down a copy of that game.


Anyway, on the topic at hand. Since I don't follow football, I'm going to use a hockey analogy instead.
Compare Alex Tanguay and Dion Phaneuf. Two of the top line players for the Calgary flames last season, each making roughly the same salary.
Tanguay is a play maker with soft hands, who prefers to pass rather than shoot.
Paneuf is a heavy hitting defenceman with a killer slap shot.

Both would have very high levels in the Hockey skill, yet how do you represent their huge differences in style? An ability system does a decent job of this, giving Paneuf a higher Str score, and Tangauy a higher Dex.

Some people have said that having this kind of separation in the mechanics is not necessary, as it can be covered simply through roleplaying. However I feel that having a more complete system which is able to reflect a character concept is important and adds enjoyment to the game.

Sure you could just give the characters traits like "Heavy hitter" or "Soft hands", but how many traits are you going to put together in order to represent all the different approaches to different skills?


By the way, if you're looking for a system where physical skills boost your physical attributes, I suggest taking a look at RIFTS. It does just that, and at first glance seems like a quite simple way to implement this kind of feature. However if you spend any time making characters you will soon see how cumbersome this system really is.
I'm not saying it can't be done well, just that RIFTS can be a good example of how not to do it.

If you ever come by Copenhagen, i saw a copy of TROS in a shop not that long ago...
I'm not sure whether it would help, but the mechanics for the Unhallowed Metropolis game implemented something called "stunts" for some of their skills; essentially, every time you went up a level in that skill you got a stunt in addition to the skill point. A stunt was an ability that fleshed out the skill somewhat more, giving you some sort of "special ability". It was mostly done for combat skills, but can't see why you couldn't do it for hockey as well. Also, the skills that didn't have stunts had specializations for each skill level; they essentially gave you an extra skill point in any case where the specialization applied.
It should be noted that UM does have ability scores, but don't add them to skills.