The Campaign Builder's Guild

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.