The CBG's System (Attributes)

[~Kalin~]

In an effort to get this thread back up and running it was suggested that the thread should be broken up into smaller threads each discussing a specific idea. And so i present the first thread of many that will hopefully help us iron out the CBG's System.

This thread is solely for the discussion of the names/types of attributes characters are going to possess in the CBG's System, as well as anything else anyone can possibly think of that relates to attributes. And hopefully i can say that we want the CBG's System to differ from D&Ds, and if that is the case do we want attributes that just describe the body, the mind, the soul, all three, something else?

So get discussing :)

[snakefing]

First thing is, what do we want the attributes to do in the system?

Generally, there are a few roles that attributes play in various systems I've seen:

Descriptive '" They can help to produce a picture of who the character is, what they are like, and what they are good at. This is distinct from the mechanical consequences. I think it was 2e D&D that had an Appearance attribute that had very little mechanical consequence, but players still often used it as a characterization device. Similarly, D&D Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma are often used for characterization, quite independent of their mechanical effects. You don't need attributes to do this, but they can still be useful if you want them.

Mechanical prerequisites '" This is generally more of a balancing device than anything else. Although prereqs generally have some kind of logical basis, the main actual game effect is to make it cost something to pursue a given line. For example, the prereqs for various feats or abilities require you to spend points on certain attributes, which diverts points from other abilities or prereqs. In some systems this can be a very important balancing mechanism, but the role could also be played by any other system of prerequisites.

Background abilities '" Often things come up that are not directly covered by skills or other specific mechanical aspects of the game. Can the character lift a heavy item? Remember a password for a system they haven't logged on to for years? Resist the mind control lasers? Attributes can be used to differentiate between characters so that not everyone has the same background capabilities. I've seen some systems where players could make up their own attributes '" background abilities were assumed to be average unless the character had some attribute that made them better (or worse) than average. This can be a useful adjunct to the descriptive characterization elements, if you want to make mechanical distinctions between characters. Practically speaking, it works pretty well to just assume that characters are pretty much average at anything that isn't directly dealt with by the rules.

Basic aptitude '" Here attributes provide specific mechanical bonuses for specific game constructs like skills, saving throws, and the like. I'm not sure that attributes are really that useful here. First, why would a +2 on Will saves necessarily be tied to a +2 bonus on Sense Motive checks? Why would Sense Motive and Concentration necessarily get the same bonus? You could just as easily make each mechanical effect be a separate trait and the character chooses the traits they want, like Quick Study (+1 skill point per level), Iron Will (+2 save) or Aptitude (Sense Motive).


Depending on what role(s) you want the attributes to play, you could do without them entirely, make them mostly free form, or choose a set of attributes that do specific mechanical things.

[~Kalin~]

Well to me attributes should be used to help describe and define a character, such as what the character can and can't do, but they also should have some sort of in game mechanics that is used as a balancing device.

Background abilities '" Often things come up that are not directly covered by skills or other specific mechanical aspects of the game. Can the character lift a heavy item? Remember a password for a system they haven't logged on to for years? Resist the mind control lasers? Attributes can be used to differentiate between characters so that not everyone has the same background capabilities. I've seen some systems where players could make up their own attributes '" background abilities were assumed to be average unless the character had some attribute that made them better (or worse) than average. This can be a useful adjunct to the descriptive characterization elements, if you want to make mechanical distinctions between characters. Practically speaking, it works pretty well to just assume that characters are pretty much average at anything that isn't directly dealt with by the rules.

Thoughts?[/b]
Come on people lets not allow this discussion to die (again).
*Gets the pointy stick out* dont make me use this

[snakefing]

Well to me attributes should be used to help describe and define a character, such as what the character can and can't do, but they also should have some sort of in game mechanics that is used as a balancing device.

In previous discussions, some people have complained (with reference to D&D) about what amounts to interference between the characterization elements and the mechanical elements. Specifically, why should I have to make my character an obnoxious dullard just to save points to make him a decent fighter? The mechanical penalties (lower skill points, etc.) are necessary for balance, sure, but then there seems to be some pressure on your characterization. So people were pretty much in favor of dropping out mental attributes.

I'm not sure I would go that far, but still I see the point. There's a difference between "doesn't get a lot of skill points" on the one hand, and "isn't allowed to come up with clever ideas in game" on the other. So I'd be wary of the cross-talk between characterization and mechanics.

Here's a proposal:

Use four attributes: Physical, Mental, Social, Spiritual. They are deliberately broad and vague. It is up to the player to decide what it means in terms of characterization. For example, a character with low Mental aptitude need not be stupid or heedless - she may just be more oriented toward action over thought. Or she may be a bit slow. High physical might indicate anything from speed to power.

The attributes don't have direct mechanical influence (or at least not much, maybe used for bonus/penalty in certain situations), except that they are used as prerequisites for various feats and/or traits. Or something like that. So if you take a higher value of Physical, lets say, you automatically get some points you can use to buy beneficial physical traits, like Powerful Blow, or Nimble Fingers. Or if you take a low mental, you have to take a certain number of mental flaws, like Slow Learner or Poor Memory. The player can choose what traits or flaws fit their concept of the character, so characterization is not compromised so much.

Most of the things that D&D makes into mechanical benefits of the attributes (to hit, damage, AC, hit points, bonus spell slots, skill point bonuses) would be pushed into specific traits. So if you have Physical +2, you might choose to divide that up as Tough Character +1, Powerful Blow +1. You'd still use your raw attributes for some things (attribute checks, maybe as skill check bonuses, saving throw bonuses, and the like).

And I am against characters creating their own attributes for their characters, as i can see this getting out of hand very easily and destroying the balance of the system.

Most of the games I've seen that do this kind of thing go out of their way to be very "rules-light". By reducing the amount of "game" involved in trying to min/max your character, you reduce the pressure to abuse the system. But that is really only applicable to people who want to play a game of that type. And it does rely a lot on player discretion and maturity.

[AllWillFall2Me]

I like the system Snake has suggested, it seems fairly clean, a lot like the White Wolf knack system in Scion.
Now, what needs to be discussed, regarding it, is whether there will be checks that use the base score (IE, Physical checks) given that is covers such a wide range (if your guys has, say Tough Character +2, Powerful Blow +1, should his Physical of 3 affect a check that clearly requires speed and reactions?)
May I suggest Might, Mind, Soul, Social and Reflex?

Finally, would the system include a flaw trade-off system? I'm thinking something like gaining a flaw, not from a low score, would add a beneficial trait. Say, a guy with Physical 2 (Tough Char +2, Powerful Blow +1, Slow Reaction -1) That gives us the picture of a char that hits hard, has great endurance, but can't dodge as well.

just some thoughts. I like Snake's simple system, I'm just concerned it may be a bit hard for beginners to get everything (When does physical add vs not?)

[Ra-Tiel]

I think snakefing and AWF2M have some good ideas. If I may describe my own thoughts...

In the Tri20 system I was using 3 "base attributes": Body, Mind, and Soul. Each of those contained 3 "sub attributes". At character creation, a player got 12 points to distribute amongst the three base attributes (min 1, max 6, human avg 3). All sub attributes were given a value equal to their base attribute. Afterwards, the player could modify the sub attributes on a 1-to-1 basis (e.g. to increase one attribute by +2, he had to lower the other attributes withint this group by a total of -2).

I think something similar may be a good idea there, too. First, the few "base" attributes make it very easy to describe a character's focus - brawn, brain, speed, etc. Second, the sub attributes still allow for a high level of [mechanical] detail. And third, each player can decide for his own how much he wants to deal with the system. One player may be satisfied with having "Body: 4" and being equally strong, fast, and resilient, while another player may want to tweak and modify any and all sub attributes to his liking (perhaps having a "Body" attribute of only 2, but being very quick and agile at the expense of strength and endurance).

On this note, my personal opinion is that in a pnp rpg attributes should describe the "foundations" of the character - where his (innate and/or potential) strengths and weaknesses lie. Afaik this (or something very closely related) happens in every rpg, be it DnD, [n]WoD, Shadowrun, or Gurps.

[snakefing]

Will there be checks that use the base score?

Pro: If there are, it helps make the base scores independently meaningful. Also, there are a good number of tasks (climbing, jumping, swimming) that use both agility and strength in various combinations. Keeping the number of attributes small and easily understood makes the system simpler. We don't necessarily need to mechanically represent every little distinction.

Con: There are some tasks (Balance, Run) that test a pretty specific subset of physical ability. Using the base score as a modifier here will result in weird types of synergy.

You can think of the base scores as a general aptitude or orientation. The specific traits represent how the character has developed his aptitude for specific mechanical bonuses.

I guess, if you wanted to keep something like the Will, Fort, Refl saves of D&D, you'd have to have at least one base attribute per each save. So then you might need to separate Might from Reflex. But we don't have to limit yourself that way.

Flaw trade-offs?

Experience seems to show that trade-offs are dangerous to game balance. Optimizers can find ways to take a number of unrelated flaws to build up a group of synergistic benefits.

That said, it would probably be safe enough to allow some limited number of trade-offs. Say, only one base attribute is allowed to be negative (single trade-off of one attribute for another), and also allow one additional trade-off within each attribute group. So you can take a -1 to your Mental in order to increase your Physical. Then within your Mental, you could take (Slow Learner -2, Good Memory +1), and also do a similar trade-off in your Physical, Social, and Spiritual traits.

When does physical add vs. not?

I haven't got that worked out yet. But you'd want to have some set of rules for things that it specifically does and does not affect, plus some guidelines for when to use pure attribute checks. Say, each skill would list the attributes (and maybe traits?) that affect it. Most skills would have an attribute but maybe some would not? I don't know, just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.

[Ra-Tiel]

Will there be checks that use the base score? [...]

Currently, no. All checks are made against the modified sub attribute. Eg, if you want to determine wether the character can lift a heavy object or not, you use a "strength" check, not a "body" check.

Flaw trade-offs?

Experience seems to show that trade-offs are dangerous to game balance. Optimizers can find ways to take a number of unrelated flaws to build up a group of synergistic benefits.

Which is one reason why I'm not a big fan of "flaws". Wether the [n]WoD, nor Exalted, nor Scion did it for me. Shadowrun also is a bit wierd, but at least there's no such freaky advantages like "fast learner" or something in SR, which makes it a bit more endurable. ;)

That said, it would probably be safe enough to allow some limited number of trade-offs. Say, only one base attribute is allowed to be negative (single trade-off of one attribute for another), and also allow one additional trade-off within each attribute group. So you can take a -1 to your Mental in order to increase your Physical. Then within your Mental, you could take (Slow Learner -2, Good Memory +1), and also do a similar trade-off in your Physical, Social, and Spiritual traits.

Please wait a moment. My idea was that you can only trade sub attributes that belong to the same base attribute. Tri20 for example uses the following setup:

[BASE -> sub1 / sub2 / sub3]
BODY -> Constitution / Dexterity / Strength
MIND -> Intuition / Perception / Willpower
SOUL -> Charisma / Inspiration / Karma

You could not eg trade one point in Charisma for one point in Strength. You can not freely trade attributes. You are still bound by the "average" value you put into the base attribute and the minimum and maximum values (1, respectively 6).

I haven't got that worked out yet. But you'd want to have some set of rules for things that it specifically does and does not affect, plus some guidelines for when to use pure attribute checks. Say, each skill would list the attributes (and maybe traits?) that affect it. Most skills would have an attribute but maybe some would not? I don't know, just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.

I wonder if we need a "classical" mechanic like "attribute + skill" at all. One possible alternative idea for a system could be this here:
- classify all skills into groups similar to Gurps (very easy, easy, moderate, hard, very hard)
- a skill's category determines how many dice are rolled (very easy = 5, easy = 4, ... , very hard = 1)
- attribute score is bonus added to each die roll when check is compared against DC
- skill "ranks" determine number of "special actions" character can take with skill, like rerolls, reduced time, or bonus damage for a combat maneuver

This would not at all have to work with "d20 compatible" mechanics. We could use d12 for example, and make attributes range from 1-6 and skills from 0-6.

[~Kalin~]

so let me see if i have this right, we have four "base attributes": Body, Mind, Social and Spiritual with a series of "sub attributes" that are yet to be defined fully, that help describe and define a character?

[Ra-Tiel]

so let me see if i have this right, we have four "base attributes": Body, Mind, Social and Spiritual with a series of "sub attributes" that are yet to be defined fully, that help describe and define a character?

Basically, that is my humble suggestion. However, it's another question if we really need Social and Spiritual, or if we can combine those into one. What would Spirit (I prefer to keep it in one theme, and Spiritual falls out of the line as it isn't a noun, as is Social but I can't find a better word for that :( ) actually represent? Body and Mind are most likely already clear in their definition. Social would represent a character's ability to deal with and influence others. And Spirit? In most settings, magic is either a function of one's will (aka learned -> "Intelligence") or of one's personality (aka inborn -> "Charisma"). Also, what sub attributes would Spirit have?

I think three base attributes should suffice: one for all things of the body, one for all things of the mind, and one for all things of your personality that cannot be measured by bench pressing or IQ tests. ;)

[~Kalin~]

Some possible sub attributes
Body: Strength, Dexterity, Speed, Agility, Constitution, Endurance, Toughness, Stamina, Reflexes, Reaction.
Mind: Intelligence, Wisdom, Intuition, Willpower, Perception, Awareness.
Social: Charisma, Appearance?

So the questions become how many sub attributes do we want to have? should we have an even number of sub attributes for each main attribute? What to we want the attributes to range from? the usual D&D 1-18? or something new?

Thoughts?

[Ra-Tiel]

Some possible sub attributes
Body: Strength, Dexterity, Speed, Agility, Constitution, Endurance, Toughness, Stamina, Reflexes, Reaction.
Mind: Intelligence, Wisdom, Intuition, Willpower, Perception, Awareness.
Social: Charisma, Appearance?

Well, one question is still unanswered: how many base attributes/categories/... do we need? Is it really necessary to include an extra section for "socialness" and "magicalness", or could we combine these two into one (as both are quite "intangable" compared to the power of the body and the mind).

So the questions become how many sub attributes do we want to have? should we have an even number of sub attributes for each main attribute?

I think 3 sub attributes per category seems about right:
#1 - raw power (strength / intelligence / charm)
#2 - resistance (constitution / willpower / intuition)
#3 - reaction (dexterity / perception / inspiration)

On a related note: this could also work quite well for attribute generation. Imagine you have a 3x3 grid with the attributes from above. Each attribute starts at the slightly below average value of 2. Then you can select 1 column that adds +1 to every attribute in it, and one row that adds +1 to every attribute in it. After that, you get 3 bonus points you can place where you want.

What to we want the attributes to range from? the usual D&D 1-18? or something new?

Depends. Are we including something like "ability modifiers"? If not and we're working off the score alone, I would suggest using something along the 1-10 (avg 3) range or something.

Thoughts?

See above. ;)

[~Kalin~]

Well, one question is still unanswered: how many base attributes/categories/... do we need? Is it really necessary to include an extra section for "socialness" and "magicalness", or could we combine these two into one (as both are quite "intangable" compared to the power of the body and the mind).

I think 3 sub attributes per category seems about right:
#1 - raw power (strength / intelligence / charm)
#2 - resistance (constitution / willpower / intuition)
#3 - reaction (dexterity / perception / inspiration)
[/quote]Depends. Are we including something like "ability modifiers"? If not and we're working off the score alone, I would suggest using something along the 1-10 (avg 3) range or something.
[/quote]
Why only the 1-10 range? why not 1-12 or something? im just curious as to why you choose these numbers.

[Ra-Tiel]

Well i was thinking around 2-4 sub attributes, with say three catagories: Body, Mind and something like Social/Self/Soul. I always thought "magicalness" should be based of some sort of skill, and i suppose we could turn "socialness" into various skills instead of trying to design sub attributes for it.

I see what you mean. However, in most cases there is an attribute influence on magic in most cases (either "brains" for learned magic, or your "personality" for inborn magic). And if mental attributes power spellcasting, why shouldn't social attributes power social interaction?

How do you see charm and inspiration and intuition working?

Easy. Charm would be applied to skills when you actively try to influence someone (eg, intimidate a brawler, seduce a guard, lie to the constable, etc); Intuition would be applied when you are influenced by someone (eg being intimidated, being seduced, being lied to); and Inspiration would be a "catch all" for some other stuff, like when you need to determine how creative your poem is you created on the fly for a random noble, or if your character gets an idea when the whole party (including the players themselves) are stuck in a dead end.

and whats with the "raw power", "Resistance" and "Reaction" catagories?

That was just a quick example on who we could categorize attributes. If you look at it like that, all categories can be used "offensively", "defensively", and "reactively". Offensively means you are trying to affect someone else, be it hit him, beat him in a game of chess, or seduce him. Defensively means you are trying to evade something or prevent someone from affecting you, either resist a mindcontrolling spell, see through a seduction attempt, or shake off that nasty disease. And reactively means that you act out of instinct, be it dodging an attack, noticing someone stalking you, or having a flash of memory.

Why only the 1-10 range? why not 1-12 or something? im just curious as to why you choose these numbers.

Well, to be honest: I have no idea. :D Seriously, it was just an example. We could pretty much use any range, if need be even -38657 to +1.73e8719. ;)

On the other hand, we could take a different approach. We just say that "0" represents the average score for a human, and just work off that. So a particularily strong person might have Str +2, or a simple minded person could have Int -1.

[~Kalin~]

I see what you mean. However, in most cases there is an attribute influence on magic in most cases (either "brains" for learned magic, or your "personality" for inborn magic). And if mental attributes power spellcasting, why shouldn't social attributes power social interaction?

Are we going to have attributes that power spellcasting? If so, we would have to limit the ways that attributes can be enhanced or the system would suffer from the same problem as the D&D magic system. And im not saying that we shouldn't have social attributes but they are a little harder to describe accurately and what would the sub attributes be?