As a run-of-the-mill /tg/ autist I've been looking at the homebrew system threads and thinking about existing systems...What purpose do attributes serve in a game design sense?
Context: D&D has Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha; Exalted has Str/Dex/Sta Cha/Man/App Per/Int/Wit; Numenera has Str/Spd/Int; etc
In all systems having only one stat gate your ability to hit or not makes it automatically next to (if not actually) the most valuable stat. Even saying you make it more fairly distributed (say Str gates melee accuracy and Dex ranged, for instance) Attributes are almost never such that they can be part of someone's "build," you don't get to have fun with your attribute allocation usually, it seems, because your class demands specific priorities.
There are some off-class tropes that pop up now and again (high-Int fighter being the most famous) but the attitude of "this is what you have and you have to deal with it" seems like a sub-optimal way to design a system.
Numenera each class has a basic spread of stats with additional points to allocate on top of that, which I think redeems attributes a bit - your warrior will always have pretty good physical stats, it's up to you if you go hard on that or bring up Int to be the highest. Numenera's attribute system in general though is significantly different so it's hard to draw other comparisons.
tl;dr What's the purpose of attributes in TTRPGs, can we do without them via some other system (class-determined attributes?), is there a way to make them more fun and give people a chance to actually create their own "builds" etc?
>>47337351
Attributes are the qualities of a character that are present at birth and through all stages of life, and cannot be taken away except through permanent death/disability. Contrawise, they are never learned abilities.
>>47337351
Wait, do you mean you're better in a job when you have natural qualities for it? Who would have guessed!
If you don't like that kind of attributes allocation, consider playing a game without classes or something better, a system where characters must act as normal human beings as well.
>>47337390
That's more of a "what" rather than a "why," even if it is pretty accurate. There's plenty of "unlearned" traits on a character though, other than just their ability scores. Sorcerers and their magic is the most obvious example.
>>47337445
What I'm saying is that in the current setup in, say, D&D, if you want to play a Wizard, you MUST allocate your abilities in a particular way (typically Int, Dex, Wis in that order), or you will literally take penalties to your ability to do the thing that you are. (Grammar intentional.)
If you look at something like League of Legends, Ability Power, Attack Damage, Armor, Magic Resist, Attack Speed, etc, there's a pretty wide range of stats, and given characters have particular stats which are BETTER for them, but off-builds are pretty plausible. For instance, on Aatrox, you're not likely to build AP because he's a melee duelist, his focuses are on lifesteal, damage, and health.
He has two abilities that scale on AP, though, so it's plenty possible to build AP on him, even if that'd be absurd at a tournament level.
The point is that Attributes are not currently set up to be fun. It's already a fantasy escapism game, if you're saying that each class MUST HAVE certain ratings in each score, make that part of the class so you select Barbarian and have 14 Str 10 Dex 16 Con before having to random-gen or point allocate or anything else. It's a non-interactive and unfun part of the system, and THAT is the point of the thread.
ADnD, I've played, and I've seen how it was intended that you would roll your stats and then see what classes you qualify for based on those.
Those days are behind us, though. People choose the class they want to play first, and rolling attributes just seems to be a chance to have less fun because you got unlucky, more than anything else. Hence the many different rolling methods in the image up top.
>>47337351
>you don't get to have fun with your attribute allocation... because... class
Even without class, the challenges the characters face would call into question whether their attributes were endowed enough to overcome them.
You could leave every challenge up to luck, and create the story behind the challenge based on the results. e.g., when you try to open a door, the DM interprets the coinflip "heads" to mean the door was unlocked and opened easily into an inhabited or regularly used room; "tails" he takes to mean that this door is a false one used to position you for a horrible trap. Strategy would have to be backfilled to some degree or there just won't be any.
Or, you could take each thing a PC tries to do and grant them something like "experience points" in the underlying capabilities. e.g. doing strenuous physical activity would improve your health and strength capability. This would encourage skittish players to take action more often without having to constantly present them with threats to make them move. It would also allow characters to adapt to the demands of some kinds of adventures over time.
>>47337764
The second of those two things seems cool, something like an Elder Scrolls skill leveling system, but that's not really relevant. Neither is the first part, actually.
You copied the part where I explain that player's hands seem tied in stat allocation, which I suppose is my main grievance, but then nothing else you say is about that.
Of course there are going to be challenges where success is random but skewed by character traits, I'm not saying I don't like how playing TTRPGs works, I'm saying I'd like to hear thoughts and have a discussion on the potential for something better than "well I want to play X so I guess I have to put these rolls here."
If that's how it is, then even that can be improved and remove another barrier to newer players by just saying something like WIZARDS START WITH 14 INT (and so on for other stats) HERE ARE 6 MORE POINTS TO SPREAD AS YOU WANT, like how Numenera does with their stat pools. If you're going to MAKE people build in a particular way, at least don't pretend like they can do whatever they want?
>>47337351
Stats in oD&D were for skill checks. Instead of having skill points, you roll a d20, and if you rolled under, you pass. Their impact in combat was minor, so you were somewhat free to do whatever (but then there's also the XP bonus/penalty thing to discourage weak fighters/dumb wizards etc.).
I think the dream scenario for D&D like stats would be to make every stat equally important for all parts of the game for everyone (with minor differences in importance between the three "pillars").
Either way, I feel like a good replacement is the Approaches system that FATE Accelerated and a bunch of PbtA games use. I massively prefer it because it's flexible and it does not shoehorn your character into one part of the game.
It's almost like someone really smart and not all that healthy or strong might consider an academic career over becoming a sell sword
>>47337743
So some LoLfaggot is going to sit here and tell me that league of legends is less restrictive regarding stats and builds than PnP RPGs in general? Go fuck yourself.
>>47337878
> can we do without them
yes, and I offered 2 ways of doing that. the reverse would be classless roleplaying focused solely on attributes. Party role would be left up to the player, which is questionable, and the DM would have to provide methods of their use.
> is there a way to make them more fun and give people a chance to actually create their own "builds" etc?
People currently use prestige classes and skills to get around this.
>>47337743
The problem is that not everyone is like you. With too many options, some people would never play because they'd never know where to start. The rules were meant to be a guide for good faith players and a boundary against people who would want to abuse the system by taking too great an advantage to the degree that the game would become less fun. You don't have to enforce the rule. The DM can allow a wizard with high CON, there are spells that didn't require a hit roll, and there are magical protections, so I don't see why a wizard must think he needs DEX unless it's become some kind of crafting requirement.
OVA has no attributes whatsoever. Not even proper skills. It's a class less system, you buy abilities that range from combat skills, magic, social ability, etc.
>>47337950
https://youtu.be/XAAp_luluo0?t=1m8s
>>47338489
You literally didn't:
>Even without class
>class
>every challenge up to luck
As I said I like the second option you presented, in terms of how to advance a character, but that's more of a replacement for XP, rather than for Abilities.
>currently use prestige classes and skills to get around this
Nobody should have to "get around" a part of the system.
>>47338645
>too many options
I can't remember where I read it but someone pointed out that Feats (especially in 3.5, but elsewhere as well) are basically a trap for new players, with a ton of interesting sounding abilities that do fuckall. I feel like the current system of full-freeform assignment with "oh yeah that means you have a penalty to your class features" later is more a trap than "this class starts with this spread and has X points to buy whatever they want higher."
>>47337351
In class-based systems, they shape the character in both roleplaying and combat terms. 4e has a pretty good example of what I mean:
Most defenders are encouraged to promote Strength and Constitution. This means they're the sturdiest characters ("I'll try to make the jump, since anyone else would die from that fall.") and gives them the best melee basic attacks, which are useful in defender-ing.
Leaders are usually encouraged to develop Charisma so they can serve as the party's face.
Controllers use Intelligence and Wisdom, so they can cover the knowledge-based skills like Arcana and such.
And strikers are skill monkeys, typically with good Dexterity so they can sneak and scout ahead.
>can we do without them via some other system (class-determined attributes?)
Anything's possible.
>>47337351
Not every sytem uses classes.
Not every system has a completely broken skill system.
>>47337351
When I run dnd, I tend towards rolling first and choosing class after, or starting at level 0 and building a character that way.
In addition, in a homebrew I'm making players choose archetypes instead of straight classes. It gives them a growing array of stats while leveling, but also allows for a lot of change throughout the levels. Players can choose the Warrior or Mage archetype and still put the majority of their free increases into Magic and Power attributes respectively to both create a gish character. Also, Accuracy itself is a stat which can be circumvented by using aoe (particularly pbaoe) abilities. Every one of the 7 attributes (Power, Defense, Accuracy, Evasion, Magic, Magic Defense, Speed) are all useful to every character. Most characters can get away with one power source (Power or Magic), but mixing power sources can also be extremely beneficial.
>>47337351
This guy (>>47339314) took the words right out of my mouth.
Oh, and to answer your question:
>What purpose do attributes serve in a game design sense?
They serve a purpose of ranking characters mechanically, so you will know what to roll, dummy.
There are numerous systems that aren't character-centric (you might call them management games, for example), where the main stats are various resources, for example.
I'm strongly against skills. They're just an illusion of choice. Center the game around roles rather than flat numbers, and you're good to go.
Once you decide on what role you want in combat, there's only one set of completely optimal skills to take; anything else and you're gimping yourself. Gimping yourself in exchange variety, sure, but that kind of numbers being all over the place makes balancing a nightmare; you either balance around the minmaxers to make everyone else weak, or balance around everyone else to make the minmaxers gods.
Hell, I don't even use skills in my game: http://buddingheroes.com/faq/#s2q2
>>47340994
Your link makes a compelling argument.
>>47340577
>so you will know what to roll, dummy
I mean, yeah, ok, fair. I might just be spinning my wheels of into space here.
I'm generally discontent with the attributes of White Wolf or the abilities of DnD though, so getting to think about other systems like >>47340299 is nice to see what pros there actually might be to it, and what better options there are.
I feel confident you could have character traits that make sense for different tasks without abilities, but am not sure if that's better.
>>47341188
> I feel confident you could have character traits that make sense for different tasks without abilities
How is that different from a free-form or a point-n-click game then? NEOScavenger does something similar, but even then it employs random elements (e.g. in combat).
If the only thing the game checks is available perks and no rolls are made, why bother playing it with people? You might as well read a gamebook/visual novel instead.
>>47338772
I'm saying that how you handle the challenges of the adventure determines how you use attributes and/or class. I purposely left things open so that you can construct as you please. You don't have to get rid of the leveling system if you record PC usages of attributes or powers, but you can. You can score them with points, or hours, or apprentice/ journeyman/ master. You don't have to get rid of classes either, but you can.
> If you look at something like League of Legends, Ability Power, Attack Damage, Armor, Magic Resist, Attack Speed,
By splitting some of them apart, they allowed more diversity. You could gauge 30 attributes if you wanted, and maybe that would make you happy. but you said you wanted the opposite.
Because the whole point of an RPG is to create a collaborative story? If all you care about is the numbers, it sounds like you actually want a board game
>>47341463
How is that different from freeform?
And also, the story that doesn't have an element of randomness or skill involved in it can't be called a game.
OP, I made a completely attribute less system for a zombie apocalypse game.
Basically you got 10 character points, and you spent them on skills and perks like attractive and sharpshooter. Skills were stuff like fighting influence shooting stealth, etc basic stuff. Skill cost was triangular: 1 cp for skill level 1 , 3 cp for skill level 2, 6 cp for skill level 3 , and so on to encourage diversification.
Here was the issue; it was hard to fit in character strength and toughness as skills, and the creature stats felt so empty and lackluster.
I think savage worlds does it well. Attribute matters to make your skills cheaper, but doesn't add directly to them. So attributes give you potential but you can have d12 agility and still suck ass at shooting. But then savage worlds is broken in other ways so i guess there is that...
>>47341463
Dude you're retarded. Caring about stats and mechsnics translating your characters abilities into the game, is not power gaming or board game.
>>47337351
In a general sense, increasing skills or the equivalent makes you better at specific tasks, while increasing attributes makes you better at a category of tasks. To balance this out, either attributes are harder (or impossible) to increase or they give smaller bonuses.
Typically attributes in a system also have their own effects (like carrying capacity).
For a system where this works fairly well, look at Fallout (not Fallout 4, since it doesn't really have skills).
tl;dr systems where some people can get away with a smaller number of high attributes than others without some kind of extra expense to balance that out are poorly designed and their existence doesn't mean attributes shouldn't be in any games.
>because your class demands
>There are some off-class tropes
>Numenera each class
Don't have classes.
>>47341463
I'm pretty sure the point is to make a collaborative story that is also the game. You know, one of the letters in RPG?
>>47337351
Just pick a set of stats, and make each stat relevant to every kind of job?
Fighters need good CHA/INT for feints, good INT/WIS to deny feints, don't restrict accuracy to a single stat, and have situational modifiers for certain actions, even doing it without rolling to hit.
Mages need stamina to cast spells, and STR/DEX to do trickshots or handle all the teleporting they do without barfing.
Or don't, focus on raw power for any of them. While it is not wrong to expect certain bare minimums in the core stats(because why did you even become that job if you're that bad at the fundamentals?), allowing players who want to make use of their other strengths is totally okay.
Rather than a class dictating what stats they use, make a class dictate HOW each stat is used.
>>47338772
Fantasy doesn't mean people are suddenly going to stop trying to do things that fit their strengths and capacities, dipshit
>>47337351
I've had similar thoughts, op....
>>47337351
You're looking at systems that are very D&D-derived. Another I'd lump in is FFG's d100 system for their 40k / warhammer settings, which have similar problems.
Another cluster is centered on WoD's Skill+Attribute system (including I think exalted, although I haven't played that my understanding is that it's the same). Although it isn't obvious, Shadowrun and GURPS's skill systems use the same attribute-add system, though they bury it into chargen so it isn't as obvious. Notice that Shadowrun's "classes" are pretty weakly defined, and White Wolf and GURPS don't have classes at all.
Attributes in general serve three functions:
1) They quickly define/describe the character in terms of general storytelling tropes. I look at those 6 attributes (D&D), 9 attributes (WoD), 8 attributes (SR5), or 4 attributes (GURPS) and instantly understand the storytelling niche they're aiming that character to fill.
2) They encourage characters to design characters that fit a thematic and gameplay role. I want a character who's good at Sumo wrestling to be good at other muscle/bulk activities, including thematic ones but due to limited points can't also be a great fire mage, healer, and rogue. In a classless system, you can't simply declare it, but you can make some packages more difficult and expensive to buy than others.
3) They model a basic truth that some people are more innately suited to some general classes of tasks than others.
Basically, I agree with some of your observations, but I think that they're more specialized problems with the games you play than general problems with gaming as a whole. Many systems have long since solved this issue, or never had it in the first place.
Try picking up a copy of Vampire: The Masquerade, Second Edition. Not the 20th anniversary, not any of the other books, just that. It's a whole other approach to gaming that could give you some breadth of experience.
>>47337351
RuneQuest was built on your concerns about attributes, and it shows.
You have the basic attributes: strength, dexterity, constitution, size, intelligence, power, and charisma. Each attribute is combined with another to generate other stats: HP, EXP rate, healing rate, extra damage, initiative, magic points, action points, etc. These values are static and remain with the character permenently.
Skills use the attributes combined (like combat being STR+DEX), and can be increased during the game with XP investment. Skills are then different because they are what improves over the course of the story.
There is your distinction, and how I feel it is used best.
>>47346799
>These values are static
Mostly static. In RQ3, some were fixed like intelligence, some other could be increased through difficult training (e.g. strength), and power was the most variable one: Doing magic could increase it, you could buy divine spells with it, and divine intervention could lower it by a great amount or even kill the character.
>>47337351
>Can we do without them?
Yes. By using an average member of the race as basis and everything else can be modeled by advantages/disadvantages/perks/feats/however you will call them, which gives a more personal feel than a high or low number.
So you can have for example for a high intelligence "fast learner", "eidetic memory", "language expert" and so on.
>>47349159
It just seems like an extremely convoluted way to achieve the same thing as "This guy is 5 Strong"
I'm still not certain what exactly the problem with Attributes is, apart from some Systems invalidating them through bad design.
>>47349210
I'm not sure if he understands the problem. He seems really to be complaining about character classes rather than attributes.
I think if he'd played with some classless systems he'd have a better basis for comparison. OTOH, he probably wouldn't have started the thread in that case because he's see how parochial his concerns are.
>>47345920
>in b4 women are more deceptive so they won't be murdered by men
>>47337743
>rolling attributes just seems to be a chance to have less fun because you got unlucky
Why do you assume that higher attributes = more fun?
>>47355359
>continued
It seems that you have your personal feelings of self-worth tied up in the success or failure of an imaginary dice-roll-paperwork avatar. Maybe you should explore why you are trying to project your ego into an imaginary character rather than dealing with your emotions in a healthy fashion?
>>47337390
>Attributes are the qualities of a character that are present at birth and through all stages of life
Strength does not fit this definition. You can gain and lose Strength through your actions.
