How would you do attributes / What's the best attribute

>>55327551
The fuck is that shit?

Elegant is better, Anon. Keep it fucking simple.

>>55327551

Arbitrary attributes suck. Attributes and stats should be based on what matters for your game. By starting off from that point, it makes it a lot easier to make them all worthwhile and interesting. Arbitrary stat systems just tend to massive internal imbalance, see WoD as an endless example of this.

>>55328772
Eoris Essence. A ttrpg funded by the Russian mafia

And if you think that's bad, you should see the character sheet for vehicles

>>55328802
Not following you. Stats should be based off of games?

>>55328871

They should be based off what matters for the game.

Stats don't just need to represent physical aspects of your characters, and just going over the default, generic physical/mental aspects won't give you a good stat system. It's about asking what matters most to your game, and how the stats support that.

As a general rule, the more important something is to your game, the more granular it can be. In a game about mad scientists or mages, you likely want a lot of granularity in the mental stats but can go easy on the physical ones, as an example.

And then you can just go full weird with the stats, but is always nice to see done right. In a Wicked Age had a fascinating stat system, with each character having six stats, and every roll being made by combining two of them to describe the action you're taking. The six stats were 'For Myself', 'For Others', 'With Love', 'With Violence', 'Overtly' and 'Discretely' IIRC, and how you assigned them immediately said something about your character and played right into them interacting with the kind of narratives that game is designed to produce.

>>55328802
>>55328919
>should be based on what matters for your game
Really should be a rule of thumb for most aspects of the game.
Skills? Pick ones that make sense for your game.
Items? Pick stuff that makes sense for your game.
Death/damage mechanics? Pick something that's appropriate to the game you're making.
etc. etc. etc.

Different games do different things. What is "best" depends on what you're trying to get out of the system. If you're designing a game, figure out what you want it to do, then figure out the most effective way to do that.

File: stat wheel.png (143KB, 708x781px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 708x781px

>>55327551
>How would you do attributes
Only have stats that are relevant for the genre/tone of the game.
>What's the best attribute system you've seen
Lasers & Feelings

For a more conventional game, Old School Hack's a beer & pretzels dungeon crawler that foregoes skills and intentionally has some overlap with the attributes to encourage judgemental calls, discussion and RP

>>55328977

I entirely agree with you, but it's astonishing how many people just don't consider that principle, and start out emulating the form of stats or mechanics they've seen in other games rather than actually considering how it all fits together and whether it suits their premise.

>>55329060
I've seen this misconception on both the designer and player sides, the idea that there is some "best" way to do things instead of different tools for different jobs. You see threads every week or two where people argue over whether D&D should be used for the vast majority of campaigns, despite it really only working well for a narrow set of them.

>>55329210

Don't say that, the D&D defence force will start crawling out of the walls, crying out that D&D is a very broad and flexible system.

Then again, they do that at the drop of a hat these days, so fuck 'em and their narrow, niche fantasy system whose market dominance in no way reflects its actual scope of storytelling potential.

>>55329234
Ah yes, the best way to dissuade D&D shitposters is to make a preemptive post bashing them. That'll work.

I don't even fully disagree, but you're still an idiot.

>>55329256

Eh, I figured it wouldn't really make a difference at that point, and just served to vent a little frustration. If someone was going to get triggered by the sentiment it was already going to happen.

>>55328772
I don't give a fuck it's just some silly ass picture from the internet I don't even play the system and your opinion means as little to me as it does the the rest of the world ya cheese eating nerd

I BET YOU PLAY DND

>>55329234
I don't think I've ever seen anyone defend dnd outside of dispassionate devil's advocacy here and there

>>55328853
>you should see the character sheet for vehicles
It's basically identical nigger, don't make it sound like it's worse.

>>55328853
No, it's Colombian drug cartels, not the Russian mafia.

>>55327551
An interesting way to make attributes would be descriptive intead of numeral. If the description is something that is advantageous, it gives a bonus, otherwise you get nothing.

Physique: Agile
Sociality: Cunning
Intellect: Instinctive

Really simple, and honestly, you don't need anything overly complicated mary sue -enabling stat stacking to play an enjoyable game.

Hmm, making a game that doesn't involve numbers at all, I must admit that the idea is very appealing. Numbers often detract from the roleplaying, and quantify things that are not so simply quantifiable in real world.

>>55327551
The simpler the better. Unknown Armies' set of attributes is a good idea.

Toughness
Wisdom
Willpower

You don't really need anything else

>>55333082
No dexterity or strength? And why both wisdom and willpower?

Stats in my game are just

Hit:
Body:
Agility:

thats it. Players supply the charisma and Pcs have been hit in the head too much to have mind stats.

>>55328802
I want to agree with this, but I've found that in reality, I don't. I like being able to express the granularity of a character's base capabilities through their stats, and it really bothers me when a character is naturally proficient in something they shouldn't be because it's keyed off the same attribute as something that the character actually is good at.

>>55328919
>The six stats were 'For Myself', 'For Others', 'With Love', 'With Violence', 'Overtly' and 'Discretely' IIRC
That's gay as fuck, anon. What the hell is wrong with modern rpg's??

Thinking about writing an RPG with these stats:

'Active' Stats = Hands, Talk, Wits.
'Passive' Stats = Body, Looks, Mind.

'Physical' Stats = Hands & Body.
'Social' Stats = Talk & Looks.
'Knowledge' Stats = Wits & Mind.

Any action between stuff would use on 'Active' and one 'Passive' Stat like:
Intimidation check would involve Body & Talk.
Seduction check would involve Looks & Talk.
Persuasion check would involve Mind & Talk.

What do you think?

>not using the superior Body, Not Body system.
Two stats is all you need

>>55337405
That might work ... if I was writing an RPG to be PASSED DOWN THE ARMSTRONG FAMILY LINE FOR GENERATIONS to come ... so, basically, never.

File: character creation.gif (3MB, 384x288px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 384x288px

>>55337368
The naming is very unevocative.

I further see problems with the always one passive and one active restriction. It can lead to situations where an obvious stat association can't be taken.
For example fast talking somebody:
Obviously talk should be involved for the delivery.
And the action is basically the posterboy for a stat like wits, but both stats are active.

Or maybe the rationale between the stats is that passive characteristics are inherent and active are actions, with both boiling down to physical/social/mental. If so hands and wits shouldn't be named like something that sounds like inherent properties.

>>55337908
>For example fast talking somebody:
Sounds like a Persuasion to me.
So, Mind (knowledge of how to trick somebody?) and Talk ('Active' (& smooth) social interaction) sounds good to me.

>>55334997

The issue there, I think, is whether or not that associated capability is really relevant to the game itself. If it isn't, then incidental competence in it shouldn't really be an issue, it's pretty easy to ignore.

And, if it is relevant to the game, then it's probably important enough to be made its own thing. It is a solvable design problem.

>>55338119
What is the distinction between mind and wits?

>>55338215
They're like Intelligence and Wisdom: (as far as I figure them)
Mind = Intelligence (knowledge in general - skills give a more specific types)
Wits = Wisdom (how fast can you 'think on your feet')

I imagine the whole 'Active' and 'Passive' stats as a sort of Power equation: Speed * Mass.
So, Mind (for example) is like a giant library - and Wits is the librarian searching for the book you need RIGHT FUCKING NOW!

>>55327551
GURPS

>>55338376
Ok so fast talking wouldn't involve thinking on your feet. How about getting cornered in an investigation? That couldn't use talk too. So you would have to use your innocent looks I guess. And your refined talk skill wouldn't benefit you in this situation despite being a talky matter.

I think its unintuitive that you can't use cleverness with your conversational skill, despite that being a relatively common desire. Ok you can change the interpretion of all things streetwise to strictly knowledge, but then why have wits as a distinct thing?
In a way the mechanics say that talk + mind presents itself to the outside world as quick wit but then there is another wits stat, or a stat titled wits at least.

>>55338583
Yeah, that's a problem, alright.
I was trying to come up with a set of short but descriptive attributes & this is the best I could do, so ... any alternative suggestions?

Also, if I'm being cornered in an investigation, I suppose it would call for a more 'physical' approach ... OTOH, Law DOES have a long arm ...

>>55332160
but for some people, especially those stranded without a good dm, the mechanics and process of character creation holds significant appeal in itself

>>55332160
This makes me think of an interesting idea. What if you had six stats, but you had to align them in a sims-style personality table. Using D&D abilities as an example.
>Strength-0000000-Intelligence
>Dexterity-0000000-Constitution
>Charisma-0000000-Wisdom
So every point in one stat is a sign of your character focusing on that aspect over a different aspect. The big problem being that your build would be heavily based on how you oriented your stats at character creation though, and would advocate going all-in on 1/2 stats while keeping the others balanced.

>>55333178
toughness = strenght

wisdom and willpower are very different things IRL

about dexterity: show me a dexterous person irl. You cant because dexterity is abstract as fuck. Being able to walk on a tightrope doesnt enable you to pick a lock.
When you have to pick a lock In game, that's a class feature for the thief, and runs on wisdom.

>>55327551
anything more complicated than a scale from 1-10, for 4 to 5 relevant attributes is a waste of time and counter intuitive imo

Your stats are Warrior, Rogue, and Mage. You have 10 points to assign, a maximum of 6 in one stat.

>>55341675
Dexterity in this context p much refers to coordination - as in, coordination between mind and body.
"Being able to walk on a tightrope doesn't enable you to pick a lock" only because they're independent skillsets, they both ultimately depend on coordination regardless. Now you can have bad balance and be good with your hands, but that's a pretty minor and forgivable conflation for the sake of a game.

>>55327551
>>55341902

basically what this guy says but call 'em something more abstract (Strength, Agility, Sense?) and have a really small range of values like 1-3 or something