Quote from: jibbajibba;644920Its quite a new idea

If you look back at older systems such as BRP or FGU you tend to get

Start score in a skill = (formula involving Attributes)
As you gain experience or build on a skill you add to this value often significantly as both these systems are % for the final skill (although FGU /20 to get a d20 TN)

So typically starting score = Dex + 5%
Final score = 65% (13 Dex + 5 base + 47 experience)

This was a fairly typical model until WoD came in with stat = 1-5 Skill = 1-5
Now stat and skill are seen as equal in importance.
We can explude D&Ds stat as skill NWP as they were non sensical compared to its much closer to BRP theives skills where Dex gives a bonus to a base which improves with XP.

In reality skill weighs much more that stat. So I think I have used tennis as a good example. The weight should be skill 1-80 Stat 1-10 + 1d6.

It always seemed to me that BRP and similar systems left the attributes completely redundant except in a few weird instances (like making an idea roll to see if you suddenly 'get it').

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;644922indeed.

and a better way would be...?

Just about anything that doesn't weight stats so heavily, season to taste. My homegrown rules for example are idea

In published games... jibbajibba's examples look like a decent answer to the question in general although I think those games suffer from other problems. But the concept he lays out is acceptable.

Oddly enough HERO System puts too much weight on Stats for my taste, but it doesn't break it so badly that I can't put up with it.

Quote from: gleichman;644915I'm strongly of the opinion that training and experience are more important than traditional attributes, especially for the source material for the genres I play. No untrained man who has never done any math is going to be the equal of someone holding a PHD in the subject.

They certainly help, they may even put a cap on many skills, but the degree shown in attribute + skill system? Nonsense.

The arrival of this method was a signpost for the start of non-simulation gaming IMO, when simple mechanics and quick methods became more important than representing game world reality.

My Lord! We actually completely and utterly agree on something!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;644937My Lord! We actually completely and utterly agree on something!

-clash

We may need to check for other "End of Days" signs, it may be time to max the credit cards...

Quote from: The Traveller;644927Yes, this is the approach I use. Other than for very basic actions there's usually a skill which covers moves, if you don't have it you can't do it. Also attributes are very static, so even if skills start out lower they inevitably tend to outweigh the base stat.

I don't really see a problem with starting the game out on an even scale, 1-10 stat, 1-10 skill. It produces results I'm happy with.


That works alright until you try to apply it to non human monsters. What about the abovementioned troll, very high strength, average reflexes, low skill - should he get his ass kicked as a rule by an above average skill man at arms?

Using stat (1-10) + skill (1-10) for humans, the troll should be able to shoulder through a half dozen soldiers creating carnage as he goes by my calculations; if skill were as heavily weighted as you outline, one soldier could probably do him in. Alternately with the even stat and skill system, a very highly skilled PC could probably cut the troll down with a couple of blows, all of which seems realistic to me.

Not so easy to make a system that works for non humans as well as it does for humans!

at tennis, yup even Tiger Tim could beat a troll at tennis.

In combat. A low dex clumsy troll should hit infrequently but basically kill on impact. But there is no reason why a low dex troll needs to be unskilled at combat. One supposes that troll world is pretty tough and trolls that were crap at fighting would probably end up as dinner or clothes for other trolls before they made it to troll adult hood.
To think low dex = low skill is to equate skill and stat again.

Quote from: gleichman;644939We may need to check for other "End of Days" signs, it may be time to max the credit cards...

If the moon turns blood red tonight, I will be drowning in expensive toys...

-clash

Have skills give other things, whether you want to call them powers, tricks, feats, stunts, etc. doesn't matter.

Quote from: jibbajibba;644942In combat. A low dex clumsy troll should hit infrequently but basically kill on impact. But there is no reason why a low dex troll needs to be unskilled at combat. One supposes that troll world is pretty tough and trolls that were crap at fighting would probably end up as dinner or clothes for other trolls before they made it to troll adult hood.

You're just ducking the question here - the case can of course exist where you have large non human attributes and low skill, let's say an elephant, basically no skill but enormous strength and some reflexes. Should a man at arms be able to beat an enraged elephant easily?

The answer of course is no, so you're down to segregating rolls by species and a wide variety of other factors which leaves you ultimately with Phoenix Command levels of playability.

Quote from: jibbajibba;644942To think low dex = low skill is to equate skill and stat again.

I'm not thinking that, or saying that. Just low skill, full stop.

Another option if designers don't want to weight skills heavily are hierarchical skills, as follows:
Someone with INT 3 and Physics 9 (basically a moron with a professorship) has the same chance of success in a physics roll as someone with INT 9 and Physics 3 (a genius who didn't graduate in physics from college).

Technically the professor should have access to knowledge the dropout doesn't have and so should be able to do things the dropout couldn't.

This can be simulated by having hierarchical skills, in order to get Physics you need a minimum skill in maths and science or something. So the genius can't do what the professor can, because he can't get that skill full stop, without the supporting skills. Waaaay easier than fiddling with the basic structure of your system.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;644889Attribute 3 Skill 1

against

Attribute 1 Skill 3

Same result. Should Attributes function differently rather than just "skill + attribute"?

GURPS 4E has provisions for this. In skill contests actual experience counts for more than just raw talent.

A guy with a 12 IQ and 16 points in a skill will fare a bit better than another with a 15 IQ and 2 points in the skill.

Quote from: The Traveller;644945You're just ducking the question here - the case can of course exist where you have large non human attributes and low skill, let's say an elephant, basically no skill but enormous strength and some reflexes. Should a man at arms be able to beat an enraged elephant easily?

The answer of course is no, so you're down to segregating rolls by species and a wide variety of other factors which leaves you ultimately with Phoenix Command levels of playability.

You are seizing on the one mistake he made - for some reason he replied to you that "To think low dex = low skill is to equate skill and stat again." as if to contradict something you said, but you had not stated that - to invalidate the rest of his argument, which does not depend on it. Essentially, animals have skills. Animals are way smarter than you give them credit for. Jibba-jabba is correct in his reasoning.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;644948You are seizing on the one mistake he made - for some reason he replied to you that "To think low dex = low skill is to equate skill and stat again." as if to contradict something you said, but you had not stated that - to invalidate the rest of his argument, which does not depend on it.

Whatever about that, this is fairly clear:

Jibbajabba: In reality skill weighs much more that stat. So I think I have used tennis as a good example. The weight should be skill 1-80 Stat 1-10 + 1d6.

Me: That works alright until you try to apply it to non human monsters. What about the abovementioned troll, very high strength, average reflexes, low skill - should he get his ass kicked as a rule by an above average skill man at arms?

When you weight skills or stats too highly you start running into serious problems. Or is each skill individually weighted?

Quote from: flyingmice;644948Essentially, animals have skills. Animals are way smarter than you give them credit for. Jibba-jabba is correct in his reasoning.

Well we could Dr Dolittle back and forth all day but it still ignores that mighty creatures with low skill exist and should be able to mill through decent numbers of quite skilled warriors. This system does not account for anything except humans, and even then raw stats can be a deciding factor in certain areas.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;644947GURPS 4E has provisions for this. In skill contests actual experience counts for more than just raw talent.

A guy with a 12 IQ and 16 points in a skill will fare a bit better than another with a 15 IQ and 2 points in the skill.

True, but that's not really what I'm referencing.

I'm talking about a guy with 16 IQ and 12 Skill.

Thinking about this a bit, if I were to use a skill + stat style die pool it woud look like this:

Stats would have three ranks:
      Below Average -1 dice
      Average +0 dice
      Above Average +1 dice

Skills would be ranked on at least a 1-5 scale, +1 dice per rank.

Yes this means that a Below Average Beginner is basically the same as unskilled, and I feel that's about right in reality. What they have managed to learn is mostly impractical fluff at best.

I *might* have a fourth rating for Stats representing a prodigy level talent that would apply only to a single specified skill...

Quote from: The Traveller;644951Well we could Dr Dolittle back and forth all day but it still ignores that mighty creatures with low skill exist and should be able to mill through decent numbers of quite skilled warriors. This system does not account for anything except humans, and even then raw stats can be a deciding factor in certain areas.

No, it *denies* "that mighty creatures with low skill exist". Any dangerous critter is skilled in combat. Your assuming something which is not there. Any troll who makes it to adulthood is a master at troll warfare. Elephants are very skilled at defending themselves. Leopards are extremely skilled at killing things. Why do you assume low or no-skill? These are things they do all the time. Why wouldn't they be skilled?

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;644959No, it *denies* "that mighty creatures with low skill exist".

Indeed. I think there are two reasons why Traveller is so tunnel visioned on this.

The first is the very human failing of looking at everything like they're people in furry costumes. Because it takes us years of training to master our skills, he assumes that must apply to all creatures- and he doesn't see elephants training for battle. Thus he assumes they are bad at it, and depend completely upon their Stats.

The second is the grand child of D&D where Hit Points represented both skill and toughness. That there is no difference between a troll and a high level fighter (who may in fact have more HP, do more damage and have an higher AC). Gamers are in practical terms trained to consider all inputs of equal weight by the games they play, and they confuse that with reality.