Attribute 3 Skill 1

against

Attribute 1 Skill 3

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

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;644889Attribute 3 Skill 1

against

Attribute 1 Skill 3

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

That depends on how detailed you want to be.
Remember that Skills in the SG systems and similar may be cheaper, but they are also more narrow in where they can be used.

I don't think so, no. If you wanted to give one or the other a preponderance of importance it would be easy, for example to make attributes more important:

attribute*2+skill
(attribute+5)+skill
etc.

but I don't see any reason for it really, and you'd have to rejig your dice rolls to compensate for it in terms of randomness. Maybe in the case of extremely large and powerful monsters with low skill you might want to give them an edge to keep them dangerous, but that depends on lots of factors. Example of a skill + stat + d10 situation:

normal human: combat 5 + use sword 5, base 10 (average)
troll: combat 10 + use club 3, base 13

That doesn't seem to give the troll much of an edge in a battle, but external factors can modify actual combat outcomes significantly, like the way the troll does base 10 damage and the normal human only does base 4, the troll is both more heavily armoured and can absorb a lot more damage implying the troll can do wild attacks for even more damage with much less risk than a human, the log a troll is swinging can't be deflected with a sword, only dodged, and so on.

Or you could just bump up the troll's skill a bit, as with wild animals (teeth and claws are their only weapons so they are naturally going to be pretty good at using them).

In general I think it works. 1:1 is the simplest way to do it, and maybe if you want to adjust the importance of skill/attribute it'd be easiest to do it by changing the range of the attributes, instead of the weighting formula - you could have stat going 1-5 (4 point range) and skill 0-8 (8 point range) for example.


Also though:

*if someone has no skill at all, I think a task should be a lot harder, even if someone has a high attribute as well. So, some sort of extra penalty at Skill 0 may be called for.

*I do like in some respects the idea that you don't have to spec out attributes perfectly in order to max out a skill. Its probably realistic (i.e. most olympians or sports champions seem to have specific builds and such) but I do enjoy the idea of concepts like the old martial arts dude whose martial arts is really really badass in spite of his general Dex maybe not being as high as it used to be. So I like the idea of perhaps jacking up an attribute for specific checks, though not past the usual maximum.

I think one of the big advantages, is that most people can quickly grasp a 1-5 stat and skill distribution. It feels familiar, because a lot of ratings (hotels, videos, et al) use a 5 star system.

I always think it was a large component to the success of the WoD games.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;644889Attribute 3 Skill 1

against

Attribute 1 Skill 3

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

That method was always a massive simplification, one that never made sense to me. It's arrival basically marked the beginning of the end of simulation in game design.

Might be why I never used it, and why I wouldn't play a game that did.

Quote from: gleichman;644908That method was always a massive simplification, one that never made sense to me. It's arrival basicall marked the beginning of the end of simulation in game design.

I fail to follow your logic on this one.

Care to explain in more detail why you feel this way?

Quote from: gleichman;644908That method was always a massive simplification, one that never made sense to me. It's arrival basicall marked the beginning of the end of simulation in game design.

Might be why I never used it, and why I would play a game that did.

Could you expand on that a bit? I.e. what is lost in the [stat+skill] method?

(edit: scooped! dammit)

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644910I fail to follow your logic on this one.

Care to explain in more detail why you feel this way?

I'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.

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.

For some skills (math, nuclear physics, etc.) this is certainly true. However, for other skills (fist-fighting, etc.) people with high (relevant) attributes and little training can do as well as someone with low (relevant) attributes and a lot of training.  These two types of skills can easily be handled the simple attribute + skill system. Those skills that require training to use as all require at least a "1" in the skill to even roll (regardless of how high or low your attribute is). Those that do not require training to use can be rolled even with no rank in skill.  This may still be abstracted more than you would like, but it does answer your objection.

Quote from: RandallS;644916For some skills (math, nuclear physics, etc.) this is certainly true. However, for other skills (fist-fighting, etc.) people with high (relevant) attributes and little training can do as well as someone with low (relevant) attributes and a lot of training.

I disagree. And in the case of the genre sources I like, disagree so strongly that we're not even talking the same language.

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.

I tend to agree and weight skill above stats.

How much weight, is not so clear.

I think that in a game system, there should be some difference between stats and skills. For example, being naturally graceful and coordinated certainly helps on fight with a rapier. But Skill with a rapier shold offer some perk that natural talent does not.

Its 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.

Quote from: gleichman;644908That method was always a massive simplification, one that never made sense to me. It's arrival basicall marked the beginning of the end of simulation in game design.

Might be why I never used it, and why I would play a game that did.

indeed.

and a better way would be...?

Quote from: RandallS;644916Those skills that require training to use as all require at least a "1" in the skill to even roll (regardless of how high or low your attribute is). Those that do not require training to use can be rolled even with no rank in skill.

Yes, 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.

Quote from: jibbajibbaIn 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.

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!