Quote from: GrimGent;350522The nine attributes in The World of Darkness in fact form a 3x3 grid, with Physical/Mental/Social along one side and Power/Finesse/Resistance along the other, so that for example Strength is considered "Physical Power", Wits "Mental Finesse", and Composure "Social Resistance." Essentially, an effect which boosts, say, all Resistance rolls affects those three attributes as if they were aspects of only one. For some entities (notably spirits), the system drops these finer distinctions and instead employs the P/F/R division alone; and from what I've heard, the alternative "Monster Garage" rules from Requiem Chronicler's Guide do the same for a simplified variant of Vampire.

Yeah, that's too much.

RPGPundit

Quote from: GrimGent;350522The nine attributes in The World of Darkness in fact form a 3x3 grid, (...)
For some entities (notably spirits), the system drops these finer distinctions and instead employs the P/F/R division alone; (...)
the alternative "Monster Garage" rules from Requiem Chronicler's Guide do the same for a simplified variant of Vampire.

There are people who like the greatly simplified intro version of Vampire better than the full fledged game.

Two. Mental and Physical would fit the bill. Below that, why are you bothering with a system at all?

Having played around a bit with Tri-Stat I have to say that I've learned this much:

Three attributes is not enough.  While I can appreciate the beauty of the Prince Valiant Two, as expressed here, I can only suppose they must have played much as I found Tri-Stat to play...not enough difference to really make them impact characters.

That said: I can see where if you remove all attributes you can provide a working game that theorectially wins the thread, but in reality you are swapping one form of character adjustment for another.

Contrasting with the four attributes in GURPS, I can see that if three is too few, four manages to work.


A relevant element does appear to be arrangement.  Normally I'd say that the six in D&D should be the far end of workable attributes, White Wolf's attributes are perfectly functional (their entire character creation system tends to be perfectly functional, its the actual mechanics to USE the character that tends to fail miserably), despite having nine. This could be due to their essential breakdown into three attributes (Physical, Mental and Social) with three sub-attributes. Ironically, the mechanical precision of the nWoD attributes feels less fun than the more organic oWoD.... for whatever that is worth.

Quote from: The Worid;350629Two. Mental and Physical would fit the bill. Below that, why are you bothering with a system at all?

It is possible for characters to be mechanically distinct without having numbered attributes at all.  For example, in a comedic fantasy larp I ran a few months ago, there were no stats.  Instead, drawing off The Princess Bride, each character had a single extraordinary talent.  So one character could never be bested with a blade, while another had a shout so commanding they could make anyone obey (for a brief time).  The system had a huge impact because the talents were constantly being used, but there were no stats.  

Quote from: Spike;350642Three attributes is not enough.  While I can appreciate the beauty of the Prince Valiant Two, as expressed here, I can only suppose they must have played much as I found Tri-Stat to play...not enough difference to really make them impact characters.

That said: I can see where if you remove all attributes you can provide a working game that theorectially wins the thread, but in reality you are swapping one form of character adjustment for another.

Contrasting with the four attributes in GURPS, I can see that if three is too few, four manages to work.

Well, with zero attribute games, you're not necessarily swapping anything, but rather using mechanics that are already there.  For example, compare Spirit of the Century to GURPS.  SotC has only skills, no attributes.  But GURPS has skills too, so it's not like SotC is adding in a new form of character adjustment to compensate for its lack of attributes.  

I have some feeling that two or three attributes is a waste.  Only two attributes aren't very useful for distinguishing individual characters, so it seems like having zero attributes along with skill or trait mechanic would be simpler.

To my surprise, it sounds like D&D actually gets pretty close to the sweet spot of describing differing aspects of a character's body and mind without getting caught up in too much detail (stats for "comeliness" notwithstanding).

Quote from: jhkim;350651Well, with zero attribute games, you're not necessarily swapping anything, but rather using mechanics that are already there.  For example, compare Spirit of the Century to GURPS.  SotC has only skills, no attributes.  But GURPS has skills too, so it's not like SotC is adding in a new form of character adjustment to compensate for its lack of attributes.  

I have some feeling that two or three attributes is a waste.  Only two attributes aren't very useful for distinguishing individual characters, so it seems like having zero attributes along with skill or trait mechanic would be simpler.

I agree with the second paragraph, though I must state that I haven't played any games that did away with attributes.

However, your first paragraph is a semantic disagreement, and essentially irrelevant.

If you use attributes to distinguish characters (a debatable point, I will conceed), and you use a second game to make the 'same' characters, but without attributes, you are in fact swapping attributes for a non-attribute method of defining characters.  It does not matter that the attributes do not map directly to whatever alternative method exists, and if they did they'd just be attributes under a different name, wouldn't they?

Three is the minimum for me.

Quote from: jhkim;350651I have some feeling that two or three attributes is a waste.  Only two attributes aren't very useful for distinguishing individual characters, so it seems like having zero attributes along with skill or trait mechanic would be simpler.

That is probably dependent on the average number of players found in a gaming group.

People will IME only remember the most extreme levels found in the group. The level itself doesn't even matter. It's a social reference standard. From my last D&D campaign, for example, I remember the ranger being stupid like bread, and my dwarf having abymal charisma.

So if you would expect a party size of two, instead of 5, two attributes might be enough.


When using the trait pattern ("Aspects", "Traits",...) the scale is, so it seems, condensed to this ranking. One character is "STRONG". Fine. That's all we need to know.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;349819Which, if you're flexible with the definition of "attributes", fall under the same category.Right.  So that's four.

But to me there's a difference between Aspects and Attributes.  Namely, that all characters have the same attributes.  Every D&D character has a Strength score, and every WoD character has a Willpower.  A character from Dogs in the Vineyard might have 'stubborn as a mule' or 'strong as an ox' as one of their traits, but they don't need to have them.  The stats don't have to say anything about how strong the character is if they player doesn't think its interesting.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;350301This is just a thought experiment - I never tried anything like that. but:

How about ONE? One trait that acts as a bundle of (occupational?) skills?

This won't work for every game and every genre but I can envision a Cthulhu game where the investigators are mainly made up from their profession (or whatever personal trait the player views as core of the characters being and personality - an occultist might be an accountant by day, but it's his other interest that truly defines him).
The game would need a default roll for all actions - e.g., 1d6 vs. a difficulty. Every action where the trait might be helpful (player and/or GM fiat) gets a bonus. Every action where the trait might be a hindrance (again, player and/or GM fiat) gets a penalty.

(This is kind of an Advanced TWERPS, I guess.)

Is this a fun game? That would depend highly on the players and their willingness to breathe life into "reporter" or "big game hunter", and how they fill in the blanks, how they interpret the stat.
From my observation of CoC one-shots at conventions that is not that different from regular CoC. Players portray their characters according to their self-image of them, and stats or skills don't matter that much (plus, most of the time the skills reinforce the character role anyway; the university professor has a high library use, and INT; the detective can drive and shoot; etc.).

It is a workable game, and could work especially well at conventions, and for genres that have strong archetypes or are otherwise very well known. Firefly, Ghostbusters, Star Trek, Robin Hood, Buffy, ...

It could even work for a D&D-type game, with traits like "cleric", "fighting man", or "magic-user".
 
Would I have fun playing it? I don't know. As a one-shot, maybe. In a campaign? I highly doubt it.

John Wick's Shotgun Diaries works like this.  You're the strong survivor, or the quick one, or whatever.  You gain dice from doing things that reflect your aspect or teamwork.  Its meant to be a super light, super fast RPG.  I've not played it, but it seems like it would work for one-shots.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;350301This is just a thought experiment - I never tried anything like that. but:

How about ONE? One trait that acts as a bundle of (occupational?) skills?

This won't work for every game and every genre but I can envision a Cthulhu game where the investigators are mainly made up from their profession (or whatever personal trait the player views as core of the characters being and personality - an occultist might be an accountant by day, but it's his other interest that truly defines him).
The game would need a default roll for all actions - e.g., 1d6 vs. a difficulty. Every action where the trait might be helpful (player and/or GM fiat) gets a bonus. Every action where the trait might be a hindrance (again, player and/or GM fiat) gets a penalty.

(This is kind of an Advanced TWERPS, I guess.)

Is this a fun game? That would depend highly on the players and their willingness to breathe life into "reporter" or "big game hunter", and how they fill in the blanks, how they interpret the stat.
From my observation of CoC one-shots at conventions that is not that different from regular CoC. Players portray their characters according to their self-image of them, and stats or skills don't matter that much (plus, most of the time the skills reinforce the character role anyway; the university professor has a high library use, and INT; the detective can drive and shoot; etc.).

It is a workable game, and could work especially well at conventions, and for genres that have strong archetypes or are otherwise very well known. Firefly, Ghostbusters, Star Trek, Robin Hood, Buffy, ...

It could even work for a D&D-type game, with traits like "cleric", "fighting man", or "magic-user".
 
Would I have fun playing it? I don't know. As a one-shot, maybe. In a campaign? I highly doubt it.

IIRC, in TINS there was only one attribute.

My answer to the question is the same in effect as Lincoln gave when asked "How long should a man's legs be?" he answered "Long enough to reach the ground." So my answer to the OP question is "Enough to do what you want to do."

-clash

Quote from: Hairfoot;350664To my surprise, it sounds like D&D actually gets pretty close to the sweet spot of describing differing aspects of a character's body and mind without getting caught up in too much detail (stats for "comeliness" notwithstanding).

Close to the sweet spot for you - which is not surprising, given your tastes, Hairfoot.

-clash

Damn... winged rodent beat me to the punch. Of course, silly me, I COULD have thought of There Is No Spoon a couple of days ago.

Alas.

Yes. Workable with One. The One, in fact.

Quote from: RPGPundit;350360I think that the bare minimum of all is 2. 3 is much easier to make workable, but 4 to 6 are the ideal.

7 or 8 are also possible, but become a bit encumbered. And anything with 9 or more attributes is guaranteed to be an annoyingly anal-retentive system.

Yes, 2.

However, 9 is workable and need not be annoying or anal-retentive. Interlock, for example, has that many. Then again, some of its attributes (such as Movement Allowance, Cool and Luck) would be Saves or other traditionally derivative/separate mechanics, in many other games.

It's a pretty loose term (along with abilities, characteristics and its other cousins,) as RPG designers use it; that much is clear.

In a game designed to use attributes, 4 is the minimum to make me happy; one for mental, one for social, and two for physical ( because I can't stand games that don't differenciate between 'strength' and 'dexterity' ).

  If a game uses only attributes to define a character, then you need at least 6 IMO.