Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;486686Great the article was of interest, anyway, though I don't know that stat grouping was one of Fuzion's greatest ideas.

More specifically, all systems have attribute grouping, they just aren't all as obvious about it.  White Wolf games clearly delineate stat groupings, as well as the skill that fall under those stats.  As with any tool, how it is presented and designed are a major factor in how well it works.

But the grouping is more likely due to reality being the way it is.  We have physical attributes, mental attributes, and then another category, something like 'metaphysical' attributes.  The first two are self-explanatory, but the 'metaphysical' ones vary wildly.  Some games use a purely abstract notion like 'luck' or 'karma', while others use stats that are not entirely physical, or not entirely mental, or usually a little of both; charisma, education, health, and so on.

I just think it would be a bit easier to tinker with the rules if the designers made that part of the process a bit more transparent.
Physical:  Strength, Dexterity
Mental: Intelligence, Wisdom
Meta: Constitution, Charisma

As a player or GM, you don't necessarily have to agree with the groupings, but within the game, they would have to make sense.  Constitution has a physiological basis, but some of that is just not catching a virulent strain of some illness or disease.  Charisma is something about how you look, but something about how you present yourself also.

I'd probably just have described Con as a physical attribute? (and Cha probably a mix).

I could see having a clear idea of an attribute as either physical or mental being useful when designing a system inasmuch as that someone who imagines Cha as being an "attractiveness" stat will design different mechanics to someone who sees it as a purely mental stat.

However, I do think grouping attributes can be taken too far, and can lead to other design problems. Ignore me if you have some particularly awesome idea of course, but I raved about this a bit in the d10/0 thread in Design and Development awhile back - the guy there had a system where there were 10 attributes (in a 2 x 5 pattern).  Other examples of it would be DC Heroes (3x3 pattern), Fuzion (3x3,+1) and another guy I knew at uni years ago built something called Brightblade that had 12 attributes (a 4x3) pattern. Or White Wolf is (3x3). So usually it ends up with more attributes than I'm normally comfortable with, though of course tastes vary.

Complex groupings can also lead to attributes being added just to maintain the symmetry of the system (i.e. there's a physical/active stat so you need a social/active, or spiritual/active as well). These often end up as extra stats that aren't as important as the main ones.

Conversely, there's usually something important that somehow doesn't fit in and gets pushed off somewhere else (Willpower in Storyteller), or which just uses an attribute that's really weird because there's nothing that really fits (e.g. Perception checks in DC Heroes are INT to spot something, then WILL determines how well).

tl;dr version: I find groupings lead to too much trouble, since it puts constraints on a game's design for what are normally aesthetic reasons, rather than practical ones.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;486789I'd probably just have described Con as a physical attribute? (and Cha probably a mix).

And that would certainly be a valid categorization.  I happen to like a more or less even distribution of scores, but that is a matter of personal taste rather than strict design principles.

For example, 4th edition essentially currently gives combat bonuses for whatever your 'prime requisite' is.  So, Fighters use Strength, Rogues use Dexterity and so on.  Of course, different powers have different bonuses; this is just a highly simplified example.  So, if you consider weapon use as a de facto 'skill', then you have options for the characters most likely to be using them.  A Rogue would be at something of a disadvantage having to use Strength exclusively for combat bonuses, even though they could be considered a 'martial' class if you will.  To preserve the niche for Fighters, you could have bonuses to hit and damage for high Strength, but only bonuses to hit for high Dexterity.  Or perhaps a choice of to hit or damage for high Dex, chosen at character creation.  Naturally, everyone else would also benefit from those high scores, but presumably, few other characters would have a high enough score to intrude on the Fighter's or Rogue's niche on a regular basis, especially with other limiting factors like hit points and armour/weapon restrictions.

But then you get into some goofy stuff where Intelligence or Wisdom affect chances to hit, and even goofier stuff where Charisma would affect your chances to hit.  I am not aware this is is present in any current powers, but with all the splats out there, I am sure they are running out of combinations for powers.    (Paladins have a few 'Charisma vs...' powers, but I think that is a misinterpretation of why the original 1st edition Paladins had a high Charisma as a requirement)

So, that is where I see stat groupings as being most useful.  They should give an idea of what skills use those stats, and make it easier to add new skills while providing some built in options for the classes that are expected to use those attributes.  As well, creating a new class should be somewhat easier as well, as you would only need to decide what category of stats would represent them best.  For example: Bards=metaphysical (Charisma), and you know what kind of skills they would be generally needing.

QuoteI could see having a clear idea of an attribute as either physical or mental being useful when designing a system inasmuch as that someone who imagines Cha as being an "attractiveness" stat will design different mechanics to someone who sees it as a purely mental stat.

Sure, definitely a benefit.  I assume your unspoken caveat is "...but it isn't a clear benefit to the players."  With which I would mostly agree.  I am not sure there is a decidedly obvious benefit for people who don't tinker with the system that much, other than it could make things a bit easier and more clear-cut for the GM when they have to make a judgment call.

QuoteHowever, I do think grouping attributes can be taken too far, and can lead to other design problems. Ignore me if you have some particularly awesome idea of course, but I raved about this a bit in the d10/0 thread in Design and Development awhile back - the guy there had a system where there were 10 attributes (in a 2 x 5 pattern).  Other examples of it would be DC Heroes (3x3 pattern), Fuzion (3x3,+1) and another guy I knew at uni years ago built something called Brightblade that had 12 attributes (a 4x3) pattern. Or White Wolf is (3x3). So usually it ends up with more attributes than I'm normally comfortable with, though of course tastes vary.

Complex groupings can also lead to attributes being added just to  maintain the symmetry of the system (i.e. there's a physical/active stat  so you need a social/active, or spiritual/active as well). These often  end up as extra stats that aren't as important as the main ones.

Absolutely agree.  I am in favour of no more than six attributes, not only because of a background in AD&D.  Seven is an odd number, hence, impossible to divvy up well, and eight doesn't divide up well either.  So the next 'viable' amount is nine, and as you mention, that is starting to push the limits for ease of use.

Let's look at White Wolf.  Under the Mental category we have Perception.  Couldn't that just be a standard roll, modified for clan and/or skill?  And they fall into the classic trap of adding an Appearance stat, like the Comeliness stat in Unearthed Arcana.  Does it really matter?  And if it does, can't this also be listed under something else, similar to a skill, and just used to modify Charisma or Manipulation?  Speaking of, don't most games present 'Manipulation' as a skill?  Is there really something inherent about people that it should be an attribute?

So, we have the confluence of two problems:  too many stats, and several of them are unnecessary, overlapping, or poorly implemented.  They could have certainly made nine stats work well, but the more stats you have, the more you have to make sure they aren't a muddled jumble of conflicting or useless numbers.  And especially make sure they aren't better used as skills.

QuoteConversely, there's usually something important that somehow doesn't fit in and gets pushed off somewhere else (Willpower in Storyteller), or which just uses an attribute that's really weird because there's nothing that really fits (e.g. Perception checks in DC Heroes are INT to spot something, then WILL determines how well).

tl;dr version: I find groupings lead to too much trouble, since it puts constraints on a game's design for what are normally aesthetic reasons, rather than practical ones.

Certainly.  And like D&D, the groupings don't necessarily have to be spelled out or delineated in the rules.  As long as they are fairly easy to spot and utilize.  One of the issues I have with whatever version of skill challenges 4e is on this week is that you can use any skill to do pretty much anything you want.  There is a certain element of play that is still a game, and if you don't have the 'proper' resources, you need to acquire them, or find a different way around the obstacle.

So, wow, we were talking about rules light, weren't we?  

I think the opposite would be true of rules-light:  six is probably the maximum number of attributes that should be included, and something like four as a minimum for a "serious" game.  I recall TWERPS used just the one, but that was a parody of games in general.  GURPS' four attributes is OK-ish, but they kind of do double duty.  And there is the 'dex conquers all' problem that many games suffer from.

I am still turning a few ideas over in my head, though, so these opinions are subject to change.  

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;485275I prefer systems that consist (almost) entirely of bonuses. D&D 3.x has always bugged me that it takes fighters as the norm, and then penalizes everyone else. If I had a time machine, I'd change the -4 non-weapon proficiency to a +4 weapon proficiency and then I'd time travel some positive feedback to Ben Franklin.

Negatives are a bit depressing, too - and are often forgotten. When playtesting my son-of-CT system GAMERS, I found that if you have -2 with no skill, and +1 as your first level of skill, when players wanted their characters to do things, they tended to forget the -2 was coming up - and people tended to go for +1 in several different skills, if they had any choice.

So I changed it to 0 and +3. Mechanically it's absolutely the same, but it feels different. Actually having a skill feels like something significant, they tend to get picked more carefully, and other players respect the character who has that particular skill.

Quote from: Declan MacManusTo my recollection, game designers in the 90's tried to make games as cumbersome and fiddly as they could because, ostensibly, this is what the gaming public wanted...I guess...maybe. I'm not really sure why these were popular, to tell the truth.

Detail looks like precision, and precision is often mistaken for accuracy.

For those without some science background...

Precision is how many decimal points to your measurement. "65.32% of respondents said they agreed with the assertion," is more precise than "about two-thirds."

Accuracy is whether the figure is correct or not, "Kyle is about 1.78m tall" is accurate, "he's 1.90m tall" is not.

People mistake precision for accuracy. "Kyle is 1.95216m tall" will seem more believable to people than "Kyle is around 1.80m tall." The first is precise and inaccurate, the second is imprecise and accurate.

Excruciating detail is read as precision, which is mistaken for accuracy.

Stormbringer: sorry about my delayed response, busy day yesterday.
But all of what you've said above looks reasonable.
 
With 4E's Cha-based paladins you can sort of trace the idea back to 3E, where Smite and Divine Might give bonuses to damage off Charisma. If its supernatural I'm not too bothered by it, though its odd that they don't get any Str bonus with a weapon when they smite (without using another power, also called Divine Might I think).
There is another feat "Melee Training" that lets characters add any ability modifier to their basic melee attacks, including Cha -post Essentials it gives full modifier to hit, half modifier for damage.
 
What I think what you were getting at is that groupings prevent that sort of weirdness by letting a skill get a modifier from say physical only, or mental only? (so you could e.g. have a Climbing skills thats based off Str or Dex , but not Con since that's a "meta" attribute rather than physical; or where Knowledges could be Int or Wis based, but not Cha). Sounds OK.
The metaphysical group (Cha and Con) could get a bit weird for interchanging skill modifiers (e.g. Con-based Diplomacy!) unless you want to make physical appearance part of the Con stat. There are a couple of places in 3E where the two sometimes change around, though (creatures without Con use Cha for some things instead)...perhaps the idea helps makes sense of that.
 
Don't know if that helps any, but interesting stuff.

Quote from: StormBringer;486783But the grouping is more likely due to reality being the way it is.  We have physical attributes, mental attributes, and then another category, something like 'metaphysical' attributes.

This is an artifact of Western dualism -- our perceived separation of mind and body. Eastern cultures don't buy so heavily into that dualism. (One of the nifty things about Legend of the 5 Rings is that it specifically eschewed the mental/physical dualism that 99.99% of all RPGs follow.)

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;486949Stormbringer: sorry about my delayed response, busy day yesterday.
But all of what you've said above looks reasonable.

Don't worry about that, it took me a while to respond in the first place for that exact reason.  And I was just spitballing, but it is good to hear I wasn't completely out in left-field.  
 

QuoteWith 4E's Cha-based paladins you can sort of trace the idea back to 3E, where Smite and Divine Might give bonuses to damage off Charisma. If its supernatural I'm not too bothered by it, though its odd that they don't get any Str bonus with a weapon when they smite (without using another power, also called Divine Might I think).

I am glad you expanded on that, because I really didn't want to.  

And you do highlight part of the weirdness when you start using stats that aren't really designed to be used for something else.  A high Charisma was just a 'gateway' to keep everyone from playing Paladins, just like Rangers had some pretty stringent restrictions.  Prior to 3.x, you couldn't really do anything with Charisma, but you weren't really supposed to either.  2nd edition has some skills that are Charisma based (and probably a metric shit-tonne more in the splats), but as I recall, they were mostly skills that you would expect Charisma to influence.  Diplomacy; I think there was one for Oration or something; stuff like that.  If you make your Paladins require a 17+ in some other stat, like Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution, you end up with just as few of them, but they are now waaaay better than regular Fighters just to qualify for the class.  Requiring a high Wisdom makes a little bit of sense, but a high Intelligence makes no sense at all.  Having a high Wisdom would make them into quasi-limited spell selection Clerics who could use swords, but since they get the same spell bonus for high Wisdom as Clerics, they are now better than Fighters and Clerics, just by having the minimum qualifying score.

QuoteThere is another feat "Melee Training" that lets characters add any ability modifier to their basic melee attacks, including Cha -post Essentials it gives full modifier to hit, half modifier for damage.

Ok, I'm sorry, but that is just plain stupid.  
 

QuoteWhat I think what you were getting at is that groupings prevent that sort of weirdness by letting a skill get a modifier from say physical only, or mental only? (so you could e.g. have a Climbing skills thats based off Str or Dex , but not Con since that's a "meta" attribute rather than physical; or where Knowledges could be Int or Wis based, but not Cha). Sounds OK.
The metaphysical group (Cha and Con) could get a bit weird for interchanging skill modifiers (e.g. Con-based Diplomacy!) unless you want to make physical appearance part of the Con stat. There are a couple of places in 3E where the two sometimes change around, though (creatures without Con use Cha for some things instead)...perhaps the idea helps makes sense of that.

Yeah, there is still some strangeness lurking around.  I am not sure making the skills strictly interchangeable is a good idea, although I suspect it is possible.  It would just end up sounding far, far too contrived to really be playable.  I mean, you could certainly make an Oratory skill that worked with both Charisma and Constitution, but then you have the Constitution guy essentially wearing the listener down with their oratorical stamina rather than actually performing a well-crafted speech to change the hearts and minds.  In my view, that is just as goofy as giving combat bonuses for Charisma or Intelligence.
 

QuoteDon't know if that helps any, but interesting stuff.

Thanks!  Like I said, I was king of throwing ideas around, but your responses make a good sounding board, so not only was it very helpful, I also greatly appreciate your responses!

EDIT:  I just caught this reading BSJ's reply below.  I meant to type "I was kind of throwing ideas around...", not "king of".  That makes me sound like even more of an arrogant jackass than normal.  

Quote from: Justin Alexander;487002This is an artifact of Western dualism -- our perceived separation of mind and body. Eastern cultures don't buy so heavily into that dualism. (One of the nifty things about Legend of the 5 Rings is that it specifically eschewed the mental/physical dualism that 99.99% of all RPGs follow.)

A good point.  I think any particular game system would be rather hard pressed to address both of those points of view seamlessly.  It might be easier if the grouping is used, while designing some built in cross-over for certain skills.  So, a Bushi would get the standard combat bonuses from Strength, but a Wu-Jen might have a skill providing similar bonuses derived from intelligence that utilized some kind of spirit summoning or favours.

Naturally, this is kind of the solution 4e uses, as I understand it (especially in regards to skill challenges), but I think it is a solution for a more specific problem, rather than a general problem (that doesn't exactly exist anyway).

Quote from: StormBringer;487151And you do highlight part of the weirdness when you start using stats that aren't really designed to be used for something else. A high Charisma was just a 'gateway' to keep everyone from playing Paladins, just like Rangers had some pretty stringent restrictions. Prior to 3.x, you couldn't really do anything with Charisma, but you weren't really supposed to either. 2nd edition has some skills that are Charisma based (and probably a metric shit-tonne more in the splats), but as I recall, they were mostly skills that you would expect Charisma to influence. Diplomacy; I think there was one for Oration or something; stuff like that. If you make your Paladins require a 17+ in some other stat, like Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution, you end up with just as few of them, but they are now waaaay better than regular Fighters just to qualify for the class. Requiring a high Wisdom makes a little bit of sense, but a high Intelligence makes no sense at all. Having a high Wisdom would make them into quasi-limited spell selection Clerics who could use swords, but since they get the same spell bonus for high Wisdom as Clerics, they are now better than Fighters and Clerics, just by having the minimum qualifying score.

Wandering off topic again, Charisma seems to have gone on a strange journey from being useful for hireling loyalty and # henchmen, to being used mainly for ability checks (and NWP checks), and finally for giving magic powerz. Perhaps the increasing focus on game balance with each edition led to its uses getting more and more strange. The only supernatural effect I can think of for Charisma prior to 3E is the slight bonus it gives on 1E psionics rolls.
 

QuoteThanks! Like I said, I was king of throwing ideas around, but your responses make a good sounding board, so not only was it very helpful, I also greatly appreciate your responses!

Glad to be of service!

Quote from: Axiomatic;485322Thing is, why DON'T wizards wear armor?

Well, if the setting is anything like the European Middle Ages, it might simply be illegal and impossible to purchase it for anyone who isn't a career soldier or part of the right social class.

Magic hates iron; bronze is too heavy and copper is to laugh.

Yep for me I don't get an more rules heavy than BRP these days and even that is because I know it intimately for decades.

Favourite current system Barbarians of Lemuria which I pretty much use variations of for every action oriented game I run these days from fantasy to cyberpunk.