TheRPGSite

What's the minimum number of character attributes you've found workable in a game system?

The standard seems to be five to eight, but they can end up lopsided by having, say, a single attribute to represent intellect, "emotional intelligence", and personal magnetism, while dividing strength, endurance and agility into different categories.

How much is necessary to portray actors in the game world in enough detail?

I haven't looked at Tri-Stat yet.  Does having three attributes work?

Three attribute stats for pure combat with very little to no role playing:

- strength
- dexterity
- "mana" or "psyche" (for lack of a better term, for magical abilities in combat)

Quote from: Hairfoot;349763What's the minimum number of character attributes you've found workable in a game system?

3, but I haven't tried any with less.

Quote from: Hairfoot;349763How much is necessary to portray actors in the game world in enough detail?

I find that adjectives portray the actors in much better detail than crunchy numbers in game. Even though games (like D&D) have point scales, I have personally found that the players don't even think about them twice in terms of portraying their characters. As soon as I asked the players to put an adjective describing each statistic in relation to their characters on the character sheet (because backgrounds got forgotten all too quickly), they started acting out the characters with more colour and verve.

Quote from: Hairfoot;349763I haven't looked at Tri-Stat yet.  Does having three attributes work?

Yup, it might not work in every case, but with a decent supporting system it works.

(Continuing from my previous post).

For defenses in combat, the three combat attack abilities correlate to particular defenses:

strength -> fortitude

dexterity -> reflex

"mana" or "psyche" -> will

I don't know what the minimum is, but I don't like games with a lot of attributes like Sengoku. 4 attributes à la GURPS is fine by me.

Quote from: Hairfoot;349763I haven't looked at Tri-Stat yet.  Does having three attributes work?

The Tri-Stat system provides my answer to your initial question: Three attributes.  However, slightly at odds with ggroy's response, they are Body, Mind, and Spirit.

The main criticism of the Tri-Stat array was that it led to a rather "granular" approach to how attributes affect the world about the character.  My response was to create intersections of each attribute, which I think some iterations of the Tri-Stat system also used.  So, for me, the three-point array inevitably led to a six-point derivative array:

Body --> Dexterity / Reflexes <-- Mind
Mind --> Wisdom / Will  <-- Spirit
Spirit --> Constitution / Fortitude <-- Body

I don't recall if those were the terms I used, but they ended up covering the Big Six of early RPGs.  Still, you could easily boil it back down to three.

!i!

3 covers everything from combat to social interaction to magic . Easy :)

Prowess
Lore
Guile

Quote from: Hairfoot;349763What's the minimum number of character attributes you've found workable in a game system?

None!  You can do fine by just having skills and advantages/disadvantages, or generic traits.  

See, for example, Over the Edge as an example of a game with no attributes.  Instead, you just have one central trait and two side traits, along with a flaw.

Anywhere between 3 to 9 seems to work best, with 4-6 probably being the sweet spot for me.

Quote from: Hairfoot;349763What's the minimum number of character attributes you've found workable in a game system?

Zero.

I once played a system that was a derivative of Over the Edge. Characters had three traits that were backgrounds, hobbies, or occupations.
[Edit: D'oh. Scooped by jhkim.]

But I am the first to agree that those systems can have problems when you just need a raw ability, like strength. Does "Cop 4" count?

Quote from: Hairfoot;349763Does having three attributes work?

In a more traditional game three attributes can work, and my choice would be Str, Dex, Mind (the M20 setup), or Toughness, Reflex, and Will (the D&D saves). I'd prefer 4 (+Cha) or 5 attributes (depending on genre) , though.

I wrote another game in which characters have only three attributes, but I used a cop-out: There are nine possible attributes in that game (each with its own list of skills attached). Initially, each character has a value of 0 in all of the attributes. A player chooses three attributes and divides 6 points among them. (With the selection of the attributes the player also gets access to the corresponding skills, and may choose 6 skills from the three lists.) So on the character sheet (http://astropia.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/sheet_5.jpg?w=450&h=638) there are only three attributes written down - those that differ from the default of 0. (All rolls are attribute rolls, 2d6+relevant attribute.)

I don't know how well those rules support long-term play as I used them only in one-shots.

I find 3 workable. Four can be ideal. A lot depends on what the attributes cover, and how they cover it.  I prefer them to do something well, than be widespread.

Quote from: jhkim;349782None!  You can do fine by just having skills and advantages/disadvantages, or generic traits.

Which, if you're flexible with the definition of "attributes", fall under the same category.

QuoteSee, for example, Over the Edge as an example of a game with no attributes.  Instead, you just have one central trait and two side traits, along with a flaw.

Right.  So that's four.

!i!

My experiences and thought experiences say "3." With one, characters are just graded, not differentiated, and with two, you basically just have a flat tradeoff, which is either worth it, or not worth it, or the scores should be even. With three, it's nearly impossible for one character to do it all.

For a good game system, probably four. Over the Edge, Ghostbusters, Toon, and a few other games get by on four.

I still have a plan to run a game at a con where the players get to decide the system by vote and I ad lib the entire plot. In this case they would decide by a vote how may attributes they wanted and how they would be generated.
It would be interesting to see what stats and what system of generation emerged as the most popular over a series of such games. I woudl suspect you would default to 6 stats int eh D&D model as most cmmon.

Quote from: jibbajibba;349917I still have a plan to run a game at a con where the players get to decide the system by vote and I ad lib the entire plot. In this case they would decide by a vote how may attributes they wanted and how they would be generated.

If you ever pull this through you have to come back and report!

Quote from: Ian Absentia;349819

Quote from: jhkimNone! You can do fine by just having skills and advantages/disadvantages, or generic traits.

Which, if you're flexible with the definition of "attributes", fall under the same category.

Well, but we shouldn't be comparing apples and oranges.  Well, if we're counting skills and ads/disads as attributes, then there are very few games which have as few as three or four attributes.  

So, for example, GURPS has four attributes - but a typical character will also usually have dozens of other traits (skills, ads, and disads).  That is not at all the same thing as Over the Edge.  It would definitely be comparing apples and oranges to say "GURPS has four attributes, and Over the Edge has four attributes."  

If we're going to say that OtE has four attributes, then we can't also say that GURPS has four attributes or BESM has three attributes.  

Rather than changing what we call attributes, we might ask, "How many mechanically-defined traits does a character typically have in this system?"  So OtE has 4, Amber has four attributes plus powers so usually 6 to 12.  Spirit of the Century characters have fifteen skills slots, ten Aspects, and ten Stunts for 35.  GURPS and BESM characters may have 20 to 50 or more traits.

Quote from: pawsplay;349909My experiences and thought experiences say "3." With one, characters are just graded, not differentiated, and with two, you basically just have a flat tradeoff, which is either worth it, or not worth it, or the scores should be even. With three, it's nearly impossible for one character to do it all.

This is how I see it as well.
 
There is a tradeoff in the number of attributes. Too few and characters are too similar or don't seem captured on the character sheet. Too many and the player has trouble remembering everything about their character so it doesn't really affect how they play the character. I think 3-5 is a good range for both flexibility and memory load, 3-4 for light rules and short games, 5+ for more complex rules and games intended to go many sessions.  With longer games, people have time to learn their characters which both eases teh memory load and gives them more time to feel restricted by very simple characters.

Quote from: jhkim;349990Rather than changing what we call attributes, we might ask, "How many mechanically-defined traits does a character typically have in this system?"

So be it.  What you were referring to as "attributes" I've usually called "characteristics" or "stats". Plainly a common frame of reference is needed.

I think we've arrived at a good point, though.  A character's "attributes" don't stop at the ranked characteristics of physique or mentality.  "Attributes", to my mind, cover a character's total capacity as an individual.  In that sense, it becomes much more of a challenge to determine the fewest number necessary to describe a playable character.  This comes up when I play HeroQuest.  Some people love to create huge laundry lists of specific attributes and abilities (the better to pull an augment from), while I go the Over the Edge route and tend to create rather minimalist characters.

So, for the record, I tend to favor three abilities plus a flaw (which can still be used to positive effect), so my vote goes for four.  I think Nicephorous makes a good point about a prolonged campaign necessitating a commensurately expanded character description, so four is a bare minimum to my mind.

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia;349999A character's "attributes" don't stop at the ranked characteristics of physique or mentality.  "Attributes", to my mind, cover a character's total capacity as an individual.  In that sense, it becomes much more of a challenge to determine the fewest number necessary to describe a playable character.

Well, then... Still none.

Even though, I generelly like to have some numbers that does not mean they need to be tied to a fictional character.

I think three works fine. This really comes down to personal preference I suppose. I know some people who like 8 or more stats and others who like things brought down to 3 or even 2. Personally I like fewer attributes.

3 as a minimum but if they can be improved and are a basis for resolving actions in the game, so few attributes can put a limit on the dynamic range of the game.  I'm thinking TFT, for example.

Personally I prefer more granularity, 9 attributes or so.  Allowing a player to make a hard choice if they want one to be really good in a subset of BODY, MIND, SOCIAL, or good in one, or decent in all.

Quote from: 1of3;350051Well, then... Still none.

Okay, but I'd be interested to see how this proposal jibes with this statement:

Quote from: Ian Absentia;349999In that sense, it becomes much more of a challenge to determine the fewest number necessary to describe a playable character.

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia;350253

Quote from: 1of3;350051Well, then... Still none.

Okay, but I'd be interested to see how this proposal jibes with this statement:

Quote from: Ian Absentia;349999In that sense, it becomes much more of a challenge to determine the fewest number necessary to describe a playable character.

This 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.

I 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.

RPGPundit

At a basic hack and slash level with some simple role playing, the Holmes basic D&D box set can be played without using any of the six attributes.

A few things would be have to be modified in the absence of attributes, such as instead of doing initiative by decreasing dexterity (ie. highest dex goes first), a group initiative system is used.

It depends on how you define "attribute". If an attribute is a number representing intrinsic capabilities of the character (as opposed to trained capabilities) then I'd be confident saying none. There are plenty of very playable games that don't represent intrinsic abilities at all.

If we include "skills" in "attributes" but still require a number to represent the scale, then I will still say none. There are a small number of very playable games that don't represent either of these things and there are some games that represent them without numbers (where having the feature "Strong" is all you need to know).

If an attribute can represent any aspect (nudge nudge wink wink) of a character but has no scaling at all attached to it (numeric above, but ordinal adjectives are just another way to have numbers) then I'd say you need at least a couple.

But if I take the spirit of the OP correctly -- how many D&D-style intrinsic attributes -- then certainly zero.

I think more attributes are better. I like the feeling of investment complicated and detailed attributes make. My game is a bit like WW with more attributes.

If you have a lot of attributes they need to be grouped in an inconvenent way to discourage min maxing. For example, if d&d had 4 more attributed: speed, looks, agility & wit, you might group them into two sets. If players have to roll physical and mental seperatly, you will see a lot more wise and attractive fighters instead of dumb and ugly ones.

Prince Valiant managed to get by with merely two attributes, Brawn (for all physical tasks) and Presence (for, well, anything else: mental and social tasks).

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;349788But I am the first to agree that those systems can have problems when you just need a raw ability, like strength. Does "Cop 4" count?

At least in OtE, that would depend on how the trait is actually described in further detail. But sure, cops everywhere are no doubt expected to remain in reasonably good health, so the trait should apply for general physical feats: as one example from the book, "Peace Officer Training" qualifies for extra hit points. Besides, that "Cop" is obviously a central trait, so it's supposed to be comprehensive enough to cover a multitude of abilities. (Also, keep in mind that OtE has a baseline of 2 for actions not covered by any trait, so that's what you can always roll when in doubt.)

Quote from: RPGPundit;350360And anything with 9 or more attributes is guaranteed to be an annoyingly anal-retentive system.

The 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.

Prince Valiant uses two.

Six works well. Three physical, three mental.

One for how hard you can hit stuff, and how much heavy shit you can lift.
One for how long you can power along for before you need a breather.
Another for how co-ordinated you are, your balance and so on.

Then one for your willpower, presence, charisma and so on.
Another for how much you notice.
And the last for your general knowledge and experience.
 
Put the last two together and let the player's synthesis of the two with in-game events be the PC's "intelligence."

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 (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12707.phtml) 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. :D

-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.

Quote from: Hairfoot;349763What's the minimum number of character attributes you've found workable in a game system?

This is a really good question that I have pondered many times. I still haven't come up with an answer for myself. I see a lot of good feedback and ideas in this threads.

I don't think the number of attributes themselves are really a problem. It seems that systems with fewer attributes just use derivative stats, skills, and special abilities in place of using more attributes. I'm not sure if that is really better or not. I think this really comes down to how detailed the system is and how well it is thought out.

In most systems magical, psionic, and super powers are separate abilities for attributes. But what if a system used a flight attribute? A score of 0 would mean the character has no flight capability where a 5 might mean basic flight ability and a 10 extraordinary ability. By this methodology a game system could have 100 attributes reflecting all kinds of special powers and abilities like flight, x-ray vision, invulnerability, healing, and anything else you can think of. There would be no need for separate special abilities or derivative attributes. Would this really be any more complicated than our standard systems.

That said I don't think I have even played a game with more than eight attributes. I have played a couple with less and I actually found those to be more complicated because of all of the derivative attributes and abilities it took to finish defining a character.  Although the end result of a system with these attributes and derivatives seemed more detailed in the end, it was harder to learn in the beginning.

So, it's not really the number of so  called attributes as much as it is the way they are used in the system.

Quote from: rezinzar;351050["attributes" is] a pretty loose term (along with abilities, characteristics and its other cousins,) as RPG designers use it; that much is clear.

Quote from: MalvorThat said I don't think I have even played a game with more than eight attributes. I have played a couple with less and I actually found those to be more complicated because of all of the derivative attributes and abilities it took to finish defining a character.

I've recently decided that there should be an ISO 9000 standard for roleplaying game terms.

An attribute is a fundamental ability of the character which is difficult to change long-term, and which affects skill use to varying degrees.

A derived attribute is an ability which comes entirely from other attributes, and cannot become better or worse on its own, but only through altering the attributes.

A skill is an ability which must be learned, though attributes may give a character certain innate ability in it.

A dis/advantage is a dis/ability which affects some physical, mental or social aspect of the character.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;351279I've recently decided that there should be an ISO 9000 standard for roleplaying game terms.

How do level-dependent Saving Throws (xD&D) and class-dependent, unchanging Life Points (Midgard) and level-dependent Hit Points/Endurance Points (xD&D, Midgard) fit in that scheme?

Usually those are derived attributes. Sometimes they're effectively attributes themselves (eg rolled hit points).

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;351413Usually those are derived attributes. Sometimes they're effectively attributes themselves (eg rolled hit points).

Thinking a bit more about your categories I guess if you count class, race, and level as attributes ("a fundamental ability of the character which is difficult to change long-term, and which affects skill use to varying degrees") then you are right. (Although saving throws could also be skills then: "an ability which must be learned, though attributes may give a character certain innate ability in it".)

I am just afraid that this use of the term "attribute" won't fly with the majority of gamers because for them class, race, and level are a fifth category unto itself, and trying to lumping them together with other stats borders on the arbitrary redefinition of established language as "secret handshake jargon" - and we know where that leads.

I mean, "attribute" (natural abilities like strength, dexterity, etc) and "trait" (whether xD&D's "magic-user level 5" or OTE's "retired cop" or "patrician familiy") are different, and naming them differently adds a valuable information to a short description of a game.

Quote from: rezinzar;351050Yes, 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.

Yeah, sorry, that's anal-retentive.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;351279I've recently decided that there should be an ISO 9000 standard for roleplaying game terms.

An attribute is a fundamental ability of the character which is difficult to change long-term, and which affects skill use to varying degrees.

A derived attribute is an ability which comes entirely from other attributes, and cannot become better or worse on its own, but only through altering the attributes.

A skill is an ability which must be learned, though attributes may give a character certain innate ability in it.

A dis/advantage is a dis/ability which affects some physical, mental or social aspect of the character.

That's how I use the terms.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;351635That's how I use the terms.

-clash

Likewise, with "trait" being the umbrella term for any qualitative or quantitative ability defined in the game, and rating or score for quantitatives. Merit is an acceptable synonym for Advantage and Weakness for Disadvantage, but Edge is ambiguous (it could mean a karma mechanics) as is Drawback (could be a Disadvantage, but could also be a price exacted for an ability or some kind of story-based mechanic to balance a trait).

Using Kyle's definition, I don't see a need for any attributes as they could be rolled into skills, mechanically.

The need, Halfjack, is for brevity on the character sheet.

If "default skill" = "attribute level", and we don't have attributes, then we have to list every single skill on the character sheet. If we have attributes we can just list those.

I don't fancy a character sheet with as many entries as there are skills in the game, not when most skill-based games have 100+ of them. Clutter.

And from playtesting a system with 36 skills, I've learned that since in any one campaign only half of the skills will be useful, if your skill list has less than 50-60 different skills on it, the skills are in effect not "skills" but rather "character classes." That's because the greater the number of skills, the more narrow the field of each skill; the fewer, the broader. And a character class is just a very broad skill. "He knows about this stuff because he's a fighter (4)."

And that could be a cool game, where there were no attributes or skills, just different levels in various of 4-24 classes. But most people would like a bit more detail than that.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;351715And a character class is just a very broad skill. "He knows about this stuff because he's a fighter (4)."

And that could be a cool game, where there were no attributes or skills, just different levels in various of 4-24 classes. But most people would like a bit more detail than that.

The Japanese RPG Sword World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_World_RPG) works almost like that. Your hero is usually multiclassed (e.g., Bard 2 / Sorcerer 1 / Thief 1) with the class level acting as a bonus to a 2d6 skill roll. To this is also added an attribute bonus, but since attributes are not rolled randomly but derived from the classes (think "advance scheme" of Warhammer FRP) they only reinforce class-appropriate behaviour.

Barbarians of Lemuria (http://www.1km1kt.net/rpg/barbarians-of-lemuria) is very close match.

But that's not how classes and levels work usually - that is, as a qualifier that limits access to other abilities and rules.