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."