Things Other People Aren't Allowed to Like

[Novembermike]

In GURPS, Body is used for tasks of physical strength, short-term and long-term physical exertion, and endurance. "Strength" and "Endurance" in that game are specialized advantages that take the form of Body with a disadvantage modifier for only applying to a limited subset of tasks. GURPS has already condensed D&D's STR and CON into one stat, and benefits from so doing.

GURPS has 6 stats.

Strength
Dexterity
Health
Intelligence
Will
Perception

Are you thinking of the fact that HP was moved to Strength from Health, but Health is still the stat that determines when you die, how far you can run etc.

[A Man In Black]

Oh yeah, they changed it in... whatever the last edition was. Well, GURPS used to have just one Body stat that covered both being tough and being strong.

-Run a marathon.
-keep on pushing yourself to sprint after you've run out of breath
-go three days without sleeping

These are all the same thing, physical endurance, and all of them could be comfortably assigned to strength or will. In fact, GURPS used to assign them to strength or will, depending.

-Pick yourself off the ground after a solid knock to the face
-do 15 minutes in the ring with a trained wrestler
-after being impaled, stay in control long enough to cut off your enemy's head

So, mitigating the effects of having bad things happen to you, not actually doing anything.

-force an unhealthy amount of energy through your body in order to strengthen a spell

Bullshitomancy. Again, literally any stat you can imagine could be used here.

DnD doesn't do a particularly good job of having constitution make sense, but GURPS (for example) does a pretty good job of making it a reasonable stat where its used for everything from staying on your feet when your guts are spilling out to casting any spell that requires some exertion.

In GURPS, it's used for exactly the same things it's used for in D&D, apparently.

[TheFlatline]

Charisma has always had problems, for the reason that you don't see many ugly and uncharismatic heroes in fantasy. Nobody wants to play the ugly master swordsman with no leadership abilities, but the game makes charisma crazy overpriced for what amounts to flavor text most of the time. In fantasy, charisma is something that high level people have. Whether you're an archmage, a barbarian chief or a high cleric, you should definitely be regarded by the world as a badass.

Fantasy is actually more forgiving of the ugly-as-sin hero than most genres.

The problem is tying charisma to leadership. Sure, pure charisma works, but so does experience and a brilliant mind.

Leadership should not be solely based off of how affable you are. I'd argue it shouldn't be based off of what is essentially otherwise a dump stat. Tying charisma to clerical turning is bullshit too.

Leadership should be impacted by skill and expertise more than charisma in the end. In the long term, if you're not successful, you can't stay a leader without someone who is an expert in propaganda. Which isn't a charisma based endeavor. It's more of an intelligence endeavor.

[Dogbert]

My only real "not allowed to like" from that list is MTP. A "system" that boils down to playing mother-may-I with the GM every time is a non-system.

[echoVanguard]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty tired of stats altogether. They had meaning back in the day when the only difference between two Fighters or Thieves was magic items and stats, but we've gotten past those dark ages.

There are systems without stats, such as FATE, and they work well enough. However, they lack granularity. To give an example, let's say you have a troop of Marines fresh out of Boot Camp - some will be better marksmen than others, and some will be stronger or have more long-distance endurance. It's obviously not a question of levels - they all have the same number of levels of Marine - and just assuming traits doesn't make up the difference. If you have two Marines that are both exceptional marksmen, did they both just take the Exceptional Marksman trait? If so, which one is better, and by how much? You can say that one took the Really Good Marksman trait and the other took the Fairly Good Marksman trait, or that they both took Exceptional Marksman but one took Exceptionally Exceptional Marksman, but that's just silly. Stats are an elegant, concise method of measuring exactly that level of natural aptitude which separates two very similar characters.

echo

edit - fixed typo

[A Man In Black]

There are systems without stats, such as FATE, and they work well enough. However, they lack granularity.

How valuable is that granularity? It's only going to slow you down when you're wanting to run a whole squad of dudes, and you're having to roll separately for +4 dude, +3 dude, the four +2 dudes, and the five +1 dudes. No sane GM actually does that, though, so the GM isn't using that granularity for anything. In fact, the presence of that granularity just makes the GM's task fiddlier.

What about the players? Well, they're all going to be invested in different specialties, or different weapons, or different whatever. Few games are going to have multiple characters with similar degrees of investment into the same combat schtick. So, unless the game involves a fairly standard, interchangeable package of shared skills but it's important that there be granularity between players, then the players aren't using that granularity.

So. Who is?

[echoVanguard]

It depends whether you want your system to err on the side of gamism vs simulationism. The more simulationist the system, the more fiddly bits you'll have.

echo

[Whatever]

GNS theory

this discussion just went full retard

[echoVanguard]

TMiB's premise is certainly valid, and it's a good question to ask. But it breaks down when you want to include more than just one party of characters. Anytime your setting/system combination is attempting to support a broader scope of detail, such as a Living Campaign or internally-consistent NPCs using PC rules, the benefits of a detail-light approach quickly become outnumbered by the drawbacks.

echo

[A Man In Black]

It depends whether you want your system to err on the side of gamism vs simulationism. The more simulationist the system, the more fiddly bits you'll have.

"Gamism" and "simulationism" are not opposed concepts, and gamism versus simulationism is a bad theory. Adding fiddly bits for the sake of fiddliness is not gamism or simulationism, it's just inane. It's perfectly reasonable to ascribe the minor differences between people to the RNG. After all, in the vast majority of fields nobody can measure anything but the coarsest differences in ability in real life.

TMiB's premise is certainly valid, and it's a good question to ask. But it breaks down when you want to include more than just one party of characters. Anytime your setting/system combination is attempting to support a broader scope of detail, such as a Living Campaign or internally-consistent NPCs using PC rules, the benefits of a detail-light approach quickly become outnumbered by the drawbacks.

AMIB.

Stats don't give you any meaningful granularity in the case of a Living Campaign, because the tight restrictions and high demands of such a campaign mean that everyone with any sense is using the same stats anyway. Every fighter has max str. Every wizard has max int. Etc.

When it breaks down is when you meet and regularly confront someone who is your exact double in some field where skill can be carefully measured in fine grains, and regularly challenge that person in that field. If sports or games of skill are not a large part of your game, you're probably good.

[Roog]

There are systems without stats, such as FATE, and they work well enough. However, they lack granularity. To give an example, let's say you have a troop of Marines fresh out of Boot Camp - some will be better marksmen than others, and some will be stronger or have more long-distance endurance. It's obviously not a question of levels - they all have the same number of levels of Marine - and just assuming traits doesn't make up the difference. If you have two Marines that are both exceptional marksmen, did they both just take the Exceptional Marksman trait? If so, which one is better, and by how much? You can say that one took the Really Good Marksman trait and the other took the Fairly Good Marksman trait, or that they both took Exceptional Marksman but one took Exceptionally Exceptional Marksman, but that's just silly. Stats are an elegant, concise method of measuring exactly that level of natural aptitude which separates two very similar characters.

The two issues have nothing to do with each other.

That the skills in Fate have relatively low granularity is only due to the scale used. It has nothing to do with the lack of stats.


Granularity effects stats the same way:
If you have two Barbarians that are both exceptionally Strong, did they both just take the Exceptional level of Strength? If so, which one is stronger, and by how much? You can say that one took Really Good Strength and the other took Fairly Good Strength, or that they both took Exceptional Strength but one took Exceptionally Exceptional Strength, but that's just silly.

[MGuy]

I don't find Constitution offensive. I find the argument against it valid. As for Charisma I just see it as force of personality and move on with my day.

[K]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty tired of stats altogether. They had meaning back in the day when the only difference between two Fighters or Thieves was magic items and stats, but we've gotten past those dark ages.

There are systems without stats, such as FATE, and they work well enough. However, they lack granularity. To give an example, let's say you have a troop of Marines fresh out of Boot Camp - some will be better marksmen than others, and some will be stronger or have more long-distance endurance. It's obviously not a question of levels - they all have the same number of levels of Marine - and just assuming traits doesn't make up the difference. If you have two Marines that are both exceptional marksmen, did they both just take the Exceptional Marksman trait? If so, which one is better, and by how much? You can say that one took the Really Good Marksman trait and the other took the Fairly Good Marksman trait, or that they both took Exceptional Marksman but one took Exceptionally Exceptional Marksman, but that's just silly. Stats are an elegant, concise method of measuring exactly that level of natural aptitude which separates two very similar characters.

echo

edit - fixed typo

I understand the theoretical argument, it's the practical one that makes no sense.

Take 3e for example. Someone with an 18 STR is competing against someone with an 14. Now, in theory they are supposed to be really different where one guy is very strong and the other is pretty strong. If real life was the model, the 14 STR guy would get beaten all the time.

In the game, the difference is a +2. When we roll d20s, it will take dozens of rolls before we even realize that one character has a slight advantage over the other (even then, it might take a hundred rolls to actually have statistical proof).

The idea of stats sounds great until you actually have to implement them. DnD is supposed to represent a range of Great Wyrm strength and pixie strength, and it's not going to be able to model minor variations in two nearly identical people without making all the numbers much bigger and much more unwieldy.

Then we get to the question of "does this add anything to the game?"

Personally, I'm fine with saying "all Fighters have a +4 to Strength checks" and have a feat called Great Strength that let's you use oversized weapons and gives another +4 to Strength checks.

[echoVanguard]

If real life was the model, the 14 STR guy would get beaten all the time. In the game, the difference is a +2. When we roll d20s, it will take dozens of rolls before we even realize that one character has a slight advantage over the other (even then, it might take a hundred rolls to actually have statistical proof).

You're right, but that's a problem with the statistical implementation, not the base concept of Character Attributes. In 4E GURPS, the difference between a 14 STR character and an 18 STR character is extreme, because of how the rolling system works.

Then we get to the question of "does this add anything to the game?" Personally, I'm fine with saying "all Fighters have a +4 to Strength checks" and have a feat called Great Strength that let's you use oversized weapons and gives another +4 to Strength checks.

And that would probably work pretty well in most games you play. However, some people would probably want an additional level of detail above and beyond what you want. The point to take away here is that the system should support scalable levels of customization. Your example is perfectly workable by editing point buy at character creation to instead use a stat array by class and adding a feat - it's always easier to simplify a mechanic than introduce one.

Also, it's OK to say "I don't like this element of a system" without saying "This element of a system is horrible and needs to be removed for all players forever". It seems to me that the second term ought to be reserved for things that really should be removed completely from a system - usually things like complete redundancies or intrinsically unworkable subsystems.

echo

[RadiantPhoenix]

I have to say, I am kind of a fan of, "the system should automatically include the components of greater granularity," but I think that there should be a way to not have to deal with the additional problems it introduces if it's not likely to come up.

Standardized attribute arrays being a formalized part of the rules would go a ways towards this goal because you can just note down, say, "wizard," and just know that it means, "STR 8, DEX 13, CON 8, INT 18, WIS 11, CHA 9," or something if it ever comes up; but if it doesn't, you just use the pre-calculated numbers for the wizard class.

[echoVanguard]

The two issues have nothing to do with each other. That the skills in Fate have relatively low granularity is only due to the scale used. It has nothing to do with the lack of stats.

This is a good observation - thanks for pointing it out.

Granularity effects stats the same way: If you have two Barbarians that are both exceptionally Strong, did they both just take the Exceptional level of Strength? If so, which one is stronger, and by how much? You can say that one took Really Good Strength and the other took Fairly Good Strength, or that they both took Exceptional Strength but one took Exceptionally Exceptional Strength, but that's just silly.

The difference is that it's fairly easy to see that 18 is greater than 17, and - more importantly - that they're capable of representing anything on that number range in a manner that is intrinsically simple and easy to understand. Just looking at the numbers, even without knowing anything about the ranges or levels involved, you automatically know that one is stronger than the other - and, as a bonus, have at least a general idea of how much stronger.

echo

[K]

Then we get to the question of "does this add anything to the game?" Personally, I'm fine with saying "all Fighters have a +4 to Strength checks" and have a feat called Great Strength that let's you use oversized weapons and gives another +4 to Strength checks.

And that would probably work pretty well in most games you play. However, some people would probably want an additional level of detail above and beyond what you want. The point to take away here is that the system should support scalable levels of customization. Your example is perfectly workable by editing point buy at character creation to instead use a stat array by class and adding a feat - it's always easier to simplify a mechanic than introduce one.

Also, it's OK to say "I don't like this element of a system" without saying "This element of a system is horrible and needs to be removed for all players forever". It seems to me that the second term ought to be reserved for things that really should be removed completely from a system - usually things like complete redundancies or intrinsically unworkable subsystems.

echo

That's where we disagree.

Any system has to first pass the "does this make a better game" test, and anything that doesn't gets cut because watching player's eyes glaze over as the minutae of yet another subsystem are explored tends to tests people's patience.

Veterans often want stupid levels of customization that would overwhelm and bore a newer player, but at the end of the day both have to play the same game.

I mean, I once saw a system where wounds are categorized like an overly complicated version of a Battletech sheet... that works, but it doesn't make for a better or more fun game than a more abstract system.... it just means you spend more time fiddling with wound boxes and forgetting things on your sheet.

[echoVanguard]

It's a thorny problem, and no mistake. The trouble is that what's too complex for one person is boring for another - and we all tend to extol the viewpoint that best suits our preferences. The trick is to maximize the capabilities of your system while minimizing its complexity, and that's no mean feat.

echo

[Psychic Robot]

things other people aren't allowed to like: riddles

[echoVanguard]

Ironically, one of the most memorable moments I've had as a player in a campaign was when I solved a riddle that was stumping the rest of the party. I agree, however, that they're not generally a good idea out-of-the-box.

echo

[Roog]

The difference is that it's fairly easy to see that 18 is greater than 17,

Only when its written down - and its not exactly difficult to tell that Really Good Strength is better than Fairly Good Strength if that is what is written down.

Just looking at the numbers, even without knowing anything about the ranges or levels involved, you automatically know that one is stronger than the other - and, as a bonus, have at least a general idea of how much stronger.

No. If you think that you have a general idea general idea of how much stronger without knowing the range, then you are being mislead by your preconceptions.

[Maxus]

I don't find Constitution offensive. I find the argument against it valid. As for Charisma I just see it as force of personality and move on with my day.

I could see a case for Charisma being your willpower-save stat. Maybe.

[Gx1080]

Fighters: I do agree that the definition of Fighter is "he who sucks a lot on High-level D&D". I still propose the simple solution: Make ToB classes standard (with some polish of course), nerf Wizards. Really, is a simple problem with a simple solution. Also, haters of that book tend to be, you guessed it, Wizards.

Charisma and Constitution. There should be enough points to put in both stats if you need to. Have seen systems when a "points expended per level" cap works. Or just make each class earn points automatically. Or just roll them in Strength and Intelligence repectively and call it a day.

Magical Tea Party: While is not possible to have rules for every single thing that can happen on open ended roleplaying, when people don't use the rules to play most of the time...why did they payed for those rules again?

[Swordslinger]

Fighters: I do agree that the definition of Fighter is "he who sucks a lot on High-level D&D". I still propose the simple solution: Make ToB classes standard (with some polish of course), nerf Wizards. Really, is a simple problem with a simple solution. Also, haters of that book tend to be, you guessed it, Wizards.

The wizard and fighter debate is mostly just one of game preference and is not in any way set in stone. The issue comes about when people want crazy OTT anime style magic, where wizards are blowing up mountains and tossing nuclear blasts.

In almost any live action movie or show I've seen with spellcasters, martial characters can hold up against them fine enough.

[Emerald]

Fighters: I do agree that the definition of Fighter is "he who sucks a lot on High-level D&D". I still propose the simple solution: Make ToB classes standard (with some polish of course), nerf Wizards. Really, is a simple problem with a simple solution. Also, haters of that book tend to be, you guessed it, Wizards.

Actually, most of the ToB haters I've seen have hated it for making their fighters "unrealistic" and "too anime," not for stealing the wizard's thunder. Several players in my group who used to exclusively play casters will now throw in a warblade every once in a while because it lets them play a somewhat-interesting noncaster without completely sucking. It's not the dedicated casters you need to worry about if implementing such a change, it's the "But fighters are fine the way they are! ToB is overpowered!" crowd.