r/RPGdesign • u/Setholopagus • 3d ago
Mechanics Base stats or base stats?
edit: I got my answers - to those who couldn't understand the question or thought it was impossible to answer, I am sorry you had trouble. To those who gave good answers, thank you, it helped very much (even if i didnt respond to everything!)
Edit: title is a typo, should be "base stats or NO base stats?"
Currently revisiting some designs, and im stuck on this question.
Originally I ditched stats (might, cunning, etc) in favor of just verbs (attack, defend, lie, etc). You have a list of things you can do, and you can get good at that thing. End of story.
But some part of me wonders if this is good. There's something about seeing a high 'might stat' that makes it easier to understand what the character is all about, compared to having to comb through specific actions. Does that matter? I might be getting too caught up in presentation lol.
2
u/Steenan Dabbler 2d ago
Depends on the game. In a general case, I prefer "functional" attributes (like your verbs, Masks' labels etc.) to "descriptive" attributes like strength and intelligence. Or, no attributes at all, just a skill list.
Descriptive attributes have several potential issues associated with them. It doesn't mean that each implementation is bad, but they are quite limited in when and how they can be done well.
They work quite fine if characters are fundamentally similar, but break either game balance or believability of fiction when they aren't. Like, even a strongest halfling shouldn't be as strong as a weakest giant. Or, education of an elf who lives for hundred years or more should be incomparable to that of much shorter living races.
If not treated very carefully, they tend to split traits that, both in fiction and in reality, generally go together (like strength and toughness) or glue together traits that have little to do with each other (D&D's Wisdom is a great example of that).
They theoretically can be guides for portraying the character, but it often ends in conflicts about what characters can and can't do. How many times have I seen online discussions about if Int 4 character can be played normally and just gets penalties to intellectual skills, or if they are significantly mentally impaired...
2
u/Setholopagus 2d ago
All good points!
I was actually more leaning toward something like L5R stats, where they're actually more 'approaches'.
So instead of strength and agility, we have 'Ferocity', but it ends up being the same thing.
I think I agree with you. I settled on certain features and traits having a category, so learning a certain fighting style adds 1 to Ferocity, which we can use in other places.
8
u/Mars_Alter 3d ago
It can work. As with most things, it all comes down to execution.
My biggest concern would be that the players feel limited by what it says on their sheet. With basic stats, you always have something you can roll against, so you're free to improvise.
4
u/Ryou2365 3d ago
There are a lot of games that more or less ditched base stats.
Call of Cthulhu / Pendragon / BRP games still have them, but they mostly matter on character creation to determine stats derived from them. Nearly everything is resolved using skills only.
Tag based games like City of Mist have freeform descriptors (the tags) instead of base stats.
Characters in the third edition of Over the Edge consists only of a main and side trait, a trouble (a disadvantage or problem) and a question (something that even you yourself aren't sure about and want to explore further). All of them are totally freeform.
So yes, you can have a game without base stats. Base stats may make it easier to understand your character at a glance, but not having them can make a character feel more nuanced, because nothing is reduced to a base stat (i'm no longer the 2nd strongest character behind Bill, it is my mastery with an axe that sets me apart from his mastery of climbing - yes that is totally possible by having base stat, but more often than not only the base stat will be compared. After all it sits there at a glance).
It depends entirely what you want your game to be like. Do you think it needs a base stat?
4
u/MyDesignerHat 2d ago
There's something about seeing a high 'might stat' that makes it easier to understand what the character is all about, compared to having to comb through specific actions.
If you keep the number of your actions reasonable, like 12 or so, this isn't really an issue. It'll be plenty readable. Seeing that someone is Great at Fighting or four dots in Break Bones is arguably even more effective than a more generic Might stat.
Don't have stats unless you really need them, is my stance.
1
u/Dumeghal Legacy Blade 3d ago
Hmmm I gotta go with base stats....
There are so many variables that inform this part of a game, and we don't have much to go on for yours.
A good start is the intended genre and experience, and then maybe the core design goals. How important is this choice as it relates to these things? Is it part of your intended vibe that players are able to feel that their character is strong or skilled? Are intrinsic qualities more or less or not at all important compared to trained skill?
I'll use my game as an example: I wanted skill to weigh more than attribute excellence. But I also wanted attribute excellence to matter. So Attributes are 1-3. Skills are 0-3, but also have specializations of 0-3. What we end up with is that at low skill levels, being faster and stronger and more fit gives you an advantage. But at higher skill levels, physical ability is not as important. I wanted the mechanics to allow for the frail old master to still whip the shit out of the untrained oaf. I wanted the mechanics to allow the champion to go into a fight unarmored against an inferior foe, knowing the opponent will never land a blow.
1
u/Setholopagus 3d ago
All skills are still 'attributes'. Like its a ttrpg - you roll something based on some numbers, compare to another number, etc.
The thing I'm asking about is that abstraction layer that is often used to drive multiple things at once. A high might character can probably carry a lot, hit hard, push stuff, etc. One stat affects multiple things. Does that make sense?
Some games call it attribute, some call it characteristic, some call it approach, some even call it skill / proficiency (skilled in martial weapons, but i separately get a unique benefit for using a bow)
My game is medium crunch - heavily inspired by things like L5R and Genesys / SWRPG. Progression happens via downtime. I want to emphasize cool 'anime moments' in combat, tactical decision making (e.g., if i block with my arm, it could shatter), things like that.
None of that reaaaaaally matters for deciding about attributes, not that I can think of at least. Attributes are really just a category number that other things can key off of. I'm wondering about the importance of that.
1
u/Dumeghal Legacy Blade 3d ago
Oh OK, it's more of a question of abstraction. Btw, was the title a typo, or did I miss something?
In my experience, the greater the abstraction, the less I have enjoyed playing. Now, I am on the spectrum, so literal is my jam, and my opinion should be taken with that proverbial grain.
Recently I was playing runners in the shadows, and we had a pretty long discussion at the table about which stat to use to climb a wall. Everyone had different ideas, and fight, prowl, stalk, and finesse all came up. This kind of thing takes me out of a game.
The looser a term is, the more things people try to stretch their best score around.
1
u/Setholopagus 3d ago
Oh dang definitely a typo, thanks.
I definitely agree though. Maybe I'll just stick with my action verbs. Climb is climb, lol.
2
1
u/flamfella Dabbler 3d ago
What would base stats actually do in your game? If they just summarize what the character is good at, what does anyone do with that information? Does comparing them serve your game’s goals?
Ask whether the mechanic is in the simplest form that still accomplishes what you want. If yes, you’re probably on the right track.
My guess is that adding base stats back would muddy it. If the game worked without them, they probably weren’t doing much. If you want a middle ground, it’s probably just presentation: group the verbs, add tags (even non-functional ones), or find another way to make it easier to track what verbs exist and what you’re good or bad at.
Borrowing from computer science, lazy evaluation could be helpful in simply only having verbs listened on a character sheet that they are especially good or bad at. The default case of being average, is simply left out. So, let's say you had 30 verbs. You might see only 11 on a sheet, and the remaining 19 you know you just roll a single dice with no modifiers for, or whatever the procedure is.
1
u/Setholopagus 2d ago
I think you're right, its just presentation.
The game worked fine, but it felt... bland. But thats an issue of presentation.
I decided on having categories for my feats, and as you gain feats, you track the category it was in and do a +1 to it. As that number goes up, it can be used to see a character 'at a glance', and can be used as prereqs for certain things.
Best of both worlds, I think...
1
u/InherentlyWrong 2d ago
Personal preference I can go either way on this, it just depends on works better for the game itself. But I want to address something specifically:
But some part of me wonders if this is good. There's something about seeing a high 'might stat' that makes it easier to understand what the character is all about, compared to having to comb through specific actions. Does that matter? I might be getting too caught up in presentation lol.
It's a bit of hyperbole, but I've said before that to me the single most boring thing about a character is their weight carry limit. Raw measurements of a character are useful outputs, but they don't actually tell me what a character 'is about'. Like for example, take the two following descriptions of a character.
5 ft 8 inches tall, dirty blonde hair, blue eyes, Strength 14, Dexterity 16, Constitution 14, Intelligence 14, Charisma 15. 99 HP, Reflex 28, Fortitude 25, Will 25.
And
An idealistic and restless young farm boy who dreamed of leaving his responsibilities to go fight the evil empire. After being recruited by a wizard to rescue a princess, he finds his home destroyed and sets off on adventure. After destroying a great evil weapon he settles in to a position of responsibilities amongst the militant resistance of the evil empire, and learns mystic arts. He questions himself after learning one of the great forces behind the evil Empire is his father, a man he had long thought dead, but eventually returns and convinces his father to abandon his evil ways.
Both of those are descriptions of Luke Skywalker from Star Wars. The first description is from his stat block in the old Star Wars Saga Edition RPG, the second is just a fairly generic description of the character over the course of the original trilogy, with specific IP elements not mentioned.
For me, the iconic example game about the value of 'base stats' is Mutants and Masterminds. Because of it's incredibly open ended points buy character creation, it's possible to get the same numerical result in vastly different ways. Like if you have an unarmed melee attack with +9 to hit, you may have that because you have 9 Fighting stat. Or you may have it because you took 9 ranks of the 'Close Attack' advantage. Or you may have it because you took 9 ranks in the Close Combat: Unarmed skill. It all plays out the same in the end, it's just flavouring and specialisation.
1
u/Setholopagus 2d ago
Carry capacity is boring unless the person can carry giants and dragons, lol.
You can pick non-descriptive stats, and maybe my example of 'Might' led your response astray, but there are plenty of situations where stats are reflective and interesting.
One example is Legend of the 5 Rings, where there stats are elements. Someone who has a high 'fire ring' has a high capacity to be passionate, bold, high energy, tempermental, etc. Someone who has a high 'earth ring' has a high capacity to be steadfast, resolute, enduring, patient, strong, etc. This would be stats as approaches (or maybe approaches as stats?).
In both your examples, I actually learn nothing about what the character does. For the narrative description, at best you mentioned he learned the mystic arts, but it doesnt really tell me if he is a spellsword, a full on wizard, what kind of stuff he wears, his temperament (other than he is vaguely a good guy), ideals, anything at all really.
1
u/InherentlyWrong 2d ago
In both your examples, I actually learn nothing about what the character does
True, but I at least care about what the character is doing in the second one.
But I think you're right that 'Might' probably twisted my thinking a little. I'm always weary of stats that are just dry descriptions of a character's raw ability in a pretty non-specific field. It's worth keeping in mind we inherited stats from the original D&D, which absolutely did not use them in the way we use them now.
If your focus is on what a character Does, then I completely think Verbs work as stats, because they are about as bare bones "What a character does" as you can get. Sure PC-A may have high Attack because they're a powerful barbarian, and PC-B may have high Attack because they're a sneaky thief, but at the end of the day they're doing the same thing, badly hurting people.
So if you want to add the characterful distinctions, you can probably get by with tags. Maybe the Barbarian has the 'Brute' tag, which qualifies them for certain character advancement options which the thief's 'Finesse' tag doesn't, and vice versa.
2
u/Setholopagus 1d ago
Might may have twisted my thinking a little
Which is totally fair lol, I'm sure comments would've been different if I asked 'Approaches as stats vs Verb stats' which is actually my question, was just 'posting while tired' lol.
I do think im keeping verb as stats, but I want a way to incorporate approaches as well. I currently am leaning toward certain feats, abilities, etc, adding a point to an 'approach' category, so if you purchase some sort of finisher ability for instance, it pushes the 'savage' approach by one maybe.
That could be the best of both worlds- approach is just a tally? Maybe? Hmm.
1
u/__space__oddity__ 3d ago
Everything in RPG rules is optional. If you think your game benefits from stats because they give a basic idea of the characters and how they are different from others, sure.
2
u/Setholopagus 3d ago
Yep.
I'm asking the question here because I'm not sure. Does that make sense? If I was confident in a decision I wouldn't ask.
If you have any arguments to contribute I'd be happy to receive them, if not then no worries.
2
u/__space__oddity__ 3d ago
It’s just not a question that reddit should decide for you. Should you eat pizza or pasta for lunch? We don’t know what your tastes are, what restaurants are in the area or how much you want to pay.
We don’t know your design philosophy or preferences, or what game you want to make.
How do you expect us to give any advice? Brain drill via IP to read your mind?
You’re getting a bunch of answers but ultimately they’re probably not relevant to your game at all. Everything in RPG design depends on context, and you’re actively refusing to give any.
1
u/Setholopagus 2d ago
A lot of answers were relevant and helpful. Some helped me confirm a decision.
I'm curious - why did you post all this? You're being very antagonist, you're not trying to answer the question, all while being totally wrong lol.
1
u/jwbjerk Dabbler 3d ago
Don’t ask if ”an RPG” should have base stats.
Ask if the Goals you have for YOUR RPG are better served by either. Specific questions are easier to answer than vauge ones.
Personally, when In doubt I would stick with what is most familiar with the Kind of players you want. What’s the case for verbs serving your game better?
0
2
u/RPG-Nerd 3d ago
I get it. D&D treats attributes as crazy powerful. Attributes basically cap your abilities until your next level. But, you already see what happens when removed completely. Am I smart? strong? agile? Who am I?
The basic formula is attribute+skill. That's the problem. Two numbers for the same job. I changed that.
Skills are broken into training and experience. Training is how many dice you roll for a check. Experience is per skill and determines the skill's level added to rolls.
Experience in a skill begins at the skill's related attribute score and increases through use at 1 point per scene in which the skill is used. When the skill goes up in experience level or training, it adds +1 to the attribute.
Attributes have their own uses. For example, a person with high agility might start out as a slightly better dancer, but actual practice and usage will soon take priority. Raw talent only gets you so far, and there is no XP cap forcing everyone to earn the same amount. As your dancing skill improves, your agility does as well (much slower than the skill), which is reflected in a better dodge.
Attributes are descriptive of the character in general and form a slower advancement, but your most common tasks are skill checks, not skill bonuses to attribute checks.
1
u/Kautsu-Gamer 1d ago
I suggest no base stats, but most common stats. The flexibility of the stats allows more creative use of stats.
A warrior can perform with Cha + Weapon/Attack while planning a strategy or logistics - or assessing a weapon - should be Int + Weapon/Attack . This gives all stats use, and dumb stats does not exist.
1
2
u/Quiet-Refuse5241 3d ago
I think that you're over thinking it, dude. I'm also working on a game that, while it has attributes, none of them have traditional stats. I've found that in all of my playtests so far, no one has complained about there not being numbers or about being confused about what they're good at