Meaningful choices at character creation

[rusty_shackleford]

Pulling this from another thread:

Do you really like using ability scores? Or are you just used to them? Because it seems as though you only want ability scores to be worth a +1 or +2 bonus at most and reduce them to vestigial bits. Put bluntly, it's not worth keeping the mechanical and meta-fictional baggage of ability scores if they're going to provide only a token bonus. It's not worth the system mastery trap of needing to pick the sneaky class, the sneaky score, and the sneaky skill to have a sneaky guy worth a ****. It's not worth the twin bugbears of being mechanically punished for having a socially skilled fighter or true Vancian wizard (ie, a well-rounded adventurer like wizards actually are in Jack Vance's Dying Earth books); or being called a munchkin power-gamer because your fighter has to have an 18 STR to not suck but you roleplay your 8 CHA dude as a generally pleasant person. It's not worth watching the light go out of a new player's eyes because they wanted to play a guy based on their favorite fictional character but the realities of ability scores make it impossible.

---

@J1M @WhiteShark what's your opinion on this? It appears to have been from feedback to 5E from a 4E player, but an opinion fairly widely held by 4E players.

I think ability scores stopped being interesting when they stopped being randomly assigned values. (And then you picked a class that you could make work.)

There isn't really an interesting choice associated with them. I can't think of more than two classes in Pathfinder Kingmaker where you wouldn't want to put all of your ability boosts into the same ability.

When some classes were more dependent on multiple attributes there was a bit of interesting tension but whining has removed that from the game at this point. Now everything is "balanced" (boring).

It also strains the veremicilitude (which is apparently important to people playing a half-centaur with purple hair AND the OSR crowd) for a human fighter to somehow have the strength of an adult dragon without the involvement of magic.

I mentioned in another thread that I think race should be as important as class (aka power source + party role) and instead of trying squeeze out a 5% advantage on a die roll the combination of these choices should define the tools you have available to solve challenges.

What's your opinion of ability scores(stats) in games like Fallout or Underrail?

In Underrail, it is just linked to the type of weapons you want to use.

Agility -> Fist
Strength -> Melee, Assault rifles, LMGs, Snipers
Perception -> Guns
Will -> Magic Psi powers

They don't have any other meaningful utility.

The question then becomes, is it actually a useful mechanic to have or just vestigial bits that exists because that's the way it has always been?
What are some examples of RPGs that don't have core attributes? Or at least, I suppose, ones you assign at character creation?

I can only think of Enderal at this moment and I think its system is pretty good without core attributes.

I think the original quote has a good point:

It's not worth the system mastery trap of needing to pick the sneaky class, the sneaky score, and the sneaky skill to have a sneaky guy worth a ****

You're making multiple selections at character creation that are effectively the same selection. Ability scores, as mentioned by @J1M, were interesting when you rolled them because it influenced what class you picked after rolling. They became much less interesting when assigned. Unless you're doing some theorycrafting to make an unconventional build, when you pick that fighter class you're going to max out your strength and put your skill points into your class's favored skills — change slightly as needed for system.
If you attempt to alleviate this by making all the stats interesting, you're going to fall into the Pillars of Eternity trap… and fail, like Pillows did.


Not to be confused with eliminating attributes altogether, of course — they can still be interesting when used as part of itemization and other areas of a game.

Opinions?
What are the best RPGs that avoid this?

---

I recently played Hero's Adventure :weeb: , and the character creation was you choosing your primary weapon type and buying a bunch of passive 'perks' using points. It was serviceable enough. You also were able to assign attribute points, these points went towards the 'base' attribute(rather than modified), and each attribute could have its 'base' score increased by gaining XP for it while playing. In D&D terms, it would be like if you could increase all your ability scores to 18 during your adventure from doing related activities, and your starting ability scores merely affect how your adventure begins.

[Vergil]

What's maningful mean?

[Val the Moofia Boss]

This overlaps with a prior thread about respeccing. It boils down to the player being in the dark as to how exactly all of these huge choices the player is being asked to make at the start of the game will affect their gameplay experience later on. The player can't be expected to know how much or how little dumping points into STR or dexterity or agility or etc will affect their ability to be a viable spear combatant, doesn't know how much of your spear stats can be made up by items later on, doesn't know whether or not spear is even good in this game at all, etc. You won't know this unless you do extensive out of game research online before you even boot up the game, or have played the game for a few hours and have gotten a better grasp on which stats are relevant to do what things and by how much they factor into a calculation.

I think allocating stats at the start of a game when the player is in the dark on so much information is a bad idea. The player should just pick the race and class they want and then get straight to playing, getting a feel for how the game plays and the mechanics right away. Then as the game goes on, they can start allocating stats or acquiring items to affect their build.

[Tangerine]

Attributes should be derived from a combination of race, class, and background. You can still stack the deck for a certain playstyle, but each of those choices should have some effect in the game beyond making your rolls slightly better, e.g. racial/class/background specific dialog options. You should also have limited or no control over attribute improvement, since there's usually little reason to not dump them into the primary combat stats outside of gimmick builds. What makes one orphan orc fighter different from another orphan orc fighter should be the skills/feats/perks selected.

[rusty_shackleford]

What's maningful mean?

It's not worth the system mastery trap of needing to pick the sneaky class, the sneaky score, and the sneaky skill to have a sneaky guy worth a ****

If I pick the sneaky class, I shouldn't have to also pick the sneaky attributes and sneaky skill. This is just an illusion of choice at best, and newb traps at worst.

[Tweed]

Contains opinions from Ryzer and as such, is completely invalid.

[Hurtyy]

What's maningful mean?

It's not worth the system mastery trap of needing to pick the sneaky class, the sneaky score, and the sneaky skill to have a sneaky guy worth a ****

If I pick the sneaky class, I shouldn't have to also pick the sneaky attributes and sneaky skill. This is just an illusion of choice at best, and newb traps at worst.

I mean it is this mentally that leads to the Skyrim system where you get rid of attributes altogether in favor of a classless system where only skills and perks matter. It is fine to prefer this system, particularly if you consider video game RPGs need to break from their tabletop counterparts, but it is lacking in proper RPG depth

[rusty_shackleford]

What's maningful mean?

It's not worth the system mastery trap of needing to pick the sneaky class, the sneaky score, and the sneaky skill to have a sneaky guy worth a ****

If I pick the sneaky class, I shouldn't have to also pick the sneaky attributes and sneaky skill. This is just an illusion of choice at best, and newb traps at worst.

I mean it is this mentally that leads to the Skyrim system where you get rid of attributes altogether in favor of a classless system where only skills and perks matter. It is fine to prefer this system but it is lacking in proper RPG depth

How does it add depth?
I never said anything about removing attributes.

[Lord of Riva]

I knew a guy once, a pretty well known developer of games in the (german) RPGMaker community actually who I relatively often assisted in QA for his game.

He was actually a pretty mediocre dev when it came to quality but he created many games that were not *bad* but also not *great*. Often times when he was critiqued for his games he was pretty defensive and often referred back to his own skill as in "Well you can only depict a certain level of quality on the pixel amount of the maker" or similar statements.

I mention that because what he often also did was deny the validity of the feedback, I can't remember a specific example but in the Vein of: "The character in the story has been resting for a months now, after the scene you get into a fight and I just realized that I was still hurt from the prior Boss battle before the whole resting scene and lost, Isn't it reasonable that the Protagonist is healed at this point?" to which he would then answer something akin to "Well there are two medikits on the table, they blink as you know, and they refill 50% of health each. I have calculated the amount of health needed and the fight is doable under all circumstances. Why would the character be healed by resting when the Medkits are there? It's functionally the same" and then, to act on the feedback would add a message before the boss encounter that the player should use the medpacks to heal, instead of healing them for the rest.

An anecdote pointing to something relevant to the topic, namely: There are often loads of ways to streamline things and to think how it could be done better, however efficiency is not necessary what is relevant. Systems like PF:WotR are still relevant and good, even though you are right, functionally, you always do the same, but you don't actually have to. You can perfectly experiment and try some odd builds out to make something fun out of it.

We do know where too much streamlining leads (PoE), that said, the hollow values of DND always bothered me, especially when there is also a point increase when allocating, a 17 is necessary a meta game choice and since the effect of a 11 and a 17 is the same, the cost increase is plainly ********. Fallouts system is better, it enhances a character with every choice (though, the perks are not well done, as there are simply only few good choices). I am not saying it's the be all end all, just that they are fine.

I also want add that having smaller variables is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as we are not talking about MMO style "This skill procs with a 2.5% chance every auto-attack to deal 0.5% of weapon damage for 2 seconds to target", as we are creating a full concept of a character, the smaller values are just different variables we can change around to make it an interesting one.

The Question of randomness is an interesting one, I am not a fan of randomness in general but that may not be applicable here, the answer as far as I am able to parse the actual question is, is not what is the superior method of character creation but if you want to play a certain character whose concept you have chosen or do you a system that is putting you into the role of someone that already exists in the setting.

I do not think it's fair to judge that on a metric of quality, it's a whole different thing to create your fighter for your DnD campaign or if your are destined to be a Ratcatcher because of your poor stats, because we can not chose our destiny. Both can be fun and they do not fulfil the same function, gameplay wise and narrative wise.

[Lord of Riva]

If I pick the sneaky class, I shouldn't have to also pick the sneaky attributes and sneaky skill. This is just an illusion of choice at best, and newb traps at worst.

I mean it is this mentally that leads to the Skyrim system where you get rid of attributes altogether in favor of a classless system where only skills and perks matter. It is fine to prefer this system but it is lacking in proper RPG depth

How does it add depth?
I never said anything about removing attributes.

I think he is right, he is exaggerating things into the slippery slope but that does not change the fact that exactly such thoughts will have lead from daggerfall to skyrim. I mean what does agi 83 actually do, right?

[rusty_shackleford]

I mean it is this mentally that leads to the Skyrim system where you get rid of attributes altogether in favor of a classless system where only skills and perks matter. It is fine to prefer this system but it is lacking in proper RPG depth

How does it add depth?
I never said anything about removing attributes.

I think he is right, he is exaggerating things into the slippery slope but that does not change the fact that exactly such thoughts will have lead from daggerfall to skyrim. I mean what does agi 83 actually do, right?

What does agi 83 do?
If you can't describe it to me, why is it a choice?

[rusty_shackleford]

I can describe what a perk that lets you wear medium armor does. I can likewise describe what a perk that lets you jump longer distances does.
How do you describe 83 agility to someone who just bought your game and is making a character?
Is 83 high? Is it 83/100? 83%? What does 100 agility represent?

[Ryzer]

It means you have 100 agility.

[rusty_shackleford]

It means you have 100 agility.

Oh wow I bet that lets me use guns because agility means being agile and ranged weapons are like agile right?


Oh. Guns require strength, time to start over 20 hours in.

[Lord of Riva]

I can describe what a perk that lets you wear medium armor does. I can likewise describe what a perk that lets you jump longer distances does.
How do you describe 83 agility to someone who just bought your game and is making a character?
Is 83 high? Is it 83/100? 83%? What does 100 agility represent?

That is what I wanted to point out with my post above, it does not mean anything apart from the context of hitting a milestone of 90 in Daggerfall (IIRC, you can actually check that in-game) I think 81 is the same as 89 bit if you get 6 skill points on level up, that poses an interesting question of allocation for the future.

Daggerfall, for example, would not be better for changing it's attributes, I would argue, though there are certainly aspects that could be improved.

[Lord of Riva]

It means you have 100 agility.

Oh wow I bet that lets me use guns because agility means being agile and ranged weapons are like agile right?


Oh. Guns require strength, time to start over 20 hours in.

Well that is another issue alltogether, namely tuotrialisation and in-game explanation. It's not a matter of the attributes, even the hollow ones like agi 83 or 17 strength in DnD and you can even observe that in the fantasy P&P thread of Iren where people suddenly suggested using wis or Int to aim after people have made their characters.

[rusty_shackleford]

It means you have 100 agility.

Oh wow I bet that lets me use guns because agility means being agile and ranged weapons are like agile right?


Oh. Guns require strength, time to start over 20 hours in.

Well that is another issue alltogether, namely tuotrialisation and in-game explanation. It's not a matter of the attributes, even the hollow ones like agi 83 or 17 strength in DnD and you can even observe that in the fantasy P&P thread of Iren where people suddenly suggested using wis or Int to aim after people have made their characters.

Select gun at character creation, see that the system assigned high enough stats to use the starter weapon, look at weapon, know what stats are good for you.
Move choice into tangible things that can be described like feats and perks because these are cool.

[Lord of Riva]

Oh wow I bet that lets me use guns because agility means being agile and ranged weapons are like agile right?


Oh. Guns require strength, time to start over 20 hours in.

Well that is another issue alltogether, namely tuotrialisation and in-game explanation. It's not a matter of the attributes, even the hollow ones like agi 83 or 17 strength in DnD and you can even observe that in the fantasy P&P thread of Iren where people suddenly suggested using wis or Int to aim after people have made their characters.

Select gun at character creation, see that the system assigned high enough stats to use the starter weapon, look at weapon, know what stats are good for you.
Move choice into tangible things that can be described like feats and perks because these are cool.

What are we playing, Counter strike?

Normally in an RPG you do not have a skill but a suit of them. But in any case that is besides the point, you could have a gun skill that says "need str to wield, dex to hit if you start with the skill you get a gun with str 14 as a minimum requirement" as you describe it, it is only a matter of explanation and order.

[rusty_shackleford]

Well that is another issue alltogether, namely tuotrialisation and in-game explanation. It's not a matter of the attributes, even the hollow ones like agi 83 or 17 strength in DnD and you can even observe that in the fantasy P&P thread of Iren where people suddenly suggested using wis or Int to aim after people have made their characters.

Select gun at character creation, see that the system assigned high enough stats to use the starter weapon, look at weapon, know what stats are good for you.
Move choice into tangible things that can be described like feats and perks because these are cool.

What are we playing, Counter strike?

Normally in an RPG you do not have a skill but a suit of them. But in any case that is besides the point, you could have a gun skill that says "need str to wield, dex to hit if you start with the skill you get a gun with str 14 as a minimum requirement" as you describe it, it is only a matter of explanation and order.

Again:
What is the benefit of having me pick the sneaky class then select the sneaky attribute and sneaky skill?
This applies to any X. I selected the class that uses guns, give me guns skill.


Why not have me pick between meaningful talents that include things like "your stealth speed is increased at night" or "when spotted, you are given a short window to escape without detection". Those are neat, meaningful choices.
If I selected the sneaky class, I already wanted to be sneaky.

Likewise, this applies to pointbuild. If I selected the assault rifle, I want the stats to use the assault rifle and the assault rifle skill. Let me pick meaningful choices like race or talents that either change my verbs in interesting ways or give me new verbs for interacting with the world.


I see assigning points as nothing but busywork at best. There is perhaps some stigma attached to discussing this, but RPGs did not always work this way and I think some of them may have gone in a poor direction by giving an illusion of choice that players mistake for complexity.


And to reiterate, this does not apply to playing the game itself. Itemization and such are another thing entirely. Finding shoes that improve my sneak skill is interesting, especially if tradeoffs have to be weighed.

[DemoGraph]

Many systems have stat bloat - irrelevant stats that don't really do anything.
Counting pennies in an epic hero game goes into the same category.

What do you want from the stat? To limit the character's options. "You can't kill that goblin, because you're too weak, go improvise." This improvisation then should lead to engaging character play (you look for an appropriate weapon, or boost, or ally, or evade the goblin altogether, or befriend him, or run and fail).
Characters of limited capability are interesting. Almighty gods are not - they can't overcome themselves.
So you want stats to be able to signify a difference between character capabilities. And be granular enough for their improvement to be noticed by a player.

In vanilla D&D the difference between 12 and 13 STR is that 13 STR with +1 STR ring would net you +5% on a damage roll. It is not significant enough.

White Wolves' Storyteller system is better in this regard, because each attrib+skill (both in range 1-5 for non-supernaturals) gives additional d10 for you to roll. Each die gives success on 7+. So 1 die is 30% success, 2 dice are ~50%, 3 are 65%, 4 are 75%. Each additional die gives 10-20% chance of success or about 0.5 total successes (if I'm not mistaken).

You could've replaced attribute scores with modifiers, like STR +1 instead of STR 12 or whatever, and nothing would change. STR 12 isn't needed, it's a legacy of the time when people without math background tried to balance stuff with math.

You also could've completely replaced attribute scores with the assortment of skills. The only difference being that you can't increase your STR score for some arbitrarily reason, as if power lifting doesn't exist.

[Kalarion]

Again:
What is the benefit of having me pick the sneaky class then select the sneaky attribute and sneaky skill?
This applies to any X. I selected the class that uses guns, give me guns skill.


Why not have me pick between meaningful talents that include things like "your stealth speed is increased at night" or "when spotted, you are given a short window to escape without detection". Those are neat, meaningful choices.
If I selected the sneaky class, I already wanted to be sneaky.

Likewise, this applies to pointbuild. If I selected the assault rifle, I want the stats to use the assault rifle and the assault rifle skill. Let me pick meaningful choices like race or talents that either change my verbs in interesting ways or give me new verbs for interacting with the world.


I see assigning points as nothing but busywork at best. There is perhaps some stigma attached to discussing this, but RPGs did not always work this way and I think some of them may have gone in a poor direction by giving an illusion of choice that players mistake for complexity.


And to reiterate, this does not apply to playing the game itself. Itemization and such are another thing entirely. Finding shoes that improve my sneak skill is interesting, especially if tradeoffs have to be weighed.

I think there are two linked issues here. One is that stat choices aren't well-explained, the other is that stat choices aren't well-supported by gameplay. In my experience, either of those two being fixed generally makes the problem go away. But well-explained stat choices "fix" the problem a lot faster than well-supported gameplay.

If players know at character creation that one point of AGI gives:
- increased ability to wield guns,
- increased AP every 3 points,
- increased dodge,
they're probably comfortable with how stats work in the game (even if they may have practical disagreements with how the stats work).

If players are made to realize in-game that one point of AGI:
- increases their ability to access content,
- allows for increasing options to deal with challenges, with some stats being more suited to challenges than others (a character could try to solve with STR at a higher check than solving with AGI, for example),
- opens additional character-building options (new skill availability etc),
they're probably comfortable with how stats work in the game. Raise AGI, see what happens; exciting! I wonder what will happen when I max STR with my next character?!

Putting aside for the moment games that do both to at least some extent (Fallout 1 - 2, I assume ATOM etc), I think we can already see at least some of why the idea of stat traps and the disgruntlement with stat allocation exists. Gameplay support implies player commitment. You have to actually start playing the game to be able to appreciate its support for your choices.

It's a matter of trust. If I have no trust that a game will support my character creation choices, then I want to know exactly what the ramifications of those choices are, and I want to know now.

But all things being equal, if I had to choose between the two options, I would choose gameplay support. Let me make a character that I think will be cool, put my stats wherever I think they're appropriate, and then see what the game gives me. Fun!

...oh this is about maningful choices?

Then I want Artax of course

► Show Spoiler

ARTAX! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[rusty_shackleford]

What are the best RPGs that avoid this?

You guys skipped this

[DemoGraph]

What are the best RPGs that avoid this?

You guys skipped this

I like WW stuff (Vampire. Exalted), though they have other issues (uniqueness bloat, also when I played or read them, I sometimes had a feeling that the system was designed piecemeal and some mechanics stand out like a sore thumb... but other systems have this as well, D&D ThAC0 ).
I always want to like GURPS, though it's kinda fiddly.

As a contrast, Ars Magica is very fiddly. But that's where the meat of the system is (for me). You have fun when you try to advance that Perdo Herbam (destroy vegetation) skill combination from 23 to 24, because:
- you have a spell engine on top of it that will allow you to play with that additional point in some cases, up to the point of finally being able to cast some specific spell and/or breach opponent's magic defense,
- that skill could be used not only for adventure casting, but also for writing books to teach the next generation of PCs, or to craft something to improve your base.
Magic skills in AM have many uses, so they don't seem as artificial as some skills in other systems.
Maybe it's also because mages are openly mortal (they have an almost predefined life span), so you're not only trying to overcome some unknown goblins that GM would throw at you, you're also openly rushing against time.

[Hurtyy]

If I pick the sneaky class, I shouldn't have to also pick the sneaky attributes and sneaky skill. This is just an illusion of choice at best, and newb traps at worst.

I mean it is this mentally that leads to the Skyrim system where you get rid of attributes altogether in favor of a classless system where only skills and perks matter. It is fine to prefer this system but it is lacking in proper RPG depth

How does it add depth?
I never said anything about removing attributes.

I get that you didn't say it, but the idea that picking a class and also having to level the attributes of said class is an illusion of choice, leads to the idea that it is just a middle man that can be cut, I.e Skyrim not having classes, allowing you to level whatever attributes you feel match your playstyle.

With that said, ultimately I fee classes should be about restrictions and advantages, a non-sneek character shouldn't be able to pick stealth, instead the skills should be there to show player progress/feedback as they explore and gain experience

[rusty_shackleford]

I mean it is this mentally that leads to the Skyrim system where you get rid of attributes altogether in favor of a classless system where only skills and perks matter. It is fine to prefer this system but it is lacking in proper RPG depth

How does it add depth?
I never said anything about removing attributes.

I get that you didn't say it, but the idea what picking a class and also having to leveling the attributes of said class is an illusion of choice, leads to the idea that it is just a middle man that can be cut, I.e Skyrim not having classes, allowing you to level whatever attributes you feel match your playstyle

But that's the opposite of a class

[Hurtyy]

How does it add depth?
I never said anything about removing attributes.

I get that you didn't say it, but the idea what picking a class and also having to leveling the attributes of said class is an illusion of choice, leads to the idea that it is just a middle man that can be cut, I.e Skyrim not having classes, allowing you to level whatever attributes you feel match your playstyle

But that's the opposite of a class

I edited the message to explain better what I mean but essentially my point is that picking the sneak class and having to level sneak skill is so you can have a sense of progress and catharsis as you fight and explore with your character.

[Havitner]

Attribute scores are inherently good.

blessed utopia - market demo to player feedback maybe.png

[rusty_shackleford]

Attribute scores are inherently good.

Again, not what the discussion is about.

[rusty_shackleford]

How do you describe 83 agility to someone who just bought your game and is making a character?
Is 83 high? Is it 83/100? 83%? What does 100 agility represent?

Fallout New Vegas does this.

---

Attribute scores are inherently good.

TRVE simulationist RPG would hide the numbers, not show them, by the way. Showing raw numbers is inherently gamist. At best a character would have an estimation of their own abilities, and definitely not in a number form. If I'm throwing a ball I don't think "I can throw this X yards", I just have an intuition of approximately how far I can throw — and someone who is good at throwing has a much better intuition at it.

Showing numbers is probably copied from tabletop RPGs where it would be more difficult to convey this information to players.

It was actually more common to see experimentation in this sort of stuff years ago compared to now where people just bandwagon what everyone else does.
e.g., Aleshar(1997)

[ArcaneLurker]

I like the way Pokemon simulates innate differences with (hidden) Individual Values, and has Effort Values in the background, which simulates differences in the experiences.
But gameplay-wise, it's not a fun execution, it's ultimately about repetition & grinding no matter what.

No game has really captured a realistic approach to progression, which combines vast differences in inherent potential, simulating essential biological differences, as well as differences in how the character could have improved or what was learned from the actual gameplay. Generally, I feel like entertainment should strive to reflect reality somewhat, to have some pragmatic value, rather than teach things that are contrary to nature & reality. Entertainment can be used to teach children foundational facts of life that they will need in the future.

In contrast, Liberal stories & entertainment are like a bizzaro world, and that then actually improperly informs the average worldview of the populace, socially engineering the outcome they want. There's a difference between providing systems based on observable data, and imposing idealistic delusions or biases.