Meaningful choices at character creation

[Eyestabber]

He'd be good at smashing open a door or hauling a pack, but he would suck at combat involving weapons. Slow and dead.

You seem to misunderstand the role of stats. His STR stat is a measure of raw power, nothing more. His ability to wield a blade would be represented by a weapon skill, or feats, perks etc. If he were to train HEMA and fight against another opponent who deadlifts 200 Kg then he would fight just as well as the other guy (assuming equal training), but his sword blows would hurt considerably more. I do not understand what issue you guys have with stats, it all reads like a futile attempt to reinvent the wheel.

[TKVNC]

Range of movement. Momentum.

I fail to see how that matters? Someone the size of Eddie Hall will have way more momentum than someone lesser size. It's the entire reason weight classes exist in fighting sports.

I don't think you know what range of movement actually means. People like Brock Lesnar, or Bas Ruten had as much range of movement as people who are bantam weight.

I'm being sincere - I don't think you know what fighting actually looks like.

I don't know how those people are. I was commenting on your picture, which is "strongest man body type".

You were making a point that it is obvious what someone is good at from these stats. I was simply disagreeing with that. Reality and games have diverged, so even if everyone makes reasonable assumptions some players are going to be confused without additional information.

Well the point is, your comment on him being 'slow and dead' is entirely wrong.

It's also why the game design of dexterity opposed to strength is a stupid one. Because it's unrealistic. The two are effectively interlinked. By virtue of being so unrealistic, it's also not meaningful. Since you get the same outcome, you can overpower anything / anyone regardless of your build, and all roads head to the same way.

You always end up being more capable at fighting as you progress. Which is, as I said, not meaningful gameplay.

Agility as a sole focus might benefit something such as, I don't know... Horse riding? Maybe stealth, and being able to sneak about? It may have implications for climbing, but that's also a strength discipline in reality.

You seem to misunderstand the role of stats. His STR stat is a measure of raw power, nothing more. His ability to wield a blade would be represented by a weapon skill, or feats, perks etc. If he were to train HEMA and fight against another opponent who deadlifts 200 Kg then he would fight just as well as the other guy (assuming equal training), but his sword blows would hurt considerably more. I do not understand what issue you guys have with stats, it all reads like a futile attempt to reinvent the wheel.

I think this is why I really like Mount and Blade Warband - you have stats, skills, and then weapon skills.

High strength = more damage / high power strike = more damage / high weapon skill = more damage

They all work in tandem.

[rusty_shackleford]

how often did the average knight-errant encounter labeled weights up to hundreds of kilograms?
I assume IQ tests are very plentiful in fantasy-historical scenarios too?

[Eyestabber]

High strength = more damage / high power strike = more damage / high weapon skill = more damage

They all work in tandem.

Isn't that exactly the thing Rusty said in the OP that he hates?

I like base attributes as a "hard" description of the kind of character you are playing while skills, feats, perks and whatnot represent the "soft" part of progression. I'm not a huge fan of stat increases, they should be quite rare or even non-existent. I think ATOM and Trudograd handle this aspect quite well.

how often did the average hedge knight encounter labeled weights up to hundreds of kilograms?

What's that supposed to mean? As far as antiquity people were aware of progressive overload.



Milo of Croton allegedly carried a calf on his back and kept doing so as the animal grew.

[rusty_shackleford]

the attribute/skill relationship is backwards in most RPGs
the only games that get it right(that I can think of off the top of my head) are the TES games(other than skyrim?)

[rusty_shackleford]

What's that supposed to mean? As far as antiquity people were aware of progressive overload.



Milo of Croton allegedly carried a calf on his back and kept doing so as the animal grew.

That's exactly what I was referring to. He doesn't have some definite number, he has an approximate idea of being able to carry an ox calf.

[J1M]

He'd be good at smashing open a door or hauling a pack, but he would suck at combat involving weapons. Slow and dead.

You seem to misunderstand the role of stats. His STR stat is a measure of raw power, nothing more. His ability to wield a blade would be represented by a weapon skill, or feats, perks etc. If he were to train HEMA and fight against another opponent who deadlifts 200 Kg then he would fight just as well as the other guy (assuming equal training), but his sword blows would hurt considerably more. I do not understand what issue you guys have with stats, it all reads like a futile attempt to reinvent the wheel.

That's not how stats work in most games. Like it or not, the unspecified default is usually D&D in these discussions unless it's a game-specific thread.

[TKVNC]

how often did the average knight-errant encounter labeled weights up to hundreds of kilograms?
I assume IQ tests are very plentiful in fantasy-historical scenarios too?

Perhaps never, but strong men have always existed. It's how there were able to carve the statues - such as:



As for intelligence, you don't need to track it to realise that black people aren't very clever. I am certain our ancestors had ways of tracking intelligence in relatively meaningful ways.

Isn't that exactly the thing Rusty said in the OP that he hates?

Well, it may seem that way, but the stat breakdowns explain relatively clearly, it's generally skills can be 1/2 or 1/3 of their governing attribute - and weapon skills improve by use, but the weapon master skill improves the speed - I assume to 'roleplay' the idea of being taught.

Nethertheless, it gives you flexibility beyond the basic stats, while allowing for some class specialisation. It's up to the designer what to do with that, however, some people might simply fail to do anything meaningful with it; that's not a stat issue, but a vision issue, at this point.

[Oyster Sauce]

If you want attributes to be realistic you are a dummy. The system isn't built for it. Go for simulationism where your skill with a blade is based on experience using it, the amount and condition of your fingers, your age, how well lit the area is, your mood, how full your bladder is, etc (Rimworld )

[Norfleet]

That's exactly what I was referring to. He doesn't have some definite number, he has an approximate idea of being able to carry an ox calf.

A cow is a number, though. Not an especially precise number, but a number. He can carry ONE COW. This distinguishes him from someone who CAN'T carry one cow's worth, and would have to cut the cow into, say, half a cow, before carrying it off.

[Norfleet]

As far as his ability to use the sword as a force multiplier? YES, absolutely.

The thing is that once weapons enter the picture, the level of force needed to kill somebody drops significantly. You don't actually win any more points by making him explode like a Mortal Kombat fatality. If people only have 10 hitpoints, then the practical difference between doing 10 damage a hit with your 10-damage weapon and having a +10 strength modifier to damage on top of that isn't really there. The guy with no strength modifier simply kills him in one shot, the guy with the +10 strength modifier chops his entire body in half in one shot, also killing him. Points for gruesome intimidation, but the target is still dead.

[Rand]

I like attribute scores used more as gatekeepers and not bonus fonts like D&D's system(s).

For example, someone with a STR of 8 (or even 10) should get penalties for trying to use a broadsword or warhammer.
No amount of training will overcome the deficit of the lack of the power needed to use the tool effectively.
Conversely, very high strength should only give a modest bonus. You can only swing the weapon so hard before it has no more effectiveness.
No amount of strength will let you chop off a bear's head with a broadsword; it's just not capable of doing it without being wrecked or getting stuck. The mass is too low, so the momentum is capped.
Someone with demigod strength should instead be using a weapon with a high STR requirement to get the most out of his power. A massive axe or hammer with an equally massive STR requirement.

Switching to armor, low STR should penalize the use of heavy armor such as chainmail or above. High STR does nothing except perhaps lowering fatigue penalties for long use. And if you ARE high STR, you could use double mail or plate reinforced mail instead of basic chainmail.

I also prefer simple attribute checks. I often have players roll a d6-3 (a range of -2 to 3) plus the relevant ATT and compare it to a static DC for results.
This rewards high stat players for their stat. No amount of luck gives a 10 perception character the ability to equal, much less exceed a 16 perception character in any way.
A d20 + stat mod is far too variable. The restricted roll ALSO rewards feat choices or class or racial boosts that give a +1 or +2 bonus that is normally irrelevant in a d20 roll, making it significant using my method. +2 is a big boost to better outcomes reliably.

[TKVNC]

I like attribute scores more like gatekeepers and not bonus fonts like D&D.

For example, someone with a STR of 8 (or even 10) should get penalties for trying to use a broadsword or warhammer.
No amount of training will overcome the deficit of the lack of the power needed to use the tool effectively.
Conversely, very high strength should only give a modest bonus. You can only swing the weapon so hard before it has no more effectiveness.
No amount of strength will let you chop off a bear's head with a broadsword; it's just not capable of doing it without being wrecked or getting stuck. The mass is too low, so the momentum is capped.
Someone with demigod strength should instead be using a weapon with a high STR requirement to get the most out of his power. A massive axe or hammer with an equally massive STR requirement.

Switching to armor, low STR should penalize the use of heavy armor such as chainmail or above. High STR does nothing except perhaps lowering fatigue penalties for long use. And if you ARE high STR, you could use double mail or plate reinforced mail instead of basic chainmail.

I also prefer simple attribute checks. I often have players roll a d6-3 (a range of -2 to 3) and compare it to a static DC for results.
This rewards high stat players for their stat. No amount of luck gives a 10 perception character the ability to exceed a 16 perception character in any way.
A d20 + stat mod is far too variable. The restricted roll ALSO rewards feat choices or class or racial boosts that give a +1 or +2 bonus that is normally irrelevant in a d20 roll, making it significant using my method. +2 is a big boost to better outcomes reliably.

This seems like a genuinely sensible, and immersive choice. It, I assume, could force roleplay too by making character differences more than just cosmetic.

[Rand]

I like attribute scores used more as gatekeepers and not bonus fonts like D&D's system(s).

For example, someone with a STR of 8 (or even 10) should get penalties for trying to use a broadsword or warhammer.
No amount of training will overcome the deficit of the lack of the power needed to use the tool effectively.
Conversely, very high strength should only give a modest bonus. You can only swing the weapon so hard before it has no more effectiveness.
No amount of strength will let you chop off a bear's head with a broadsword; it's just not capable of doing it without being wrecked or getting stuck. The mass is too low, so the momentum is capped.
Someone with demigod strength should instead be using a weapon with a high STR requirement to get the most out of his power. A massive axe or hammer with an equally massive STR requirement.

Switching to armor, low STR should penalize the use of heavy armor such as chainmail or above. High STR does nothing except perhaps lowering fatigue penalties for long use. And if you ARE high STR, you could use double mail or plate reinforced mail instead of basic chainmail.

I also prefer simple attribute checks. I often have players roll a d6-3 (a range of -2 to 3) plus the relevant ATT and compare it to a static DC for results.
This rewards high stat players for their stat. No amount of luck gives a 10 perception character the ability to equal, much less exceed a 16 perception character in any way.
A d20 + stat mod is far too variable. The restricted roll ALSO rewards feat choices or class or racial boosts that give a +1 or +2 bonus that is normally irrelevant in a d20 roll, making it significant using my method. +2 is a big boost to better outcomes reliably.

Follow-up:

Note: I don't actually like the d6-3 + ATT roll, except for the relative simplicity of using a common d6.
I always prefer multiple added dice rolls such as 2d4. This creates a nice statistical curve. But even 2d4 is too variable due to the wide range of 2 to 8. +8, even -4, is too high at +4 (or if you use -5, then a roll of 2 -5 = -3 is too low).
I have experimented with 2d3, but as I am almost always the only person to usually have d3s (six-sided, numbered from 1 to 3 twice), this can make it clumsy.
I'll never understand why Gygax and company didn't normalize d3s like they ended up doing similarly with "percentile dice" (making one d10 into the specialized tens die).

My ideal common use set would include an extra d6 as a d3, and a d10 as a d5, with a d16 as well.

Did you know the original dice sets didn't include d10s? They used special d20s numbered 0 to 9 (sometimes 1 to 10) twice.
Then later, d20s with 1-10 numbered in white and 11 to 20 in red. This allowed use as a d2, and a d10 (red numbers only read the ones digit), as well as a d20.

You can perfectly simulate any die from d2 to d19 by rolling a d20 and rerolling any numbers too high for the top of the range, because the rerolls are eventually all redistributed evenly among all the allowable numbers (we will ignore infinite reroll regress as improbable), but of course the rerolls can get annoying if the reroll range is large. (If you want to roll, say, a d7, it's less of a hassle to use a d8 and reroll all 8s.)
When I once used to make players roll a "d16" using a d20 (before I got real d16s), nothing infuriated them more than "wasting" consecutive high rolls from 17 to 20. I had one guy roll three 20s back to back and he was ******. More so when he rolled a 2 and ultimately failed the d16 roll. We all laughed pretty hard though.

[TKVNC]

I like attribute scores more like gatekeepers and not bonus fonts like D&D.

For example, someone with a STR of 8 (or even 10) should get penalties for trying to use a broadsword or warhammer.
No amount of training will overcome the deficit of the lack of the power needed to use the tool effectively.
Conversely, very high strength should only give a modest bonus. You can only swing the weapon so hard before it has no more effectiveness.
No amount of strength will let you chop off a bear's head with a broadsword; it's just not capable of doing it without being wrecked or getting stuck. The mass is too low, so the momentum is capped.
Someone with demigod strength should instead be using a weapon with a high STR requirement to get the most out of his power. A massive axe or hammer with an equally massive STR requirement.

Switching to armor, low STR should penalize the use of heavy armor such as chainmail or above. High STR does nothing except perhaps lowering fatigue penalties for long use. And if you ARE high STR, you could use double mail or plate reinforced mail instead of basic chainmail.

I also prefer simple attribute checks. I often have players roll a d6-3 (a range of -2 to 3) and compare it to a static DC for results.
This rewards high stat players for their stat. No amount of luck gives a 10 perception character the ability to exceed a 16 perception character in any way.
A d20 + stat mod is far too variable. The restricted roll ALSO rewards feat choices or class or racial boosts that give a +1 or +2 bonus that is normally irrelevant in a d20 roll, making it significant using my method. +2 is a big boost to better outcomes reliably.

Follow-up:

Note: I don't actually like the d6-3 + ATT roll, except for the relative simplicity of using a common d6.
I always prefer multiple added dice rolls such as 2d4. This creates a nice statistical curve. But even 2d4 is too variable due to the wide range of 2 to 8. +8, even -4, is too high at +4 (or if you use -5, then a roll of 2 -5 = -3 is too low).
I have experimented with 2d3, but as I am almost always the only person to usually have d3s (six-sided, numbered from 1 to 3 twice), this can make it clumsy.
I'll never understand why Gygax and company didn't normalize d3s like they ended up doing similarly with "percentile dice" (making one d10 into the specialized tens die).

My ideal common use set would include an extra d6 as a d3, and a d10 as a d5, with a d16 as well.

Did you know the original dice sets didn't include d10s? They used special d20s numbered 0 to 9 (sometimes 1 to 10) twice.
Then later did d20s with 1-10 numbered in white and 11 to 20 in red. This allowed use as a d2, and a d10 (red numbers only read the ones digit), as well as a d20.

You can perfectly simulate any die from d2 to d19 by rolling a d20 and rerolling any numbers too high for the top of the range, because the rerolls are eventually all redistributed evenly among all the allowable numbers (we will ignore infinite reroll regress as improbable), but of course the rerolls can get annoying if the reroll range is large.
When I once used to make players roll a "d16" using a d20 (before I got real d16s), nothing infuriated them more than "wasting" consecutive high rolls from 17 to 20. I had one guy roll three 20s back to back and he was ******. More so when he rolled a 2 and ultimately failed the d16 roll. We all laughed pretty hard though.

Isn't a d2 just... a coin?

[Rand]

Isn't a d2 just... a coin?

A coin is a weird d3 that's not fun to "roll"

• Side 1
• Side 2
• Edge: sometimes perfectly balanced, sometimes rolls away.

Really bad in the dice rolling towers some like to use as well.

[TKVNC]

Isn't a d2 just... a coin?

A coin is a weird d3 that's not fun to "roll"

• Side 1
• Side 2
• Edge: sometimes perfectly balanced, sometimes rolls away.

Really bad in the dice rolling towers some like to use was well.

But if you collected coins like people collect dice, you could ad hoc roleplay as a Jew

[Rand]

Isn't a d2 just... a coin?

A coin is a weird d3 that's not fun to "roll"

• Side 1
• Side 2
• Edge: sometimes perfectly balanced, sometimes rolls away.

Really bad in the dice rolling towers some like to use was well.

But if you collected coins like people collect dice, you could ad hoc roleplay as a Jew

And if you played with them or other thieving shits, you would lose your "dice" pretty often...

[DemoGraph]

But if you collected coins like people collect dice, you could ad hoc roleplay as a Jew

And if you played with them or other thieving shits, you would lose your "dice" pretty often...

That's why you chain them up, dummy.

[Irenaeus]

A d20 + stat mod is far too variable. The restricted roll ALSO rewards feat choices or class or racial boosts that give a +1 or +2 bonus that is normally irrelevant in a d20 roll, making it significant using my method. +2 is a big boost to better outcomes reliably.

I've felt that with ACKS in my PbP roll results and therefore game results that depend on them swing widely at random.

[rusty_shackleford]

Isn't a d2 just... a coin?

a real d2 is a d4 where you divide the result

[edit]
come to think of it, I believe we just rolled a die(even ofc) and used whether it was even or odd

[Stack of Turtles]

A d20 + stat mod is far too variable. The restricted roll ALSO rewards feat choices or class or racial boosts that give a +1 or +2 bonus that is normally irrelevant in a d20 roll, making it significant using my method. +2 is a big boost to better outcomes reliably.

I've felt that with ACKS in my PbP roll results and therefore game results that depend on them swing widely at random.

It's a definite problem, but I also think the randomness is narratively good when there's a real question about whether the player could do the thing, regardless of theoretical capacity. You know, like specific lore knowledge, attuning to magic or capricious spirits, NPC disposition, or any cases where a skill or ability might cover a particular scenario, but doesn't necessarily have to. One idea I liked that I came up with when I used to DM, but never really got any rigorous development (as I only did it briefly), is rolling once, with full 'swing', to decide whether a character's ability covers the use case, but then treating that capability, or lack, as a fact about the character that doesn't get rolled again. For example, "you have a thorough familiarity with giant spiders but you know nothing at all about scorpions", or "your acrobatic training specifically focused on being excellent at long jumps", or "this one guy really hates you for no reason and will never fall for your persuasion", or so forth.

[rusty_shackleford]

Oyster Sauce
02:20 AM

All tabletop rulesets are exactly the same

Oyster Sauce
02:21 AM
My guy with a sword... Should I give him the +sword stat or something else???
Pathfinder, DnD 3.0, and DnD 5.0. Whoa I wonder if my character needs to hit hard and accurately idk they're just so different...



A fat guy is reading this and incorrectly disagreeing with me

They booed him because he was right

[Yankee Zulu]

There lies the minmaxing issue. You either create a specialised character with a focus on one thing or some sort of hybrid/jack of all trades. That's the only meaningful choice you ever had in any rpg ever.

[Vaako]

There lies the minmaxing issue. You either create a specialised character with a focus on one thing or some sort of hybrid/jack of all trades. That's the only meaningful choice you ever had in any rpg ever.

depends what you find "meaningful" having a beautiful character or making a low int playthrough in certain games which give new dialogues is meaningful to some. Or choosing the masterkey in dark souls1 as a starting gift, then you can skip the depths and capra demon/gaping dragon completly.

But not sure if your comment was only targeted towards min/maxing...

[rusty_shackleford]

There lies the minmaxing issue. You either create a specialised character with a focus on one thing or some sort of hybrid/jack of all trades. That's the only meaningful choice you ever had in any rpg ever.

I see it done very rarely, but I like when games have typed skill points
e.g., Age of Decadence had it but it was very underused:

me AoD.jpg