What is your opinion on rigid character attributes(ability scores)?

[rusty_shackleford]

Largely inherited from D&D(either directly or indirectly e.g., D&D~>GURPS~>Fallout), it is not uncommon to see RPGs have character attributes that either cannot increase or can only increase marginally during the playthrough of the game.
For some attributes this is perhaps fair depending on the setting. But for things like a character's physical strength, this is obviously a poor model.

Relic of D&D? Cherished mechanic that would cause you to have a melty if it was missing? Don't particularly care at all?

[Valter]

Slow progression is fine, I don't expect the character to grow leaps and bounds in what tends to be a few weeks/months of game time in a typical RPG adventure, but no progression is a dingus.

[Trickster]

Largely inherited from D&D(either directly or indirectly e.g., D&D~>GURPS~>Fallout), it is not uncommon to see RPGs have character attributes that either cannot increase or can only increase marginally during the playthrough of the game.
For some attributes this is perhaps fair depending on the setting. But for things like a character's physical strength, this is obviously a poor model.

Relic of D&D? Cherished mechanic that would cause you to have a melty if it was missing? Don't particularly care at all?

not a big fan. But I'll admit it might not be annoying if the game is short or if we have an established character, like Kaban from "Planet Alcatraz".

[Dorateen]

In AD&D I can find a pair of gauntlets of ogre power and have strength jump up to 18/00. There are also manuals that will increase attributes. I like this method, or generally raising stats from magic items.

The introduction of increasing an attribute every 4 level ups mechanic from 3rd edition, I didn't enjoy as much.

[Maledict]

I like them in Dark Souls. I don't like them in normie games where you save-scum as a design choice.

[Xenich]

Depends on the constraints of the design.

What purpose is selection of character if there are no constraints to that selection?

So if I pick a weak race, for the advantage of their intelligence, should I then be able to achieve equal merit with a race who is strong?

At that point, why bother with races or the differences in-between, why not just call them "Bob" and allow them a skill based progression that pays no attention?

I think the whole concept of D&D's limitations are for the sake of game play. Choice and consequence, weighting pros/cons... in the attempt to evaluate solutions that the player wishes to approach any given situation.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

I think that having a low number of stats (ie 18 strength is a lot) that only increases a little additively is good at preventing severe nonsensical power inflation. Ie, the exponential number scaling problem that plagues WoW where a level 120 character is orders of magnitudes more powerful than a level 1 character, but the level 120 walks into a level 120 zone and still takes 8 seconds to kill a bear (which would obviously one shot a level) but goes back to a level 1 zone and one shots the bear which takes a level 1 character 8 seconds to kill, even though they are both basic bears. By having a low number that only increases a little additively, you can keep bears as bears (so as you level you just become a little better at killing them but not one shotting) and fresh level 1 players or characters who join are not utterly irrelevant.

That being said, it would suck if you are on a dozens or hundreds of hours long playthrough but your character never became more powerful. So you need to have some sort of stat increases and happening semi-regularly, and I guess even if you did it additively that would just add up a lot over a long playthrough to the point that you are one shotting bears again. I think it's more that you need to design the classes and encounters so that a newly added low level character can still be useful somehow in the midst of crazy strong characters.

[J1M]

My preference is for fewer, more meaningful, choices.

The vast majority of game developers do a terrible job of explaining stats in their games, do a terrible job of giving players enough information at character creation to build a character, and often outright lie to the player with regards to how important certain stats are.

D&D gets a pass here because you can be reasonably expected to know that system and there are lots of resources available online.

[Xenich]

My preference is for fewer, more meaningful, choices.

The vast majority of game developers do a terrible job of explaining stats in their games, do a terrible job of giving players enough information at character creation to build a character, and often outright lie to player with regards to how important certain stats are.

D&D gets a pass here because you can be reasonably expected to know that system and there are lots of resources available online.

I see this as a problem if the development to success is based on an ideal metric of development. So in those cases, absolutely this is an issue.

In games of the past I played, this wasn't usually a problem. Basic understanding of stats was enough to achieve success to the end of the game. Sure, poor selections would mean difficulty, but providing the person wasn't a complete moron, poor character and party development could still achieve some success with some effort. If not, well... that is part of the game, which as I said, because the range to "success" was rather broad, if a person was so inept in their play that they failed and even "reloads for RNG favors" were not enough, it really meant they should start over and rethink their approach.

I do agree some games with extremely complex and very narrowed success paths are an issue though and in those cases, this is where heavily guided manuals should be present to guide the player on "how" to play the game.

[J1M]

My preference is for fewer, more meaningful, choices.

The vast majority of game developers do a terrible job of explaining stats in their games, do a terrible job of giving players enough information at character creation to build a character, and often outright lie to player with regards to how important certain stats are.

D&D gets a pass here because you can be reasonably expected to know that system and there are lots of resources available online.

I see this as a problem if the development to success is based on an ideal metric of development. So in those cases, absolutely this is an issue.

In games of the past I played, this wasn't usually a problem. Basic understanding of stats was enough to achieve success to the end of the game. Sure, poor selections would mean difficulty, but providing the person wasn't a complete moron, poor character and party development could still achieve some success with some effort. If not, well... that is part of the game, which as I said, because the range to "success" was rather broad, if a person was so inept in their play that they failed and even "reloads for RNG favors" were not enough, it really meant they should start over and rethink their approach.

I do agree some games with extremely complex and very narrowed success paths are an issue though and in those cases, this is where heavily guided manuals should be present to guide the player on "how" to play the game.

The only reason I want to engage in character building beyond class selection is to find an intersection of systems the designer didn't intend and abuse it, or to build something novel. Otherwise I don't see the point in the granularity.

[Xenich]

My preference is for fewer, more meaningful, choices.

The vast majority of game developers do a terrible job of explaining stats in their games, do a terrible job of giving players enough information at character creation to build a character, and often outright lie to player with regards to how important certain stats are.

D&D gets a pass here because you can be reasonably expected to know that system and there are lots of resources available online.

I see this as a problem if the development to success is based on an ideal metric of development. So in those cases, absolutely this is an issue.

In games of the past I played, this wasn't usually a problem. Basic understanding of stats was enough to achieve success to the end of the game. Sure, poor selections would mean difficulty, but providing the person wasn't a complete moron, poor character and party development could still achieve some success with some effort. If not, well... that is part of the game, which as I said, because the range to "success" was rather broad, if a person was so inept in their play that they failed and even "reloads for RNG favors" were not enough, it really meant they should start over and rethink their approach.

I do agree some games with extremely complex and very narrowed success paths are an issue though and in those cases, this is where heavily guided manuals should be present to guide the player on "how" to play the game.

The only reason I want to engage in character building beyond class selection is to find an intersection of systems the designer didn't intend and abuse it, or to build something novel. Otherwise I don't see the point in the granularity.

Interesting way to look at it. I never thought of it from that perspective.

I always saw the numerous options in character selection as ways to provide options to the player to fit different approaches to problem solving various obstacles in play. While I may be naturally drawn to similar solutions without thinking that, It was never my intent to "best" the developer outside of the established parameters of the world they provided.

[rusty_shackleford]

Rolemaster has two ability score values: actual and potential, with you never being able to increase your actual above your potential during play.

[Norfleet]

Ability scores as described above are essentially a vestige of the old D&D era, where we rolled ability scores. These days, ability scores are almost entirely a point-buy system and thus functionally indistinguishable from a class/subclass, serving little purpose except to take up space on your character sheet. You are a fighter, therefore, you have high strength. You are a wizard, therefore, you have high Int. Your point-buy limitations then define the rest of your scores. It's rigid to the point where it may as well just be baked into your class.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Ability scores as described above are essentially a vestige of the old D&D era, where we rolled ability scores. These days, ability scores are almost entirely a point-buy system and thus functionally indistinguishable from a class/subclass, serving little purpose except to take up space on your character sheet. You are a fighter, therefore, you have high strength. You are a wizard, therefore, you have high Int. Your point-buy limitations then define the rest of your scores. It's rigid to the point where it may as well just be baked into your class.

It's theoretically there if you want to try to differentiate yourself, ie you want a fighter with some magic capability so you divert some points away from STR to invest into INT to increase magic potency. But you almost always just wind up gimping yourself compared to total commitment in one stat.

[Norfleet]

It's theoretically there if you want to try to differentiate yourself, ie you want a fighter with some magic capability so you divert some points away from STR to invest into INT to increase magic potency.

That's just joining the "Battlemage" class.

But you almost always just wind up gimping yourself compared to total commitment in one stat.

Hybrid classes tend to wind up gimped, yes. I mean, it sorta has to be: If you were as good as the pure class, the pure class would have no point.

[Norfleet]

The vast majority of game developers do a terrible job of explaining stats in their games, do a terrible job of giving players enough information at character creation to build a character, and often outright lie to player with regards to how important certain stats are.

Most developers do a terrible job because they are not competent gamers. "Lying" is giving them too much credit. They don't know, either. Their game is built on a cargo-cult design where most patterns are slavishly imitated, with the ramifications of snowflake design decisions never explored, merely crammed in there in an attempt to distinguish themselves from being totally unoriginal. The space for player exploration thus falls into this region of developer oversight, the space where the pattern and the special snowflakery collide.

[WaterMage]

As longs my char muscle mass is not dictated by how fancy his boots are I'm fine.

[J1M]

The vast majority of game developers do a terrible job of explaining stats in their games, do a terrible job of giving players enough information at character creation to build a character, and often outright lie to player with regards to how important certain stats are.

Most developers do a terrible job because they are not competent gamers. "Lying" is giving them too much credit. They don't know, either. Their game is built on a cargo-cult design where most patterns are slavishly imitated, with the ramifications of snowflake design decisions never explored, merely crammed in there in an attempt to distinguish themselves from being totally unoriginal. The space for player exploration thus falls into this region of developer oversight, the space where the pattern and the special snowflakery collide.

Yes, and there's also the spreadsheet design fad where they 'balance' things in Excel without real-world testing.

[rusty_shackleford]

My preference is for fewer, more meaningful, choices.

The vast majority of game developers do a terrible job of explaining stats in their games, do a terrible job of giving players enough information at character creation to build a character, and often outright lie to player with regards to how important certain stats are.

D&D gets a pass here because you can be reasonably expected to know that system and there are lots of resources available online.

An interesting and very underused design is emergent character building where you get new options to pick from that simply were not available or made known at character creation time.
A recent example is Outer Worlds 2, I decided to spread my skill points out to be a jack-of-trades character and there was actually a flaw(? whatever it's called) for it. You don't know these exist until it's triggered unless you cheat and look it up. After I spread my points thin enough I got offered the flaw where I had to put my skill points into the non-zero skill with the lowest score when leveling up, but received additional skill points. Cool.

[J1M]

My preference is for fewer, more meaningful, choices.

The vast majority of game developers do a terrible job of explaining stats in their games, do a terrible job of giving players enough information at character creation to build a character, and often outright lie to player with regards to how important certain stats are.

D&D gets a pass here because you can be reasonably expected to know that system and there are lots of resources available online.

An interesting and very underused design is emergent character building where you get new options to pick from that simply were not available or made known at character creation time.
A recent example is Outer Worlds 2, I decided to spread my skill points out to be a jack-of-trades character and there was actually a flaw(? whatever it's called) for it. You don't know these exist until it's triggered unless you cheat and look it up. After I spread my points thin enough I got offered the flaw where I had to put my skill points into the non-zero skill with the lowest score when leveling up, but received additional skill points. Cool.

Alpha Protocol did something adjacent, where completing actions in game (50 stealth kills!) applied perks to your character. I think these systems can work, but I wouldn't want them to be in every game.

I prefer something like a job system from Final Fantasy Tactics where you work towards more sophisticated options over time, instead of a random drip of rewards for incidental actions.

[WhiteShark]

Having attributes that can only grow slowly is fine for simulationist RPGs. I don't think I've played any tabletop RPGs in which they can't grow at all, but it does trend toward being either slow or expensive. That seems reasonable. Getting strong doesn't happen overnight, and getting smarter is hard to do at all.

However, I don't find purely numerical character building to be engaging gameplay. Either it's not clear what you need, in which case it's a blind choice, or you do, in which case you distribute your points optimally. Hence, I echo the sentiment that, unless they're randomly rolled, it's best to let class determine attributes outright. That goes well with job systems that allow changing classes between combats.

[Maledict]

My preference is for fewer, more meaningful, choices.

The vast majority of game developers do a terrible job of explaining stats in their games, do a terrible job of giving players enough information at character creation to build a character, and often outright lie to player with regards to how important certain stats are.

D&D gets a pass here because you can be reasonably expected to know that system and there are lots of resources available online.

I agree. ******* Bonds for example is unplayable if you **** up in the character creation.

[maidenhaver]

Rolemaster has two ability score values: actual and potential, with you never being able to increase your actual above your potential during play.

In a cRPG, I'd want those ability scores to represent your characters' genetic potential.

Rolemaster did this

I like this for ultima games. Also, abilities don't need to go above 10 in these types of games, but if they do the game should react to it. 11 Charisma should be as far from 10 as 6 is. People should either run away and lock their doors, or worship and follow me.

[TKVNC]

It made sense when you rolled stats, and your chose a class based on those, with Fighter being the fallback.

It makes no sense when you pick your class first.

Realistically, it should now be handled by race, and sex. Then simply Skills beyond that.

[J1M]

Has anyone made a videogame where it was fun to receive random stats and then make other selections dependent on that?

[Acrux]

******* Bonds

[Norfleet]

An interesting and very underused design is emergent character building where you get new options to pick from that simply were not available or made known at character creation time.

Game design that relies on players not knowing how to play the game is bad game design, though.

Has anyone made a videogame where it was fun to receive random stats and then make other selections dependent on that?

Ribaorld is like that. Characters are just shat out at random, having entirely random stats, and you decide which ones get to join the party, and which ones get recycled for parts and eaten. Even they don't entirely stick the landing: The beginning of the game where you select the initial party is still rather annoying in vanilla. But in every other game, processing candidate options is never enjoyable at any point in the game. In Ribaorld, rejecting candidates can be very entertaining.

[Norfleet]

So if I pick a weak race, for the advantage of their intelligence, should I then be able to achieve equal merit with a race who is strong?

At that point, why bother with races or the differences in-between, why not just call them "Bob" and allow them a skill based progression that pays no attention?

That's a perfectly valid point, yes: We COULD just have a single race that does everything...we could call it, say, "Human", and not bother with any other race. This would save a lot on the costume budget, since we'd no longer need the Spock ears, hair dye, body paint, and prosthetic horns. After all, introducing other "races" simply increases the amount of rubber forehead prosthetics we have to have. If a race option has a mechanical advantage in a given class, it becomes the obvious pick. If they DON'T have a mechanical advantage, then what's the point?

Besides, races are either unimaginative, recycled slop, or special snowflakery that a player new to your setting (read: anyone playing the game) will have basically zero understanding of, and therefore, they will not know anything about whatever pretentious writefaggotry you've made about them.

So yes, why NOT just have Humans as the only playable race option? The only real purpose for other races is just to cater to furries. Everyone else is just a human with added rubber anyway, and maybe a stat adjust that pigeonholes them into a specific set of classes.

[maidenhaver]

So if I pick a weak race, for the advantage of their intelligence, should I then be able to achieve equal merit with a race who is strong?

At that point, why bother with races or the differences in-between, why not just call them "Bob" and allow them a skill based progression that pays no attention?

That's a perfectly valid point, yes: We COULD just have a single race that does everything...we could call it, say, "Human", and not bother with any other race. This would save a lot on the costume budget, since we'd no longer need the Spock ears, hair dye, body paint, and prosthetic horns. After all, introducing other "races" simply increases the amount of rubber forehead prosthetics we have to have. If a race option has a mechanical advantage in a given class, it becomes the obvious pick. If they DON'T have a mechanical advantage, then what's the point?

Besides, races are either unimaginative, recycled slop, or special snowflakery that a player new to your setting (read: anyone playing the game) will have basically zero understanding of, and therefore, they will not know anything about whatever pretentious writefaggotry you've made about them.

So yes, why NOT just have Humans as the only playable race option? The only real purpose for other races is just to cater to furries. Everyone else is just a human with added rubber anyway, and maybe a stat adjust that pigeonholes them into a specific set of classes.

There are more differences between the races of human than between fantasy/scifi human and other aliens.

[Norfleet]

There are more differences between the races of human than between fantasy/scifi human and other aliens.

Exactly, so we don't actually need non-human races, which the player wouldn't know how to properly play anyway, leaving them as nothing more than a human with a rubber prosthetic.