Attribute + Skill Systems

[A.J.Gibson]

So what's wrong with systems where attributes are added to skills, like in D&D3e, WoD and Cyberpunk 2020? I actually kind of like it. You can change how important skills are relevant to attributes by changing the amount of 'skill points' available to characters. In addition, since there is no real world way to measure skill, the skill measurement can be used to convey to the player the impact of a skill on attempts to perform the action, instead of being some arbitrary number that means nothing.

[Andy K]

True, but I think you can do the same without linking attributes and skills.

One of the things that was SO HARD for me to grasp about Fudge is the fact that skills and attributes aren't linked AT ALL. But then I began to like it, and now I think that more games should UNLINK attr+skill. Sure, a more "naturally dexterous" gymnast with the same amount of training as another may be able to perform a little better... But imagine Bruce Lee (high dexterity, low dance) and that "Lord of the Dance" guy (low dexterity, HIGH dance skill) in a dance contest? There are many RPG systems that will make their difficulty equal.

If anything, I guess I'd have to go with White Wolf- while skills and attributes are linked, one skill isn't linked to one attribute: You can use, say, "Stamina and Computers" (to stay up writing a simple, but long, program) or "Dexterity and Computers" (typing in a long password before the computer times out), or "Mind and Computers" (to crack a program or code). I kinda dig that idea. Maybe I'd make the attributes have a little less impact, though...

Still, it's better than Masterbook, d20, etc where one skill relates only to one attribute: Is Piloting an F-16 a dexterity skill? A technical skill? A perception skill? There's a lot of grey in there.

-Andy

[Andrew Martin]

A.J.Gibson wrote:
> In addition, since there is no real world way to measure skill,...

But there is real world ways to measure skill! Consider:

Apprentice, Journeyman, Master and Grand Master;
Qualified key cutter;
Fourth Dan black belt;
Sun Certified Java Programmer;
General Practitioner and Surgeon.


That names only a few!

> So what's wrong with systems where attributes are added to skills, like in D&D3e, WoD and Cyberpunk 2020?

Would you prefer your surgeon to be intelligent or skilled? :D

I'd prefer a skilled surgeon.

Now on to more practical methods of what works best in a game. Typically in games where attributes are combined with skill rating, the players have to know which attributes are combined with which skills. There's a constant stream of questions from players during game play, like:

What's the attribute for Riding skill?
Should I use Charisma or Wits for making a speech?
I'm a fast fighter, why can't I use Agility instead of Strength for combat?
and so on.

Naturally, this is intrusive to game play as well as annoying, and results in significant slowing down of game play.

Now consider the question of unskilled skills, which in itself sounds silly! A player wants to use their character's high intelligence to do surgery on another, even though the character has never done so before, and has no skill. Now we need a special rule for unskilled skills, where character's can't use attribute plus zero skill to do certain things, even though it was OK to do this with certain other things.

> ...the skill measurement... some arbitrary number that means nothing.

Consider making skills mean something, and don't use a number that means nothing.

Now contrast to simply having a skill by itself. If your character has the skill, then the character can perform the skill, otherwise the character can't perform the skill. The player doesn't need to ask the GM, "which attribute should I use?", instead they just simply use the skill. As a result, game play is faster and quicker.

Then the question becomes: "what use are attributes, if they don't add to skills?" Perhaps then you really need to decide what you're trying to model with attributes and skills?

I'm of the opinion that attributes are best used for resisting effects, and for delivering power. For example, in my combat system, Skill is used to attack, while Strength is used for damage, while Size is used to resist damage (the bigger you are, the more likely you are to shrug off damage.

Of course this is all my opinion, but is confirmed by play testing, and by other players and GMs using my work, and confirmed by players and GMs of WoD, AD&D, D&D3E, Cyberpunk, RuneQuest, Rolemaster and Spacemaster to name only a few.

I hope this helps!

[KenHR]

Originally posted by Andy Kitkowski
But imagine Bruce Lee (high dexterity, low dance) and that "Lord of the Dance" guy (low dexterity, HIGH dance skill) in a dance contest? There are many RPG systems that will make their difficulty equal.



Little known trivia: Bruce was a good dancer. He even won a regional cha-cha championship when he was a younger man...

Not that it would make much of a difference, but hey...

Ken Rutsky

[Mithras]

I like linkage of some kind. I hate, for example, the way that attributes in Call of Cthulhu have no relation whatsoever to skills. You can have STR3 and DEX 3 and CON3 (out of 18) and still have 98% Fist skill. How do you learn to be a fantastic, near perfect boxer without any agility, grace, balance, speed, stamina, muscle mass or power?

Huh?

I wouldn't mind if having such low stats made gaining Fist 98% more unlikely - but it doesn't. There is no conection whatsoever.

This breaks any hold on reality (not that this bothers me overmuch) but also does a dis-service to an inexperienced player, who relies on game rules to create a logical character. Don't you?

[Futilitarian]

When using separate attributes and skills, I see a problem with overlap and adjudicating when to base a roll on an attribute or a skill. Also, if the attributes and skills are to be totally separate, then why have both? Occam's razor seems to say to pick one and stick with it.

[Lost Cub]

Depends on the setting, really. Think of Shanghai Noon: Jackie Chan's character is clumsy, but a terrific kung fu fighter.

Skills and attributes aren't realistic, anyway; in reality, we have hundreds of measurable "attributes" and they all overlap in some way.

As a compromise, I'd suggest that attributes don't add to skills directly, but determine how fast you advance in a skill, or at what skill level you start. But it really should depend on the setting.

Regards,

LC

[Andrew Martin]

Futilitarian wrote:
> Also, if the attributes and skills are to be totally separate, then why have both?

People do vary in their strength, size, speed, looks and several other attributes, which can't be modelled as skills. In cyberpunk settings written by Gibson, Sterling, and so on, it's common to see strength enhancements, like vat-grown muscles, and skill adders, like chipped skills that instantly add the knowledge of a skill to the person's mind.

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Blah blah bunch of attributes, each rated 1-10.
Blah blah bunch of skills, each rated 1-5.

Roll equal to or under your attribute for a success.
You can re-roll that die X number of times where X is your skill.

The fewest number of rolls = the highest degree of success.

- or -

Roll SKILL dice and score equal to or under ATTRIBUTE.
Number of successes = the highest degree of success.

- or -

Any of a thousand ways to do it...

[The Incredible Hatboy]

Thank you, Jared, for an unasked-for and pointless post.

[Andrew Martin]

:cool: I appreciate Jared's post. It really shows how often RPG designers are rummaging through the same corner of the room. If I saw Jared's post by any other person, I'd reply:

"So why not use Fudge?"

After all, there's not much difference between Fudge, WW Storyteller System, GURPS, RoleMaster & SpaceMaster, BRP, WEG Star Wars, TORG, Masterbook, AD&D, D20, Traveller, CyberPunk 2020, Instant Fuzion and Fuzion.

[Tom B]

>Blah blah bunch of attributes, each rated 1-10.
>Blah blah bunch of skills, each rated 1-5.
>
>Roll equal to or under your attribute for a success.
>You can re-roll that die X number of times where X is your skill.
>
>The fewest number of rolls = the highest degree of success.

Isn't this similar to the approach used in 'Runequest: Slayers'?

>- or -
>
>Roll SKILL dice and score equal to or under ATTRIBUTE.
>Number of successes = the highest degree of success.

Don't recognize that one.

I think '7th Sea' uses 'Roll ATTRIBUTE+SKILL dice, keep ATTRIBUTE highest' and match or exceed target number.

This weights attributes more than I prefer, but it seems to fit the genre.

[A.J.Gibson]

er....I think people missed the point of my question, when I referred to attribute + skill, I meant that the value of the attribute is directly added to the value of the skill, so adding a level of skill to a character is the same in terms of probability as them gaining an attribute point.

I have to say I'm against linking specific attributes to skills. First, it makes it difficult to separate success from effect - usually two separate attributes decide these things (like dexterity for hitting and strength for damage). Second, it makes skills become very focused in their application, so that you can't do as much with them. I prefer skills to be more loosely defined, so that you don't have to define as many skills.

My question is whether people dislike the idea of using the mechanic suggested earlier. I personally see it as useful, but I can see how others might be offended by the idea of a straight trade-off between attribute and skills. Having them multiply each other is preferrable, but I don't like multiplication in RPGs.

There is no real world way to measure skill. Awards and degrees only measure accomplishments, not true knowledge. Case in point, the Java Certified Programmer know nothing until the moment he is certified, and then know everything he needs to know? Are all doctors equal? These are artificial ways to measure skill - useful, but not accurate.

Having skill be measured on the same scale as attributes is one form of measurement. Another is to measure how difficult it is to acquire the skill at that level, rather than it's impact.

[Andrew Martin]

A.J.Gibson wrote:
> There is no real world way to measure skill.

So how does measuring skill (or attribute) with a game system number help? :D

[A.J.Gibson]

Originally posted by Andrew Martin
A.J.Gibson wrote:
> There is no real world way to measure skill.

So how does measuring skill (or attribute) with a game system number help? :D

It's an approximation, a way to say that the character has some skill, and a way of estimating the impact it has on their actions.

[Andrew Martin]

A.J.Gibson wrote:
> There is no real world way to measure skill.

Andrew Martin wrote:
> So how does measuring skill (or attribute) with a game system number help? :D

A.J.Gibson wrote:
> It's an approximation, a way to say that the character has some skill, and a way of estimating the impact it has on their actions.

So how does giving an exact number for an attribute and a skill equate to an approximation of real world ability? :)

[efindel]

A few thoughts here...

I think Jared's post was meant to show that simply adding attribute and skill levels together is not the only way to create a system where both attributes and skills are used in doing things. There are lots of other possible methods
. For example:


Using skill as number of dice, attribute to determine size of dice.
Multiplying attribute by skill, then trying to roll some die under that.
Multiplying or dividing one or the other before adding -- e.g., 2 * Skill + Attribute.

One system that I've long been considering is allowing a "primary" and "secondary" influence on a roll. The effective score would be:

primary + secondary/2

In most cases, skills would be considered more important than attributes, so that attributes would have to be secondary, but in some cases, attributes might be more important, and skill might be secondary.

A second thing I'd like to note is that there's nothing that requires skills and attributes to have roughly equal numerical value. For example, you could have a system where attributes range from 0 to 10 for humans, but skills range from 0 to 20. If attribute + skill is used, then the most agile guy in the world, without skill in dancing, has a +10 to his/her dancing roll... which puts him even with an average guy with moderate skill in dancing, and way behind an average guy who's good at dancing.

Another factor is the dicing method used. In the above example, if it's Attribute + Skill + 1d20, Agile Guy's 10+1d20 might beat Good Dancer's 20+1d20. However, if it's Attribute + skill + 1d6, then Agile Guy is going to lose every time.

Lastly, I'd like to note that having attributes combine with skills for skill checks isn't the only way to relate the two together. Some other ways include:


Attributes determine skill cost.
Attributes limit skills.
Attributes provide skill defaults, but the default doesn't add in.


I'm sure many more methods could be thought up. Be creative! Just because lots of other games use Attribute + Skill with attributes and skills both having the same range doesn't mean that's the only way to combine attributes and skills!

[A.J.Gibson]

Originally posted by Andrew Martin
A.J.Gibson wrote:
> There is no real world way to measure skill.

Andrew Martin wrote:
> So how does measuring skill (or attribute) with a game system number help? :D

A.J.Gibson wrote:
> It's an approximation, a way to say that the character has some skill, and a way of estimating the impact it has on their actions.

So how does giving an exact number for an attribute and a skill equate to an approximation of real world ability? :)

I said it's an approximation; an estimate or a guess that is convenient for game purposes so that a character's skill has a real impact on events in the game. Since there is no universal unit for skill that can be applied in all cases, we invent one. It may not tell us *exactly* how skilled the person is in reality, but it can tell us if person A is more skilled than person B. It's a descriptor, but more specific, and gives players hard information depending on how the system works.

[Andrew Martin]

Andrew Martin wrote:
> So how does giving an exact number for an attribute and a skill equate to an approximation of real world ability? :)

A.J.Gibson wrote:
> I said it's an approximation; an estimate or a guess that is convenient for game purposes so that a character's skill has a real impact on events in the game. Since there is no universal unit for skill that can be applied in all cases, we invent one. It may not tell us *exactly* how skilled the person is in reality, but it can tell us if person A is more skilled than person B. It's a descriptor, but more specific, and gives players hard information depending on how the system works.

So what we really need is a way of determining the winner in a conflict between two opposing descriptors, with the descriptors having inexact ratings. Ideally, the descriptors would be based on setting specific descriptions. For example, a game about students in Hogwarts (Harry Potter) would probably use student year level for conflicts between students using magic, while between martial arts experts using martial arts, it could be between belt rankings, while between programmers writing software, perhaps their programming test results.

What do you think? Do we really need a exact number for skill or attribute?

[NPC Whymme]

Originally posted by Andrew Martin
A.J.Gibson wrote:
> In addition, since there is no real world way to measure skill,...

But there is real world ways to measure skill! Consider:

Apprentice, Journeyman, Master and Grand Master;
Qualified key cutter;
Fourth Dan black belt;
Sun Certified Java Programmer;
General Practitioner and Surgeon.


That names only a few!

These grades are only a rough measure of skill. Sometimes politics are involved, sometimes (as with certifications) what is measured is how well people can make tests, rather than how skilled they are. And there is the time problem; it is quite possible that people who would not have gotten the "master key cutter" degree thirty years ago, would get it now, due to slipping of standards. Or maybe the standards have gone up instead. Or there are regional differences between standards.

Now, maybe ELO rating in chess would be a better example, or the place where a tennis player is in the current ranking. The problem there is that it measures skill as opposed to other people's skill, not as an independent quantity.

> So what's wrong with systems where attributes are added to skills, like in D&D3e, WoD and Cyberpunk 2020?

Would you prefer your surgeon to be intelligent or skilled? :D

I'd prefer a skilled surgeon.

I'd prefer someone who is both. I'd rather not have someone cut out very skillfully the healthy kidney because he didn't understand the difference between left and right.

In Cyberpunk, if your skill is not high enough, you fail the surgery task automatically, whatever your intelligence/dexterity/whatever is.

Now on to more practical methods of what works best in a game.

This is simple: what works best in a game is that what players are comfortable with. Not all players care for the game to be very simulationist (or any other direction).

Whatever the system, there will always be questions. If you have only skills, there will be questions like "Does this action fall under skill A or B?" "Why can't I do action X when I have skill C?"

I have no doubt that Andrew's system works best for the players who like that system. It is my opinion, however, that this would not necessarily be universal among RPGers :-)

Stat + skill works fine for a whole range of games and for a whole range of players. There are other games who use different mechanics, and other players like them. One system is not necessarily better or worse than the other, it is only about personal preferences.

Whymme

[Harlequin Jones]

I use Stat + Skill. It makes a lot of sense to me that natural ability figures into one's success at tasks.

However, I agree with those who think that one's skill level should be far more important than natural ability. To that end, I make stats a lot more expensive that skills.

A player who puts all of his points into Stats will be broad, but shallow - fair at everything, but not great at anything. And some skills will simply be unavailable without training.

A player who puts all of his points in skills may not be as well-rounded as the former, but will be far more competent in his areas of specialty. Not only that, but the fact that skills are so much cheaper than stats means that he will be a better character overall.


HJ

[ChapinoMuse]

Rpg's are trying to measure immeasureable things, why must their be a complaint comapring it to real life, it's agame, meanng things need values. If you don't want it, throw out the game and just roleplay.

[kabael]

Originally posted by Andy Kitkowski
Sure, a more "naturally dexterous" gymnast with the same amount of training as another may be able to perform a little better... But imagine Bruce Lee (high dexterity, low dance) and that "Lord of the Dance" guy (low dexterity, HIGH dance skill) in a dance contest? There are many RPG systems that will make their difficulty equal.

White Wolf's system that you mentioned gives Attributes and Abilities (re: Skills) about the same weight in any given task, however, so while the two traits are linked at all times, they are given the same importance.

I think the best way to handle situations like this is to "weight" one element over another. Make a skill have a greater effect on the outcome than attribute. Thus, raw talent is useful, but not anywhere near as much as solid training, which I think is a pretty realistic stance.

Alternatively, you could give attributes a great effect, but make them exceedingly difficult to acquire. Thus skill is much easier to gaing, and the faster route to success. Dream Pod 9's Silhouette uses that kind of system.

And as far as the association of skills and attributes, I think that it's logical to do so, but not in an exclusive manner (as in combat is always a strenght traits), as that just makes bending the system around unanticipated situations all the more difficult.

[Jack Spencer]

but someone once pointed out that Attribute + Skill systems often wind up being Attribute + 1 systems or some similar circumstance since they both work pretty much the same way and its pointless to raise both.

This varies by system, But I recall not raising my GURPS stats not so much in favor of raising skills or buy advantages.

[kabael]

I'm not sure what you mean by "Attribute + 1 system", but depending on the intent of the game, you want people to raise skills instead of raising attributes. I'm of the opinion that in the "real world" people usually learn skills first and it's through that their attributes increase (with exceptions like straight body-building and whatnot).

From anecdotal experience, I've general increased attributes infrequently, but did do it, especially with really low or deficient ones.

[ChapinoMuse]

I don't think theirs a need to go out of the way differentiate the two, but if you must just make the ability worth a fraction of a die, so basically each ability is worth half and attribute worth 1, it's simple, it's quick, but does it really bother you that much.

[[Ego]Wumpus]

Originally posted by Lost Cub
As a compromise, I'd suggest that attributes don't add to skills directly, but determine how fast you advance in a skill, or at what skill level you start. But it really should depend on the setting.


I don't like basing systems on settings. It's silly. Base your system on the genre, the feel of the game; heroic, gritty, super, fantastic, anime, what have you. I'd point to Star Trek as a good example: tNG was pretty Heroic, but DS9 was more gritty. Yet they are the same setting. Probably slightly different systems, though.

And anyways, Sillouette is the best: you add your attribute to the roll, but given that higher skill pretty much gaurentees a higher roll, you have the nice balance:

High Agi, low Dance; low roll becomes a medium result.
Low Agi, High Dance; you're very unlikely to get a low rolll, so your result is medium to high.
High Agi, High Dance; you're likely to get a high result to super-high result, cus you're the BEST and you do the MOST damage.

[NPC Chris D]

Originally posted by Andrew Martin
A.J.Gibson wrote:
> There is no real world way to measure skill.

So how does measuring skill (or attribute) with a game system number help? :D

It provides an objective means of answering questions that come up in running games. This, IMV, is the entire purpose of having game rules in the first place.

Chris Dicely

[Andrew Martin]

A.J.Gibson wrote:
> There is no real world way to measure skill.

Andrew Martin wrote:
> So how does measuring skill (or attribute) with a game system number help?

Chris Dicely wrote:
> It provides an objective means of answering questions that come up in running games. This, IMV, is the entire purpose of having game rules in the first place.

Perhaps we need better rules for making decisions based on the factors brought to bear upon a conflict?

[Furcifer]

I'll tell you about the system I use.

Basically, you have a set of skills which are determined using some base stats plus a set bonus based upon previous successful uses of your skills - your skills gain "experience", in a way.

For example: "Enlightened" skill = MANA/20+40%, plus a 1% bonus per previous successful advancement; these occur in play.


As you can see, attributes are weighted so as not to have a broad-scale general effect in most cases; mostly between 1 and 10 percent to success in an average case.

However, notice the division. This can be altered according to how important MANA would be in an individual case. The skill could become MANA/5+40%, or it could become MANA/40+40%. There is a set of situations which govern this. The percent bonus at the end can also be changed. This does not come into play often, because it is cumbersome and I like to have all calculations done ahead of time. The base is usually all I use, maybe requiring an additional base stat check to ensure success if the stat is especially important in any given case.

Also, the attributes DO influence the speed at which a skill based upon that attribute advances.

[Jaif]

[Walks trembling up to the podium]

I actually liked the way powers & perils handled it: attributes determined your starting value in a skill, and your maximum value in that skill, and a host of secondary effects (eg, hit points). There were two types of skills; those that were meant to be small numbers modifying a percentage die roll, and those that scaled out to 80 (if your base attributes were high enough). So, combat skills were heavily dependent on having good attributes, but stuff like blacksmithing and whatnot were much more skill-driven.

[Quickly scurries off stage, hoping crowd is too stunned at mention of P&P to react.]

[cbatt]

I know this thread is long dead... but so what?

I don't see the problem with stat+skill systems. In fact I really like them, especially in the mold of the Storyteller system (free linking between which stats relate to which skill depends on the situation).

Anyhow...

Andy Kitkowski uses Bruce Lee and Michael Flatley (the "Lord of the Dance" guy) as an example of how in a skill+stat system, they could both have an equal chance at a dance competition, but acheive this equality in different ways. He contends that Lee would probabl be high Dex low Dance and Flatly would be lower Dex higher Dance. However, I see this argument as somewhat flawed: I see it is an adjudication issue, not a mechanical one.

The highlighted situation should not simply be a "dance off" where one dancer's overall ability is pitted directly against the other's because in that one roll of the dice one would be assuming a few things, one of those being knowledge of the subject matter. If you were to simply roll-off, one against the other, you'd be discounting the vast gulf of knowledge between the two contestants. Thus, the first thing that should be done, is to determine how much knowledge of the type of Dance each participant has and then base a modifier on their ability to perform the dance on their knowledge.

This is why I like the free-form stat/skill linking that is done with Storyteller-like systems. The first test is made using a mental stat + the skill, and the second test is made using a physical stat + the skill +/- a modifier based on the the outcome of the first test.

In the example above, this probably gives Flatley a sizeable advantage assuming that both contestants have roughly the same level in the mental ability related to knowledge of the dance skill. Not to mention that Flatley probably has knowledge specializations in Dance which might add even more knowledge bonuses to the first test.

Then again, if Flatley isn't super bright, and Lee is also a genius, this is reflected by Lee's ability to gain (or estimate, or inuit) knowledge of the dance from very little specific dance knowledge. Much like in real life where very bright, capable people often match or outclass average joes even when they have less training in an area. (For a cheesey example: think of the "Pretender" television show)

[Lord Iron Wolf]

Currently I'm working on a game system where the Characters don't have statistics. The Players choose the skills their character has by paying points for skills. Instead of a high Dexterity or Intelligence, they choose Archer, Electrician, Torturer or some other job name. The logic is that people tend to gain ablilities in areas they have talent in (a person who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, isn't going to become an Acrobat.)

(the system is a little more complex than the above, if you wish me to go into further detail I will, just ask)

As far as the dice go they are just a way of using statistical randomness to arrive at a conclusion for an action. Dice get rid of the statement: "I don't know." If you want straight odds on an action use a single die. If you want to weight the result in favor of something, use several dice to produce a bell-shaped curve.

[A.J.Gibson]

Originally posted by Lord Iron Wolf
Currently I'm working on a game system where the Characters don't have statistics. The Players choose the skills their character has by paying points for skills. Instead of a high Dexterity or Intelligence, they choose Archer, Electrician, Torturer or some other job name. The logic is that people tend to gain ablilities in areas they have talent in (a person who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, isn't going to become an Acrobat.)


Attributes are a way of determining the ways in which a character varies from the norm on the most basic level. In other words, are they stronger than average, smarter than average, etc. The total set of attributes provided covers the range of human abilities, and act as defaults for any die rolling involved. Not including attributes does not remove the basic concept of characters having statistics, it merely means that all characters have the same value in all statistics.

[Jaif]

"Much like in real life where very bright, capable people often match or outclass average joes even when they have less training in an area."

Sorry, but no. For real areas of expertise, for example brain surgery, chip design, and hell, even batting a baseball (an extremely tough skill), all that raw talent (physical & mental) will do is shorten the learning period some. You still require a thorough grounding and years of practice to compete at these levels.

-Jeff

[Jon Doda]

My house system basically drops attributes entirely and just has skills, though they're called abilities to make it a little more general. This has many, many advantages. First off, there's no trying to figure out which skill ought to be linked to which attribute. This also makes things faster in game since you don't have to scan the sheet for the attribute, scan the sheet for the skill, add them together then make the roll. You're only ever dealing with one number at a time. Character creation is also much simpler and faster. Every single rating is completely independent, so there's absolutely no calculation involved. Combined with a very intuitive 0 - 10 scale for abilities you can deal with the system side of character creation in about thirty seconds. Just go down the ability rating column and scrawl down some numbers :). So far the system has worked *very* well.

[Axelos]

Originally posted by Tom B

I think '7th Sea' uses 'Roll ATTRIBUTE+SKILL dice, keep ATTRIBUTE highest' and match or exceed target number.

This weights attributes more than I prefer, but it seems to fit the genre.

I haven't played 7th Sea. What are the attribute and skill ranges? Is this system just used for task resolution, or is it also part of the combat mechanic?

The reason I ask is because I hate when a player has to roll more than three or maybe four dice at once. Dice pools suck, but that's just IMHO. YMMV and all that.

I like a task resolution system and a combat mechanic to be the same, as in d20, where everything is always some number + d20 roll compared to some target number. Everything works the same way, so I as a DM have no difficulty with players rolling different numbers of different dice to do different things (or worse, as dice pools usually cause: different players rolling different numbers of different dice to do the same bloody thing!)

Want to perform an action? Roll 1d20. Want to attack? Roll 1d20. Need to save versus poison? Roll 1d20. Need to make a check to see if you heard the ogre around the corner? Roll 1d20.

Now, I'm not trying to preach that d20 is the best thing to ever happen to the gaming hobby or something. For a lot of people, other games are simply better. However, if I had to choose one thing that I think d20 gets right, it's this simple principle: every action a character can perform is resolved in essentially the same manner. This seriously diminishes the difficulty of learning the game for new players, IMHO.

BTW, I hated 2e, but I love 3e. The simplified (and more logical) d20 mechanic is a big part of that.

I could make a mile-long list, though, of the ways 3e is better than 2e.

[NPC Alban]

Originally posted by Axelos

I haven't played 7th Sea. What are the attribute and skill ranges? Is this system just used for task resolution, or is it also part of the combat mechanic?



This is the basic system, and as in every good RPG System, the basic system applies to every situation.

Ranges are 1-5 for attributes, and 0-5 for skills.



I like a task resolution system and a combat mechanic to be the same, as in d20, where everything is always some number + d20 roll compared to some target number. Everything works the same way, so I as a DM have no difficulty with players rolling different numbers of different dice to do different things (or worse, as dice pools usually cause: different players rolling different numbers of different dice to do the same bloody thing!)

Want to perform an action? Roll 1d20. Want to attack? Roll 1d20. Need to save versus poison? Roll 1d20. Need to make a check to see if you heard the ogre around the corner? Roll 1d20.



This one of the reason D&D 3e is a quite good system, while AD&D was horrible...



BTW, I hated 2e, but I love 3e. The simplified (and more logical) d20 mechanic is a big part of that.

I could make a mile-long list, though, of the ways 3e is better than 2e.


I agree with for both of these opinions..

[Axelos]

Originally posted by NPC Alban

This is the basic system, and as in every good RPG System, the basic system applies to every situation.

Ranges are 1-5 for attributes, and 0-5 for skills.

So if you have the highest possible attribute and the highest skill rank, you're rolling 10 dice? Well, I would absolutely hate that, but that's just an opinion. Granted, I suspect people would more often be rolling 4 or 5 dice, but the potential exists for more powerful characters to roll 7+ dice quite frequently.

In DnD, I hate it when a spell requires a lot of dice, and the characters only cast those dice-loaded spells twice or three times per session. If every task was to be resolved with a bucket of dice, I couldn't handle it.

My homebrew game, which I played in the years between deciding that 2e was too terrible to play and acquiring 3e, was based on a skill + ability + die roll vs. target number mechanic, but the die roll was 2d6.

On the subject of ability v skill, I agree that giving them equal weight in the resolution mechanic tips things in favor of the ability, as a single ability may be applicable in several different instances whereas a skill may be far more restricted. My solution was to separate skill points from ability points in awarding character growth, and the latter were much more rare. 3e takes it even further; not only are the ability increases far less frequent than skill increases, but you must increase an ability twice to increase your modifier.

[Tom B]

Originally posted by Axelos


So if you have the highest possible attribute and the highest skill rank, you're rolling 10 dice? Well, I would absolutely hate that, but that's just an opinion.

I tend to agree. That's why I disliked WEG's Star Wars mechanics. My current systems of choice use 1d10 (CORPS) or 4dF (Fudge). CORPS is more weighted towards skill, which I prefer. The Fudge variant I'm using also has attributes factored in, but they still play a smaller role than skill.

[Evan Waters]

I think stat+skill systems have their place. They may not be terribly realistic (though such things are hard to measure), but if the setting isn't terribly realistic it isn't too much of a problem. My AVENGERS game uses a basic Attribute+Skill combination, with attributes weighted to be more important than skills, because that I think emulates a lot of "cinematic" thinking- for someone writing a TV action series, it's not so important to know what specific things a character is trained in as his/her general strengths and weaknesses. If I were to give John Steed ranks in every possible skill he ever could have demonstrated in the course of the show, I'd have to create an even-more-insanely-high "power level" than I'm actually using to demonstrate that. Better to just say that he's specifically good at some things, and potentially good at a lot of others.

So, maybe it's not realistic, but it's great shorthand.

[BaronWindemere]

In the example above, this probably gives Flatley a sizeable advantage assuming that both contestants have roughly the same level in the mental ability related to knowledge of the dance skill. Not to mention that Flatley probably has knowledge specializations in Dance which might add even more knowledge bonuses to the first test.

Then again, if Flatley isn't super bright, and Lee is also a genius, this is reflected by Lee's ability to gain (or estimate, or inuit) knowledge of the dance from very little specific dance knowledge. Much like in real life where very bright, capable people often match or outclass average joes even when they have less training in an area. (For a cheesey example: think of the "Pretender" television show)

Or to say what I think you're getting at a different way, Flatley's dance style would probably be more of the brilliant, highly technical, rigid, Celtic clogging (or whatever it's called) that he's known for, while Lee's would probably be more improvised and impressionistic; quite possibly just as effective, but in a different way.

To throw my dos centavos in on the stat + skill issue, I think it is appropriate if skills increase over time while stats don't (much).

Look, if you will, at 3ed D&D. Stat bonuses to stats play a dominant role in a character's total skill ability at low levels, but they're not likely to increase very much. In fact, this bonus is rarely going to climb higher than +4 or +5.

A player's Rank in a given skill can't be more than +4 to start with, but beyond that point you can add a point to your each of your skills every level (or every two levels for non-class skills), compared to one point in one attribute every eight levels, on average, for attribute bonuses.

-Windemere-

[Jaif]

I know next to nothing about dance - perhaps it's really easy and anybody can pick it up as a proffession, as you seem to indicate. However, when you talk about difficult skills such as surgery, physics, and so on, you can't perform at professional levels without a thorough grounding, regardless of your innate talent. Einstein could not formulate General Relativity without first learning (he eventually got a tutor) differential geometry. Take a brilliant child without medical knowledge, ask him to perform brain surgery, and you'll end up with a corpse instead of a patient.

It depends on the skill area, but at a certain point all talent is going to do is shorten the learning period, or perhaps define your maximum potential.

I personally think there are two sets of skills out there: those where att+skill is a reasonable model (say, melee combat), and those where levels of skill are attained and bounded by att (say, math).

-Jeff