From: dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: variable numbers of attributes Date: 5 May 2000 23:41:46 GMT Organization: Computing & Information Science, Queen's University Lines: 56 Message-ID: <8evm7q$co8$1@knot.queensu.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: highnoon.cs.queensu.ca Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!howland.erols.net!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!dalamb Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:5514 I am considering a scheme where there are a predefined set of attributes, but the GM or gaming group can choose a subset to use. This seems to me to be a reasonable middle-ground (for those who want a middle ground) between a wired-in set of attributes that's "wrong" for some groups, and a completely open set of "fixed traits" (or, equivalently, no fixed set of attributes). The idea is to organize attributes as a tree, just as many games organize skills as a tree. Thus, as some games already do, one can "group" a set of attributes into Body: Strength, Agility, Endurance, Health Mind: Perception, Intelligence, Learning Speed -- perhaps the 7 kinds of intelligence proposed a few years ago (social, analytical, musical, and 4 others I can't recall) Spirit: not sure what to do here, but various things have been used by people I've heard from over the years, e.g. having Will here, and some magical or religious aptitudes. One might have a 3-level tree, e.g. Body: Muscle-related: Strength, Agility, Manual Dexterity Health-related: (immune system, cardio-vascular system, kidneys): disease resistance, poison resistance, wound recovery rate, Endurance (the part related to efficient oxygen transport and lactic acid removal) The "leave some out" part is as follows (an example): - Body is recorded as a number, e.g. 10 - Strength, Agility, etc are each shown as a pair of numbers, the first a "delta" (plus or minus a small number), and the second as just a "level" number: the sum of "Body" and the delta, e.g. Strength +2=12 - You can leave out any second-level attribute whose delta is zero. Thus for example: Body: 10; Str +2=12; Ag -1=9 is someone whose missing attributes, Endurance and Health, are both 10. For attribute purchase, if you want to have a point-based character creation/advancement, you'd cost a +1 for Body exactly equivalent to the sum of the costs of +1 for all its sub-categories. For example, with a linear cost (no diminishing returns), if pushing up a sub-attribute like Strength by 1 costs 1, then pushing up Body by 1 counts 4. A more complex calculation is possible for getting a "diminishing returns" effect if you want one. Thus if pushing up a sub-attribute by 1 costs the same as the current level, pushing Str from 12 to 13 would cost 12. Pushing Body from 10 to 11 would cost 12 for Str, 9 for Ag, and 10 each for End and Hlth, for a total of 41. This kind of advancement is exactly equivalent in cost to having a fixed, flat set of attributes, each advanced completely separately from all the others. It just lets you group things reasonably, omit things that "don't matter" most of the time, and *still* have a sensible way to move a character to a new campaign where an "omitted" attribute suddenly becomes important. So, what do you think? Any improvements to suggest? -- "Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5 http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ ###### From: "Klaus Æ. Mogensen" Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc References: <8evm7q$co8$1@knot.queensu.ca> Subject: Re: variable numbers of attributes Lines: 90 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 11:35:46 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.47.137.9 X-Complaints-To: abuse@get2.net X-Trace: news.get2net.dk 957605901 195.47.137.9 (Sat, 06 May 2000 11:38:21 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 11:38:21 MET DST Organization: get2net Internet Kunde Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed1.uni2.dk!news.get2net.dk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:5516 "David Alex Lamb" skrev i en meddelelse news:8evm7q$co8$1@knot.queensu.ca... > > The idea is to organize attributes as a tree, just as many games organize > skills as a tree. Thus, as some games already do, one can "group" a set of > attributes into > Body: Strength, Agility, Endurance, Health > Mind: Perception, Intelligence, Learning Speed -- perhaps the 7 kinds of > intelligence proposed a few years ago (social, analytical, musical, and > 4 others I can't recall) > Spirit: not sure what to do here, but various things have been used by people > I've heard from over the years, e.g. having Will here, and some > magical or religious aptitudes. > One might have a 3-level tree, e.g. > Body: Muscle-related: Strength, Agility, Manual Dexterity > Health-related: (immune system, cardio-vascular system, kidneys): > disease resistance, poison resistance, wound recovery rate, > Endurance (the part related to efficient oxygen transport and lactic > acid removal) I posted the following in another thread a few days ago, but it seems more suited for this one: I have considered a hierarchical system of attributes, where you can select a level of distinction based on the complexity of the game and the importance of certain attributes in the setting (e.g., for a very combat oriented setting, the physical attributes may be subdivided further than the mental attributes. It looks something like this: Body Brawn Strength Press Punch Health Endurance Damage Resistance Suppleness Agility Limberness Grace Dexterity Touch Manipulation Brains Wits Reasoning Logic Intuition Instinct Senses Reaction Spirit Willpower Self Discipline/Concentration Mental Resistance Charisma Charm Presence/Ferocity So at the simplest level, you have only two attributes, "Body" and "Brains", while at the most complex, you have sixteen attributes. The two games I'm working on now use the two middle levels of division (that is, four attributes for the simpler game and eight for the more complex one). For a superheroic game, I'd probably use the finest division for the Brawn attributes, the next-finest for the Suppleness attributes, and the next-simplest for the Brains attributes, for a total of eight attributes: Press, Punch, Endurance, Damage Resistance, Agility, Dexterity, Wits, and Spirit. -- Klaus Æ. Mogensen http://hjem.get2net.dk/Klaudius Exaggeration facilitates comprehension Understatement facilitates credibility ###### From: dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: variable numbers of attributes Date: 7 May 2000 21:31:42 GMT Organization: Computing & Information Science, Queen's University Lines: 35 Message-ID: <8f4nbu$rd$1@knot.queensu.ca> References: <8evm7q$co8$1@knot.queensu.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: highnoon.cs.queensu.ca Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!dalamb Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:5665 In article , Klaus Æ. Mogensen wrote: >"David Alex Lamb" skrev i en meddelelse >news:8evm7q$co8$1@knot.queensu.ca... >> The idea is to organize attributes as a tree, >I have considered a hierarchical system of attributes, where you >can select a level of distinction based on the complexity of the >game and the importance of certain attributes in the setting > >Body: Brawn: Strength: Press; Punch > Health: Endurance; Damage Resistance > Suppleness: Agility:Limberness; Grace > Dexterity: Touch; Manipulation >Brains:Wits: Reasoning: Logic; Intuition > Instinct: Senses; Reaction > Spirit: Willpower: Self Discipline/Concentration; Mental Resistance > Charisma: Charm; Presence/Ferocity Was there a particular reason for always having 2 sub-attributes for an attribute? Also, would you use the same depth for all branches? Thus if Strength is used, you can expect that Agility will be too, because they are both at the second level. One of the things people seem to like to do is have more Body attributes than Brains attributs; if they really want to do this, could they have Body: Brawn: Strength; Health Suppleness Brains IE brains only at level 1, Suppleness at level 2, Brawn to level 3. I'm not claiming this is a *good* idea, just that it seems to match what happens in some treeless games. -- "Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5 http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ ###### From: "Klaus Æ. Mogensen" Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc References: <8evm7q$co8$1@knot.queensu.ca> <8f4nbu$rd$1@knot.queensu.ca> Subject: Re: variable numbers of attributes Lines: 74 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 01:13:06 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.82.219.116 X-Complaints-To: abuse@get2.net X-Trace: news.get2net.dk 957741192 195.82.219.116 (Mon, 08 May 2000 01:13:12 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 01:13:12 MET DST Organization: get2net Internet Kunde Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed1.uni2.dk!news.get2net.dk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:5673 "David Alex Lamb" wrote: > > Klaus Æ. Mogensen wrote: > > >I have considered a hierarchical system of attributes, where you > >can select a level of distinction based on the complexity of the > >game and the importance of certain attributes in the setting > > > >Body: Brawn: Strength: Press; Punch > > Health: Endurance; Damage Resistance > > Suppleness: Agility:Limberness; Grace > > Dexterity: Touch; Manipulation > >Brains:Wits: Reasoning: Logic; Intuition > > Instinct: Senses; Reaction > > Spirit: Willpower: Self Discipline/Concentration; Mental Resistance > > Charisma: Charm; Presence/Ferocity > > Was there a particular reason for always having 2 sub-attributes for an > attribute? It seemed right at the time. ;-) > Also, would you use the same depth for all branches? Thus if > Strength is used, you can expect that Agility will be too, because they are > both at the second level. One of the things people seem to like to do is have > more Body attributes than Brains attributs; if they really want to do this, > could they have > Body: Brawn: Strength; Health > Suppleness > Brains > IE brains only at level 1, Suppleness at level 2, Brawn to level 3. I'm not > claiming this is a *good* idea, just that it seems to match what happens in > some treeless games. I think I mentioned that if I were to make a superheroic game, I would do something like that: Use the "Brawn" stats at the finest level of distinction (Press, Punch, Endurance, Damage Resistance), the "Supplemess" stats at the next broader level (Agility, Dexterity), and the "Brains" stats at the next level again (Wits, Spirit), for a total of eight stats from three different depths of the tree. The idea is to keep the price of a stat constant, and use degree of branching as a measure of how important the stat is. If a stat is useful enough to warrant a high cost, it is probably has several uses, which could be represented by splitting the stat in two (or more). Take Hero System, in which INT has a cost of 1 and DEX a cost of 3. But DEX is really three things: A skill base (like INT), default combat ability, and default speed. It seems to me that DEX should have been split into such three stats at a cost of 1 each (as indeed it was done in Fuzion). So far this is just at the stage of a personal metasystem for when I design games, but perhaps in time I'll develop into a true, generic game of variable complexity -- sort of like Instant/Total Fuzion, just more graduated. -- Klaus Æ. Mogensen http://hjem.get2net.dk/Klaudius Exaggeration facilitates comprehension Understatement facilitates credibility