Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just starting a thread for stream-of-conscious commentary on attributes. I don’t have a particular question or thesis at the moment. Feel free to join in, in the same spirit.

D&D has consistently defined character attributes with its STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA system. Many other systems seem derivative or awkward by contrast. For example, Call of Cthulhu keeps STR DEX CON and INT but chucks out WIS and CHA for Size, Power, Appearance, and Education. It’s really unclear why, especially in a rule set so densely defined by Skills, INT and EDU need to be separate attributes. Similarly, POW and APP seem to be a dissection of CHA, with certain dimensions of WIS baked in. SIZ, meanwhile, seems like it should be a derived characteristic rather than a basic attribute.

Anyhow, the point is not to pick on CoC — or, really, BRP. The point is, the D&D attributes are paradigmatic. Other systems are almost certainly going to not only be compared to but also, and more importantly, conceived of in the first place in the context of the D&D system. Nevertheless, is there really anything objectively superior about D&D’s attribute system? I don’t think it does a particularly good job of realistically describing a person or animal. As a conceit for interacting with an imagined world, it seems practical but not especially inspiring.

I think the main advantage of the D&D system is the magic number — six attributes: enough to be interesting, not so many as to be tedious. Relatedly, the six attributes are also distinct while forming a kind of spectrum. I’d arrange the spectrum like this CON STR DEX CHA WIS INT. On one end, we have the most material and on the other the most abstract elements. This, in turn, implies the metaphysical “range” of the imaginary world the characters exist in. The core nature of the characters describes their universe. It’s coherent, balanced, proportionate, sensible, and sensical; i.e., it is both comprehensible and credible for the players. Unlike a world defined by oddly particular attributes such as Size or Education.

Over the years, my taste in roleplaying has run toward minimalism. When I run “D&D”, I don’t use classes or saves much less skills and feats, etc etc. I just ask for players to roll 3d6 in order for their attributes and then we begin play. I have often forgotten to ask players to roll for HP and just used their CON score as a substitute. In my view, the attributes are in themselves a totally sufficient mechanic for most roleplaying; combat is the major exception but it always ends up being derived from attributes, anyhow.

The Year Zero games use 4 attributes.

Strength, Agility, Wits, and Empathy.

In some of their games your attribute score is also your health in that attribute (numbers range from 1-6). So physical damage reduces your strength. Mental trauma reduces your empathy. Getting tired from a forced march reduces your agility.

Eden studios also used 6, but they were

Strength
Dexterity
Constitution
Intelligence
Wisdom
Perception

Since all rolls were stat + skill you could aim (Perception + ranged weapon skill) and then at the end of the turn shoot (dex + skill + successes from the aim roll).

Perception always struck me as a much better 6th attribute.


I always found it really weird that DnD used Charisma. Both because that kind of thing should be role played and because it's both mental in a persons actual charisma, and physical in their appearance.

Even worse, I hate that dnd uses 2 numbers to describe your attributes. Your attribute itself and your modifier (the number you actually use). Why not just use the modifier? Why are you not str -4 - +4. Or just 0-4. I also prefer the standard spread. Randomized attributes is just... weird in a modern game design. Way to unbalance your players from step 1.

Thanks for bringing up Year Zero, I was going to post about Alien RPG specifically but it is in that family. IME with Alien RPG, attributes aren’t very prominent. Mechanically, they are very important of course but the associated skills are what feel like they define my characters.

Charisma could be RPed, yes, but the same could be said for other attributes, including stuff like STR. I have listened to a professional trainer explain to me why the STR attribute makes no sense and how the actions associated with it are just handwaived away in D&D; so no diff really than having a CHA attribute.

As to “balance” — I don’t even know what this could mean in a RPG. Randomized attributes don’t work with “modern” games built around assumptions of minmaxing, sure. But I don’t play that kind of stuff anymore.

 Manchu wrote:
Thanks for bringing up Year Zero, I was going to post about Alien RPG specifically but it is in that family. IME with Alien RPG, attributes aren’t very prominent. Mechanically, they are very important of course but the associated skills are what feel like they define my characters.

I own alien but have not really played it yet. If I remember correctly, Alien is one of their games where you add your strength and agility to make your health pool and your wits and empathy for a mental or mind pool. (Coriolis also does this).

Forbidden Lands on the other hand does not. Your Strength attribute IS your health. And when you take damage to your strength it is the modified strength that you add to your rolls. So if you started with 6 and took 5 damage, your next melee roll is 1 (str) + Melee skill. Your attributes are VERY important there.

If you get sick with a disease and that disease is sapping your stength, rolling endurance to recover becomes harder and harder and you might just die of the disease.

Charisma could be RPed, yes, but the same could be said for other attributes, including stuff like STR. I have listened to a professional trainer explain to me why the STR attribute makes no sense and how the actions associated with it are just handwaived away in D&D; so no diff really than having a CHA attribute.

It's not REALLY the same. The strength attribute has a mechanical impact in that the number tells you how much you can carry, how hard you can hit, how easily you can break that thing over your knee. Muscle mass is absolutely a physical attribute in the actual definition of the word. Charisma is mostly a set of learned behaviors. Sure, some people take to them more naturally then others, but anyone COULD learn them.

As to “balance” — I don’t even know what this could mean in a RPG. Randomized attributes don’t work with “modern” games built around assumptions of minmaxing, sure. But I don’t play that kind of stuff anymore.

I don't mean modern games. I mean modern game design. Something like a point buy system starts all players with an equal amount of points. All options considered balanced every player comes out equivalent in capability even with vastly difference specifications. But what if in a point buy system I had you roll 6d10 to determine how many points you had to spend? And by luck of the roll each character ends up with more or less points to spend. Thats dnds basic attribute system in action.

Blades in the Dark and it's associated systems have 3 attributes. In Blades they're Insight, Prowess, and Resolve. Functionally though these games are far more about the actions/skills than they are about the attributes.

I find I like that system. Kind of cuts out a middle man in a way and streamlines the system such that everything is basically resolved by skill rolls. At the same time, it leaves more room to define your actions yourself. Blades in the Dark is basically Powered by the Apocalypse, but I've never much liked the 'move' system and find it constraining. Blades kind of repackages it into a more flexible shell.

In my view, there are three minimum you need:

Physical
Mental
Social

Everything else is system specific, and given fancy names. However, they typically fall into these categories or are sub-divided versions of these.

Let's break down D&D again:

Strength- Physical
Dexterity- Physical
Intelligence- Mental
Wisdom- Mental
Constitution- Physical
Charisma- Social

If you think of Wargaming (as RPG is a derivative) the bare bones is the 4Ms. Movement, Melee, Missiles, and Morale. To me, those same elements are critical for an RPG system and the attributes are just ways to overlay mechanics and map them to the 4Ms.



Edit: The role of Social abilities and skills in an RPG is hotly debated, but as Manchu points out the same could apply to all abilities. For example, if you wanted to shoot, you might have to throw a dice and hit a place on a chart ala the old Adeptus Titanicus. Maybe pull a block from a Jenga tower ala Dread, etc. Why Social gets highlighted as the key place to lean on for Player skill vs. Character skill is unclear. Solving riddles and puzzles also falls into this strange gap.

I sometimes have to remind a GM that my character is smarter than I am.

In the "Das Schwarze Auge" (DSA) system I play a lot in you have 8 attributes. Str, Con, Cha, Int are basically the same. Instead of Wisdom you have:
Courage: to withstand fear effects, resist attempts to change your mind and also influences your magic resistance. Also necessary to use some high end fighting skills
Intuition: a bit like wisdom but not really. Influences how well mages can attune themselve to magic fields and regenerate their astral power, initiative of fighters, how well you can guess your opponents intentions

Dex exists but is limited to your "bodyly" dexterity, balance and so on
Additionally there is "Deftness" in the sense of how well you can move your fingers, toes etc. and make extremely fine movements. So the typical attribute for thieves, mechanics and also very relevant for archers an the like.

I only ever played DnD once but from what I can tell DSA works quite differently as it mainly uses skills and you rarely ever actively roll on the attributes. But skills are not used rolling directly but instead have 3 Attributes attached to that have to be rolled. So if I have to roll for Knowledge (magic) for example I roll 3D20 on Intelligence/Intelligence/Intuition and can use my skill points to adjust dice rolls. (Example: I have 14 Intelligence, 12 Intuition, 10 ranks in Knowledge. I roll 3/14/14. Both Intelligence Rolls succeeded, but my Intuition roll is 2 points above. I can use 2 Skills ranks to adjust and have 8 ranks left. So it's a success and the DM knows how "big" the success was by comparing left over skill points).

The whole system has the effect that a lot of character types have some synergies comming with their main attributes. Like Thieves (that typically have high deftness) usually being quite good with shooting weapons and mechanics. Mages (with high Intelligence) also being quite good at knowledge skills etc.

I find this very interesting.
Ultimately, any system is going to have limitations and things it can't strictly define because humanoid lifeforms are too complex. DnD's standard system has spread far and wide and is loosely accepted in many forms of games because it works well enough.

I'm going to refrain from speaking to a single system and draw from a conglomerate of games.

Strength (or Dexterity or Agility) is used to define melee damage, but what does Strength actually mean? In the real world raw "strength" correlates to hitting harder...but striking power, whether armed or unarmed, is more a product of force generated and technique. In gaming systems strength is also used to define how much a character can lift or used for checks to break chains, doors, etc, but this treats the entire body as a single entity. IRL one person might be able to kick open a door, but they don't have the strength to carry as much as someone who can't kick down said door because their physical structure is different. If you wanted to get really granular you would have at a minimum, lower/upper body strength, lower/upper body force production, and grip strength, but is there a reason to get that granular for gaming systems? I do think that force production and brute strength should at least be seperated somewhat.
TLDR: You might have someone who can lift and carry a lot of weight, but they have poor force production, relatively speaking, and a "weaker" individual might be capable of hitting harder.

Charisma is another interesting one. It's used for social checks, but can ignore cultural relativity. A charismatic Orc doesn't necessarily appeal to Elven culture and vice versa. Charisma also doesn't take into account social awareness or emotional intelligence. For pen and paper RPGs the onus is on the players and DM to handle it correctly and perhaps some aspects of it can be handled via skill checks with charisma serving as a modifier.

Wisdom and Intelligence are handled and defined strangely to me. I guess that you could say Wisdom indicates knowing when and how to apply knowledge. Intelligence is the ability to rapidly take in and understand knew concepts? But how is knowledge handled? And what about individual strengths and weakness when it comes to intelligence. A person with strong language skills isn't necessarily the best scientist and science is a broad, broad field.

Ultimately, for video games we're forced to deal with these limited checks and create gameplay systems where player skill or intelligence is a stand-in for solving riddles, crimes, etc or engaging in combat. I suppose the same is true for pen and paper RPGs, but you have more player freedom to express those abilities and, as Manchu pointed out, the DM should be aware of player strengths and weakness and adjust their storytelling accordingly. On the other hand, it is also the player's responibility to RP appropriately. For example, I have essentially zero knowledge of chemistry and would fail completely at RPing someone who is supposed to be skilled in that field.

Again from DSA (or better a set of online available houserules we use for it): this system is (in my opinion) pretty complex compared to DnD. In the one instance I played DnD I was surprised that on one hand the amount of feats in DnD (or better Pathfinder) was just unbelievable. Meanwhile the fighting and Skill system of DnD compared to DSA is... pretty simple.
What I like about DSA is that most areas of expertise have three angles from which you can approach to be good at them, leading to a lot of different character concepts working:
1. High attributes 2. High Skillspoints 3. Advantages and feats

An example for "Interaction talents", the mentioned Charisma stuff.
1. You can be really good at interaction because you have incredibly good attributes (say CH 20, IN[tuition] 18). Since all Interaction skills include CH at least once and most also IN you have a high chance of success when probing skills, even if you don't have much skill points. This would be the "naturally gifted" face-Character.
2. You can be really good because while not being beautiful or sympathetic, you have learned and trained to interact with others. If all your Skills are at 15+ it doesn't matter (that much) if your CH is realitivly low. This might be a singer or minstrel for example who - while nothing special in appearance (CH) has learned for decades how to talk to people and win a crowd
3. You can (bought for by generation points or XP) have advantages like "beautiful" (which gives a flat out bonus to all interaction talents when interacting with people with the same beauty standards), "social adaptability" (which lessens or even removes penalties you usually get for interacting with different cultures, social classes or species) or "noble" (which causes commonfolk to be much more inclined to treat you with respect) or connections (which gives you a person or a group that is more or less inclined to do you favors, regardless of your talent in social skills). This can be the stunningly beautiful actress with a band of fans and a well meaning mentor and sponsor.

Of course the best face character covers all three angles, but the interesting thing is that you are free to build characters with ability profiles that are not forced to be typical for their intended role (Especially because skill points are the most cost effective route). You can have a fat, unattractive bard or a veteran with an ugly scar all through his face and still be the one in the group that is best at talking with people



Regarding Fighters it is similar: Damage is increased by high Strength and Dexterity values, based on the weapon class (for example Hammers almost exclusively over Strenght, daggers almost exclusively over Dex, Swords are more or less balanced). Meanwhile some fighter feats allow to increase dice rolls based on high Deftness (turn a rolled one into a two etc., If you are really good you can basically turn every dice roll for damage into a 6). You can also be a great fighter by having very high Intuition (which allows you to act first and gives free attacks if the enemy botches a roll) high CON (which allows you to wear much stronger armor and use some very strong maneuvres several times per fight, while others can use them once at best) or high Courage (allowing for special maneuvres including dictating your enemies movement during the fight like force him towards a wall or a cliff)
Again: even with low Strength and/or Dex you can still be the best fighter out there.

Has the Three Threes from the Noun: the Adverbening RPG series of series (...White Wolf?) been brought up yet?

It is possibly my favorite, conceptually.

It basically breaks stats into three categories of three - physical, mental, and social categories, each subdivided into Power, Finesse, and Resistance subcategories.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Has the Three Threes from the Noun: the Adverbening RPG series of series (...White Wolf?) been brought up yet?

It is possibly my favorite, conceptually.

It basically breaks stats into three categories of three - physical, mental, and social categories, each subdivided into Power, Finesse, and Resistance subcategories.

You just beat me to it!

Mongoose Traveller uses a similar array:

STR, DEX, END (endurance), INT, EDU (education) and SOC (social standing).

One nice trick is uses is recording 'damage' as reduction to those stats - and hence reducing associated bonus or increasing associated penalty. It's an elegant way to make wounds more than just a dent in 'generic bucket of hit points' - since any wound must by default be a penalty to one of your physical characteristics.


Legend of the Five Rings has a rather odd set of stats - Fire, Water, Earth, Air, Void.

Rather than a 'thing' they more represent an 'adjective'.

Air is used with martial arts melee when fighting evasively, but it's also used with courtesy when lying - or with sentiment to spot someone lying to you. It's used with artisan skills to refine something to precise and perfect quality.

Fire is by comparison aggressive and passionate - good for rallying a terrified army or an all-out attack with a sword, bad for delicate diplomacy or sneaking undetected through the forest.

It's an odd system but it works well because it means there's no real 'dump stat' for a given player archetype - a player can focus on one or two stats but whether they're a courtier or a warrior they'll regularly find themselves wishing they had a higher rank in [something].

It also means that it's a lot easier for someone to contribute a bit; even if your hulking samurai warrior has no courtesy skill, the fact you have earth 4 means you can still be a quietly intimidating/reassuring presence in a lord's court, and at least achieve *something* in checks in intrigue scenes even if you're not as good as the professional diplomats, whilst the high air-rank courtier may not be a duellist but is at least pretty good at not getting herself killed.

There are a few systems that separate the ability stats one that stands out us Anima which has agility and Dexterity. Dexterity is to do with attacking and parry defense Stat as well as skills such as slight of hand etc and Agility is to do with the dodge defense Stat (both have strengths and weaknesses) as well as acrobatics and those skills. I liked it a lot. Anima also separates the Charisma and appearance stats the higher your appearance the bigger modifier you get to your social Stat on top of what you get from your charisma stat. I liked that too. So much so I sorta stole it for my RPG based in my Angaran Chronicles RPG where it was a positive trait rather than a stat. 'Beautiful' being rhe trait. Having traits a bit like that was also ripped off Anima too you get a certain native points and you gain more to spend on positive traits if you buy more negative or stronger negative traits.

My cousin is currently running a P&P RPG of a system he made with no native traits just skills and stuff. I was at first skeptical but after some tweaking and sessions I've turned around towards it.

Yeah the longer I have been playing and the more I get into smaller tighter systems the more I am all for minimalist approach. Not necessarily rules lite. But that each thing there needs to serve a purpose in the design that isn't just valuable in and of itself but a multiplier in the greater whole. Depth of mechanics is whats really attracting me these days.

On the surface more attributes and more granularity looks good. But then how much time at the table is spent in the added complexity? Even if it's an additional second each time the seconds add up.

I find most games have way too many attributes and skills beyond what is strictly needed to make the game function.

Stripping down is hard though, and I am a sucker for a huge skill list!

Like I said, Attributes to me are as simple as Physical, Mental, and Social. Skills on the other hand can get out of hand fast, so you need to keep a tight control on the skill list as well.

The fundamental question of an RPG is if I do X, am I successful? Therefore, the question in my mind is how Attributes/Skills map to the mechanics for resolving success/failure. To me, the only rules that matter in an RPG is the success/failure mechanics. The rest are just window dressing, or add-on tot he depth of how to answer this fundamental question.