Saturday Morning Adventure Dev Diaries #3: Character Attributes
Hey all, in this Saturday Morning Adventure development diary I discuss the use of character attributes in RPGs, and attempt to decide on a set of attributes for characters in SMA.
First of all, I should probably clarify what I mean when I say "attribute" here. It's a fairly common and intuitive term in RPGs but for the sake of avoiding any ambiguity let's give it a solid definition regardless. I'm using the same definition put forward in the Fudge RPG system - an attribute is some trait that is shared by all the actors within the game world. So in D&D your "attributes" are your ability scores, for example.
The use of narrative attributes tends to skew a game towards more free-form roleplaying, and I do think that's great but it's pretty clearly not the right fit for what I want to make SMA. In my opinion it also tends to increase how setting-dependent a game is and trades off some of the "gameyness" for the increased free-form roleplaying, both of which aren't what I'm going for with SMA.
I think choosing the right set of attributes for SMA is probably one of the more important decisions when designing the game, since typically they're a part of the game that is usually difficult to remove when homebrewing. For example, in D&D you could pretty easily remove a class you don't like, but removing one of the 6 ability scores would require a lot of work since they have so many dependencies throughout the rules. To me, this means that the core set of attributes has to be, well, good. And this is compounded by the fact that I want SMA to be setting-neutral - I can't include any stats that would feel out of place in certain settings. Lucky for me, there's plenty of other tabletop games out there that have already done this, so I've got a fairly easy ride. Let's start off with the attributes I would consider to be obvious picks for the game. Oh, and I should probably mention here, but where possible I'll be referring to attributes using the name given to their closest analogue in D&D 5e, for ease of reading.
The first point I just flat disagree with. Angry states "...you can’t come up with ideas and connections you can’t come up with." But this just makes me ask "so what ideas exactly can't I come up with". And this may just be my own uninformed personal perspective on human intelligence, but I tend to think that anyone can have a certain idea given enough time. That's certainly been my own experience in academics. Sure someone more intelligent will probably do it faster, but this is roleplaying, baby, we got time. Now I'll leave it at that and move on, I'm not trying to convince anyone here, just explaining my perspective.
The second point also doesn't convince me, but I guess I could see something like it happening, maybe if you've got some contrary lads at your table. Yeah the idea of being told "isn't your character too smart to do that" or something similar sounds pretty annoying, however I think a lot of these kinda questions mostly come when someone is trying to be bothersome. The choices someone makes aren't solely determined by their rational mind, there's tonnes of other factors that I'm sure you can think of yourself. Done with this point.
The final point is that nobody wants to use intelligence is made in specific reference to puzzles. The general statement is that making an intelligence roll to either circumvent a puzzle or recieve a hint is an unapealling option. I can certainly see the case here, but I also do think that it's an issue that is different person to person. More of a roleplaying style issue than an intrinsic issue with the attribute. Are you at the table to be your character as closely as possible, or are you there to watch them and give them some guidance? Are you inserting yourself into the narrative, or co-writing a story with your friends? I really do think both of these broad approaches to roleplaying are valid in their own way, and of course if you are trying to embody your character as much as possible you probably don't want to make a roll to see if they can figure something out. But people can make this choice for themselves. An intelligence stat is in.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm taking a break from Modern Manual content until June due to university work, so until then these dev diaries are gonna dominate the blog. The next dev diary is probably going to be about the skill system I've mentioned so many times today already, but I also have some thoughts about the implementation of magic into Saturday Morning Adventure so I guess the next post will just be whichever idea crystallises first. Or there's this other, slightly vaguer idea I have for a post which might never get past the idle thoughts stage. Who knows. Not me! Whatever the next post is, I hope to see you then!
The Angry GM articles regarding issues with ability scores:
First of all, I should probably clarify what I mean when I say "attribute" here. It's a fairly common and intuitive term in RPGs but for the sake of avoiding any ambiguity let's give it a solid definition regardless. I'm using the same definition put forward in the Fudge RPG system - an attribute is some trait that is shared by all the actors within the game world. So in D&D your "attributes" are your ability scores, for example.
Objective Attributes vs Narrative Attributes
Before getting into my plans for SMA, I wanted to briefly mention the main two "styles" of character attrbutes in RPGs. Most mainstream RPGs use some form of what I'm calling "objective" attributes. Objective attributes describe something solid and measurable about a character - strength, intelligence, speed, etc. However, some RPGs rely on "narrative" attributes, which as you might expect describe something about an actor narratively. Narrative attribute systems tend to be used in less "serious" RPGs in my experience, such as the fun single-page RPG "Lasers and Feelings", where characters have a single stat that puts them somewhere on the spectrum between Lasers and Feelings.The use of narrative attributes tends to skew a game towards more free-form roleplaying, and I do think that's great but it's pretty clearly not the right fit for what I want to make SMA. In my opinion it also tends to increase how setting-dependent a game is and trades off some of the "gameyness" for the increased free-form roleplaying, both of which aren't what I'm going for with SMA.
I think choosing the right set of attributes for SMA is probably one of the more important decisions when designing the game, since typically they're a part of the game that is usually difficult to remove when homebrewing. For example, in D&D you could pretty easily remove a class you don't like, but removing one of the 6 ability scores would require a lot of work since they have so many dependencies throughout the rules. To me, this means that the core set of attributes has to be, well, good. And this is compounded by the fact that I want SMA to be setting-neutral - I can't include any stats that would feel out of place in certain settings. Lucky for me, there's plenty of other tabletop games out there that have already done this, so I've got a fairly easy ride. Let's start off with the attributes I would consider to be obvious picks for the game. Oh, and I should probably mention here, but where possible I'll be referring to attributes using the name given to their closest analogue in D&D 5e, for ease of reading.
Strength/Might/Muscle
Strength is possibly the most obvious go-to stat for a game like SMA. Need to break something or move something? Strength. Strength covers a wide array of methods that characters can interact with the world physically, and I can see no good reason why I would try to work out a better option when it just works. Which leads on to the next attribute quite nicely...
Dexterity/Agility/Finesse/Deftness
Dexterity covers speed, reflexes, balance and all the rest of the typical physical sklls associated with it. Again, like Strength I don't really see any reason to change this stat in a major way compared to its implementation in other RPGs like D&D. The only suggestion I've seen regarding a change to Dexterity would be splitting it up into deftness and agility. While I do see the argument here, I don't think the benefits of having these attributes separate outweighs the cost of having another score to keep track of and incorporate into the rules, at least not in most settings.
Strength and Dexterity are the attributes I've seen people have broadly no problems with, at least on the conceptual level - Dexterity is the much-maligned overpowered stat of D&D 5e after all. However, all the rest of the attributes I'm going to mention have some sort of controversial aspect I've heard complaits about, which I plan to address as I talk about them. I'll be totally frank here, I learned about most of the issues regarding the next few stats from The Angry GM on their blog, where Angry discusses the flaws in the ability score system of D&D 5e. That is to say, they aren't necessarily issues I or my players have experienced first-hand, but I think discussing them within the broader context of game design is worthwhile. I'll do my best to summarise Angry's main points here briefly, but I have provided links to some articles relating to the issues they put forward are given at the end of this post, which I fully recommend to anyone interested in the original design of the ability check system way back in D&D 3rd Edition, or RPG design in general.
Constitution/Resilience/Endurance
The complaints regarding Constitution as a stat are in my opinion relatively minor, but they seem worth mentioning nonetheless. The main gripe I've heard (specifically in relation to Constitution in D&D 5e) is that Constitution is just a passive attribute, an actor can't really do anything with Constitution. It has no skills associated with it, and its main impact of affecting hit points is already influenced heavily by class and level. I don't think this is a particularly worrisome issue regarding the stat in SMA for two major reasons.
Firstly, this is something specific to D&D 5e in my opinion, and even in 5e there is an option presented to use the stat in an active manner. I can't remember the specifics or be bothered to look it up, but somewhere in either the Player's Handbook or the Dungeon Master's Guide a rule is presented that allows ability checks with skill proficiencies to be used with an ability score that isn't the standard. I think the example given is using the character's Athletics skill with their Constitution modifier to successfully swim a long distance. Now I do also think this "decoupling" of ability scores and skills should be the standard rather than the exception, but I'm getting ahead of myself. I'll save that for the Dev Diary on my plans for the skill system.
Secondly, I don't think having a mostly passive attribute is necessarily a bad thing. I think the argument is stronger in D&D 5e where the main thing governed by Constitution - hit points - is also influenced significantly by your class. Having a more passive attribute that influences a lot of the game more indirectly isn't exactly the most interesting possibility, but it sure can make the game run a lot smoother when used well throughout the rules.
So in summary, a Constitution-equivalent stat is in, but I'm definitely going to keep an eye on how it interacts with the rules to try to minimise this issue wherever possible.
Charisma/Charm/Allure
Angry presents two major arguments against having Charisma as a stat. The first is more of an issue with the culture around the game, and the way people think about the stat. A lot of people treat Charisma more as a "likeability" stat, and GMs typically expect more from a player when they try to use their character's charisma compared to other stats, often expecting them to act out how they use the stat rather than just letting them say "I want to persuade this person" in the way they might say "I want to break down the door".
Now I personally can't attest to having experienced these issues to any great extent personally - perhaps thats the great upside to teaching myself D&D from books? However, it's certainly something I've seen plenty of in actual-play podcasts and the like. Personally, I don't think this issue is too big, especially when I have the opportunity to consider these potential pitfalls when writing the attributes section of SMA.
The second issue put forth by Angry is much more severe. By placing the vast majority of social interaction under a a single ability score, it both dumbs down social interactions within the game and serves to gate off social interaction somewhat. Someone can't engage in an debate using their intelligence. Someone can't use their physical strength to threaten someone. And so on. As I mentioned in the section on Constitution, there is a rule in 5e to do stuff like this, but it isn't the standard rule and thats a significant issue that needs to be addressed. I also have further thoughts to expand on this idea in SMA, which I'll go into in the dev diary on skills. So in summary, a Charisma stat is in but I'll expand on how I think it can be made better later on.
Intelligence/Smarts/Wit
Now intelligence as a stat is a key area where I actually disagree with a lot of Angry's assertions - I know right, shocker. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Angry argues that intelligence as a stat doesn't work because it is impossible to roleplay a character smarter than you, it leads to arguments about how people are allowed to roleplay their character, and a lot of the time almost nobody wants to use it.The first point I just flat disagree with. Angry states "...you can’t come up with ideas and connections you can’t come up with." But this just makes me ask "so what ideas exactly can't I come up with". And this may just be my own uninformed personal perspective on human intelligence, but I tend to think that anyone can have a certain idea given enough time. That's certainly been my own experience in academics. Sure someone more intelligent will probably do it faster, but this is roleplaying, baby, we got time. Now I'll leave it at that and move on, I'm not trying to convince anyone here, just explaining my perspective.
The second point also doesn't convince me, but I guess I could see something like it happening, maybe if you've got some contrary lads at your table. Yeah the idea of being told "isn't your character too smart to do that" or something similar sounds pretty annoying, however I think a lot of these kinda questions mostly come when someone is trying to be bothersome. The choices someone makes aren't solely determined by their rational mind, there's tonnes of other factors that I'm sure you can think of yourself. Done with this point.
The final point is that nobody wants to use intelligence is made in specific reference to puzzles. The general statement is that making an intelligence roll to either circumvent a puzzle or recieve a hint is an unapealling option. I can certainly see the case here, but I also do think that it's an issue that is different person to person. More of a roleplaying style issue than an intrinsic issue with the attribute. Are you at the table to be your character as closely as possible, or are you there to watch them and give them some guidance? Are you inserting yourself into the narrative, or co-writing a story with your friends? I really do think both of these broad approaches to roleplaying are valid in their own way, and of course if you are trying to embody your character as much as possible you probably don't want to make a roll to see if they can figure something out. But people can make this choice for themselves. An intelligence stat is in.
Wisdom
Wisdom is a bad stat. It's definition is fuzzy. Fuzzy enough that you can read through loads of discussions online arguing the the difference between Wisdom and Intelligence in D&D. Wisdom is out. Well not quite, it's more getting a retooling and a fresh coat of paint as...Perception/Awareness
I was on the fence about whether or not to include this as an attribute or leave it as a skill, but I think it's potential applications merit it a spot. I think it may be useful as a sort of halfway point between including a "Deftness" stat like I mentioned in the section on Dexterity, with Perception playing a role in small, "fiddly" skills like lockpicking and fine crafts - an idea I am, of course, shamelessly stealing from the Fallout games. And hey, if it doesn't work out I can always scrap it later on, right?
Well that covers what I think of the stats in D&D 5e, and how they might fit into SMA. Now at this point you may be dissapointed that I seem to be sticking more or less to the 6 stats that are so common in modern RPGs, albeit with some design considerations for the future and a new costume here and there. But fret not. I'm not quite done yet.
Size/Stature
The first additional stat I'm thinking about adding is inspired by the RPG Runequest, in which all creatures have a Size stat. In Runequest, this stat plays a significant role in determining damage and hit points. Honestly, my main draw to this attribute is the potential for ease of making monsters using it, though perhaps that shouldn't be the main priority when designing an attribute set. I'm also concerned that it would end up being kind of a background stat that is never used, even more so than Constitution in D&D 5e. For now, I'm going to say it has a provisional place in the SMA attributes list, and let's just see how it goes from there.
Willpower
The second, and currently final, additional stat I am considering for an illustrious position on the list of attributes for SMA: Willpower. Or possibly just Will. Who knows. Willpower would serve to pick up some of the fuzzy edge cases that are often associated with Wisdom in D&D, mainly being the use of magic and resisting/enforcing certain mental effects. As with Size, I have concerns about including this stat too, with my main worry being that it would end up being too reaction-based and would struggle to have a strong identity of its own. Like size, it has a provisional place.
So where does that leave us, exactly?
Gosh, this post really got away from me. My initial plan was to spend the first half of it breifly going over a list of attributes, and then moving on to whether having only roll modifiers would be best or if including an initial score from which the modifiers are derived would be more descriptive/useful. Honestly, reading into The Angry GM's articles on the topic of ability scores inspired me to consider the attributes that would be used by the game more carefully. So of cy the blame for how meandering and rambly this post is squarely at their feet. I'll probably go back over the design I have planned for a lot of these attributes when I inevitably do a dev diary on my ideas for the skill system in SMA.
So the provisional attribute list at this stage is: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Size*, Intelligence, Perception*, Charisma, Willpower*.
Oh and one final thing I should mention: if you don't think I'm going to unnecessarily rename the attributes in SMA to fit what I'm used to seeing in JRPGs, you have severely overestimated my restraint.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm taking a break from Modern Manual content until June due to university work, so until then these dev diaries are gonna dominate the blog. The next dev diary is probably going to be about the skill system I've mentioned so many times today already, but I also have some thoughts about the implementation of magic into Saturday Morning Adventure so I guess the next post will just be whichever idea crystallises first. Or there's this other, slightly vaguer idea I have for a post which might never get past the idle thoughts stage. Who knows. Not me! Whatever the next post is, I hope to see you then!
The Angry GM articles regarding issues with ability scores:
Comments
Post a Comment