Stats. Hate them ? Love them ? Think they can be better ? Or an outdated concept ?

[MNblockhead]

Most games I've seen that have no, or which greatly minimize the importance of, stats are games with radically different mechanics like Dread, Grin, and A Thousand and One Nights. They tend to be very heavy on the RPG and shared story-telling. I like them for the occasional one-off, but I nothing draws me in like more "traditional" RPGs where I roll up a character and develop it over time.

As for stat games, I'm fine with D&D as is. But I also like playing games where you build up your own skill trees via points. They allow for much greater customization of your character.

 

[Blue]

Ability scores are a useful tool in RPG design. With how important they have been to D&D they had been copied as a successful design pattern by a lot of RPGs, though that changed as RPG design matured.

I'd say now that it depends a lot on the type of RPG. Not all need to be able to look at a set number of defined categories to show neutral, weak good, weak bad, and strong good. Some more focus on just where the characters are extraordinary, either good or bad, or have a more freeform system.

FATE for instance with it's Aspects can encompass where characters are different from the norm in what are usually rated with ability scores, but also cover a lot more. On the other hand, there are no small adjustments on being a bit more agile or weaker of willpower - that system focuses on more central to the character changes only.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I have played and GMed games with as few as three stats (appropriately the system is named Tri-Stat originating from BESM) to as many as 10. In AD&D 2E I sometimes used the Player's and DM's Option books which further broke down the stats so D&D PO characters effectively had 18 stats.

I don't like calling a Stat "Intelligence", especially after reading about the Nine Intelligences, and seeing too many people who think IQ is a valid measure of overall intelligence. Better names are "Memory" (World Tree), and "Reasoning" (HARP/Rolemaster). Even "Wisdom" has some better names in other systems, such as "Insight" (HARP/RM), or "Wits" (World Tree, which breaks Wisdom into "Wits" and "Will").

I have yet to see an effectively statless system that appeals to me, of course that's personal opinion.

 

[Nagol]

Stats are a mechanical representation of designer purpose.

More than how a character is seen, they should represent what a character can do inside the game/world.

As a mechanical expression, there is no right way for a game to use stats other than meeting the design goals for the game/model. Stats systems are only "wrong" when they fail to match the expressed designer intention.

How many stats should be in play and how (or even if) they are codified depends on the designer vision and play expectations. Comparing expected stats between game systems can help divine where the designer expectations differ and how the systems are likely to differ in play.

 

[Richards]

One can be wise without being intelligent, and intelligent but unwise. So I think that's perfectly fine.

My favorite differentiation between the two is as follows:

Intelligence is knowing that the tomato is a fruit.

Wisdom is not putting any tomatoes in your fruit salad.​

Johnathan

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Stats seem to be at the center of most rpgs, but do we need them ? Are they important to how a character is " seen " or is it something we keep carrying on from other roleplaying systems because that is what we have always done. Can they be better ? I'm not looking at any one system to change but wondering what your feelings on stats are.

thanks all !!!

These are the right questions.

I think you can do systems without them...but much like some of the other responses, I haven't found any that appeal to me.

I think it is because it is natural for people to unconsciously (or consciously) rate other people in personal characteristics. We are aware of how physical, brainy, charming, etc people are, and it informs how we feel about them, how we interact with them, what we expect of them, etc.

While mechanical implementation can be done in a variety of ways, if it isn't there, the system seems hollow in some ways. Let's say you have a system where you only define your character in terms of specific words you ascribe to them, with no standard attributes. Okay, it seems cool as far as it goes. It highlights what you feel is important about that character. But if you like to really get into character and project yourself into the fiction in a first person sort of way and want to have your character "look around" so to speak, you are going to want to know what certain other characters are like in standard ways. Does the system just assume that everyone without a particular descriptor such as "Strong as an ox" or "atheletic and graceful" is unremarkable? Or is it something that is to be made up on the spot, but has no mechanical influence on the system since it isn't a formal character trait? I get the feeling that the philosophy of such games tends to be, "you're focusing on the wrong thing if you're worrying about that"...which tells me that while that system might be fun for a fling, I'm unlikely to form a lasting relationship with such a game.

So, unlike many other remnants of early game design, I think stats are actually very valuable elements and I can't come up with a better alternative.

The trick is to figure out what sorts of stats work for your game. Some games like to ditch the ability score sorts and go only with skills. Others like to do both but have them take up the same design space. So you have Strength and you have Wrestling, but you never use more than one stat for anything--it's your ability score and skill all rolled into one. Personally, I really like the very common innate trait (ability score) + acquired capabilities (skills) methodology. It feels pretty true to real life experience. We talk about people with talent and no skill, or those without talent who become very skillful, etc.

One thing that is worth mentioning for purposes of design is that the relative mechanical prominence that you give to such factors will determine part of how characters are perceived of, and how they interact with the world. If innate traits increase your effectiveness more than acquired capabilities, the system is going to subtly encourage focusing on who you are rather than what you do, and vice versa. If you have a lot of traits, it is going to give you the impression of a highly structured system with stronger limits on your character (more defined traits means more things to not be good in), while a system with only a few traits encourages more improvisation and implies you might be accomplished in broad categories.

Another thing is that the choices of what traits a system uses highly flavors your system. Just think about how different systems do it and you'll get the idea. Even the names for essentially the same traits can have a psychological impact on the players.

So you should probably start by asking what experience you want to create, and then considering how different stats would be contributive or detrimental to that experience.

So, like I said, these are the right questions!

 

[Lastoutkast]

These are the right questions.

I think you can do systems without them...but much like some of the other responses, I haven't found any that appeal to me.

I think it is because it is natural for people to unconsciously (or consciously) rate other people in personal characteristics. We are aware of how physical, brainy, charming, etc people are, and it informs how we feel about them, how we interact with them, what we expect of them, etc.

While mechanical implementation can be done in a variety of ways, if it isn't there, the system seems hollow in some ways. Let's say you have a system where you only define your character in terms of specific words you ascribe to them, with no standard attributes. Okay, it seems cool as far as it goes. It highlights what you feel is important about that character. But if you like to really get into character and project yourself into the fiction in a first person sort of way and want to have your character "look around" so to speak, you are going to want to know what certain other characters are like in standard ways. Does the system just assume that everyone without a particular descriptor such as "Strong as an ox" or "atheletic and graceful" is unremarkable? Or is it something that is to be made up on the spot, but has no mechanical influence on the system since it isn't a formal character trait? I get the feeling that the philosophy of such games tends to be, "you're focusing on the wrong thing if you're worrying about that"...which tells me that while that system might be fun for a fling, I'm unlikely to form a lasting relationship with such a game.

So, unlike many other remnants of early game design, I think stats are actually very valuable elements and I can't come up with a better alternative.

The trick is to figure out what sorts of stats work for your game. Some games like to ditch the ability score sorts and go only with skills. Others like to do both but have them take up the same design space. So you have Strength and you have Wrestling, but you never use more than one stat for anything--it's your ability score and skill all rolled into one. Personally, I really like the very common innate trait (ability score) + acquired capabilities (skills) methodology. It feels pretty true to real life experience. We talk about people with talent and no skill, or those without talent who become very skillful, etc.

One thing that is worth mentioning for purposes of design is that the relative mechanical prominence that you give to such factors will determine part of how characters are perceived of, and how they interact with the world. If innate traits increase your effectiveness more than acquired capabilities, the system is going to subtly encourage focusing on who you are rather than what you do, and vice versa. If you have a lot of traits, it is going to give you the impression of a highly structured system with stronger limits on your character (more defined traits means more things to not be good in), while a system with only a few traits encourages more improvisation and implies you might be accomplished in broad categories.

Another thing is that the choices of what traits a system uses highly flavors your system. Just think about how different systems do it and you'll get the idea. Even the names for essentially the same traits can have a psychological impact on the players.

So you should probably start by asking what experience you want to create, and then considering how different stats would be contributive or detrimental to that experience.

So, like I said, these are the right questions!

Awesome advise. Thank you !

 

[Sunseeker]

Stats are important as long as you want a concrete mechanical resolution to in-game problems. If you're not overly concerned with if the player actually can hit an AC of 0, then the only thing that matters is if the description of the attack is worthy of success.

 

[was]

..I'm fine with the stats the way they are, but I do see the argument for adding one or two more.

 

[MNblockhead]

..I'm fine with the stats the way they are, but I do see the argument for adding one or two more.

The only stat I've thought off adding to my DnD 5e game is Sanity. I used it for one session. It worked well and was fun, but I didn't feel compelled to keep using it for the entire campaign. I think it works best for specific sessions or environments.

If I run Curse of Straud, I might use the optional Sanity rules provided in the DMG. My concern is that that it could be frustrating for players who roll poorly and get stuck with being mad.