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 Or an outdated concept ?

[Lastoutkast]

Couldn't something that describes my character fulfill the mechanical need, and also provide me with something more evocative?

Thats what I'm looking for.

 

[artikid]

I like stats, but I think they are not really needed.

 

[Lorrdyn]

Lastoutkast: I would shamelessly self-promote my game as accomplishing this, but I suspect you're looking for something that works in your current favorite game system. I'd say that it's possible to do with other games, but with most systems, it's difficult to implement this because the rules either specifically require hard stats, or they allow players to have almost no limits (like FATE). I would be willing to try to hack a game to accomplish it though!

 

[Lylandra]

I still find it interesting how different people's experience is with D&D's mental stats. Intelligence is one that some people talk about as rarely coming up in action resolution, whereas it is one of the stats that comes up most often in the exploration pillar in my group (as knowledge checks). Charisma is another one of those. In my game it most often comes up in passively determining how other people respond to your presence. We have some high Charisma characters in our current group, and I describe how they tend to catch people's attention just by being around, whereas I rarely mention that with regards to the average Cha character. I also use it to inform my role-playing of NPC interactions. I rarely use it in checks with dice, but it definitely influences the play experience, and having it there informs how I run the world. By contrast, when my friend runs he asks for Charisma checks all the time when we interact with NPCs.

I wish my DM would do that :/
I definitely use the combination of character description, demeanor and charisma for a general NPC attitude towards a character. And a charming, handsome bastard can generally get away with more mischief than a numb-looking brute.

Anyway, mental stats are (maybe historically) a tough subject in RPGs. Especially when you tend to play roleplay-heavy and resolve most stuff in character. The problem that can arise with mental stats is that you, as a player, don't have the same mental setup as your character. For physical (or even social) stats it doesn't matter that you are, say, a 1,60m, 60 kg frail guy with bad health in real life, you can still convincingly play a 2m tall, muscle-bound barbarian. Even if you are no Miss Universe, you can still imagine playing a character with a maxed out beauty stat. Even if you have a bad relationship to your peers, you can still play a character whose "relationship to highschool friends" stats is high (didn't BESM have such a stat?).

But if I was a player who is only of average intelligence (most of us are), who isn't particularly wise or philosophical or empathic or who is rather shy, playing a character with a strong corresponding mental stat is tough. Especially when you don't simply want to roll dice and have the DM tell you that you succeeded in negotiating a delicate deal between two warring duchies. Or to romance the NPC you are interested in. Or to solve a puzzle.
It may be even tougher on the other end of the spectrum: when it comes to bad mental stats. In my experience, many players simply ignore their character's "mental dump stat". They may have an int score below average, yet still toss foreign words around as if they were nothing, employ their usual quick-thinking and engage normally in int-based problem solving because they, the players, (rightfully?) want to partake in it. Low-cha character players still interact the same with NPC when it comes to information gathering etc. Whereas everyone generally accepts that a low-str character deals less melee damage and a low-con character has less HP than an average char.

 

[pemerton]

Do you have any examples of a game that didn't need a particular stat, but included it anyway?

Memory is not all that necessary in Rolemaster; and Empathy and Intution can easily be run together. In HARP, which is something like a "lite" RM variant, ME is not there and EM and IN are combined into Insight.

Combining STR and CON in D&D would be one way of trying to make fighter-types, especially melee fighter types, more viable vis-a-vis casters.

 

[pemerton]

it isn't about how much it matters in the fiction, it is more about having a touchstone for relevant task resolution.

<snip>

if there is something that is a normal part of the human experience, and descriptors for it aren't standardized in some manner such that everyone has one and their quality can be compared against others, you find yourself in situations where three characters exist, one of which is called out as "Strong as an ox on steroids", while the other two have nothing that mentions how strong they are.

If two D&D PCs play chess, who wins? The same one who wins bridge? And finishes the crossword first? And is more likely to know the flight speed of a swallow?

All RPG mechanics generalise, or lump things together. In OtE and HW/Q there is a default basis for checks (as I said, from memory it is 2D in OtE). In MHRP there dice pool will have components from other traits (eg affiliation and distinction at a minimum).

I think there is a risk of taking D&D-style stat systems and projecting them onto the "real world" of the fiction without thinking it through. I mean, in real life many people can run faster than other people - in D&D they all have the same speed (unless monks or barbarians). How do we find out whose faster in D&D? Do we just accept that the mechanics don't give us a simple answer?

The same for strength in a descriptor-based game.

 

[sim-h]

How do we find out whose faster in D&D? Do we just accept that the mechanics don't give us a simple answer?

The simple answer in the case of D&D would probably be an Athletics check....

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If two D&D PCs play chess, who wins? The same one who wins bridge? And finishes the crossword first? And is more likely to know the flight speed of a swallow?

Fifth edition actually does address that, by separating out gaming proficiencies between different types. All else being equal, the winner at chess will be the one who is Proficient with a chess set, and the winner at bridge will be the one Proficient with cards.

The only time you end up with the high-Int character winning every game is when nobody is Proficient, in which case that character picks up the rules and strategies more quickly. It's a scenario which I'm sure many on this board are familiar with.

 

[pemerton]

The simple answer in the case of D&D would probably be an Athletics check....

But does that mean that the relative speeds change all the time? Or we do one check and it stands forever (I think that would be a new rule?) And why STR and not DEX, which traditionally has been the stat for speed?

I don't think that D&D handles this very well - it's not a game that models running races.

 

[Ratskinner]

Combining STR and CON in D&D would be one way of trying to make fighter-types, especially melee fighter types, more viable vis-a-vis casters.

I've often thought D&D could have just a "Might" stat that covered the two of them.