Abilities scores for an universtal system.

[Tonguez]

Let's say Int is about logic, calculating, learning and remembering, and Wisdow is more the good sense, good judment, wit, being sensible or prudent, self-control, psychological maturity and resistance against mental stress and sanity against madness. With Int you can the best way to earn money, but with Wis is about the best way to spend and manage it.

And I have said my goal is a d20 system variant easy to be used and comfortable for players and 3rd party publishers. I have suggested some attribute are optional, even only used by a PC but not for the rest of the group (for example Technique or Spirit). And I also I have suggested some attributes would be only substats, working as bonus feats, for example appearance.

What about adding Acuity (Perception + Astuteness) and Courage as two new abilities scores? They could be suggested in some future UA articles about modules or optional rules.

The problem with Wisdom is not how its defined but rather what it does in game. What are the mechanics of rolling a prudence or maturity check? ie When confronted with an in game choice what does prudence actually do for a character? (The same question applies to Courage really).

Can you give any examples of use?

 

[dave2008]

I'll give you Willpower as distinct, but between Intelligence and Wisdom, which one is entirely irrelevant when it comes to providing first aid? Or surgery? Is this something that a feral child, literally raised by wolves, would be good at? Or is it the domain of the ivory tower scholar, who has read a million books, and has no practical experience?

But I feel that is true for the other stats, if to a lesser degree. Is CON all you need to resist poison, no STR helps too. Is Dexterity all I need for acrobatics, no STR helps too. Is STR all that is need to grapple, no DEX helps too.

That is why I prefer a tiered system, something like Fortitude, Reflex, Will & STR, CON, DEX, INT, WIS, CHA

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Wisdom to notice when somebody is trying emotional manipulation, or an intuition check and then the DM warns the player is just to do something really stupid, focus and concentration, for self-control checks (but fear, here we would use Courage), and better defense against mental damage by madness. In some cases DM could allow Wis instead Int for skill checks about knownlegde.

 

[Anoth]

But I feel that is true for the other stats, if to a lesser degree. Is CON all you need to resist poison, no STR helps too. Is Dexterity all I need for acrobatics, no STR helps too. Is STR all that is need to grapple, no DEX helps too.

That is why I prefer a tiered system, something like Fortitude, Reflex, Will & STR, CON, DEX, INT, WIS, CHA

This really makes me think why we need to go to a percentile skill system and not shoehorn everything into a universal mechanic. The ability scores would just be a modifier like in the 2E thief skills. For example climbing or athletics could be dex+strength percent chance of success initially. And each level you get so many points to distribute. And that way a person without super high ability scores could still get good in a skill and at the same time those ability scores are good for helping you get started on those skills.

 

[Tonguez]

This really makes me think why we need to go to a percentile skill system and not shoehorn everything into a universal mechanic. The ability scores would just be a modifier like in the 2E thief skills. For example climbing or athletics could be dex+strength percent chance of success initially. And each level you get so many points to distribute. And that way a person without super high ability scores could still get good in a skill and at the same time those ability scores are good for helping you get started on those skills.

Before 3e came out I was doing a % based homebrew system where Attributes were based on 2d10 and SKills were derived from them thus

Str+ Con = Athletics
Str+Dex = Agility
Dex + Wis = Precision
Int + WIs = Education
Wis*+ Int = Perception
Wis + Cha = Persuasion
Wis + Cha = WIllpower

You'll see that Wisdom became the Uber stat that does too much and that Int + Wis was used twice. I thought then that maybe Perception should become its own Attribute. But the natural progression from there was just to drop the attributes entirely and go straight to Skills

then d20 system came along and I saw oh it is a % based system with 5% steps so I abandoned my attempt...

 

[Anoth]

Before 3e came out I was doing a % based homebrew system where Attributes were based on 2d10 and SKills were derived from them thus

Str+ Con = Athletics
Str+Dex = Agility
Dex + Wis = Precision
Int + WIs = Education
Wis*+ Int = Perception
Wis + Cha = Persuasion
Wis + Cha = WIllpower

You'll see that Wisdom became the Uber stat that does too much and that Int + Wis was used twice. I thought then that maybe Perception should become its own Attribute. But the natural progression from there was just to drop the attributes entirely and go straight to Skills

then d20 system came along and I saw oh it is a % based system with 5% steps so I abandoned my attempt...

Stealth = Dex x 2
Intimidation = charisma + strength
Persuasion = charisma + wisdo
Deception = charisma + intelligence

i would have to get rid of tool proficiencies with this kind of system

 

[Ratskinner]

I get the bolded bit, I think - you're saying that a given character can be moved from drama-ish system to drama-ish system with the attributes being reworked to fit the system without significant loss of character integrity. And you're doubting that it's so easy to do that moving from (say) D&D to GURPS to RQ/BRP to . . . Where I'm getting a bit lost is the stuff about the Hulk and Firefly characters. Is the idea that to make a sim-type system truly universal it has to capture what matters about every arbitrary contrast-pair of characters (because after all in a truly universal system we might want to play any character!) and this is an impossible demand?

Yes. I think that's pretty close to it. Although I would shy away from "impossible" and lean more towards "impractical" or "clunky at best". Which is basically my experience when examining most sim-ish "universal" systems.

I don't think that this is some fundamental weakness of wanting simulationism, either. Fundamentally, its a recognition that different genres have different conventions vis-a-vis the "physics" (to use the term loosely) of the universe in which they take place. This is especially true in genres where the "physics" bends to serve the drama. So it will be very difficult to "sim" a system that can traverse the MCU and hard-core military adventure.

This is why I confined my recommendation of Burning Wheel to mediaeval/fantasy. It has an intersting skirmish system that can handle bows, muskets and lightning bolts but as it stands I don't think it's up for machine guns and enfilading fire. (Whereas Prince Valiant, with some changes to the skill set, might be.)

That said, I think "light"/"drama" engines can still have genre limitations. I suggested that Prince Valiant might be able to do Conan, but I don't think it could do CoC. Nor WWI in (what I would consider) a sufficiently serious way, even though I think it can handle automatic fire and enfilading without a lot of work - it's too light-hearted.

Sure, but that's with one set attribute system. What I was suggesting is that you could mix-n-match attributes as needed. Even if you associate certain moves/triggers/actions (a la Apocalypse World) with certain stats...its an easy task to select from a catalog of such moves to reflect different genres. (Although I would say its non-trivial to develop such a broad set in the first place.)

Of the Cortex+ games the one I know is Marvel Heroic RP. With its stress tracks and complications I think there are also probably limits on how serious it can be. Melodrama, sure, but I don't think it's up for anything really heavy.

I think that that was somewhat intentional on the designers' part. But, drop the Marvel modes and splice in Smallville's values and relationships and you've got a superhero soap-opera....well, another one. In a similar vein, Fate accelerated GMs regularly change their set of modes to better reflect whatever genre they're going for.

Fate is, I think, an interesting case here. Because, out-of-the box, the heroes are supposed to be competent proactive characters...but all the things that mechanically reflect that are either A: not scaled vs. any "reality" other than table agreement, or B: presented as "dials" [e.g. Stress Tracks] that the GM/table can alter to fit mood or purpose. That makes it very hard to "pin down" and nowadays you regularly see disagreement between Fate afficianados over exactly what it can't an can do in various genres.

That's not to say that GURPS is necessarily up for that either. The contrast I'm seeing is with systems like Burning Wheel (real consequences), Apocalypse World and DitV.

Not 100% sure what you mean here.

 

[pemerton]

What I was suggesting is that you could mix-n-match attributes as needed. Even if you associate certain moves/triggers/actions (a la Apocalypse World) with certain stats...its an easy task to select from a catalog of such moves to reflect different genres. (Although I would say its non-trivial to develop such a broad set in the first place.)

In Apocalypse World going aggro is based on Hard, while acting under fire is based on Cool.

Are you envisaging a long list of movews each associated with a particular stat - or are you envisaging changing the state to reflect genres and what is expected to matter in play? The former seems like it might still be genre-limited. The latter seems like we're now setting out a whole design philosphy or approach rather than an actual system. (I would put PbtA - as opposed to any particular PbtA game - in this category.)

drop the Marvel modes and splice in Smallville's values and relationships and you've got a superhero soap-opera....well, another one. In a similar vein, Fate accelerated GMs regularly change their set of modes to better reflect whatever genre they're going for.

This looks like you're describing a meta-system - a basic system structure/framework, with the details to be cashed out based on particular genre.

Not 100% sure what you mean here.

I think that there is a relationship between system/mechanics, and the sort of thematic "heaviness"/"seriousness" that a system can produce/support.

I'm asserting that neither Prince Valiant nor MHRP can handle really serious genre/theme - eg WWI - because of their approach to consequences. Whereas I think BW and AW can handle more serious stuff.

I'm not sure it's easy to explain why, but here's one thought: in Prince Valiant it is always up to the GM to stipulate the consequences of being dropped to zero in Brawn or Presence as a result of conflict. How would the GM, in good faith, stipulate a consequence of (say) drowining in chlorine gas in a shellhole? In MHRP a player has to stipulate a consequence (a complication, or pushing through Stress to Trauma), to bring it about.

Whereas BW puts it much more into the system to produce harsh consequences. And makes it easier for players to put more on the line in their action declarations.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But I feel that is true for the other stats, if to a lesser degree. Is CON all you need to resist poison, no STR helps too. Is Dexterity all I need for acrobatics, no STR helps too. Is STR all that is need to grapple, no DEX helps too.

Look at the extremes. A person who was very robust person, with no arms and no ability to exert force, would be just as resistant to poison as someone who did have massive biceps. People who have high Strength tend to have high Constitution, but they are still very distinct aspects. Likewise, while gymnasts tend to be very strong (for their weight), having extra muscle doesn't actually contribute to swinging on ropes; in fact, the sort of muscle which is associated with high Strength is likely to be a hindrance in many ways.

Grappling is probably the best example of a single-attribute task: You could be grappled by the mechanical arm of a construction crane, with (3E-equivalent) Strength 60 and Dexterity 1, and its lack of dexterity wouldn't make it easier for you to escape.

I guess you could say that it's just a matter of degree, but the degree of ambiguity between Strength and Dexterity is significantly less than between Intelligence and Wisdom.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Agility is to dodge, dexterity is hand-eye coordination, for example to dance...or martial arts keys, strength is to carry heay loads (weapons or weapons).

And we guess it has to be a easy system for new players, easy to be understood if somebody tries the first time.

* What do you think about a WotC no-D&D videogame using d20 system but without any sacred cows? For example Gamma World or Star*Drive with nine abilitie scores.