Abilities scores for an universtal system.

[GMMichael]

D&D is perfect for dungeon-crawling, but not so good for other games with more investigation or social interactions.

Perfect? That's very nice of you.

Other idea is some attributes are modular, optional, this means you are free if you want to use them in your game or not. Maybe in a sci-fi game only one PC has Techniche attribute because she is a techy who repairs/fixes machines, or a cofrater (member of a brotherhood, a jedi knight ersatz) with martial maneuvers of light saber. Maybe a DM would rather to use Technique because she wants (munchkin) players to choose between better Agility for Reflex saves or better technique for stealth or to disarm traps, martial maneuvers or drawing runes.

Hmm. Optional attributes? I'm not sure if this has been done (Fate's aspects), is actually a skill idea instead of attributes, or if it is worth fleshing out.

I'm interpreting your example to mean breaking up Dexterity into two attributes, and spreading the related rules around. That strikes me as top-down engineering of D&D's (thoroughly playtested) rules, which is risky, but also probably where the term "house rule" first came up. Go right ahead, but I wouldn't expect all of the third-party publishers to jump on the bandwagon.

* My own point of view see the differences between Inteligent, Wisdow and Acuity, but maybe others can't. Int is the nerd who goes to the university thanks a scolarship or the chess game champion. . .

INT is for nerds? I don't know if this will scare away or draw more PCs to it.

* To avoid some abuse by munchkins I have thought about two pools of creation points, one for the main abilities scores, and the other for the attributes no-so-useful.

You're redesigning attributes, right? If I were you, I'd try to make all attributes useful.

 

[Anoth]

The best attribute is a random attribute

 

[dave2008]

I like a hierarchy of stats, like D&D 3e/4e, but more explicit.
So you have primary stats composed of secondary stats and some checks or saves target primary stats and some secondary stats.

Primary Stats:
Fortitude (Str & Con)
Reflex (Dex & Wis or Int)
Will (Cha & Wis or Int)

Secondary Stats:
Strength
Constitution
Dexterity
Intelligence
Wisdom
Charisma

 

[dave2008]

The most important thing about any set of ability scores is that you can easily distinguish between them.

In general I agree with this (and most of your post), however...

It's easy to see the problem in D&D, which fails to properly distinguish between Intelligence and Wisdom. There's no point in writing down two different numbers, if we can't even agree on when we should be using each one...

...You need some sort of mental stat, to delineate the fact that the character knows different things than the player. Intelligence and Wisdom are too nebulous, though, so I'll go with Mind. If it has anything to do with knowing or understanding things, it's Mind.

I do think it is important to have more than one mental stat. I think intelligence, wisdom, and will are all distinct. A RL example: my sons are both more intelligent than I am, but they lack my wisdom (even for their age), and one of them has a stronger will than I. I don't know that D&D defines them clearly, or that I can, but it is like porn: I know it when I see it.

 

[Ratskinner]

I didn't get this, even after reading your example. Could you explain again/further?

Thinking about this under my own understanding, I think that switching genres isn't necessarily hard if the basic resolution methods are known. For instance, I use Prince Valiant (Brawn, Presence and skills) for relatively thematically light mediaeval romance. I think it could also be used to do Conan (maybe tweak the skill set a little bit) and light-hearted thievery and probably pirates.

hmmm....I guess I think like this: You have a system with flexible frameworks of dramatic "modes" instead of traditional attributes (even if you call them attributes). The other, more simulationist traits act only as minor bonuses and permission-granting. Thinking of a system like MHRP powers...it really doesn't matter what the modes are, the power works the same way. Fate Accelerated could be tweaked to work the same way.

So now, imagine, you have a character (pick one from fiction). First, ask yourself what attributes you would give him from....say the Wicked Age set, then do it again with the Fate Accelerated set. My thought is that its easier to "recast" dramatic attributes than it is to recast simulationist ones. Especially since they can work on the same abstract scale of affecting the story, rather than affecting the gameworld "physics". You don't have to worry about inventing a "universal" Strength or Toughness scale that will include Inara from Firefly and the Hulk from Marvel without making either the difference between Inara and Jayne (also from Firefly) pointless or make the Hulk cost so much (whatever that will mean in the system) that he is an unstartable character.

But if someone wanted tactical resolution, or gritty injury and healing, then Prince Valiant won't help whatever the genre. For fantasy/mediaeval, at least, switch to Burning Wheel!

I think this is mostly right. But I think that tactical resolution systems are inherently limited in genre (although perhaps in an oddly specific way). You can rub the trappings serial numbers off and re-flavor them rather generically (your Savage Worlds power really doesn't care if its a fireball or a grenade), but the underlying tactical engine will always be relatively constant. That means that you are stuck with whatever genres that engine serves best (possibly limited to the way physical conflicts work in-genre). If you make one that features lots of close-in combat maneuvers and finely-grained movement and reactions...it groans a lot when you try to re-flavor it for gunfights or blaster battles, or try to include something like the Hulk.* Sure, many of those systems can kit-bash themselves to sorta work outside their normal modes....but there's always a bit of hammering on square pegs to get them into the round holes, or even re-working the genre to fit the existing engine (very common). IMO, this is proportional to the level of detail or resolution that the engine imparts. The better/best "universal" tactical engines are always the ones that are the least fine-grained. (Of course, if you're a hard-core simulationist, you might read that and wonder what the heck I'm talking about.)

*Not that its an absolute impossibility, but there's a difference between when a system is "singing" and when its barely keeping up.

 

[pemerton]

imagine, you have a character (pick one from fiction). First, ask yourself what attributes you would give him from....say the Wicked Age set, then do it again with the Fate Accelerated set. My thought is that its easier to "recast" dramatic attributes than it is to recast simulationist ones. Especially since they can work on the same abstract scale of affecting the story, rather than affecting the gameworld "physics". You don't have to worry about inventing a "universal" Strength or Toughness scale that will include Inara from Firefly and the Hulk from Marvel without making either the difference between Inara and Jayne (also from Firefly) pointless or make the Hulk cost so much (whatever that will mean in the system) that he is an unstartable character.

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?

I think that tactical resolution systems are inherently limited in genre (although perhaps in an oddly specific way). You can rub the trappings serial numbers off and re-flavor them rather generically (your Savage Worlds power really doesn't care if its a fireball or a grenade), but the underlying tactical engine will always be relatively constant. That means that you are stuck with whatever genres that engine serves best (possibly limited to the way physical conflicts work in-genre). If you make one that features lots of close-in combat maneuvers and finely-grained movement and reactions...it groans a lot when you try to re-flavor it for gunfights or blaster battles

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.

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.

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.

 

[Aldarc]

The most important thing about any set of ability scores is that you can easily distinguish between them. It's easy to see the problem in D&D, which fails to properly distinguish between Intelligence and Wisdom. There's no point in writing down two different numbers, if we can't even agree on when we should be using each one.

This is one of those strange occasions when the planets and stars align and Saelorn and I agree about game design philosophy.

 

[Beleriphon]

On attributes/ability scores if we're looking at a universal system how granular do you want to get? Do you want to differentiate between fast twicth and slow twitch strength in muscles? Do you want there to be a difference in manual dexterity versus body position awareness? How about recall versus reasoning ability? Introversion versus extroversion?

In the end no system is universal, they excel at some things and stink like day old skunk carcass at other things. Some systems are good at a relatively wide swath of genres (GURPS when approached from a particular vector) but not good at others (GURPS when approached for a particular vector) so it really depends.

Are we doing something to play action/adventure games akin to D&D, or GURPS, or Hero, or Savage Worlds. Those need a very different set of attributes than a game about training Pokemon, the trainer doesn't need to worry about personal strength, or agility; everything they want done is going to be acheived by their trained Pokemon.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I do think it is important to have more than one mental stat. I think intelligence, wisdom, and will are all distinct.

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?

In order to justify separate stats, there needs to be very little overlap between stats on any given check you would want to make. Most tasks that are primarily governed by Intelligence would also benefit from Wisdom, and vice versa, which makes it hard to justify them as distinct.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

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.