Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8476408" data-attributes="member: 59082">One of the big questions that every game designer faces is: how many attributes/ability scores? This relates to questions of granularity vs. simplicity, and of course, the nature of the game and how it is structured.One could also argue that, in designing a game, you could do away with attributes altogether and make everything skill-based and then just have some kind of &quot;natural affinity&quot; modifier, which would be neutral by default, with some ranging into either positive or negative. This would account for the fact that most skills and actions cannot be reduced to any single attribute; for instance, one's natural talent with a sword is a combination of many factors: physical strength, manual dexterity, grace, perception, reflexes, intellect, intuition, etc.Or you could go the other way and simplify it to Mental, Physical, and Social, although that does away with differentiations like speed vs strength, health vs strength, willpower vs. intelllect, etc.As for the OP's specific question, I think if you look at CON as being close to &quot;health,&quot; it makes more sense. A person can have great physical power, but be physically unfit or prone to illness (think of an obese person with great strength).I'd say the original six ability scores do a really job for what they set out to do. There's a reason beyond sacred cowism that they've stood the test of time - there's really been no need to change them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 8476408, member: 59082"] One of the big questions that every game designer faces is: how many attributes/ability scores? This relates to questions of granularity vs. simplicity, and of course, the nature of the game and how it is structured. One could also argue that, in designing a game, you could do away with attributes altogether and make everything skill-based and then just have some kind of "natural affinity" modifier, which would be neutral by default, with some ranging into either positive or negative. This would account for the fact that most skills and actions cannot be reduced to any single attribute; for instance, one's natural talent with a sword is a combination of many factors: physical strength, manual dexterity, grace, perception, reflexes, intellect, intuition, etc. Or you could go the other way and simplify it to Mental, Physical, and Social, although that does away with differentiations like speed vs strength, health vs strength, willpower vs. intelllect, etc. As for the OP's specific question, I think if you look at CON as being close to "health," it makes more sense. A person can have great physical power, but be physically unfit or prone to illness (think of an obese person with great strength). I'd say the original six ability scores do a really job for what they set out to do. There's a reason beyond sacred cowism that they've stood the test of time - there's really been no need to change them. [/QUOTE]

Verification