From: leet@acsu.buffalo.edu (Brian D. Leet)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Net.rpg: New tree offer
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:01:58 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1992Nov19.193039.22538@crd.ge.com> (Spike) writes:
>This is my most recent brainstorm re:stats. It

>(Did these flowcharts vertically, because
>of variable screen width. If persons who 
>do not use proportional fonts have 
>problems reading this, let me know and I'll
>work something out.)

With a bit of effort you can make them out.
It strikes me that this is VERY similair to what I was attempting with the 
stats system I posted.  We seem to be differing primarily on where to put
certain abilities, which ones to include etc.  Unfortunatly because they
have not been proposed in reference to each other, I am not sure how/what
you see as being the primary advantages of the differences and so forth.

>Below T3, there are three tiers of skills:
>T4 are broad skills, T5 detailed skills, and 
>T6 Specializations. F. ex.:

I am not sure that I completely agree with the apparent appeal of putting 
skills into the same tree located under stats.  I like placing skills into
a tree, but I think they should be in a seperate structure from stats.  This
would allow a system for example where one stat helped you learn a skill, 
while another affected how well you performed it.  (there are other advantages
as well.)

>Implementation:
>
>1. Stats/skills (is there a difference?) should
>work with the same dicing mechanic. The 
>easiest way I see of implementing this is to
>use the "dice + ability" method. If skills 
>simply add to existing stats, you have a 
>built-in "default" way of using the skill, without
>calculations.

I think dice + ability +/- modifiers = result is the most generic and best way
to handle this.  Ability is skill plus stat(s) affecting use of that skill.

>2. Re: PA - The abilities in each tier should be
>more expensive than those in the tier below it.
>This makes T1 gross attributes cost a lot, 
>T6 skill specializations cost very little. Let's
>say T6 specializations cost 1 point to increase
>1 level (whatever that is). This gives us a 
>"standard" for the value of 1 point. A PA cost
>scheme derived from this might be:
>
>T1 100 points
>T2 50 points
>T3 30 points
>T4 15 points
>T5 5 points
>T6 1 point

This could easily be adopted to a system where stats and skills were seperate.
It looks pretty good as PA goes I guess.

>3. Scope: Consider that there are over 30 T3
>attributes in this hierarchy. If each of them 
>controls 3-4 broad skills, this means over 
>100 broad skills. If each broad skill maps to
>5 detailed skills, that's over 500 detailed 
>skills - more than any other game - without
>accounting for specializations. That should
>be enough detail for anyone, I think.

Its always possible to add more skills to the tree, I don't really see this
as a problem in any system.  (I expect the modules to be largely an outline
of availble skills followed by things to use them on.)

>4. In case it wasn't obvious enough, I favor
>the "lesser attribs inherit superior attribs"
>approach, enhanced to "skills inherit stats" 
>as well. Let's not base skills on weird 
>attribute calculations. See point 6.

I am not exactly sure I understand this statement, but I agree on the weird
attrib. calculations.

>5. You may have noticed some gross 
>omissions. We need some Dex-type
>stats; I favor Agility, Flexibility and 
>Coordination. The only place I can see to 
>put them is under Fitness, but I am not
>completely comfortable with this. Maybe
>there should be *3* T2 attributes under
>BODY?

Again I think that we ought to start looking at similarities and differences
between your system and the one I posted.  Problems like these would be 
cleared up in the process.

>abilities should be functions of multiple
>superior abilites. F. ex., some have 
>suggested that Strength is a function of
>Build *and* Fitness. I don't support this.
>It will make the hierarchy too complicated,
>without adding anything to the realism 
>level. Building a character will be made
>dramatically more complex if the player
>must perform sophisticated calculations.
>So long as the player has the option to 
>look at his character and say "This guy
>has a high Fitness. His Strength should
>be better than his Build dictates. I'll buy
>it up," I think reality is maintained.

I agree, to a degree.  I think that in a simple stat system it is quite 
possible (And even reasonable) to make the 'superior' stats the average
of their children.  This works better if each stat has the same number of 
children.

>7. At the low end, players should be allowed
>to rearrange the tree for their characters. 
>A player should have to make a convincing 
>argument as to why hir Bedside Manner 
>skill should be based upon Charisma instead
>of Kindness, etc. This frees individuals from
>suffering under our dictates of the way an
>individual skill should work. Skill agreements
>should be recorded in writing, to prevent
>arguments.

Ugh!  If you really need this make a new skill!  I am strongly against setting
up the general rules this way.  (I think individual campaigns should feel free
to modify the system how they please.)  In general if the stats system is 
reasonably well thought out this should not be a major problem anyhow.  (I 
think this is a further argument for recognizing the difference of stats and
skills.)

>8. Lastly, T3 abilities might be boolean, 
>particularly in the diceless game. I.e. you
>are "Courageous," you don't have "Courage
>+3" (since this would mean nothing in diceless).
>Similarly, attributes and skills can be bought
>*down* - "Coward" is minus (whatever) to Courage.
>This handles most liablilities (disads) nicely, I
>think, with room for making provision for the
>oddballs.

Hmm, well I have already expressed my misgivings about boolean stats.  I 
think that anything that would require a boolean value ina  diceless game 
should not be classified as a stat but merely a property of the character.

Another thought on skills versus stats.  People have been arguing that because
skills are a part of who a character is tehy belong in the structure 
somewhere as a sort of extension of stats.  While this blurring of the lines
does have a certain appeal I think taht it is generally a bad idea because
it allows you to get away with not really classifying what you are doing.
I am not sure if that makes my position exactly clear but I can't think of 
any better way to put it at the moment...

					Brian Leet
Newsgroups: rec.games.design