From: cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: net.rpg: Character Stats
Reply-To: cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:55:36 GMT

Okay, I leave for a week to get some real work done, and
when I get back there are _over TWO hundred_ posts for me
to read.  I guess this makes up for all those five or six
post weeks:-).  Anyway, I had a very long article on
"attributes" that I started last Friday, but due to an I/O
error, I managed to delete about half the article that I
had just finished, so I think I'll just follow-up on
a couple of items that I noticed reading a couple of the
posts. (No, I haven't read them all.)

First, I would like to say, I do not like the word "at-
tributes."  I will, therefore, use the word "abilities"
henceforward, in this, and all subsequent, posts on the
subject.  I do not mean to offend anyone, nor do I believe
that there is any justification for this change; it is merely
a human foible I choose to indulge.

Notes from previous posts:

1.)  The idea of a stat tree, where there are some "baseline"
stats, and some more branch stats, for those who wish
more realism, is good.  It fits well with "modularity"
concept being pushed by net.rpg, and it allows a player
or GM use only those statistics which suit his player,
campaign, or genre.  It will require more thought and may
be hard to get to balance, but I think the effort is 
worth it.  It might even get me to think seriously about
the viability of net.rpg after all:-) 

I was confused, however, by the author's rebuking of the
mix-and-match idea.  He wrote in one article that the stats
should be kept as is, because they are balanced there.  I
once considered creating a game with nearly as many stats,
only to quickly abondon it as too cumbersome.  I will never
use a system with so many mandatory abilities again.

2.)  I think there needs to be a formal definition of what,
exactly, an ability is and what is an ability supposed to
model in net.rpg.  There seems to be widely divergent views
on this point, making rational discussion of the point 
difficult.  Since no one has attempted (or I haven't seen) a
definition, it is extremely difficult to say exactly what
is to be done with abilities.  I offer the following 
definition:
	"An ability is part of a character 
	which is, to some degree of approximation, 
	inborn and immutable."

I do not expect this definition to be universally acceptable,
though I would like to to offer some defense for it.
	A.)  An ability should be different from the other
	character statistics.  Since I believe skills should
	change throughout a character's career, I think the
	abilities should stay constant to contrast them.

	B.)  Abilities, in many ways, shape what and who
	the character is much more than skills do.  Skills
	tend to represent what the character has learned,
	his experience, etc.; abilities, however, tend to
	represent who the character is, at what tasks he
	is most proficient, etc.  It is thus often, that
	a small change in an ability will have a profound
	effect on how the player views his character, and
	though some character change or growth is expected
	and, even, desired, the change should be gradual and
	not be forced by normal ability increase.

	C.)  The definition has within it an escape clause
	or fudge factor in the "to some degree of approx-
	imation" statement.  This means that if a GM wants
	his abilities to increase, they can, without making
	it a necessity or even encouraging it.

	D.)  Looking at most characters in stories, movies,
	and other entertainments, one must recognize that
	most characters do not change drastically from the
	beginning to the end of the story--strong characters
	stay strong, weak characters stay weak--unless
	there is some important and radical event or series
	of events that happen to the character over the 
	course of the story.  I believe role-playing should
	more closely resemble stories, movies, etc. than
	"real life."

3.)  There should also be a clear cut decision on what
role abilities are to play in net.rpg.  I seem to recall
something in FAQ about this, but it is fuzzy in my head
(which does not necessarily mean its fuzzy in the FAQ:-))

4.)  As I have mentioned before, I do not like the use of
the word "Build" as an ability.  It implies nothing of use
to the role-player; it is a description or characteristic,
not an ability.  A person may be very fat, thus having a
very high "Build", but be unable to lift much; a thin man,
who has trained as a gymnast(sp?), on the other hand, would
have a small build, but high strength (or relatively high).

Juha Liukkonen has a set that I think is better, with a
better definition of terms, and if I had to vote, I would
say that they are the ones for which I would vote.  I do
have a couple of disagreements, however.

I think that Movement and Endurance are awfully 
close, and probably do not warrant separate stats.  They
could be combined under the Endurance heading and moved 
under Strength.  This would leave Health under Constitution
alone; if this is undesirable, I would suggest putting
Health under Strength as well.  This would ruin the
symmetry, but the resulting system would be more workable.

I disagree with the names in the Esoteric group.  They all
seem to high-brow for normal use and will confuse many
players (I can think of only one person with whom I have
gamed in the past year would have any idea what "Esoteric"
means).  Possible replacements for "Esoteric" would be
"Wisdom", "Soul", or "Mind", with the latter two being
preferable to me.  "Aesthetic", though a very good word,
would be better as "Creativity".  I am not certain I under-
stand precisely what is meant by "Channel", and so I will
offer no replacement.

There are some other abilities that could be added to this
list.  If the system were mutable, a large list of possible
abilities might be desirable.  I offer the following under:

Agility -- Balance.  I believe balance is separate from
	manual dexterity and if one is _really_ into 
	realism, I think it is impossible to combine the
	two.  As an example of this difference, I offer
	myself--I have good balance, though I can not type
	efficiently.

	-- Coordination.  I am not sure this is sig-
	nificantly different to warrant a separate
	ability.  It could be subsumed into Dexterity
	easily, and I would certainly do so.

	-- Flexibilty.  This refers to a person's ability
	to twist his body, do the splits, etc.  I do not
	think I could find a use for it in an rpg, but
	I do think it is different than what is presented.

Soul	--Cool.  This is one's ability to stay calm under
	pressure.

	--Willpower.  This is very close to Cool, and
	probably is not necessary if the other is used.  It
	differs in being the ability to resist torture or
	temptation, not necessarily when one is physically
	threatened.

I do NOT suggest that all the above be employed at one time;
however, I think some may be, at times, useful to certain
players or GameMaters.

I like the Awareness abilities, and the Creativity Ability.
The Reasoning abilities are fine and require no alteration,
modification or note.

The only deficiency I can see in this formulation is in
magic.  Considering my above definition of what an ability
is, I believe that magic should contain some "immutable and
inborn" component that is yet to be addressed.  I did not
care for the first post's handling of the subject because
it did not, in my opinion, balance well for system where
magic was not important.  I have not given the matter enough
thought, however, to present cogent thoughts on the matter.

--
Charles F. Fitzgerald | '....Life's but a walking shadow,
Iowa State University | a poor player, that struts, and frets
cffitzge@iastate.edu  | his hour upon the stage,
                      | and then is heard from no more....'
                      | _MacBeth_, by W. Shakespeare.
Newsgroups: rec.games.design