From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes)
Subject: Re: Skills/Attributes-General query
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 06:33:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 


>>One major complaint I have with systems such as Vampire and Cyberpunk 2020
>>is their method of adding the stat and skill.  This puts them on equal
>>footing, which I strongly disagree with: stats implies base ability across
>>a large field, skills should confer a marked advantage over a much smaller
>>domain.  In that system, there is no difference effectively between a PhD
>>with no aptitude for his field and a young gun who is just plain good.
[...]
>	My view is that stats are the talent of a person to do certain types of
>tasks, while skill is the training in any one area to do a task. Thus,
>training simply magnifies the effect of your stat in a specific area.
>
>Actually, here's a better system:
>
>	A while ago I noticed something I disliked about many scores in
>systems. Let's say the scale of stats are 1-20.
>	If I had 10, and another person had 20, it implies that the other
>person is twice the level that I am.
>	However, if I had 10 and another person had 2, it implies that I am
>FIVE times as good as they are.
>	In any system where stats advance linearly, this simply makes no sense.

You are assuming that x2 value implies x2 effect.  The games I am familiar
with either use a table to determine effect (like a the D&D strength table,
which lists how much weight you can lift for each STR value), or it has
some formula (usually exponential).

The problem I have with games with human stats in a certain range (1-20,
or 3-18, etc), is that there is no room for sub-human abilities.  I.e.
how strong is a cat? or a mouse?  Since something bad usually happens
to you when a stat reaches zero in these systems, negative numbers
are inappropriate.  Your idea does seem to avoid this problem.

>	My proposal is to use simple multipliers. If I have a strength of x2,
>my strength is twice that of average. If I have a strength of /3, my
>strength is 1/3 that of average.
>	The advantage is that this system is fairly intuitive. A knowledge of
>stats gives you a good basic approximation. If someone had a x2.3
>strength, their character could know that they are about twice normal
>strength.
>
>	To combine this with the previous skill system, a given skill could be
>multiplied by the stat. Someone with a logical aptitude of x2.7 and a
>skill of 20% would have a modified skill of 54%.
>	Damage, lifting, and other real world performance is easier to relate,
>as well. I have found it convenient to limit range of such stats to
>/3-x3. (I also worked out how stats relate to physical characteristics,
>but am still working out the details)

I am a convert to the school of simplicity.  I find Rolemaster to be a
pain, because I always have to add and subtract a bunch of 2-3 digit
numbers.  Your idea, while perhaps mathematically pleasing, would be
even worse, since we are multiplying by non-integral values.  Basically
a calculator would be mandatory.

Of course, these skills could be calculated in advance, but how would
you handle difficulty modifiers?  I would assume more multipliers
would be involved.

One of the things I like about your proposal is that it helps solve
the problem in some systems, where stupid people can learn any
skill, if they try hard enough.

-steve

Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA