Systems where attributes are separate from skills and super hard to raise are fucking dumb

[Gangrelrumbler]

I'm talking about game like Fallout, Baldur's Gate and other DnD based games. I mean what the fuck, the MC goes from a guy who barely knows how to shoot to soma master gunslinger and from a guy killed in one hit to a guy who can take a machine gin burst to the face but he can't buff-up? People fucking raise their strength all the time, at a place called "gym". The other stat that bugs me is wisdom. It's very important for a priest and hard to raise after starting the adventure. But isn't being a priest (or a monk) all about raising your wisdom? Wizardry got it right.

 

[FeelTheRads]

If anything priests should need charisma so they can lie to others about their wisdom.

But these systems intentionally want to make the base attributes hard to raise, I suppose for simulationist reasons. Because, really, what else besides strength can you increase considerably and in a relatively short amount of time? Of course it doesn't make sense that you can go from peasant to master swordsman in that same amount of time, but eh, training is easier than magically becoming wiser or more beautiful.
On the other hand consider Arcanum where you could in theory go from disease ridden hobo to Brad Pitt in the course of the game. But that's cool for me as well, just another way of character building.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

I always think them as maximum/peak status someone could achieve kind of thing.
For example, everybody could hit the gym and become muscled but unless you are something special (let's say 18+ STR in DnD) you will not be as strong and big as, let's say, The Mountain in GoT.
Wisdom is the same, while priesthood is journey of gaining wisdom, not everybody can become the next Jesus/Dalai Lama/etc2.

 

[Infinitron]

I'm talking about game like Fallout, Baldur's Gate and other DnD based games. I mean what the fuck, the MC goes from a guy who barely knows how to shoot to soma master gunslinger and from a guy killed in one hit to a guy who can take a machine gin burst to the face but he can't buff-up? People fucking raise their strength all the time, at a place called "gym". The other stat that bugs me is wisdom. It's very important for a priest and hard to raise after starting the adventure. But isn't being a priest (or a monk) all about raising your wisdom? Wizardry got it right.

There are two types of systems where you can increase attributes during your character's lifetime. The ones where it only happens occasionally, like D&D 3E, and the one that do this:

Before this discussion continues, perhaps you should tell us what your preference is.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

There are two types of systems where you can increase attributes during your character's lifetime. The ones where it only happens occasionally, like D&D 3E, and the one that do this:

Before this discussion continues, perhaps you should tell us what your preference is.

The second one obviously. I mean I've started this thread by writing how shitty the first one is and ended my post with "Wizardry got it right". Since in Wizardry your attributes increased (and sometimes decreased) every level I think that my preference is fairly obvious.

I always think them as maximum/peak status someone could achieve kind of thing.
For example, everybody could hit the gym and become muscled but unless you are something special (let's say 18+ STR in DnD) you will not be as strong and big as, let's say, The Mountain in GoT.
Wisdom is the same, while priesthood is journey of gaining wisdom, not everybody can become the next Jesus/Dalai Lama/etc2.

It would make sense if it really was your peak, but it's pretty obvious that it's your real strength at the moment since in Baldur's Gate how much you can carry depend on this stat and in Fallout 2 it determines what weapon you can use without penalties. Both of which rely on you de-facto strength and not your potential.

If anything priests should need charisma so they can lie to others about their wisdom.

But these systems intentionally want to make the base attributes hard to raise, I suppose for simulationist reasons. Because, really, what else besides strength can you increase considerably and it a relatively short amount of time? Of course it doesn't make sense that you can go from peasant to master swordsman in that same amount of time, but eh, training is easier than magically becoming wiser or more beautiful.
On the other hand consider Arcanum where you could in theory go from disease ridden hobo to Brad Pitt in the course of the game. But that's cool for me as well, just another way of character building.

I don't really think that gaining wisdom is any harder or different than training to be a master swordsman. Both are about learning new things and how to use them. If anything I'd say that becoming wiser is literally what a priest character should be doing to gain new levels. Beauty being treadled like every other stats is a bit silly because of reasons you've mentioned. If anything being ugly/beautiful should be some kind of feat/trait/advantage taken when creating your character.

 

[Infinitron]

You want treadmill stat inflation? Uh, okay. I think most people want to do something actually interesting when they level up.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

You want treadmill stat inflation? Uh, okay. I think most people want to do something actually interesting when they level up.

There are systems where you can improve your primary characteristics like strength without them becoming inflated. Savage worlds pnp system is one example. Wizardry is another. Do you imply that nothing interesting happens when you level-up in Wizardry? What about Morrowind or Gothic or Shadowrun games. Nothing interesting happens in any of those either?

 

[Infinitron]

When a character has Strength or Dexterity or Intelligence in a value that's inside a canonical 3-25 range or whatever, that tells you something about that character. It lets you make easy appraisals and comparisons. When you're a dude who has 40 Strength and will have 50 Strength a few hours from now, what does that really mean? What is it good for? It's character building for character building's sake. Look ma, big numbers!

You can make a comparison with Fallout skills, which also reach high values, but those are percentiles that can be maxed out. And even that paradigm is being changed to a 1-10 scale in newer skill-based RPGs.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

When a character has Strength or Dexterity or Intelligence in a value that's inside a canonical 3-25 range or whatever, that tells you something about that character. It lets you make easy appraisals and comparisons. When you're a dude who has 40 Strength and will have 50 Strength a few hours from now, what does that really mean? What is it good for? It's character building for building's sake. Look ma, big numbers!

In most of these games you can tell exactly what it means. For example in Gothic your strength tells you how heavy weapon can you swing. A guy with little strength can handle only one handed swords while a tough dude can handle these gigantic Orc axes without problems. In Shadowrun your attributes are your potential in different categories.

You can make a comparison with Fallout skills, which also reach high values, but those are percentiles that can be maxed out. And even that paradigm is being changed to a 1-10 scale in newer skill-based RPGs.

There is really no reason to not treat strength as an skill that can be maxed-out.

 

[thesheeep]

There is really no reason to not treat strength as an skill that can be maxed-out.

Yes, there is.
Strength is an attribute, not a skill. Skills can be learned. Attributes are just "there" as the frame of the character if you want.

That doesn't mean attributes shouldn't be increasable at all, but at a much slower rate.
Yes, you can go to the gym to get stronger.
But how long does that take?
I'm sure most people would be able to learn to shoot a basic pistol well enough (not pro soldier level, I guess, but anyway) in a week of focused training.
Go to the gym for one week though and you won't have achieved much, other than muscle ache, maybe. It's just a more long term investment.

Of course, in theory you could use the exact same system to represent both attributes and skills, just making some more costly to increase, or something along those lines.
But the separation makes things more intuitive.

There is also the problem about attributes like intelligence, willpower, wisdom and whatnot.
Many people would say that intelligence cannot really be increased - only education of some sort can.

Same with skills. It is much faster to learn to shoot a gun or crossbow than a bow, but if you depicted that realistically in games, almost nobody would ever pick up a bow.

It's just a pretty complex field with many valid pro and con arguments, so to get somewhere in a system you just have to simplify somewhere and make decisions about where your system is going to fall short.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

It would make sense if it really was your peak, but it's pretty obvious that it's your real strength at the moment since in Baldur's Gate how much you can carry depend on this stat and in Fallout 2 it determines what weapon you can use without penalties. Both of which rely on you de-facto strength and not your potential.

Well I never overthink it to honest. For simplicity sake I assume that a warrior travelling will do his push ups accordingly to stay in peak condition. A thief will, I dunno, juggle in his freetime to keep his dexterity good. A priest will read Socrates before sleeping to keep himself full of wisdom.

I do think a system that combine potential + increasing status to be interesting though. Not like DAO where you could dump status endlessly, but something like shadowrun.

 

[octavius]

Does it matter as long as it works game wise???

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

The long stuff

Gaining strength at the gym take a lot of time, but so does sniper training for example. Sure, basic shooting training doesn't take that long, but becoming a sharpshooter does. Not to mention in many games it goes way beyond that. In Baldur's Gate for example wizards go from total wimps to people who summon Planetars at will. Also using the same system for both is not some theoretical possibility. Bloodlines did exactly that and it worked just fine.

Well I never overthink it to honest. For simplicity sake I assume that a warrior travelling will do his push ups accordingly to stay in peak condition. A thief will, I dunno, juggle in his freetime to keep his dexterity good. A priest will read Socrates before sleeping to keep himself full of wisdom.

Yeah but the point is that you don't achieve height of your abilities at level one. It's obvious that warriors train their strength through their adventures in addition to their martial skills so a high level warrior should be stronger than a low level one. Same with priests. Reading some Socrates doesn't automatically make you a wiseman and a high level priest should be much wiser than an inexperienced ones. In ADnD games it just doesn't happen, which is why I started this thread. One way I thought it could be solved was to give certain classes bonus stats on level-up in addition to any other gains. For example a fighter could get +2 strength (to the max of 18/00) on level 5 if his strength is below 18/00. It would show that his training made him stronger, however no matter how much he trains he cannot achieve superhuman strength without supernatural means.

I do think a system that combine potential + increasing status to be interesting though. Not like DAO where you could dump status endlessly, but something like shadowrun.

Yeah I thought the same thing after reading your post. Like for example if strength in Fallout was a skill that goes to 100% but getting a trait that makes you a big, bulky guy would allow you to raise it much higher. Traits like small frame on the other hand would limit your maximum strength. IMO it's a good idea.

Does it matter as long as it works game wise???

It triggers me.

 

[Excidium II]

It makes perfect sense to increase your base abilities to a degree, if a game doesn't let you do things that make sense you are wasting your time with shit.

 

[vonAchdorf]

I kinda like the attributes are separate from skills systems. In their inner logic, it also makes sense that attributes rise more slowly, because often their incremental impact is much higher than skills. In general, attributes affect many skills and gaining an attribute point has often a higher effect on the success chance, than gaining a skill point. It can also help to enforce some character differentiation without the need for a hard perk system.

 

[thesheeep]

Gaining strength at the gym take a lot of time, but so does sniper training for example. Sure, basic shooting training doesn't take that long, but becoming a sharpshooter does. Not to mention in many games it goes way beyond that. In Baldur's Gate for example wizards go from total wimps to people who summon Planetars at will. Also using the same system for both is not some theoretical possibility.

Apples and bananas. You compare gaining some strength to becoming a sharpshooter. I meant just a basic increase in shooting skill, not 0 to full skill level
I would kinda agree that raising your strength significantly might be on par with learning a profession well.
You are right that in almost every RPG characters level unrealistically fast.
But imagine how long they would drag on if it was realistic...

Bloodlines did exactly that and it worked just fine.

Because it only had very few skills to begin with.
In any system with way more skill choices, this would just be confusing.
It gets worse when there are synergies. In most systems, attributes are related to some skills, because attributes are the base to everything else (more or less). Best example would probably be RoA/DSA.
Now imagine reading the rules in an attribute-less system of how each skill influences each other skill. Nightmare stuff, seriously. Only doable in video games, if at all.
Also, using just one system for everything really comes off as kinda simplistic/generic and thus automatically not everyone's taste, especially without synergies.

One way I thought it could be solved was to give certain classes bonus stats on level-up in addition to any other gains. For example a fighter could get +2 strength (to the max of 18/00) on level 5 if his strength is below 18/00. It would show that his training made him stronger, however no matter how much he trains he cannot achieve superhuman strength without supernatural means.

That would make strength more or less a dump stat. For a fighter

Does it matter as long as it works game wise???

It triggers me.

Poor you

 

[Rostere]

I'm talking about game like Fallout, Baldur's Gate and other DnD based games. I mean what the fuck, the MC goes from a guy who barely knows how to shoot to soma master gunslinger and from a guy killed in one hit to a guy who can take a machine gin burst to the face but he can't buff-up? People fucking raise their strength all the time, at a place called "gym". The other stat that bugs me is wisdom. It's very important for a priest and hard to raise after starting the adventure. But isn't being a priest (or a monk) all about raising your wisdom? Wizardry got it right.

You're wrong. And you're retarded. Take skill with firearms, for example. If you've never used a gun you will probably suck at using firearms. But you can train yourself to use guns, up to the limit set by your physical properties - eyesight, reflexes, intelligence (spatial intelligence and learning capability), strength, all having different importance depending on which guns you are training with. But it is hard to improve on your physical limitations in the scope of time that a typical RPG takes place.

Although you might be right on the point that gaining lots of HP for no apparent reason is stupid. But AoD got that right.

 

[kwanzabot]

I'm talking about game like Fallout, Baldur's Gate and other DnD based games. I mean what the fuck, the MC goes from a guy who barely knows how to shoot to soma master gunslinger and from a guy killed in one hit to a guy who can take a machine gin burst to the face but he can't buff-up? People fucking raise their strength all the time, at a place called "gym". The other stat that bugs me is wisdom. It's very important for a priest and hard to raise after starting the adventure. But isn't being a priest (or a monk) all about raising your wisdom? Wizardry got it right.

honestly i think i actually lost a couple million braincells and caught aspergers reading that


i can't believe people are giving you proper replies you're so stupid

 

[Bashar]

It's really just a matter of preference.

Personally, I like having a lot of freedom to define my character at the start of a game and then very gradually enhance them over time. That allows me to experience each playthrough of a game differently, forcing myself to face obstacles from a different perspective. That's just how I roll.

Other players prefer starting with a tabula rasa that will demonstrably improve over time, a character that they can cultivate and nurture. Many of those players enjoy the thrill of being rewarded for achievement. There's nothing wrong with that.

The same goes for the argument of small systems versus complex systems. To counter thesheeep's argument, you have "shopper" players who love poring through Shadowrun and its myriad of interconnecting systems just to find those obscure synergies that you speak of. Sure, it's complex, confusing, and opaque, but there are players who enjoy that sense of accomplishment when they've tailored their character into whatever goal they set for themselves.

On the flip side you have simple rpgs where you pick a class, if that, and all of your enhancements are determined for you on level up. That's not exactly my cup of tea but it suits players fine who are using characters solely as an avatar to explore the story or worldspace.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Apples and bananas. You compare gaining some strength to becoming a sharpshooter. I meant just a basic increase in shooting skill, not 0 to full skill level
I would kinda agree that raising your strength significantly might be on par with learning a profession well.
You are right that in almost every RPG characters level unrealistically fast.
But imagine how long they would drag on if it was realistic...

Yeah, I'm not arguing that raising attributes should always be as easy as rising skills, but making it obnoxiously hard to raise is a bit too much.

Because it only had very few skills to begin with.
In any system with way more skill choices, this would just be confusing.
It gets worse when there are synergies. In most systems, attributes are related to some skills, because attributes are the base to everything else (more or less). Best example would probably be RoA/DSA.
Now imagine reading the rules in an attribute-less system of how each skill influences each other skill. Nightmare stuff, seriously. Only doable in video games, if at all.
Also, using just one system for everything really comes off as kinda simplistic/generic and thus automatically not everyone's taste, especially without synergies.

In most cases synergy occurs only between one attribute and one skill, which is not very hard to handle. Also, I don't think it would be nightmarish because in many systems where attributes were treated similarly to skills (constantly rising through adventure) it never caused any issues. It's not only Bloodlines, there is also Jagged Alliance 2, Savage Worlds PnP and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying Game. In Warhammer stats are actually separate from attributes, but attributes are more important and are raised just like skills (also things like fighting and shooting are attributes) in Fallout. WFRP is actually more intuitive to a new player than Fallout, most people who played it will tell you that.

That would make strength more or less a dump stat. For a fighter

In original ADnD there was no point buy system, which means no dump stats. In video games adaptations stats didn't matter because you could just roll long enough to get 18 in everything relevant.

You're wrong. And you're retarded. Take skill with firearms, for example. If you've never used a gun you will probably suck at using firearms. But you can train yourself to use guns, up to the limit set by your physical properties - eyesight, reflexes, intelligence (spatial intelligence and learning capability), strength, all having different importance depending on which guns you are training with. But it is hard to improve on your physical limitations in the scope of time that a typical RPG takes place.

Could you instead of calling me a retard explain why shooting practice is feasible while strength training is impossible? All you've said is "learning how to shoot a gun if easy, lifting is hard" without really explaining why. I mean yeah, you can become a better shooter if you train with guns, but you also become stronger if you train enough. Also, it's not just guns. Take science for example. You can go from being a total ignorant to a scientific genius during the scope of an RPG. It would take even a very intelligent persona at least a couple of years of studying. I guess becoming a bit stronger after a few years of training is not unachievable for most people. Therefore I don't think that calling me a retard was in any way justified.

honestly i think i actually lost a couple million braincells and caught aspergers reading that i can't believe people are giving you proper replies you're so stupid

Fuck off retard.

 

[V_K]

Realism argument is kinda retarded here. Do you have hit points in real life? Can you survive being hit in the head with an axe? Don't think so. Stats are abstractions, so as long as they make at least some sense withing the setting and work mechanically, there's nothing else to be desired. If the character system works in such a way, that a 1-point difference in your stats is a big deal, then, from a purely mechanical perspective, they should be hard or even impossible to raise.
Also, what you train in lifting is arguably not strengh per se, but your skill in lifting weights. It will, through skill sinergy, give you some edge in combat, but someone who was boxing while you were lifting will still have you at a huge disadvantage.

 

[Carrion]

Realism argument is kinda retarded here. Do you have hit points in real life? Can you survive being hit in the head with an axe? Don't think so. Stats are abstractions, so as long as they make at least some sense withing the setting and work mechanically, there's nothing else to be desired.

Abstractions are only abstractions if they are based on something "real", though, as otherwise you're just left with a bunch of nonsense. If a game's systems go against your basic logic, they're terrible abstractions, plain and simple.

You want treadmill stat inflation? Uh, okay. I think most people want to do something actually interesting when they level up.

Why do you have to be like this, Infinitron? Why do you want to tell people what they're really saying and then come up with these ridiculous false analogies? It of course depends on the system you're using whether there's inflation or not. If you have 100+ points to spend on your attributes at character generation and you level up six times in one playthrough, being able to put one point into your attributes on each level-up isn't going to suddenly turn the game into fucking Dragon Age, nor does it prevent you from having all stats in the 3-25 range if that's your preference. And for the record, I prefer games where attributes remain fairly static throughout the game.

 

[Galdred]

Actually, the old version of Shadowrun PnP had skills more expensive to raise with karma than attributes. It was much weirded than the other way around.

 

[Akratus]

Yeah I also don't get why strength or endurance is a stat when it should really be only stuff like Memory, Reflex, Intelligence, Willpower, Charisma, Looks.

 

[Excidium II]

w0t