"F$&% me but this is going to get hard. I know it will because it ALWAYS f$&%ing does when you discuss ability scores. Because people have trouble seeing past the end of their own noses. And they look at the ability scores in D&D – the ability scores that have now formed the basis for every game since D&D – and say “well, that’s a complete list; it covers everything and leaves nothing uncovered; and I understand the definitions; so, it’s perfect.”
And that’s why things never get better."
Other urls found in this thread:
theangrygm.com
twitter.com
...But that's wrong? And you'd know that if you had even a basic degree of literacy in RPG's other than D&D and its clones.
> every game
WoD has 9 attributes, and of course works better than DnD 7.
I think he's reffering to how even virtual games embraced it and it's kind of a "basis" for almost everything concerning rpg.
>the ability scores that have now formed the basis for every game since D&D
lol, that made-up quote that you made up is retarded, like you.
Body (BOD) : Measures physical health and resilience
Agility (AGI) : Measures hand eye coordination, flexibility, nimbleness, and balance
Reaction (REA) : Measures reflexes, awareness and response time
Strength (STR) : Measures how strong you are
Willpower (WIL) : Measures resistances and weariness from spellcasting.
Logic (LOG) : Measures rational thought
Intuition (INT) : Measures Instinct
Charisma (CHA) : Measures force of personality, persuasiveness and charm
Edge (EDG) : Measures luck and provides temporary boosts
Essence (ESS) : Measures just how Metahuman you still are
Initiative (INI) : Measures quickness in combat
Magic (MAG) : Measures a Mage or Adept's ability to cast and weave spells
Resonance (RES) : Measures a Technomancer's ability to interface with the Matrix
Now THAT is a much more complete list, don't you think?
I don't like D&D's attribute system that much, but IMO WoD's is worse. It's a clear example of why arbitrary stat systems are bad.
Storyteller games start out with the idea of having nine attributes (ten with power stats), and then have to figure out how to make them all relevant, which they inevitably fail to do, leading to one or more being godstats (usually Dex) and others being worthless. D&D also has this problem, but the stats are less important than in WoD, so it's less obvious.
But it's basically inevitable whenever you start with a number of attributes and try to make it fit, instead of looking at what your system actually cares about and building the stats around that.
I always think the latter approach makes so much more sense. It avoids trying to half-arse making a stat relevant or just leaving a useless dumpstat in the system. Instead, you design it from the bottom up so that the stats you eventually come up with are the things the system cares about, properly weighted so they're all legitimate, equal choices.
Gurps has 4, hero has like 16, pbta has 4-6 depending on the specific game. Most of them don't have much overlap and the ones that do use them differently
Characters in GURPS have four basic attributes:
Strength (ST): A measure of the character's physical power and bulk, ability to lift, carry, and do damage
Dexterity (DX): A measure of the character's physical agility, coordination, and manual dexterity
Intelligence (IQ): A measure of the character's mental capacity, acuity and sense of the world
Health (HT): A measure of the character's physical stamina, recovery speed, energy and vitality, ability to resist disease
Maybe we shouldn't have attributes, maybe with open abilities for example:
Muay-Thai 9
Swordfighting 8
Jumping 6
Something REALLY open, not a list of what you can use that is on the book and then you have to fit everything in those "buttons" but with a set of rules to make it work.
Choose your number, from 2 to 5. A high number means you’re better at lasers (technology; science; cold rationality; calm, precise action). A low number means you’re better at feelings (intuition; diplomacy; seduction; wild, passionate action).
Two stats; Lasers and Feelings.
It's very complex, and a lot better, but ins't it still using the same concept?
If someone could make this work, now that would be different.
Shows how much you know.
Nice read.
Wtf?
Each Cyberpunk 2020 character has nine Statistics - values representing the level of native ability of the character in specific areas of activity. These Stats are rated from two to ten, with two worst possible, ten being the best possible, and the average falling at about five or six.
Intelligence (INT):
Reflexes (REF):
Cool (CL):
Technical Ability (TECH):
Luck (LK):
Attractiveness (ATT):
Movement Allowance (MA):
Empathy:
Humanity:
Body Type (BT):
That sounds a lot like the games Risus and Prose Descriptive Qualities. Both are pretty solid for what they accomplish.
Generally stats are there to make sure you don't act like a powergaming munchkin and put all your points in "shoot" and "speak well" and then can't do something like "lift a box" or "investigate magical device" because it's not covered by "shoot" or "speak well".
Stats are there so you can default at tests and at least be slightly competent outside your hyperspecialised fields.
Why do you say that WoD's attribute system is worse, while it is exactly as you described - all stats are legitimate, equal choices. It all depends on your playstyle, you can successfully achieve quite a lot by relying only on appearance, for example.
What I mean is that there shouldn't be a pre-determined list of skill or attributes because that every action-resolution will have to be placed into one of the stats and failing that one of the pre-determined skills.
I think it should be better if a system was made with easy-to-follow rules to create and give points to YOUR game.
Like for example, imagine if your character was an Knight.
>Cavalry 10
>Swordfighting 10
>Polearms 10
>Warfare 10
>Ettiquete 10
>Jousting 10
Then the less important for you:
>Mace 5
>Etc... etc...
And so on.
It's very crude and don't show what I mean too well but something along these lines.
Will take a look
Because by the actual rules of the system that's wrong, and hopelessly naive. There are always some stats that are worth significantly more, and others that are worth significantly less. That the GM can bend over backwards to make your shitty choices work out doesn't mean it's a good system. Also, IIRC in at least one permutation of the system Appearance is incredibly OP.
>Risus
Pick a character cliche, put up 10 points distributed amongst what cliches that character can do.
So, a viking would have Viking 4, Womaniser 2, gambler 3, poet 1.
A netrunner might have netrunning 5, 80s glam hair 2, augmented shooting 2, feeble social skills 1
That actually sounds good on paper (especially if some customization is allowed) does it work in practice?
The thing I dislike the most about stats is that they undermine skills.
Stats should be raw talent and skills should be what you really trained and whatnot, but generally stats overshadow skills.
Be real with me, is this FATAL?
I suppose I should add an extra point of clarification-
Arbitrary stat lists (and skill lists, which suffer the same problem) can work, but only if they're costed appropriately. If, like in most systems, you make one point in any stat or one point in any skill equal, then trying to just list all the options without considering how useful and relevant they all are is shitty, lazy design. If you just use an arbitrary list, then you need to go through and individually cost them based on how useful and relevant they are to the game, which is a decent method in most simulationist systems.
Personally it strikes me as a ballache, so I much prefer to work from the bottom up, figure out what my system cares about, and then build the stats around what fits naturally. It can still be tricky to balance at times, but it does seem to cause less problems overall.
I think it's Shadowrun
customisation is encouraged.
It works, but is somewhat freeform.
And it's prone to having yourself just have two skills, a talk skill and a hurt skill, or possibly a utility skill, and then whining at your GM until you can do everything with those three skills.
It's shadowrun. You generally only use the first 8, Initiative is calculated based off agi and rea, edge is generally only used as bennys or fate points, essence only really matters when you're getting augmented or a vampire's sucking your blood and only magicians use magic and technomancers use Res.
Who even said this quote? Where is this from and why do you care? The person is complaining about others' lack of imagination when designing RPGS? And you saw fit to repost it because you agree or disagree?
What a stupid topic OP. Shame on you.
It's obvious that I agree. I prefer not to say who it is because I want to discuss the issue not the person.
But the issue is non-existent, and the thread has given you ample proof of that. All whoever said that is proving is that they know nothing about RPG's.
Actually the issue is very existent and this thread gave me proof of that.
>Reaction
>Inicitative
Redundant
>Willpower
>Magic
>Resonance
Just exist to justify spellcasting and certain abilities (dont "feel" organic). Also they are redundant.
I like the idea of more complex stats but I dont think this is the way to go.
Is there any system with something like:
Body Strenght
Body Resistance
Body Speed/Control
Mind Strenght
Mind Resistance
Mind Speed/Control
Spirit Strenght
Spirit Resistance
Spirit Speed/Control
theangrygm.com
wow it's some whiney faggots blog
Then you fail at reading comprehension. Fuck off with your Raggi shit.
Cry more.
...By posting dozens of systems which approach things in a completely different way? The fuck?
I think that's the direction D&D should aim for.
I prefered the pre-SR4 stats.
Initiative is a derived stat from Reaction in Shadowrun 4/5.
no
Kill yourself, /pol/cuck.
...
If you switch spirit for social you get WoD.
>Who even said this quote?
According to google, nobody besides the OP of this thread.
So what do you propose OP, what system is your ideal, or are you just here to bitch like everyone else?
I'm actually wanna to discuss about that. I don't have a solution. But like the angry GM said, the reason thing never got better is because we see the stat system of D&D as the basis of almost everything.
I don't know how much of elitists there is on tg but there's not so many places where you can discuss something like this withou a lot of butthurt.
There is literally nothing wrong with D&D's ability scores, save for maybe Str not contributing to hit points, and Wisdom being a merger of 2 or 3 abilities.
It could be better, I like the way this user see the issue.Or going to the other extreme like this one
The thing that he and the OP are complaining about is basically just whining about how nerds are misunderstanding something about DnD. Meanwhile there are hundreds of other RPGs that handle stats differently, but let's just ignore those in order to blow our own issue out of proportion and be a curmudgeon.
Thruth be told, the majority of people don't like to think out of the box. That's why things didn't change so much, it's refuse to believe that no one came with a better idea than the six-stats system of D&D, but I bet that a lot of people screamed at him for daring to change the system.
kek, nothing like that.
Reminds me of Unknown Armies.
But then we run into the problem that abilities that are broad are just superior to the point of being abusable. For example, Pistol Skill is worse than Guns Skill is worse than Ranged Skill is worse than Combat Skill.
You create a system in which the GM needs to step in and say "No, fuck you, we're not applying it like that."
To be honest your personality is the most obnoxious blank white wall of conversation. Your posts amount to basically just "Nuh-uh." For someone who claims to want to discuss something, you just sit there with your arms folded and go "Nope."
Interesting. Maybe there's a middle ground to be found.
The 3x3 grid is as arbitrary as anything else, and the skills-only list is done by plenty of games with set skill lists to prevent abuse (fuck "open system").
Neither of those fit the kind of game that D&D is. D&D is not a skill-based game. D&D is based around class and ability scores. Also, again, the only real problem ability in D&D is Wisdom. But it works well with three mental stats and three physical stats. None of this "spirit and soul" crap where you have ten different attribute scores and you can barely define what half of them are. At least D&D is solid on 5 out of 6.
I want to discuss the issue, not who's the one who said this, or if I'm blowing the issue out of proportions or not, or even if I came from /pol/a/c/co/ whatever, or if i'm folding my arms or not. If you want, create a thread do discuss those things, otherwise I will not give you fuel you want so desperately to derail the thread.
Attributes exist as their own thing to model people being good in several things by virtue of their general training.
If a system has Dex and both Swords and Daggers as skills, both of these skills feed off Dex to show that somebody can be good at Daggers (or any other weapon) while not having trained with them and significantly better than some dude without any combat prowess at all.
The alternative would be a pure skill system where every skill-up influences a number of other skills, which is a bookkeeping nightmare in practice
There really isn't. In every system you just need to pick something that is the best fit possible and then trust your players to be adept enough at understanding the system to avoid trap options. It's really that simple.
No perfect system exists. Even if a near perfect system did exist, the second the GM introduces a concept like "This is going to be a political campaign." all of a sudden social stats or their equivalent increase sharply in value and the other stats correspondingly drop in value, and therefore it wouldn't be a perfect system. There's never going to be perfect balance because of the baseline fact that different roles are going to be required at different rates, and the players will still need to differentiate and cooperate based on those roles.
I think the problem is how skill checks basically don't really exist on D&D they're attribute checks and skills are just bonuses, and if it's going to be like that maybe a more complete systems of stats like would be better.
>I want to discuss the issue
The first step then; what do you think about there being a whole load of other systems that don't use STRDEXCONINTWISCHA?
Like, all of the other systems?
What do you have to say about that
What the fuck is the actual issue? I thought it was just complaining all stat systems resembled D&D, but this thread has conclusively proven that that isn't true.
That's literally false though. Skill ranks contribute far more to skill rolls than the few points of an attribute.
You haven't played any D&D ever have you?
In WoD you have Melee skill (which is separate from Unarmed/Brawl), and can add swords as your specialization, which would provide a bonus when using swords.
I said a lot on the thread already, read the thread and participate if you're really want, if not, fuck off or stay here and continue to be a little prick. This is my last (you) for you. Good day.
>The alternative would be a pure skill system where every skill-up influences a number of other skills, which is a bookkeeping nightmare in practice
I like the games where a wizard with a knife does 1d4 damage but a fighter with the same knife does 1d10 damage.
Well in 3.5 they did but in 5e your attribute bonus remains relevant until level 15 or so in your primary skills due to how fucking slow proficiency scales. Expertise for rogues is the exception. Still, 5e is the most attribute-dependent edition yet, it's getting insane. You can't even roll for ability scores anymore without completely unbalancing the campaign. Abandoning the 3/4-5/6-8/9-12/13-15/16-17/18 ability score modifiers system is a major part of this.
Not him, but I would say that the vast majority of systems are based off of the basic Dungeons and Dragons formula, and those that are not have issues of their own based on their own presuppositions about what the system is trying to do.
I agree with the other guy that you're a little prick, for the record.
Skill checks basically don't really exist in GURPS: they're attribute checks and skills are just bonuses, and if it's going to be like hat maybe a more complete system of stats like would be better.
The problem is that you're only powergaming the issue.
>"But the point of all of this is that there aren’t skill checks in 5E. Because the currency of action resolution is the ability check. And that leads to one of the most important, core mechanics in D&D. That of the ability check. That’s also why skills themselves are parenthetical. You don’t make an Athletics check. You make a Strength (Athletics) check. That is, you make a Strength check and get a bonus if you’re trained in Athletics."
Exactly.
Huh, so 5e is even more shit than my cursory glance ages ago. Well than. In PF and 3.5, Skills were far less dependant on abilities, which at max provided up to maybe a +5 or 6 at 20th level versus the skills 20 or 23 depending on system.
Well, the new edition is kinda shit in some respects. The only good parts really are the action economy and monster rules, as well as stuff like resistances and damage types being handled well.
>which at max provided up to maybe a +5 or 6 at 20th level
16+5 level+5 inherent+6 enhancement = 32
(32-10)/2 = 11
I wasn't aware that +5 or +6 = +11.
Hey I just realized something... What's the point of having the first set of numbers? Why not just skip and have the modifiers be the attribute? Wouldn't that be a lot simpler to look at?
How do we fix D&D 5e's skill system to be less swingy and slavishly devoted to "bounded accuracy"? Try to keep to the d20.
>CR 0 commoner's Intelligence (Arcana) modifier: +0
>level 3 wizard's (please no Lore Master) Intelligence (Arcana) modifier: +5
>"medium" DC: 15
>Intelligence (Arcana), "medium" DC 15
>CR 0 commoner has a 30% chance of succeeding and a 70% chance of failing
>level 3 wizard has a 55% chance of succeeding and a 45% chance of failing
>when answering "medium" questions about "spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes," there is a 13.5% chance that the level 3 wizard fails to know the answer while the CR 0 commoner DOES know
A lot of games that have taken inspiration from D&D have already done this, including Mutants and Masterminds 3e. The actual scores are basically just an appendix, all that matters is the modifier.
To save you from ability damage/ability drain.
>How do we fix D&D 5e's skill system to be less swingy
Use 3d6.
Only if you never play anything but D&D and derivatives.
So what is the actual problem? That you think stats should be handled in different categories?
It's a good thing that D&D lose market with each year.
Throw the system in the trash and play something else. And I say that as a D&D/PF player. If you don't like PF or 3.5, maybe try 2e, though its got its own problems. Maybe go for something that isnt D&D.
Attacks which target your ability scores, your body and mind, instead of the pool of luck, stamina, and plot armor that is HP, such as Vampire blood sucking, intellect devourers eating your brain, weird monsters that suck the confidence out of you, or other such things.
What the hell?
Even with a 20 ability score and max proficiency, proficiency provides only 1 point more bonus than skill does.
Your formula looks like something out of 5e, but it's been so horrifically slaughtered I cannot tell what you are actually talking about.
Your example shows why skill checks are a completely flawed system, and why adding them to D&D was a mistake.
The idea that a commoner with no experience has such similar chance to recalling a fact about magic, to a wizard who spend years studying it.
>Muscle - the brawns
>Motion - you got the speed, son?
>Mind - the brains
>Moxie - charisma and willpower rolled into one
Use Muscle for mundane combat offense and Motion for mundane combat defense. Use Mind for special combat offense and Moxie for special combat defense.
Y'good?
That's 3.5's stat modifier formula. That's what a level 20 stat looks like with something as modest as a starting 16.
I love the sword and scrolls version as well
>use 3d6
>62.50% chance of succeeding for the Wizard, 37.5% chance of failing
>16.18% chance of succeeding for the commoner
>6.06075% chance of the commoner beating the Wizard, less than half of what it was with d20
Oh I was talking about 5e. And having played a good bit of 3.5 through the higher levels from starting around level 3 or 4, you really don't get into the 30s unless your wizard really likes you. Assuming wish spells as standard operating procedure is really flawed. More realistically it's a +8 or +9 at most, and that's usually only a couple of abilities. Whereas your skill bonus by that point is level + 3, so +18 to +23 for 15th to 20th level.
Did you forget about tomes of +stat?
To tell you the thruth I don't think there's a solution for that WoTC will never change their formula, but D&D will still be the king, and I hate how we are kind of "stuck" with D&D and don't try to make something better, there's a lot of systems that are in a fundamental level better than D&D Burning Whell is one in my opininion also the 7th Sea and some other... but they'll never have the amount of content D&D have thanks to the community.
We're kind of stuck on it and I hate it, I'm a being a little prick when I say this but I wish D&D to fall from grace already.
16 or 18 ability score
+5 level bonus
+5 inherent modifier from special tomes or spells
+6 enhancement from magical items
=32 or 34
Do the formula that gets you your modifier, (X-10)/2 round down
= +11 or 12
Versus
+20 skill ranks
+3 trained bonus (if PF)
+2 race bonus
+ X various skill specific magical item, feat, spell, and other bonuses.
= +25 + x
Add all this together and you get something in the order of anywhere from 36 to 60 bonus to your roll. But that's for a character that is basically a demigod or ascendant being.
The problem is that D20's are too cool.
Is kinda like experience point and levels, they don't make ANY FUCKING SENSE, but it feels so good to see the points of xp going up.
Those are artifacts.
I agree that you CAN get your ability scores high enough to be comparable to skill in 3.PF. But you effectively need to be improving a stat at a rate equal to once per level. Cause that's the rate skills increase at. And I like that. I feel that the training should be more important than starting abilities, in the end. Talent is good but it doesn't replace practice / training in the real world, and I like that D&D (3.5 at least) reflected that. Not that that excuses the host of other issues 3.5 has.
here's your (you)'s first off and past your first comment I don't see much chatter about the actual problem from you. just that there's going to be unequal balance how the core stats. I think that falls under acceptable losses at worst and bad roleplaying at worst. there is some ownership on the part of the dm and the party at the table to use their stats creatively, some stats might be easier to lend that too then others (e.g str - "I pick up X and throw")
after all, its a rulebook and a guideline.
this is the exact answer to your question whether you like it or not, there has to be a rules enforced on a character that damage control minmaxing, easiest way is having a statline as a foundation.
honestly this is my favorite system to use, that humanity stat is amazing as a stat that mainly relates to how you roleplay your character, if i'm not mistaken.
What is 'The actual problem'?
And if the group can fix it, then why shouldn't the designers do it themselves? You're just excusing bad, lazy design and putting more work on the GM.
How about this:
Fighting
Agility
Strength
Endurance
Reason
Intuition
Psyche
With derived Health from the sum of the first group and Karma from the sum of the second
Also: Resources & Popularity
>"F$&% me but this is going to get hard. I know it will because it ALWAYS f$&%ing does when you discuss ability scores.
Get on with it.
>Because people have trouble seeing past the end of their own noses. And they look at the ability scores in D&D – the ability scores that have now formed the basis for every game since D&D – and say “well, that’s a complete list; it covers everything and leaves nothing uncovered; and I understand the definitions; so, it’s perfect.”
The fact that a wide variety of games use different ability score spreads indicates you are not only wrong, but also a faggot as per OP traditions.
>And that’s why things never get better."
Why the fuck do you put yourself in quotations?
Sacred cow.
TSR D&D and WotC D&D are not similar games.
But shouldn't the player be rewarded for smart-thinking?
Like for example, the player has Katana 10 and he says he uses his Katana skills (and enter in details of how) to impress a audience, shouldn't he be able to use his Katana skill for that instead of say, Performing skil?
That's what hero's do in most medias, they improvise with their strong points.
I'm saying no system is optimal, there's never going to be a one size fit all scenario for a system. as showcased here by people voicing concerns over skill only stats being to vague, and that generic>specific would be a problem.
the real solution is to find, a system that works best for you AND you friends and play it.
e.g I prefer cyberpunk, but my friends prefer 5e dnd. so I play dnd 5e.
>on the gm
and on the player, realistically the gm is only caring about creative stat use when his npcs and BBEG is using it. otherwise, its just giving the okay to the players clever use of a stat.
But i'm sure thats too much work for the poor players to handle