Character stats are supposed to represent how 'naturally good' your character is at something, and are usually used to add generic bonuses to a wide variety of actions. But natural talent can be either very broad or very specific. So stats are a difficult RPG mechanic to get 'right'.
For example, if I want to be a 'strong' character, a good stat for me would be 'strength'. Strength then gives me a bonus to all of the things I would need muscle for: throwing rocks, or running really fast. But having muscle in one's arms isn't the same as having muscle in one's legs. So do we need two different stats, one for arms and one for legs? If I choose legs, am I both good at jumping and good at running? These are separate muscle groups, so do we need even more stats to represent this?
You could almost endlessly break down stats into more and more specific categories, so let's instead try to sum them up. Strength and agility, for example, could both be represented with 'body'. Both charisma and intelligence could be represented with 'mind'. Combine body and mind, and eventually we're left with a single stat: 'goodness'.
Both extremes do not make for a good game. Too much, and it's too complicated. Too little, and there's not enough depth to be interesting. Finding that perfect balance is the challenge for any good RPG.
We need stats because we want to represent a character with a quick glance at a few numbers. It allows us to envision a 'first impression' for appearance and personality without needed to dig deeper into the character's build. In addition, it removes the need for "synergy" bonuses between skills (e.g. I'm athletic, so I'm naturally a little bit better at swimming, climbing, and running than the average person). Stats are a commonly used idea, and it might seem 'different' to try to make a game without them, but they are a fantastic building block both in terms of character development and actual game mechanics.
Finding the right stats for any game comes down to mechanics and feel. Unfortunately, mechanics is a chicken-egg problem, because in order to make good mechanics, we need at least an idea of the stats we're going to use. So I've found it best to start with feel, and iterate as much as possible until satisfied with the result.
For Hostargo, I wanted to create a simplistic base system. That means less is more, so I started with just body and mind. I feel like these are good stats, since they fully represent two very distinct parts of being 'alive'. But I wanted a little bit more depth than that. Some of my favorite systems use 4 stats: body => strength & agility, and mind => intelligence & charisma. Unfortunately, I have to pick on charisma (there may be a whole other blog post on why). I want to spread it out, because in my opinion both might and intelligence can make your more intimidating, something usually put under this awkward charisma stat.
Just ripping it out leaves me with three stats: strength, agility, and intelligence. I don't like this spread anymore, however, since it's bias towards mental attributes. To be a good 'body' character, I have to increase two stats, where as a 'mind' character only has to increase one.
At this point I'm ready to jump over and look at my mechanics to see if I can come up with some clues as to where to go from here. That jump will be continued in my next blog post! Thanks for reading, and hopefully you'll follow up with me next time.
Working on something myself, so finding your blog has lead to some interesting reading, and I certainly plan on continuing to follow.
ReplyDeleteI think an important decision when thinking about stats is how much burden you want on the players - my game has no true mental stat beyond the unconscious reflexes of the character, leaving all thinking and social interaction up to the players themselves - obviously a more simulationist system would want the complete opposite.
Very cool Luke! Thanks for reading, and I appreciate any feedback you have moving forward.
DeleteDo you have a blog that I could follow? At the least, I'm interested to see how you handle the lack of mental/social stats!
Just clicking on your profile, I think I found your blog! haha
DeleteI wouldn't mind a stat system based off of the four humors from Hippocrates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_temperaments
ReplyDeleteNeat idea DMS! I could see a ton of flavor just oozing out of these.
DeleteFor my most recent project I ventured into the realms of the approach based system (similar to that of FAE only simpler). I have to say I'm not a fan of charisma as a stat as I'd always argue strength/might/force for intimidation and mind/intelligence/wit/clever for using speeches and fancy words. The rest is flavour which can/should be made up through Roleplaying (shudder at the thought I know).
ReplyDeleteShould have said not a fan of charisma as well, since I inferred you wanted to avoid it in your game.
DeleteI'm off in the digital realm of things, but I had an idea not to long ago on handling the "magic power" stats in a way that to the player only showed three stats, "Ability Power" which was the sum of "Offensive Special" and "Defensive Special." Internally though, both of these stats were themselves an average of three hidden stats, which powers actually keyed off of and which equipment boosted, but everything displayed as being either offensive, defensive, or general. The hidden stats would have names like "entropy" "tenacity" or "calmness," representing less well defined attributes.
ReplyDeleteThe hidden values would then be randomized and unique for each character/playthrough, with certain secret areas only accessible if a given hidden stat was particularly high (for example, if tenacity was very high, that might give you triple-jump, not just double, and there could be areas you could now reach) although the game would be completely even if all the stats were minimum (the randomization would be point-buy in nature, so am impossible scenario, but a quick and easy extreme to test against).
Hmmm! Interesting thought. Perhaps secret attributes of characters would be worth exploring for tabletop...
DeleteI know it complicates things, but have you considered having sub-stats for your main stats? That is to say, for example Body consists of Strength, Endurance/Constitution, and Dexterity while Mind consists of Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Now, Charisma is a silly stat by itself, and it's ludicrous to think that someone who is incredibly likable has a better chance at doing such an act than someone who is both physically and intellectually intimidating. What charisma DOES do or SHOULD do is offer the character tact. When a brutish monster of muscle wielding a greatsword screams at his next victim, he's probably not concerned about the spittle flying out of his mouth as he does so. A charismatic fighter of the same stature might stand stoically and glare at his next victim, maybe flex a little as he unsheathes his sword. Both have probably intimidated their enemy, but one of them has done so without looking like a wild monster to the constabulary at the same time. For this reason, I feel that charisma is important, but that it has been utilized poorly.
ReplyDeleteSo, back to my thoughts about having sub-stats. You could either tally or average these sub-stats into the aforementioned two main stats, Body and Mind, depending on what your system requires. It does add a level of complexity which you seem to be trying to avoid, but at the same time, if you were to go Strength/Dexterity and Intelligence/Charisma, you would fix your problem of the system favoring Mind. At the same time, if you intend to have your system focus mainly on combat, then having the backbone favor mind over body, it would allow the players to focus on their combat abilities without losing too much in the role-playing aspects from mind. Just my thoughts.
And they are good thoughts Greg! I agree with all that you say. I will in fact be splitting up the stats a bit more, by tying them into 9 core 'skills'. In part two of this post (when I get around to writing it lol) I will cover what stats I actually did go with and why. I took a tricky twist that I think you'll like.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete