The Gaming Den

I've seen that mentioned a few times on TGD, but how exactly does it look in a game?

For D&D is it as simple as "Instead of 18 STR you have '+4'"? Or is there more to it.

I saw some d20 game with it for supers I think, but can't recall the name. Anyway, the idea is you don't need stat scores at all, and the game needn't use stat mods. Though the game I saw did have them and just ignored them for most purposes.


Instead, you can be strong like Hulk, and just arbitrarily bend and break and lift and throw very large things indeed, defined as tightly as needed. But your damage and AC and whatnot still just comes off your class and level features tables regardless of the mass you're heaving about, because the characters who aren't strong are just using whatever else they imagine doing level-appropriate damage with in it's place.

So one person can be Hulk, and another a magical schoolgirl with a big fucking sword, and if they both play Fighters they both do appropriate damage to kill monsters of their level, and travel at level-appropriate speeds between encounters. But Hulk can "smash", and magic schoolgirl can ... whatever they do instead, depending on their tags.

Sounds a lot like Mutants & Masterminds. I know I've played a "weak" character that could kill anything and went up against a "strong" character that did just about as much damage. It all depends on how you build the character. A +2 Str bonus with a +18 attack and +18 damage is just as good as a +20 Str bonus in combat, though "I throw the bus" isn't an option if you sink the points into the attack and not Str.

In D&D I've heard people (or games, the specifics of which escape me) change ability scores to just bonuses, or to cut out the base 10 aspect (a 4 Str is a +2, a -3 Str is a -2, etc), or some other thing. What you get out of the d20 way of handling bonuses is that if you get a +1 Str it may or may not be enough to change your bonus, which means you can get ability score modifiers from multiple sources and in small amounts in order to add up to some bonus you care about. If you pare things back to "You only get ability score modifiers from one spell at a time, never from items" or something then you can really just make effects target the bonus instead of the score.

OgreBattle wrote:I've seen that mentioned a few times on TGD, but how exactly does it look in a game?

For D&D is it as simple as "Instead of 18 STR you have '+4'"? Or is there more to it.

Sounds like some fate boring rules. At the end of the day, everything will fall on numbers, even if your character have "STR: Very High! (22/+6)".

The point is you detach "Being Strong" from "Gaining numerical bonuses to attack". If you want characters that can be Hercules strong then you can't make it so that mountain lifting strength also gives you a +10,000 to hit and damage. Games like Mutants and Masterminds detach the two concepts from each other allowing you to have Gambit and Collossus brawl each other even though one is physically much stronger than the other.

If you used a keyword system to make "Hulk Strength" then you would need that Keyword to perform superstrong maneuvers or powers and you could also lift a million pounds. But you wouldn't add 300 to your Strength because you wouldn't have a strength.

But then what is granting you numerical bonuses to attack? Strength (the stat) is gone and Strength (the ability) doesn't do it... so it's all class-derived? That seems like it will make characters even more cookie cutter.

I don't think having slightly different numerical bonuses is what makes characters stand out from one another.

Well at least at low levels, every THF fighter is identical, except you can pass off as "the faster guy" when you have slightly more Dex and "the stronger guy" when you have slightly more Strength.

But you're right, that's not a good distinguisher.

I think the idea is to make things less cookie cutter by removing the ability to make "When in <situation> add <#> to <stat>" feats, and instead getting abilities.

So basically, go for Amber Diceless.

A bunch of more freeform rpgs use the concept. Heroquest RPG (not the boardgame) is one example. Instead of fixed atributes, you create descriptive abilities like "Intimidating Beard 17" or "Legendary Clan Sword 11" or "Fuck off 15".

...You Lost Me wrote:But then what is granting you numerical bonuses to attack? Strength (the stat) is gone and Strength (the ability) doesn't do it... so it's all class-derived? That seems like it will make characters even more cookie cutter.

It depends on the system but lets imagine you did this with D&D. Yes you would get a flat modifier to attacks from your level or perhaps from your class. Then any additional bonuses you would gain would be from abilities designated to make you better at attacking. In a system like that you might say that everyone gets +1 to hit per level and Fighters get "Master Combatant" which is a +2 to your to hit score and Mages get "Brains not Brawns" which is a -2 to your to hit score.

Back in 1st edition days character creation was fast and random enough that you really could identify your character entirely as the Fighting Man who rolled well enough to get +2 to hit over your friends Fighting Man. Nowadays abilities should be more significant.

fectin wrote:So basically, go for Amber Diceless.

I'm very curious why you say that.

If you remove the numbers, traits only matter relative to the rest of the PCs and in competitive storytelling resolution.

In 3.x terms Trapfinding, Track and bypassing a Magic Circle already work like this:

• If you don't have the [Traps] abilitiy, you can't find (level-appropriate) traps
• If you don't have the [Track] feat, you cannot attempt to follow (level-appropriate) tracks
• If you have the alignment [Blue] tag, then you cannot pass an unbroken Circle of Protection against Blue, unless you have Spell Resistance

And while you certainly could build an entire RPG system like that, you would run into a number of issues in doing so.

If your list of tags is open and not exhaustive, then players will be rewarded for coming up with broadly useful tags and/or BSing the MC into accepting that a tag they have is relevant. If instead your list of tags is complete and finite then players will often be told, "no you can't, because your character doesn't have the needed tag" and that isn't enjoyable for most folks. You could fix that problem by working the tags to be non-binary ....at which point you're right back to a numeric system.

So if I were seriously attempting such a design I would either accept that this is a rules-lite, BS the MC system and probably use something very close to Over the Edge's Traits and Signs. Or I would design an exhaustive tag list that had two types of tags: narrow-specific things which just let you succeed at the focus; and then broad flexible things which required some resource expenditure to succeed at any task. So having [Track] means you can just tracking (level-appropriate) foes, but having [Boy Scout] could be used to track, or to tie knots, or to convince townsfolk of your honesty, but doing any of those would with it cost health or endurance or action points or something.

I think there's at least one more approach, where tags are basically descriptive, but things trigger off them. So, for example, you could set it so casting a spell with the [evil] tag gives you the [evil] tag for [spell level] days, probably along with a handful of other ways. Then, things trigger off whether you have [evil], so you're detectable and vulnerable to magic circles and so forth.
That lets a few subsystems work in a slightly saner way, at the cost of slightly increased complexity.

Another option with a tag is that instead of a tag being a flat bonus, it could have a value derived from elsewhere (e.g. level or another trait value).

In the most basic form, for D&D, you'd literally replace each attribute with a tag.

For example, you could have a 'choose two strengths and one weakness' system. Each attribute gets transformed into two tags, e.g. 'buff' (+4) and 'wimpy' (-2) for strength.

A druid might choose to be buff and perceptive but clumsy, which would correspond to attributes of S:18, D:7, C:10, I:10, W:18, Ch:10.

At the same time, you would almost certainly want to restrict the use of attribute bonuses to skill checks, plain ability checks, and a some things like carrying capacity.

The end result of this is completely unbalanced, so you'd probably want to use some sensible tags and divide up their uses more equitably.

Josh_Kablack wrote:So if I were seriously attempting such a design I would either accept that this is a rules-lite, BS the MC system and probably use something very close to Over the Edge's Traits and Signs. Or I would design an exhaustive tag list that had two types of tags: narrow-specific things which just let you succeed at the focus; and then broad flexible things which required some resource expenditure to succeed at any task. So having [Track] means you can just tracking (level-appropriate) foes, but having [Boy Scout] could be used to track, or to tie knots, or to convince townsfolk of your honesty, but doing any of those would with it cost health or endurance or action points or something.

IIRC you just described skills in 13th Age. If you decide your character is a taxidermist, you get a bonus to anything you can describe as being related to that. Your tags are either obvious or constantly shifting, depending on how well your creative descriptions compare to MC's agree-ability. You're just adding in one step of complexity by calling the end result a "tag" and formalizing something having to do with tag requirements. For that matter, backgrounds (or whatever they're called) in Exalted (maybe other WoD games too, IDK) work close to the same way.

If your system is "BS the MC" off of loose build options, the resolution mechanic probably shouldn't be as constrained as a list of tags. And if that list isn't constrained, there's no reason to add the concept of tags.

Even Exalted traits are more nailed down than that.