D20 Iron Age: Character Generation - Attributes

[angelfromanotherpin]

The current most-supported model seems to be the four attributes of Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, and Wisdom.

Questions that need answering:
• Point-buy, or array-select?
• What is the range? What is the scale?
• What does each attribute do, and what don't they do?

Any other questions we need to address?

[Username17]

It needs to be decided early on whether stats are going to rise over time or stay at their original values. It's fine either way, but if Strength can rise to giant levels and beyond by the time you reach godhood, then it should be expected that this will happen.

-Username17

[angelfromanotherpin]

I think attributes definitely will be expected to go up as you level.

[Koumei]

Same here.

I think we should do something similar to M&M and just use modifiers. So a 0 is the human average, and a 1 adds +1 to the roll and a -43 subtracts 43 from the roll. None of this "Congratulations, you get +1 to your stat. It actually does nothing at all" shit.

Also, under this model, your Int (or whatever) could get drained down to -9,001 and beyond. And no value would automatically kill you.

[Gelare]

Also, under this model, your Int (or whatever) could get drained down to -9,001 and beyond. And no value would automatically kill you.

Is getting disabled when you get drained down to 0 in a stat considered a problem around here? I like that a lot, it gives you a benchmark and an alternate win condition, both of which make the game more interesting to me.

[Kaelik]

Also, under this model, your Int (or whatever) could get drained down to -9,001 and beyond. And no value would automatically kill you.

Is getting disabled when you get drained down to 0 in a stat considered a problem around here? I like that a lot, it gives you a benchmark and an alternate win condition, both of which make the game more interesting to me.

I think the issue is that it actually creates 6 (or in our new version only 4) new win conditions, and the fact that they are so easy to win with is a failure of 3.5 that need not be repeated.

That said. Int penalties that make you a perpetually worse Arcane user are fine for in combat, and when you can't actually use your stick any more because you are off the RNG, that's just fine as far as it goes.

It just means that a hypothetical giant man who has a 70% hit chance with his most accurate mode of attack that is strength based is "defeated" when he accumulates -14 to his Str. He can just still run away or surrender, which is a little more interesting to me than him immediately collapsing at some point. Especially when we are talking about things like Int/Dex.

The question is "What do we want from the game?" And my answer is: "I see Iron age heroes besting their opponents and then having them run off and/or be caught/surrendered, but not dead. And definitely not unconscious.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Also, under this model, your Int (or whatever) could get drained down to -9,001 and beyond. And no value would automatically kill you.

Is getting disabled when you get drained down to 0 in a stat considered a problem around here? I like that a lot, it gives you a benchmark and an alternate win condition, both of which make the game more interesting to me.

I like having a natural zero, but at the same time it can throw things way out of scale. I think that a human-centric system like D&D (with zero being 'average') is probably more workable. If your Strength is drained such that you can't carry your own weight, you can't move. This point will depend on how big you are, such that a kitten can be as weak as a kitten and still move. If your Perception is reduced to the point that you can't sense anything, you can't sense anything. I'm not sure what a 'disabling point' for Willpower would be.

[Koumei]

What Kaelik said. Also, it's a matter of "Humans start 5 points short of ~DESTROYED~". It just seems a bit weird that you can shoot upwards of 9K, but you can't scale down very far - the weakest thing in the world has to be Str 1 if it has a corporeal form. If you want Death By Ability Drain, then that's cool, but it should probably allow for really (low attribute) things before that number. Thus, if zero is normal, you can just say "-20 is the death point".

[Username17]

One of the advantages of a d20 system is that modifiers to both sides cancel flawlessly. So if you wanted people to go down after losing 20 strength, you could just makes everyone's strength start at 20. +20 to roll and +20 to DC keeps you in exactly the same place.

-Username17

[Grek]

Attributes should increase upon changing tiers, but remain constant within a tier. Gaining new horizontal abilities should be the main advancment within a tier.

I would recomend that the human(orcish?) average be 10 and progress linearly so that each 10 points be equal to an extra 1 person. If someone has a strength of 60, they are as strong as 6 regular mortals. We could also have a chart with things like "A person can lift 1 regular mortal per 15 points of strength and throw them."

[IGTN]

I would recomend that the human(orcish?) average be 10 and progress linearly so that each 10 points be equal to an extra 1 person. If someone has a strength of 60, they are as strong as 6 regular mortals. We could also have a chart with things like "A person can lift 1 regular mortal per 15 points of strength and throw them."

There should be an exponential there, somewhere. First, the difference between a god with the strength of a hundred and one men and a god with the strength of a hundred is not as much as the difference between a mortal with the strength of one man and a mortal with the strength of two. Second, I actually want to have gods with the strength of a hundred men or more (Herakles holds up the sky), and have mortals, and have reasonable numbers for both of them.

[Ice9]

If you want people performing amazing feats of strength such as holding up the sky (or even ripping apart a stone tower), without also performing amazing feats of combat such as killing pretty much anything in one hit, then you need exponential lifting capacity.

Also I think there is a utility curve that justifies exponential increase. Having the strength of four men is a useful ability. Having the strength of 32 men is better, but not 8x better, in terms of what you can practically use it for.

[Murtak]

The current most-supported model seems to be the four attributes of Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, and Wisdom.

The distinction between Intelligence and Wisdom has always been confusing for me. I'm not a native speaker, so maybe it's just me, but if more people are like me it might be better to use different names - Logic and Intuition for example are much mess confusing to me.

[TavishArtair]

There is much less confusion amongst native speakers who have been exposed to the culture of the brilliant but insane mad scientist/wizard/whatever and thus understand implicitly that the message the anti-intellectual propaganda is telling them is that genius doesn't solve everything, or even make you better.

[Ice9]

I would change Wisdom to Will or Spirit, something that more clearly includes force of personality. Even if you're talking to people entirely via MTP, it's still useful for first impressions, binding demons, or whatnot.

[Username17]

The current most-supported model seems to be the four attributes of Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, and Wisdom.

The distinction between Intelligence and Wisdom has always been confusing for me. I'm not a native speaker, so maybe it's just me, but if more people are like me it might be better to use different names - Logic and Intuition for example are much mess confusing to me.

There are no satisfactory titles that can be placed on mental capacities, because people don´t conceptualize their own minds in the same way, and thus the actual words don´t mean the same things to different people. Some people think of politeness when they think of "Charisma" and other people think od loudness when they hear the same word. Partly that´s because different people respond favorably to different techniques or logos and rhetoric, but also it´s because there is no agreement on what that word even means.

Words like "wisdom" don´t have consistent meaning from one person to another. Hell, a substantial portion of the populace thinks of essentially magic power when they hear the word "intuition."

The only reason to choose one word over another is to harken back to how a word was used in a specific other context. And for role playing games, that context will generally be another RPG. So for example in aWoD I am not using Composure or Manipulation or Wits because the baggage that comes with those stats is bad and I don´t want it.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

Okay, so I'm not sure what this thread is supposed to be discussing, but here's what I came up with last night for attributes:

Attributes:

Strength/Constitution (Same thing, Con includes strength more to my mind than str includes con.)
Dex.
Int.
Will. (Will seems to be, as mentioned, more inclusive of willpower and force of personality. Which is what we want in there with maybe perception. Getting ride of that 'smart but not wise' shit. That's the anti-intellectual religious propaganda.)

Now, for what all those things govern, whatever.

But here's how they affect defenses:

Dex is a physical avoidance for basically all physical attacks.
Str/Con is a physical DR for basically all physical attacks.

Same thing for Int/Will, with Int being avoidance of mental attacks, but Will being a DR against them.

Specific Powers/attacks can specify if they bypass DRs or auto hit, or ignore armor or whatever.

What does everyone think of that?

[MGuy]

I think the 4 stat set up is fine but I won't know how I'll feel about how they measure up combat wise until I see more of the combat system goes.

[souran]

How many layers are you going to add to your stat system?

Honestly, D&D 16 = +4 is convoluted unless you are going to have the ability to effect the core stat directly.

If all you ever have is the modifer, and "ability damage" is done by reducing the ability modifier, then why do you need the "ability score" in the first place?

Don't use a chart where a simple value will do.

[CatharzGodfoot]

The score is a modifier. You still call it an "ability score", because that's tradition.

[TavishArtair]

Aside from provide a bit of D&D-ism, what will the Attributes really do in the grand scheme of things?

[Koumei]

As far as I'm aware, similar to how they work now: add them as bonuses to rolls/TNs, maybe use them as requirements.

[Username17]

There are many reasons to drop attributes altogether. But there are several reasons to use them that are to me compelling.

The first is defenses. That is to say that even if all attacks simply scale to level (and there are good solid reasons to embrace such a model), the fact remains that such attacks need to perform differently against different targets in your level bracket or there's no compelling reason to use one over the over and the game becomes tactically uninteresting. There has to be a reason that you'd want to skip over one ability to use another, and having your wind blast or poison spray be relatively ineffective against an enemy who is "strong" makes as much sense as any other distinction you care to make.

The second is "background bullshit." That is to say that characters in the game are going to want to do "stuff" that is not directly covered by the abilities you write up for the game. Some player is going to want to raise chickens or hold his breath or carry a large stack of plates without dropping any or whatever. Ninja Burger cuts the crap and gives people an "Other Stuff" score that is their base modifier for doing anything not on their character sheet. But a lot of people find that kind of offensive and want things split down into some arbitrary distinctions so that their character can be the go-to guy for the "strong guy tasks" or whatever.

And finally there's the immersion question. Players are going to want to be able to have a good idea who counts as "strong" and who counts as "weak" without poisoning them and counting defense differentials. That alone makes a compelling argument for tying those scores of defenses and "other stuff" to character abilities. After all, if doing some kind of giant stomp attack gets better when you have a high strength, then you can imagine that players will make characters that are comprehensible.

-Username17

[mean_liar]

I don't think they're necessary, though I'd say Frank's #1 point is the most compelling reason to include them.

The others are much easier to overcome with a skill-driven system. Being able to do "background bullshit" can be do-able unto itself, and doesn't need a stat. Achieving tiny differences in those BGBS skillsets may not come up due to one less variable in their equations as you've taken attributes out of them, but it's not a robust reason.

Same deal for #3. Skill/maneuver functionality and effectiveness can be built off of each other and need not be related to attributes.

[Kaelik]

Okay. So to be clear. d20 Iron stats:

Big
Fast
Smart
Favored
Magical

Offenses: Attacks will have an attack role or DC based on one stat, and some secondary effect based off of another stat. They will all be class based, so that's not up yet.

Defenses: Big is a Physical DR of some sort. Fast is physical avoidance. Smart is mental/magical avoidance. Favored is mental/magical DR.

Magical gives you a number of points that can be spent to give temporary bonuses to one of those four aspects.

Things that are not offense or defense or skills:

Big determines carry capacity.
Fast determines movement speed.
Smart determines a few extra skills trained.
Favored is social dealing respect. Heroes of the gods get special privileges, like the best choice of spoils, this even applies to grudging props from enemies.
Magical is ...? More points system, and they get to pull of basic magic shit?

Skills:

I now want input on skills. What belongs in d20 Iron? What doesn't? How many total skills? How many trained? Different by class? What? How much should rank determine vs ability score.

A lot of this is premature, and I'm going to veto 90% of what isn't. But I want some preliminary considerations on the table so I can at least know what it is I'm deciding on.