"In my game the Mental Attributes are..."

[OgreBattle]

Physical Attributes n' Stats are pretty straightforward to measure, but mental ones are more vague. We already know WIS and CHA in D&D do a lot of unrelated stuff so this is for looking at other ways to do those attributes

What do y'alls Heartbreakers go with and why? It's not difficult to divide the D&Dism of Wisdom into both sharp senses to spot an ambush and self reflection to figure out some course of action. The 'force of personality' part of mental resilience and CHA can become "Will" or something.

The two concepts I'm most on the fence about are "Willpower / Fighting Spirit" and "Logic / Intelligence"

With Willpower there's various tests and theories as to what it is, like being able to wait to eat a marshmallow to get two or to keep 'grinding' at learning or exercise.

I'm using "Logic" because it seems more specific than "Intelligence". Even with that I'm leaning towards removing Logic as an attribute and instead the "Human sapience smarty stuff" is ported over to a short list of Knowledge skills. (*My Heartbreaker plan is to have core Attributes and then optional Skills, neither affect the other)

[pragma]

I'm not making a heartbreaker, but I've kicked around the following set of attributes, largely because they have a good acronym:
Strength -- Includes HP and fortitude type stuff because the STR/CON split doesn't really evoke any archetypes.
Agility -- Because people want to play nimble archers.
Magic -- Because people want to play spellslingers
Perception -- Because it's so important to every character that it ought to be a stat rather than a skill
Lore -- Because want to play wizened sages and knowledge skills are frustrating in D&D, the smart guy just picks them all. Why not roll it up here?
Extroversion -- Charming people, inspiring, starting with the letter E.

[JonSetanta]

"Mind"

Everything else is a skill, some species of player characters or monsters get a +5 bonus but that's not often.

Humans for instance get +5 Social checks, which is a Mind skill.

[Thaluikhain]

Personally, I don't like Intelligence scores for PCs, as they are running off the players brainpower. I do like Will, but would use it for, say, hypnotism more than mundane self-control, but that's just me.

[erik]

I dumped it entirely for Nexus and used attributes more like Arkham Horror.
Speed Sneak Fight Tech Magic Aware

No need for intelligence or wisdom. And Sneak is the default charisma for trying to manipulate people into doing what you want.

[Prak]

In D&D stuff, I just accept the usual stats, but as I go on in my design, I am more an more uncomfortable/unhappy with the idea of Intelligence as a stat. Even when I make stuff for D&D, I tend to leave Intelligence alone in race design, unless I'm giving it a bonus as way to say "play a wizard." In my own game designs, I prefer to eschew a single Intelligence stat in favor of having "mental acuity and speed of thought" and "what do you know" represented by entirely separate stats, with the latter generally lumped in with skills instead ability scores. So, I guess in my own designs, I tend to take the various things represented by Int, Wis and Cha, cut out the book learning to put it in "things what you can improve with practice," and then divide the rest into "how able is your brain" and "how charming are you" with the occasional "how unflappable are you" third mental stat, when the genre of the game cares about that sort of thing enough to justify it being its own stat.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

"Mind"

Everything else is a skill, some species of player characters or monsters get a +5 bonus but that's not often.

Yeah, this is kind of what I've got. Body, Mind, and Spirit, each of which is split into 5 skills (except Mind, which has 6). Mind Skills are all just different kinds of education, like your ability to treat wounds or identify magical elements. Spirit Skills are social-focused. Different classes have different inclinations towards certain categories. I don't actually have classes yet so I'm spitballing, but an Athlete might have 3 points to allocate to Body skills, 2 points for Spirit skills, and 1 point for Mind skills. I cannot help but think of the World of Darkness, which makes me nervous.
I do actually have an Intelligence score ranging from 1-5. 99% of adolescent humans are Intelligence 3, while super-genius nerds are Intelligence 4 and people with the mental acuity of a 6 year old are Intelligence 2. This doesn't really interfere with your ability to make most education checks or crafting, but it IS a much bigger deal for Pokemon, who tend to hover around Intelligence 2, as something with 1 INT literally can't be commanded and is nearly non-sentient. Pokemon with Intelligence 3 can make education and crafting checks like humans can, and can literally hold down a job. You can actually ask the Chansey at your local Pokemon Center about medical practices and the latest research papers and she might actually be able to answer you. You probably can't understand her, but still.
Meanwhile, at INT 5 you have Alakazam and other creatures that are beyond our comprehension. Humans literally cannot be this smart. If an Alakazam could speak to you (which it honestly probably could, I could see an argument for giving it a Polyglot ability), then your brain would start leaking out of your ears at its sheer FACTS and LOGIC. It could also just be the CEO of a whole company if it wanted.
... psychic pokemon are terrifying, actually.

[JonSetanta]

Interesting number range. Seems to resemble some editions of D&D stat bonuses without the score, which is what I did using a starting range of 0 to 4, and racial bonus from 0 to 2, meaning at level 1 it is possible to have a Dwarf with Body 6 (DnD: STR/CON each 22) but that leaves only 2 points for the other two stats, Dexterity and Mind.

Every 5 levels grants 2 more points to each stat, but combat and skill check competency relies more on feat or skill selection that stat boosts.
By level 16/Rank 4 the best an inherent stat can climb, with racial bonus, is 12, add another +10 to a single skill roll for training a skill twice (or more skills, if power slots are invested on such things rather than combat ability or spells), and that's +22, not too far off from d20 expectations.

Stats are also literally the save bonuses and Dodge rolls, so ironically a player rolls d20+Dex+any feat bonuses vs a number called Threat for melee attacks, defined by feat and class selection rather than "strong and fast characters hit more often".
I'm aiming to have powers provide numeric bonuses that outweigh those of stats, but so far in this revision it's about 60/40.

[deaddmwalking]

We use Intelligence and Will.

Intelligence impacts ranged attack rolls, DCs to resist spells and some special abilities, and resist checks against illusions. Many skills also rely on Intelligence.

Will covers far more saves, and includes how many spells/ki abilities you can use. Interpersonal skills rely on Will.

A wizard wants a high Will to cast a lot of spells and a high Intelligence to ensure they're impactful.

[Pedantic]

I've been pretty happy with Scott Gearin's approach in his reworking of Fantasycraft or his (likely eternally unfinished) Alabaster project. He started by tracking everywhere an attribute modifier was used to divvy their system effectiveness equally, reworked skills to divide evenly between them and then worked backward to find an appropriate word to cover everything the attribute did now.

Awareness (Awr): Attention to your surroundings. Your Awareness modifier is added to initiative rolls, and Instinct Saving Throws. The key skill for Awareness is Vigilance and its also tied to Analysis and Intuition checks.
Cunning (Cun): Guile and creativity. Your Cunning modifier grants you Techniques and skill points per level. The key skill for Cunning is Negotiation and its also tied to Stealth and Tactics checks.
Determination (Dtr): The drive to reach your goals. Your Determination modifier is added to Luck per level, social defense, and Courage Saving Throws. The key skill for Determination is Focus and its also tied to Leadership and Survival checks.
Fitness (Fit): Physical integrity and power. Your Fitness modifier is added to melee (and unarmed) attack rolls and Health Saving Throws. Fitness score sets Health. The key skill for Fitness is Athletics and its also tied to Menace and Stamina checks.
Grace (Grc): Agility and Elegance. Grace modifier is added Defense. The key skill for Grace is Charisma and its also tied to Acrobatics and Acting checks.
Precision (Prc): Accuracy and attention to detail. Your Precision modifier grants you Studies and is added to Ranged attack rolls. The key skill for Precision is Expertise and its also tied to Profession and Sabotage checks.

[Whatever Jr.]

trying to make ability scores work better is a fool's errand.

-if they contribute to your primary shtick, then you fuck up everything else
-if they only matter for minor checks, then you don't need that level of granularity. People can just be "strong" without trying to parse out Str 14 vs Str 15.

[Harshax]

I tossed around the idea of just having Fortitude, Reflex and Will as Attributes and dropping everything else.

Then I ran into Blades in the Dark and it turns attributes and skills upside down. Your Fortitude doesn’t describe how strong or tough you are it’s the other way around. The number of ranks you have in Fortitude skills determine what your Fortitude score is.

When you’re called to make saving throws, it’s logical that a character with lots of magic and knowledge skills has a higher Will than the person that doesn’t.

I think the skill limits were Fate-like, where you needed a pyramid of skills for one skill to be a higher rank than the tier below it or something like that. This might limit some character concepts if they are very narrowly defined.

Maybe feats or class abilities would let a character skip the pyramid, so you could have weird edge cases where someone is just really damn tough or agile, but for most use cases, I find the above summary appealing.

[Whatever Jr.]

When you’re called to make saving throws, it’s logical that a character with lots of magic and knowledge skills has a higher Will than the person that doesn’t.

It's really fucking not. You know who completely fails his Will save in Lord of the Rings? Saruman, the wisest and cleverest of all the wizards on Middle-Earth. Magic and knowledge makes you MORE susceptible to malign influence, not less.

[Thaluikhain]

When you’re called to make saving throws, it’s logical that a character with lots of magic and knowledge skills has a higher Will than the person that doesn’t.

It's really fucking not. You know who completely fails his Will save in Lord of the Rings? Saruman, the wisest and cleverest of all the wizards on Middle-Earth. Magic and knowledge makes you MORE susceptible to malign influence, not less.

Well, it's logical, but it may or may not be appropriate to your setting. You can (and people have) work it both ways.

[Whatever Jr.]

Again, bullshit. The logic for A is no stronger than the logic for ~A; we're just used to the system that happened to pick A. If you're making the choice to maintain that for aesthetic or balance reasons, fine. But let's not pretend that it's a logical requirement.

[Thaluikhain]

Not a logical requirement for everyone, no, but you could well decide to have a setting where that's the logical outcome of whatever made up things you wanted to put in, I meant.

[Omegonthesane]

When you’re called to make saving throws, it’s logical that a character with lots of magic and knowledge skills has a higher Will than the person that doesn’t.

It's really fucking not. You know who completely fails his Will save in Lord of the Rings? Saruman, the wisest and cleverest of all the wizards on Middle-Earth. Magic and knowledge makes you MORE susceptible to malign influence, not less.

Saruman didn't fail a will save. He despaired of the geopolitical position of Not-Mordor and freely chose evil over good.

Even in Call of Cthulhu where there is a strong correlation between having lots of magic and knowledge skills and falling under malign influence, the relationship is nothing so direct as "increasing your Mythos Lore reduces your POW stat". Rather, having a high POW stat is a requirement for actually learning eldritch lore without going completely mad*. So even in the setting where you explicitly expose yourself to malign influence by learning, the correlation is that people who learn anyway have strong wills.

* obvious disclaimer that CoC has a particularly insensitive portrayal of mental illness and neurodivergence, and describing it in their terms in this context should not be deemed an endorsement of those views

[Dogbert]

I don't handle attributes, no. My game's bonuses are handled by class (fixed, not growing) and Enhancements you have a small percentage to win each encounter (and mostly replace treasure as a road to power).

[Dogbert]

Magic and knowledge makes you MORE susceptible to malign influence, not less.

Power doesn't corrupt, it only reveals character. Saruman always was a little shit. All he got from Sauron's backing and an orc army was freedom to be himself.

While you can validly argue that "they who seek power should never have it," I can also validly argue that we're talking attributes for a game model that is about playing fantasy AnCaps, so that ship already sailed. All player characters are already evil.

[Kaelik]

I think Saruman was explicitly corrupted somewhat by his regular conversations with Sauron through the Palantir. But also no one else has having regular conversations with Devil Dude, so I'm not sure it follows that knowledge corrupts from that, so much as that devil dude eventually corrupted him in a way that he could have done perhaps easier to Pippin. Likewise people seemed to believe that Gandalf and Galadriel would be worse ring bearers not primarily because they would corrupt faster, although they might have, but because corruption was inevitable and they would be more powerful once corrupted.

Let's not forget, Frodo literally decided it was his ring and he was going to be the next dark lord at Mt. Doom, it just turned out "super evil demon hobbit lord" was still pretty easy to shut down in a way that Gandalf deciding to supplant Sauron would not have been.

This particular literary series and Magical Knowledge vs Will aside.

It makes a lot of sense that the guy with lots of ranks in Jump, Climb, Athletics, Tumble, and Break Doors is also the guy who most easily resists a poison sting from a giant scorpion, and the person with no ranks in any of those things is bad at it. The concept of high defense in the classification you have more skills in is a good concept that could be used in a game.

In my game I have Intelligence and Will with both of them adding to Perception and Mind defenses, as well as being a power source for different classes. The point of this system such as it is, as opposed to a no attribute system, is that since each class has two abilities tied to their power they can emphasize one over the other, and it gives me a place to provide certain kinds of buff effects that add to defenses as well as offenses and miscellaneous skill actions.

[Foxwarrior]

it just turned out "super evil demon hobbit lord" was still pretty easy to shut down

I wonder if any D&D campaign has made the Monk's Tiger Amulet into an immensely evil MacGuffin...

[Whatever Jr.]

It makes a lot of sense that the guy with lots of ranks in Jump, Climb, Athletics, Tumble, and Break Doors is also the guy who most easily resists a poison sting from a giant scorpion, and the person with no ranks in any of those things is bad at it. The concept of high defense in the classification you have more skills in is a good concept that could be used in a game.

If your game has characters with "lots of ranks in Jump, Climb, Athletics, Tumble, and Break Doors" then you have a bad game.

[Harshax]

Magic and knowledge makes you MORE susceptible to malign influence, not less.

This is kind of dumb because of the previous responses and generally speaking, the more you roll dice the more you are likely to fail.

Stabby, high Fortitude characters are more likely to fail at Fortitude things because they’re more likely to try Fortitude things.

Casty, know-it-all high Will characters are more likely to fail at Will things because they’re more likely to try Will things.

Empirically, you don’t get good at something unless you try and fail, re-evaluate and try again.

If you want to base a game on aphorisms, you’re welcome. But most aphorisms are very culturally specific. I’ve heard the riffed Nietzscheism more times than I can count, but my aphorism is, “What doesn’t kill you makes you smarter,” not stronger.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

It makes a lot of sense that the guy with lots of ranks in Jump, Climb, Athletics, Tumble, and Break Doors is also the guy who most easily resists a poison sting from a giant scorpion, and the person with no ranks in any of those things is bad at it. The concept of high defense in the classification you have more skills in is a good concept that could be used in a game.

If your game has characters with "lots of ranks in Jump, Climb, Athletics, Tumble, and Break Doors" then you have a bad game.

That's a strange thing to specifically point out issues with.

[Kaelik]

It makes a lot of sense that the guy with lots of ranks in Jump, Climb, Athletics, Tumble, and Break Doors is also the guy who most easily resists a poison sting from a giant scorpion, and the person with no ranks in any of those things is bad at it. The concept of high defense in the classification you have more skills in is a good concept that could be used in a game.

If your game has characters with "lots of ranks in Jump, Climb, Athletics, Tumble, and Break Doors" then you have a bad game.

I'm obviously using a simple list of basic things that have been skills in D&D game, despite this system probably more appropriately being a dicepool system, instead of inventing an attribute and skill system for the purpose of this forum post.

If you want to be a pedantic dumbass we could say "Characters with more ranks in Animal Ken, Bureaucracy, Empathy, Expression, Intimidation, Persuasion, and Tactics should have better defenses against Social attacks then characters with few, and characters with more ranks in Athletics, Combat, Drive, Larceny, Perception, Stealth, and Survival should have better defenses against physical attacks like bullets."