AWW: Errors of Attribution
Aug. 20th, 2013 11:05 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexandraerinSo, after simplifying the biggest part of character creation in terms of impact from "pick from one to three Character Qualities, assign them levels as follows, then designate ranked abilities like so." to "Pick two Character Qualities.", I'm turning that same sort of scalpel onto the biggest part of character creation in terms of number of decision points and math: attribute allocation.
Making Magic work the same on the front end as everything else was kind of phase one of this. Phase 2 is getting rid of the idea of separate pools for Combat Attributes and Everything Else Attributes.
I feel I have solid reasons for making the Fight Good stats separate from the Lift Good and Move Good stats. Tying how good a direct-damage-dealer you are to how strong you are has too many unintended side effects, and ends up pigeonholing characters.
I also feel like there are good reasons to encourage players to think about both in-combat and out-of-combat competencies, perhaps approaching a level where it's reasonable to structure the game so that everyone has both.
But at the end of the day, I'm not 100% convinced that the reasons really are compelling enough to add both an arbitrary restriction and additional complexity to the most complicated part of character creation, which having separate pools does.
So here's the new system I'm kicking around: you have twenty points. You can spend those points as you see fit, among any of the attributes. Attributes cost how many points you want to have in them, to a maximum of 6. Yes, this means there's no cost penalty to having an exceptional (higher than 3) attribute. PCs are exceptional. I don't need to enforce an artificial rarity on higher attributes in order to create some kind of curve.
You can still gain up to 4 additional points by taking attributes negative, to a floor of -2. These extra points can be spent raising attributes like normal, but they can also be cashed in for additional details. This extra wrinkle is here to solve a dilemma I have about how many details to give players to begin with. If you're trying to twink out your character (which is valid), you'll probably get more out of having more attribute points. If you're going for a more well-rounded approach, you probably want more details than the system provides by default.
I kept wanting to add additional complications that would prevent or discourage players from having four attributes of 6 and two -2s, but... meh. It would be unfortunate if every character turns out that way, but it seems like an acceptable spread to me. Such a character would be incredibly good at a very narrow range of things and catastrophically bad in others. It would be an extreme level of specialization but not entirely a one trick pony and no more gamebreakingly good than a character with two 6s would be.
I have some other changes in mind that will do more to knock down the wall between Combat Attributes and Not Combat Attributes, while preserving what is necessary about it. These changes will make it easier for non-combatants to survive and run interference, open up the field a little bit for where fighters' points go, and make more of a distinction between the physical defense options. Since I haven't ever published the previous combat rules, trying to explain everything that's changed in detail would be kind of weird, but suffice it to say that the new version will be a lot more satisfying in a lot of ways. Finesse (which confused a lot of players and was never the most satisfying bit of abstraction) is gone. Now, if you want to smack an opponent into a wall you'd use Strength and if you want to trip them into it you'd use Dexterity or Agility and if you want to trick them into running into it you'd use Deception... which gets into what I meant by non-combatants being able to do things.
(Clarifying Edit: Finesse, when it existed, was used strictly for "attacks for effect" rather than direct damage. This "pick your best stat and figure out how to use it" style I'm describing also only works for attacks for effect. In situations where straightforward fighting for damage is possible, that will still be the optimal strategy most of the time, so the fighting-centered stats aren't all being obsoleted.)
Between attack rolls becoming mostly just regular checks and this change, I think I come a lot closer to my goal of keeping "the combat game" and "the regular game" the same thing. You resolve it as an attack because the enemy's going to be defending, but picking up someone and throwing them around is a Strength Check, the same thing you'd do to pick up a crate and throw it.
Making Magic work the same on the front end as everything else was kind of phase one of this. Phase 2 is getting rid of the idea of separate pools for Combat Attributes and Everything Else Attributes.
I feel I have solid reasons for making the Fight Good stats separate from the Lift Good and Move Good stats. Tying how good a direct-damage-dealer you are to how strong you are has too many unintended side effects, and ends up pigeonholing characters.
I also feel like there are good reasons to encourage players to think about both in-combat and out-of-combat competencies, perhaps approaching a level where it's reasonable to structure the game so that everyone has both.
But at the end of the day, I'm not 100% convinced that the reasons really are compelling enough to add both an arbitrary restriction and additional complexity to the most complicated part of character creation, which having separate pools does.
So here's the new system I'm kicking around: you have twenty points. You can spend those points as you see fit, among any of the attributes. Attributes cost how many points you want to have in them, to a maximum of 6. Yes, this means there's no cost penalty to having an exceptional (higher than 3) attribute. PCs are exceptional. I don't need to enforce an artificial rarity on higher attributes in order to create some kind of curve.
You can still gain up to 4 additional points by taking attributes negative, to a floor of -2. These extra points can be spent raising attributes like normal, but they can also be cashed in for additional details. This extra wrinkle is here to solve a dilemma I have about how many details to give players to begin with. If you're trying to twink out your character (which is valid), you'll probably get more out of having more attribute points. If you're going for a more well-rounded approach, you probably want more details than the system provides by default.
I kept wanting to add additional complications that would prevent or discourage players from having four attributes of 6 and two -2s, but... meh. It would be unfortunate if every character turns out that way, but it seems like an acceptable spread to me. Such a character would be incredibly good at a very narrow range of things and catastrophically bad in others. It would be an extreme level of specialization but not entirely a one trick pony and no more gamebreakingly good than a character with two 6s would be.
I have some other changes in mind that will do more to knock down the wall between Combat Attributes and Not Combat Attributes, while preserving what is necessary about it. These changes will make it easier for non-combatants to survive and run interference, open up the field a little bit for where fighters' points go, and make more of a distinction between the physical defense options. Since I haven't ever published the previous combat rules, trying to explain everything that's changed in detail would be kind of weird, but suffice it to say that the new version will be a lot more satisfying in a lot of ways. Finesse (which confused a lot of players and was never the most satisfying bit of abstraction) is gone. Now, if you want to smack an opponent into a wall you'd use Strength and if you want to trip them into it you'd use Dexterity or Agility and if you want to trick them into running into it you'd use Deception... which gets into what I meant by non-combatants being able to do things.
(Clarifying Edit: Finesse, when it existed, was used strictly for "attacks for effect" rather than direct damage. This "pick your best stat and figure out how to use it" style I'm describing also only works for attacks for effect. In situations where straightforward fighting for damage is possible, that will still be the optimal strategy most of the time, so the fighting-centered stats aren't all being obsoleted.)
Between attack rolls becoming mostly just regular checks and this change, I think I come a lot closer to my goal of keeping "the combat game" and "the regular game" the same thing. You resolve it as an attack because the enemy's going to be defending, but picking up someone and throwing them around is a Strength Check, the same thing you'd do to pick up a crate and throw it.
no subject
on 2013-08-21 12:47 am (UTC)So I'm not sure I am understanding. Is there not a generic stat for fighting (like "attack points"), but rather a variety of stats that can all be used to damage an enemy? So a very strong player could kill an enemy by bashing them into a wall, even if they suck at using weapon - simply because they are super strong? While a skilled swordsman can cut them in two, even if he isn't very strong.
no subject
on 2013-08-21 01:49 am (UTC)There is a generic fighting stat, at least for everything that falls under the category of close physical fighting, and that's Prowess. If you want to attack someone to do damage in order to end the fight by defeating them, you're using Prowess to make an attack check.
(Unless you're shooting them, then you use Targeting.)
What I'm discussing here are attacks for effect, which Finesse was a generic stat for before I dropped it. It's for anything you do where you're not trying to directly inflict damage. You'd do this because possibly your opponent is invulnerable to your weapons, or too good at defending against them, or because there's something that you can do that will end the fight faster if only you can get your opponent into the right position. Attacks for effect can end up doing damage (slamming someone into the wall being a specific example), but the trade-off is poor compared to just stabbing someone with a sword. If you can fight, fighting will almost always be the quickest way to win a fight, but if the direct approach isn't optimal, then you can tailor your approach to what your best stats are.
no subject
on 2013-08-21 02:02 am (UTC)