Project Nevercast. Part 4: Attributes

Submitted by Ar Kayon on Thu, 2009-09-10 21:31. Design | Feedback

Core Attributes
1. Strength - Affects power, damage resistance, and skills that rely on muscle or size.
2. Speed - Affects power and skills that rely on quickness.
3. Power - Affects skills that rely on explosiveness, affects melee damage, and is based on speed and strength.
4. Endurance - Affects vigor. (Pending) affects stamina.
5. Dexterity - Affects skills that rely on hand-eye coordination.
6. Agility - Affects that rely on complex movement.
7. Reflex - Affects skills that rely on timing.
8. Perception - Affects skills that rely on awareness of the environment.
9. Insight - Affects skills that rely on intuition and experience.
10. Logic - Affects skills that rely on analytical thought.
11. Focus - Affects concentration and skills that rely on it.
12. Charisma - Affects skills that rely on social aptitude.
*Pending means the mechanic is still in the works.

Secondary Attributes
1. Vigor - A combination of stamina and health. (Pending) Health only.
2. Damage Resistance - Your body's ability to handle damage. Armor affects this rating.
3. (Pending) Concentration - A resource pool for mental exertion.
4. (Pending) Stamina - A resource pool for physical exertion.
5. (Pending) Mental Exertion Threshold - How intensely you are able to focus on an action before taxing your concentration resource.
6. (Pending) Physical Exertion Threshold - How intensely you are able to endure an action before taxing your stamina resource.

Gender-specific attribute penalties
Male - Dexterity, Agility, Perception, Insight
Female - Strength, Speed, Logic, Focus

*Yes, I understand that us males have short attention spans, which at first makes the gender-related attribute modifiers seem counterintuitive. To clarify, focus relates to the ability to concentrate on one thing at a time with intensity, and perception relates to the ability to concentrate on many things at a time with less attention to detail. Therefore, it would be more accurate to say that there are actually TWO perception attributes (especially because depth perception falls into the focus attribute), so it would be better for me to rename "Perception" to "Awareness".

» Ar Kayon's blog | add new comment | 253 reads

Power?

Submitted by SheikhJahbooty on Sat, 2009-09-12 19:51.

If power is based on speed and strength, doesn't that make it a secondary attribute? Maybe I don't understand what makes something core and what makes something secondary.

» reply

I wasn't sure on how to categorize Power.

Submitted by Ar Kayon on Sat, 2009-09-12 23:05.

Although it is based on two attributes, it acts on (a few) other skills the way core attributes do. Ultimately, to prevent confusion, I'll probably just stick in in the secondary attributes. After all, it can't be directly manipulated.
In terms of combat mechanics, power prevents strength from being the best attribute, and models how some smaller people are able to hit as hard or sometimes harder than people with greater muscle mass. If this attribute mechanic did not exist, tactical realism will be compromised.

The Formula
Power ((St + Sp) / 2) Average=5; Mike Tyson=8 (8St + 8Sp / 2 =8); Bruce Lee=8 (10Sp + 6St / 2 = 8)

» reply

Mechanical balance

Submitted by Ar Kayon on Sat, 2009-09-12 23:40.

Thus, if we look at the examples of Bruce Lee and Mike Tyson, they will both have roughly equal yet variant tactical advantages. Because Bruce has a higher speed, he will have a higher rate of scoring hits. However, because Mike has a higher strength, he will be able to neutralize the damage of Bruce's weaker blows. Therefore, it would benefit Bruce to sacrifice speed for a power strike (because he'll still be quick enough to land), and it would benefit Mike to strike with weaker blows (e.g. jabs) first in order to improve the success rate of a follow-up power strike.

If the power mechanic did not exist, Bruce's heavier blows would not have much impact on Mike and thus he would be tactically weaker. But this would not model realistic fighting dynamics, as many of us have witnessed smaller men capable of dealing out tremendous amounts of force.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the attribute is awkward, and although I hate rules-complexity, it is a necessary component of my system and simulationist systems seem to require a certain degree of complexity in order to work. If you can think of something more eloquent, I will appreciate your suggestions.

» reply

Once again all down to layout.

Submitted by alderneyvamp on Sun, 2009-09-13 05:28.

A complex system isn't a bad thing, in fact I prefer them, it stops character being copy paste with little actual variation in capabilities. It also sounds like this system would put people of min maxing, (obviously they will have favoured attributes based on their combat style, but will probably realize any scores sacrificed will give opponents a tactical advantage.)

However over complexity in combat can be a drag. For example (not saying one is better than the other I enjoy both) a 3.5 DND encounter even when your familiar with the rules takes a lot longer than a 4th ed encounter. Not that DND is particularily complex, but adding a small amount of complexity can add a lot of time.

One way I've found that is easy to deal with this (especially with new players) is to create a quick reference sheet, or to have references to the rules on the character sheet. With the basic concepts (not fully fleshed out rules) on one sheet of A4, rather than spread out over a whole rule book, it can serve as a memory jog and remove constant referencing, and even if you do have to look it up, it could have a page number telling you where to find the full rules.
____________________________________________________________
Don't steal... The Government hates competition.

» reply

Eep.

Submitted by alderneyvamp on Fri, 2009-09-11 08:11.

That's a whole lot of attributes. It's enough to scare a guy. On the other hand, after reading your proposed way with dealing with combat at the like, I can see why you would need a lot of representations to emulate real world aspects. I think this would look a lot less daunting if organised into rough groups like Physical and Mental. Realising that I'm not being overly usefull here, lots of these attributes overlap multiple would be groups (like Reflex) and perhaps defining them as such would limit your mechanics.

I spose if there is a way to make this less daunting you'll propably find it in the course of character creation of game mechanics. It may seem cosmetic, but a well thought out character sheet can do alot to make a game more simple.
____________________________________________________________
Don't steal... The Government hates competition.

» reply

You're right

Submitted by Ar Kayon on Fri, 2009-09-11 12:32.

There are a lot of attributes. I had to break down generalized attributes in order to get a well-balanced skill system, and also to have a fair balance amongst genders.

To make an example, if I meld agility, reflex, dexterity and speed into one attribute - dexterity - then I've limited the tactical range of combat maneuvers to only 3 attributes: strength (which isn't used often for skills), dexterity, and endurance (another attribute which isn't used often for skills. Therefore, combat characters would just blast their dex for an advantage.

Also, since this is a simulationist rpg, umbrella attributes like dexterity and intelligence aren't realistic.

My second rationale is that very small values for attributes and a streamlined character creation system will allow for greater complexity in other areas without much mental strain.

» reply