Some games have rules that allow a default attribute roll in lieu of a skill or in situations where some 'raw' test of strength is concerned. But really, is that efficient? Why have both attributes and skills? Most such systems group skills under attributes and so all the attribute then does is further modify the skill score, which ultimately seems rather pointless.

The main reason I see is that it allows attempts at things untrained. If you didn't have a basic STR score that could be defaulted to then everyone would need a list of skills such as "lift object", "throw object" , etc.

Some things are so basic that it just mkes more sense to have a certain attribute value cover it.

IMHO skills and attributes can work well together (such as in GURPS). Skills get messy and complicated when interacting with classes. Class based games really shouldn't use them.

It provides an easy way to handle "unskilled" checks, be it because a skill doesn't exist or none seem appropriate.

As an example, Cartoon Action Hour (1) does away with attributes as such; it's entirely skill-based, but with the regular attribute-type things available as skill choices if you want them. Any ability not on your sheet is considered "average", but the GM is still free to impose modifiers if desired.

Personally I think the skill / attribute divide is a bit clunky in some games, but it's very clean and elegant in dice pool systems.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;623774Some games have rules that allow a default attribute roll in lieu of a skill or in situations where some 'raw' test of strength is concerned. But really, is that efficient? Why have both attributes and skills? Most such systems group skills under attributes and so all the attribute then does is further modify the skill score, which ultimately seems rather pointless.

Well, first, you could use something different system wise, like using the attribute as a TN, but even in standard type systems (roll d(X)+attribute+skill over TN) you are still using the attribute as a modifier, and different stats give different modifiers, and help serve to differentiate characters.

You can certainly create systems that do not use attributes. Many have. However, it is neither more or less efficient to do so. It's just different.

-clash

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;623774Some games have rules that allow a default attribute roll in lieu of a skill or in situations where some 'raw' test of strength is concerned. But really, is that efficient? Why have both attributes and skills? Most such systems group skills under attributes and so all the attribute then does is further modify the skill score, which ultimately seems rather pointless.

One could easily see attributes a skills, but they are the basic skills, wereas skills is really subskills, specializations in the noted areas.

If you roll-under attributes, skills provide modifiers to the roll or act as gatekeepers. permitting a roll only if the character has the relevant skill.

In Flashing Blades, the referee is advised to divide the skill by two or three if the task is more difficult.

Quote from: flyingmice;623786Well, first, you could use something different system wise, like using the attribute as a TN,

I think that has more or less the same issues. If your TN is based on Attributes you also need to have a scale that means that the lowest level isn't so low that it's pointless even trying. If you're rated from 1-5 and you have Str at 1, then trying to lift stuff is just going to be a waste of time.

Quote from: Catelf;623802One could easily see attributes a skills, but they are the basic skills, wereas skills is really subskills, specializations in the noted areas.

Which is all well and good, but it has always personally left me a little uncomfortable. It just feels inelegant.

It also means that someone who wants to undertake a task based on attribute alone, lifting, again for example, is always going to be worse at it than anything he has a skill in. So you'd have to have skills for such things unless you rate attributes and skills separate which kinda seems self defeating.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;623809I think that has more or less the same issues. If your TN is based on Attributes you also need to have a scale that means that the lowest level isn't so low that it's pointless even trying. If you're rated from 1-5 and you have Str at 1, then trying to lift stuff is just going to be a waste of time.

Yes, and that is exactly the point of Attributes. If you want to differentiate characters on a fundamental physical basis, whether it's worthwhile trying to lift something heavy is a good place to start. If you are not concerned with that, then don't. Either way, efficiency only comes into question when the system doesn't give you proper return, as when such differentiation is immaterial to the game, but the attribute is still there, or vice versa, when you wish to differentiate on that basis and there is no attribute handy.

-clash

So a roll Skill dice +> attribute sort of system couldn't work unless you have skills that everyone has, which is just fiddly diddly. So everyone would have to have 'Lift' as a skill in order to lift things.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;623873So a roll Skill dice +> attribute sort of system couldn't work unless you have skills that everyone has, which is just fiddly diddly. So everyone would have to have 'Lift' as a skill in order to lift things.

That's why I used (Skill Rank * dice) + 1 roll at/under Attribute. Not particularly fiddly, and you get one die unskilled.

Look, GW, I get that you don't like Attributes, and that's fine. We all have unreasonable likes and dislikes. Some people despise percentile dice. Some loathe dice pools. That's the way people are. But attributes work just fine at what they are designed to do, just like dice pools and percentiles. If you don't need what they offer, don't use them in what you design, and modify TNs appropriately for games you play. If you do need what they offer and still can't stomach using them, you need to find some other way around it.

-clash

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;623811Which is all well and good, but it has always personally left me a little uncomfortable. It just feels inelegant.

It also means that someone who wants to undertake a task based on attribute alone, lifting, again for example, is always going to be worse at it than anything he has a skill in. So you'd have to have skills for such things unless you rate attributes and skills separate which kinda seems self defeating.

You could just go the D&D route and make lifting unrelated to skills, i.e. you can lift 10x your STR in lbs.

I dunno, there's just something about these systems that seems a little binary to me. Conceptually it's fine. Whatever floats your boat.

But what do you do with your PC's? Do you challenge what they suck at? Do you set up situations so that the ratfaced thief has to charm his way out of trouble, or that sickly mage has to physically fend off kidnappers, or the dull witted barbarian has to play chess? If not, why have weak spots in a character design - or do you play games where the pc's are good at everything?

It just feels sometimes that you are left with a few stats that are little more than dump stats and when faced with such challenges the player is basically hamstrung. That just seems a bit tedious to me, and a bit of a wasted opportunity.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;623811Which is all well and good, but it has always personally left me a little uncomfortable. It just feels inelegant.

It also means that someone who wants to undertake a task based on attribute alone, lifting, again for example, is always going to be worse at it than anything he has a skill in. So you'd have to have skills for such things unless you rate attributes and skills separate which kinda seems self defeating.

But then again, things that require just basic attributes is rarely complex in themselves.
Lifting again, it is not really a complex thing, and the difficulty should be thereafter, like halved or 2/3.
Or automatic as in D&D (according to Technomancer), or mainly automatic as in the Storytelling System.

Ok, one may argue that people used to heavy lifting and professional weightlifters do have a skill in "Lifting", but that kind of skill would be so redundant in most kinds of rpg game styles, so it is often better to just increase strength a bit.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;623899I dunno, there's just something about these systems that seems a little binary to me. Conceptually it's fine. Whatever floats your boat.

But what do you do with your PC's? Do you challenge what they suck at? Do you set up situations so that the ratfaced thief has to charm his way out of trouble, or that sickly mage has to physically fend off kidnappers, or the dull witted barbarian has to play chess? If not, why have weak spots in a character design - or do you play games where the pc's are good at everything?

It just feels sometimes that you are left with a few stats that are little more than dump stats and when faced with such challenges the player is basically hamstrung. That just seems a bit tedious to me, and a bit of a wasted opportunity.

I don't "set up" anything in that sense. That's not the way I run games. Frequently, however, a character does attempt something she's not good at. That's up to the character, and to the operations of chance. Failure *is* an option, and works in its own way to generate interesting play.

-clash