I have an idea that feels pretty weighty in the brain, and was wondering if anyone here had gone down this road before?

Starting here - http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/eag-the-weighting-and-scoring-method

QuoteThe process of deriving weights and scores is explained below step by step, covering the following stages:

Identify the relevant non-monetary attributes;
Weight the attributes to reflect their relative importance;
Score the options to reflect how each option performs against each attribute;
Calculate the weighted scores;
Test the results for robustness; and
Interpret the results.

Step 1: Identification of Non-Monetary Attributes
15.7   
Identifying the attributes may sound straightforward, but attributes must be clearly defined so that both appraisers and those reviewing appraisal reports have a clear understanding of them. To help in the scoring of options, attributes should be defined as far as possible in service or output-oriented terms, and they should generally relate closely to the service objectives and performance criteria established at the outset of the overall appraisal. Considerable care is also needed to ensure that:

there is no double counting caused by an overlap in the attributes (e.g. aesthetic qualities and attractiveness);
there is no double counting caused by attributes being covered by costs (e.g. including a 'reliability' attribute when reliability is already provided for by inclusion of maintenance costs); and
all relevant attributes are included, even if they are common to all the options.

So I'm picturing a set of measurements (which could be adjusted by genre) that allow a person to quickly quantify a 'character widget' and then make it available.

For example, 'combat effectiveness' could be a measurement.  Say 0% for something that never comes into play in combat, and maybe 100% for something that doubles your attacks.

In this example, weighting would allow you to tailor the costs of such a thing by how much combat you expect to have.

The idea's just an infant, but it has merit, I think.

Quote from: mcbobbo;686274In this example, weighting would allow you to tailor the costs of such a thing by how much combat you expect to have.

The idea's just an infant, but it has merit, I think.

So, if something like a GURPS Advantage costs 10 points and is mainly combat-oriented, if you're going to run a mostly non-combat game, you could discount it down to 5 points (50%?)?

It's an interesting idea, and at a surface level seems to handle some of the issues with generic systems where the focus of the particular game will impact the effective value of various options.

I'm going to think about this more, but I see two immediate things:

1) This makes non-focused items *cheap*.  It becomes easy to become a social monster in a combat game, and a combat monster in a social game.  Care has to be taken to ensure that this doesn't create a perverse incentive to invest heavily in areas of the game that aren't focused.

2) This adds a lot of math, potentially, especially if you're dealing with things much worse than a 50% reduction.  A hypothetical system might require you to assign focus to three areas - social, combat, exploration (physical activities without hacking and slashing, basically).  These would add up to 100%.  The cost of any item would be * .  That's not awesome math when you're not dealing with even things - even multiplying everything by 3 (so 'default' would be 100% for everything) doesn't really help non-default scenarios.

I don't know if I'd ever use this - I'd rather just tell my players what the areas of focus will be, and let them make characters accordingly.  If I want to encourage some diversification, in a point-buy system I'd probably just give them some number of points to use for non-focused areas.  Or, play a game that makes skills useful in a wider variety of circumstances.

It's an interesting idea, though.

I see a couple applications:

1) Repricing.  Sometimes the settings are just plain wrong.  Broken, even.  Repricing things and using economic forces is a solid way to bring the game back into a given comfort zone.

2) Conversions.  If you can boil 'thing' down to the same metrics as some thing you have already priced, then you can bring it in as an alternative for that known thing.

3) Ad-lib abilities.  If you can price it, you can have it.

Quote from: mcbobbo;686308I see a couple applications:

1) Repricing.  Sometimes the settings are just plain wrong.  Broken, even.  Repricing things and using economic forces is a solid way to bring the game back into a given comfort zone.

2) Conversions.  If you can boil 'thing' down to the same metrics as some thing you have already priced, then you can bring it in as an alternative for that known thing.

3) Ad-lib abilities.  If you can price it, you can have it.

So the idea is that the players would be doing this at the beginning of the game?

That seems.. odd.  Which doesn't mean it's bad.  I'm just not sure it's good.

As far as the other things, have you ever played HERO?

Actually it could apply any time a player makes a character choice.  So new Feats, Spells, etc.

I've never played HERO, no.

As actual examples of weighting go in RPG rules, Fuzion uses Frequency/Intensity/Importance scales to cost 'Complications' (Disadvantages).

To an extent factors of relative power and frequency are something that are probably in the back of a designer's mind whenever they build a 'character widget' - feat, advantage, skill or whatever - though many is the game where either purchase costs are too granular to allow appropriate costings, or where the designer overlooked something, or where the defined method of play is sufficiency vague/campaign-dependent that they really couldn't be expected to have any idea of the vague (GURPS).  In this last case it may make sense to put some cost control into the hands of the GM, I suppose.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;686325As actual examples of weighting go in RPG rules, Fuzion uses Frequency/Intensity/Importance scales to cost 'Complications' (Disadvantages).

Awesome!  I'll grab that.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;686325To an extent factors of relative power and frequency are something that are probably in the back of a designer's mind whenever they build a 'character widget' - feat, advantage, skill or whatever - though many is the game where either purchase costs are too granular to allow appropriate costings, or where the designer overlooked something, or where the defined method of play is sufficiency vague/campaign-dependent that they really couldn't be expected to have any idea of the vague (GURPS).  In this last case it may make sense to put some cost control into the hands of the GM, I suppose.

And don't forget 3e, where the designers' minds are many.

BESM (2nd, I don't have 3rd) does this for skills, they have different costs (from 1-6 per point of skill) depending on the genre of the game. E.g. computers is 5 in a cyberpunk setting but only 1 in a martial arts one.

This is an excellent idea. I didn't quite understand it at first, but reading through the thread it is quite clever. I thought about something like this but never quite been able to articulate it before.

How would you feel about bundling things? The idea of collapsing lots of minorly important but related things into a bundle seems like it makes specializing in seldom used areas even easier for a player.

For example, in a game focused on social interaction...
For five points you get...
- This ability that lets you climb higher walls
- This ability that lets you climb walls faster
- And this ability that lets you climb walls quieter

That might be better suited to games that let you choose x abilities per level than games that use points to buy things.

Yep, that's the idea alright.

What we really need next are some generic attributes for RPG abilities.  Someone suggested the Spade/Heart/Club/Diamond classification,  but I am not quite happy with those...

Quote from: mcbobbo;688100Yep, that's the idea alright.

What we really need next are some generic attributes for RPG abilities.  Someone suggested the Spade/Heart/Club/Diamond classification,  but I am not quite happy with those...

You mean categorisations like

Critical
Useful
Corner Case
Colour

So in Cyberpunk setting

Critical - Computers, Combat,
Useful - Driving, Athletics,
Corner Case - Genetics, Leadership
Colour - Play Guitar, Drawing, Speak French

So for 5 points you get 1 Critical skill, 2 Useful skills, 3 Corner Case Skills or 5 Colour skills

Or do you mean skill categories like Prowess, Guile, Craft, Lore

Prowess - Climbing, Dodge,
Guile - Fast talk, slieght of hand, perception (?)
Craft - Armourer, Robotics, Basket weaving
Lore - Spellcraft, ancient History, Occult

the former makes sense the later obviously doesn't in this context

Your first example was closer, but we need to pivot it.

Computers
   Combat Utility - 0
   Social Utility - 5
   Genre (Cyberpunk) Emphasis - 10
Combat
   Combat Utility - 10
   Social Utility - 0
   Genre (Cyberpunk) Emphasis - 0
Speak French
   Combat Utility - 0
   Social Utility - 2
   Genre (Cyberpunk) Emphasis - 0

I am picturing a quick 'quiz' you run an ability through that scores it generically.  Then you weight those scores for your setting/product/table.

Quizzes for these sorts of things are always very difficult to construct. If there is any subjectivity, you're basically asking them "so how much do you think this ability should be worth?" in a roundabout way.

Laying that criticism aside, what about something like "If you were to build 100 NPCs at level x or higher, how many of them would have this ability/points in this skill?"

Quote from: Doccit;688125Laying that criticism aside, what about something like "If you were to build 100 NPCs at level x or higher, how many of them would have this ability/points in this skill?"

That's pretty solid.

But that's just a measure of commonality.  Take 'the Force' for example.  You wouldn't want to rate it as inexpensive because it isn't commonly selected.

Just trying to get a handle on the core idea here - is this for use in chargen or during play? If it's chargen making useful skills more expensive will have the opposite effect to the one desired, players will take one or two thematic skills then splurge on a bunch of free or very cheap skills. If we want people to take things making them cheaper has that effect. I seem to recall reading a similar concept recently too, say in a western themed game horse riding and pistol shooting would be very common and hence cheap skills, while other skills would be more expensive due to rarity. That's kind of a placeholder for bare skill difficulty levels though, much the same thing.

If it's something to be used on the fly I'm not sure how that would work. Ad hoc skills and powers are very open to abuse, which is why magic spells and the like generally tend to be tightly defined in certain ways.

Take for example telekinesis, simple enough, but can it stop bullets? Make bullets go a thousand times faster? Form a sphere of air deep underwater? Form a sphere of absolute vacuum? Let a character fly? Pull down an airliner (that was actually in a movie once, completely forget the name,  back in the 70s or 80s)? TK suddenly becomes an incredibly powerful hammer and everything really is a nail.

Again I'm not sure I'm picking this up entirely right, some examples might help to visualise it! Would it look a bit like this:
Computers
Combat Utility - 0
Social Utility - 5
Genre (Cyberpunk) Emphasis - 10
total cost: 15

Combat
Combat Utility - 10
Social Utility - 0
Genre (Cyberpunk) Emphasis - 0
total cost: 10

Speak French
Combat Utility - 0
Social Utility - 2
Genre (Cyberpunk) Emphasis - 0
total cost: 2

Maybe if that was reversed to take away the thematic cost instead of adding it, to make those skills more attractive, like so:
Computers
Combat Utility - 0
Social Utility - 5
Genre (Cyberpunk) Emphasis: 10
total cost: 1 (or -5 if you wanted to give extra points just for taking it)

Combat
Combat Utility - 10
Social Utility - 0
Genre (Cyberpunk) Emphasis: 6
total cost: 4

Speak French
Combat Utility - 0
Social Utility - 2
Genre (Cyberpunk) Emphasis: -3
total cost: 5

You'd have to fiddle around with your scaling a bit and probably add a few more options to the questionnaire, but it's definetely a step up from rule-of-thumbing skill difficulties while angling heavily towards genre emulation.