I'm wondering if people have a preference/opinion as to what sort of scale is best for attributes/stats.

e.g.
3-18 (D&D traditional)?
1-5 (Storyteller)?
1-10 (Twilight 2000)
1-100 (Rolemaster)
Open-ended ?
-5 to +5 ?
d4 to d12 ?
[or whatever]

I realize this is a stupid question since I haven't specified what mechanic I want to use with this (roll under, roll over, dice pool, etc). But I'm trying to figure out what scale is best in order to help decide what core mechanic is best too. (Eventually the horse will learn to push the damn cart).

Are you looking for simplicity or complexity?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;5305103-18 (D&D traditional)?

So how strong is a storm giant on the 3-18 D&D scale? And if that value it doesn't fit within 3-18, is it really a 3-18 scale?

Or are you asking: "what is the best range for normal human attributes in a game?" because that is a slightly different question (at least IMO).

I'd rather have a scale that means something, so that I can understand what the difference between a 10 and an 18 is. Then people are added to the scale based on what they can actually do. If an Olympic weight lifter can lift 4X as much as a normal person, then his stat values should match that fact.

It would also be nice if the scale of progression covered a fairly wide range, while allowing a nice variation for human level characters.

For example, while I really like a lot of things about Mayfair's DC Heroes game, the idea that a normal person has stats of 2, and a progression where each point doubles (3 is twice as much as 2, 4 is 4X as much as 2, and 5 is 8X as much as 2) doesn't leave much of a range for normal people.

Quote from: ggroy;530538Are you looking for simplicity or complexity?

I think simplicity is a plus. In general I normally feel that extra complexity is fine, as long as there's a justification behind having the extra 'mechanical overhead'.  
In this context for example, one of the factors to consider may be whether the number can be used directly for modifying dice rolls or whether it needs a modifier to be calculated via an equation or table.

I think direct use > equation> table all other things being equal - since ability damage or the like can mean a trip back to the table to recalculate other modifiers, but there are other potential factors to consider as well.

I hope that makes sense...

Quote from: warp9;530541So how strong is a storm giant on the 3-18 D&D scale? And if that value it doesn't fit within 3-18, is it really a 3-18 scale?

Or are you asking: "what is the best range for normal human attributes in a game?" because that is a slightly different question (at least IMO).

I'd rather have a scale that means something, so that I can understand what the difference between a 10 and an 18 is. Then people are added to the scale based on what they can actually do. If an Olympic weight lifter can lift 4X as much as a normal person, then his stat values should match that fact.

It would also be nice if the scale of progression covered a fairly wide range, while allowing a nice variation for human level characters.

For example, while I really like a lot of things about Mayfair's DC Heroes game, the idea that a normal person has stats of 2, and a progression where each point doubles (3 is twice as much as 2, 4 is 4X as much as 2, and 5 is 8X as much as 2) doesn't leave much of a range for normal people.

Traditionally in D&D, the Storm Giant had a 24 (3.x its higher but I forget exactly what;  Titans went from 25 to 37).

I guess I'm asking for a generic system (not necessarily just fantasy) and it would be a plus if a system could handle superhuman attribute scores as well, while still having enough definition in the range most (presumably human) PCs will fit into.

Having the number translate into something definable as you suggest would also be good, too.

I've seen DC - I sort of agree with the granularity as far as Strength and Body go. It was actually a bit odd in that the scale was entirely different from stat to stat, though - Batman has normal human maximum Strength at 5, maximum Body of 6, and Int of about 12 (Lex Luthor's is what, 15 ?), while Hal Jordan is human and has WILL 24. The scale meant something clear-cut for Str/Body but became very vague for the other stats - its unclear to me what Batman being a thousand times as perceptive as a normal human meant, for instance.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;530547I've seen DC - I sort of agree with the granularity as far as Strength and Body go. It was actually a bit odd in that the scale was entirely different from stat to stat, though - Batman has normal human maximum Strength at 5, maximum Body of 6, and Int of about 12 (Lex Luthor's is what, 15 ?), while Hal Jordan is human and has WILL 24. The scale meant something clear-cut for Str/Body but became very vague for the other stats - its unclear to me what Batman being a thousand times as perceptive as a normal human meant, for instance.

As his perception is worthy of Great Old Ones, Batman simply can not comprehend that some of his detective methods may not be as effective as they'd appear to his cold logic.

Example:

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;530547I think simplicity is a plus. In general I normally feel that extra complexity is fine, as long as there's a justification behind having the extra 'mechanical overhead'.  
In this context for example, one of the factors to consider may be whether the number can be used directly for modifying dice rolls or whether it needs a modifier to be calculated via an equation or table.

I think direct use > equation> table all other things being equal - since ability damage or the like can mean a trip back to the table to recalculate other modifiers, but there are other potential factors to consider as well.

If such a system is going to be used in a video game, then in principle it doesn't matter how simple or complex the underlying system is.  The computer becomes a black box which does all the calculations on the fly.

For example, if one attempts to translate the system of mechanics used in a video game like World of Warcraft, most likely it would look like something which makes Rolemaster or 3.xE/d20 look "simple" in comparison.

Quote from: Rincewind1;530549As his perception is worthy of Great Old Ones, Batman simply can not comprehend that some of his detective methods may not be as effective as they'd appear to his cold logic.

Example: [snip image]

Oh I don't know, that could work Cutting the Gordian knot, so to speak. I'm not sure this thread isn't basically me doing that...

Sometimes the best approach to solving a problem is to run from one end of the ship to the other going "Is there a Theologician on board?!" until someone comes out just to shut you up.

Quote from: ggroy;530554For example, if one attempts to translate the system of mechanics used in a video game like World of Warcraft, most likely it would look like something which makes Rolemaster or 3.xE/d20 look "simple" in comparison.

True...  I'd be looking for something for pen-and-paper RPG use, though.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;530555True...  I'd be looking for something for pen-and-paper RPG use, though.

The great thing about mechanics for pen-and-paper rpgs, is that it has to be simple enough such that it can written out in a reasonable sized book.

It's a completely different story when it comes to computer games, or real life in the offline world.  The "mechanics" can be as complex as the designer wants for the former, while it is literally infinitely complex for the latter.


On the other side of the coin, some systems which can be easily written down on paper, becomes laughably simple to defeat and circumvent on the computer.

A prime example of this are pen-and-paper encryption systems, such as older alphanumeric transposition and substitution ciphers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_cipher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitution_cipher


EDIT:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciphertext-only_attack

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;530555Sometimes the best approach to solving a problem is to run from one end of the ship to the other going "Is there a Theologician on board?!" until someone comes out just to shut you up.

More generally before the internet was popular, the easiest most efficient way was to find an expert on the topic of interest.

These days, one just does a google search for a lot of stuff.  

Quote from: ggroy;530557The great thing about mechanics for pen-and-paper rpgs, is that it has to be simple enough such that it can written out in a reasonable sized book.

It's a completely different story when it comes to computer games, or real life in the offline world.  The "mechanics" can be as complex as the designer wants for the former, while it is literally infinitely complex for the latter.

On the other side of the coin, some systems which can be easily written down on paper, becomes laughably simple to defeat and circumvent on the computer.

Even in a computer-based game I think its still a plus for the user (of the program) to be able to understand what their attributes do, of course.

There are of course families of problems which are basically uncrackable even with massive computing power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcomputational_problem

At least, short of something like Dyson-sphere sized computers and the like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrioshka_brain

I do wonder if the opposite applies, and there are any problems that are easy to solve with paper that are very difficult to do with a computer. Can't really think of any. Roman message sticks, maybe ? (where they wrap the paper around a stick of the right width to decipher a code). It would be solvable with the computer, but is much easier with a stick.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;530564I do wonder if the opposite applies, and there are any problems that are easy to solve with paper that are very difficult to do with a computer. Can't really think of any.

There are some mathematical theorems which are easy to state and prove on paper, but which can be difficult to prove using a computer.  The simplest one I can think of offhand, would be:

"Prove that there are an infinite number of prime numbers".

This can be easily proved using "proof of contradiction" in several lines.

On a computer, there's no easy way of proving anything which is infinite in number by exhaustively going through every single case.  (The computer will run out of memory or crash eventually).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;530547I guess I'm asking for a generic system (not necessarily just fantasy) and it would be a plus if a system could handle superhuman attribute scores as well, while still having enough definition in the range most (presumably human) PCs will fit into.

There's your problem.  To my knowledge, this has been done innumerable times, but it has never been done well.  I think Marvel Supers came about the closest, really, but even with FASERIP is was more than a little wonky at the high end.

And it's not even the ability scores that cause the problem, it's the scaling of tasks.  You can certainly go with a logarithmic scale like DC Heroes, but it will take some fiddling to make the presentation simple and non-recursive.  How strong is 30?  Well, it's twice as strong as 29.  How strong is 29?  Well, it's twice as strong as 28.  And so on.  And it gets fairly ridiculous early on.  If you take just the basics, and state that a Str of 1 means you can lift 2 pounds, then a 2 is four pounds, a 3 is eight pounds, and so forth.  Essentially, 2^(Str score) in pounds.  A score of 9 would be a bit over the maximum human capacity, sitting at 512 pounds.  Add another point, and you are lifting half a ton.  Bump it up to 20, and you are lifting 500 tons.  Bump it up to 30, and it's over a million tons.  The Earth weighs 1.3E+25 pounds, or about 6.5E+21 tons.  Now, that is a pretty staggering Str score of 72.5 (or thereabouts), which is probably going to be out-of-bounds in any case.  That is still 1.125E+15 pounds, or about 5.63E+11 tons.

It's really difficult to get the scaling and the balance correct.  If you keep the PCs at just the normal human limits, however, most of the problem goes away.  

Set the scale to have 2 attributes.

So Strength A3, B6, etc

The first letter is the category (you can expand this of course or create different subcategories)

A = Godlike
B = SuperHuman
c = Preternatural
D = Human
E = Weak
F = Feeble

the number indicates relative comparison

So Superman might have Strength B8 in your system and Thor might have B7 or Thor might have A6 and Magnar A8 however you cchose to run it in your 'verse.

In comparison an A always beats a B etc you only bother to compare between creatures on the same scale. A human (D) can always beat a cat (E) and a cat can always beat a mouse (F)
In effect you can then run a modern warfare game where every one has D1-9 (Or even D3 - 18 if you like) and then chuck in a tank with Strength B4.
You can run a fantasy game where an exceptional hero might have Strength C4 but he will still be weaker than a Giant (B range)
Also you can have creatures physically exceptional but mentally equal. Superman might be

Str = B8  Dex = B7 Con = B4
Int = D8  Wis = D7 Chr = C4

Or whatever......


Then you just need to work out how many Ds equal a C Lets take 10 as a good number (but you might like 8, 12, or even 16).

So in this concept 100 people (Strength D ) might have a chance in a tug of war against 1 tank (Strength B).

In a superhero game, the question is what exactly is "balance" in such a system.