Another idea that got missed in the general confusion was the utter removal of the traditional 'attributes' portion of the character.

This is an evolution of the 'Baseline Zero' idea.  Rather than watch people 'not get it', that their strength 'zero' guy was as strong as necessary to be a competent hero... I thought the game design should reinforce the 'baseline' from the ground up.

And removing attributes struck me as a valid way to go. Every game I've ever seen or heard of has had attributes. To be honest, when I first started looking outside the D&D box, I was a little surprised at that, how similar they all were.  It's like attributes are a sacred cow of gaming.

Read my sig.


I don't really think they are necessary. All too often, in too many games, attributes are almost vestigial as it is. The counterbalance is to make them central to the game, more important than any other value (GURPS, for example, tends to go this way at times....).

Given their often vestigial nature at times it struck me that there is no real need for everyone to have big fat 'stat blocks' at the start of the character creation.

Instead I plan to expand the 'Advantages/Disadvantages' instead to fill that core.

If 'Fu' is the heart and soul of the new combat system, the 'Ad/Disad' portion is the heart and soul of defining a character from Tabula Rasa.  Strong is bought as an advantage. Agility is bought as an advantage. Genius is bought as an Advantage, no more or less important or unique than ambidexterity, for example.

Disadvantages: On that note I have the idea, rather than lists of collected problems (a la GURPS) to have every character have some flaw, some disadvantage that they should have to deal with or overcome. One.  I have toyed with compensating the character for various levels of disadvantage. This is your weakness or fragility, or perhaps your unreasoning fear of snakes, or your Hubris.  The reason to provide compensation is that by having everyone pick one singular flaw (or perhaps allowing for 'none'), you avoid having everyone take the weakest and least interesting flaws.  

I feel that not 'rewarding' players for taking weaknesses or flaws is foolish 'pie in the sky' thinking.  Motivating people requires, at times, a firm understanding of rewards and punishments.  I could go into the actual theories involved, but you get my point.

Quote from: SpikeAnother idea that got missed in the general confusion was the utter removal of the traditional 'attributes' portion of the character.

This is an evolution of the 'Baseline Zero' idea.  Rather than watch people 'not get it', that their strength 'zero' guy was as strong as necessary to be a competent hero... I thought the game design should reinforce the 'baseline' from the ground up.

And removing attributes struck me as a valid way to go. Every game I've ever seen or heard of has had attributes. To be honest, when I first started looking outside the D&D box, I was a little surprised at that, how similar they all were.  It's like attributes are a sacred cow of gaming.

I considered the same thing for a while.  Whenever I go back to my scribblings, I always start considering it again.

But I always come back to them.

One of the possible solutions was to have them, but to subsume them during play.  IOW, attributes were only important for determining how well one could learn to do something, etc. But during play, you really didn't go to attributes.

Now the fact that you move them to advantages/disadvantages is an interesting approach, I'm just wondering what it changes? I mean, if I can buy Strong or get points for Weak, what have I done except remove a quantifiable attribute and add a more descriptive version of the same information in it's place?

I'm not disagreeing - I struggled with the same issues and I'm curious as to your thought processes on the matter...

Quote from: James J SkachNow the fact that you move them to advantages/disadvantages is an interesting approach, I'm just wondering what it changes? I mean, if I can buy Strong or get points for Weak, what have I done except remove a quantifiable attribute and add a more descriptive version of the same information in it's place?

I'm not disagreeing - I struggled with the same issues and I'm curious as to your thought processes on the matter...

Well, there is always a need to define a character as 'strong' or 'not strong', and if they are actually 'weak' you should define that too.   The key point, for me, is that relatively speaking we don't really have to track variations of strength across a spectrum. Most times a character is either defined as being stronger than everyone else, or they are not defined by their strength at all.

Going along with that, the Baseline Zero concept was that your average Hero (all zeros, say) could very well be Indiana Jones, running and jumping and so forth with abandon.  A player shouldn't feel inferior for having a 'lower stat' than another hero, particularly if it's not their 'schtick'. By having every stat laid out with numbers, you create a sort of competetion over stats, and everyone tries to either 'bulk up' their stat lines or whatever.  It's artificial and unnecessary to define a character that way.

In D&D, for example, a 10 in a stat is viewed as 'weak'.  It's supposed to be 'average' neither strong nor weak. I've seen players that dismiss anything under 13 as weak, I've played where I bemoaned that my 15's felt weak compared to other players. Then I slapped myself a few times and ignored my stats.

If James wants to play a strong character, he puts 'strength' down on his sheet. If he just wants a powerful fighter, and isn't concerned with his strength, he leaves it off and spends the points on, say... 'Sword Fu' or something.

It's a psychological shift, moving perception where it should be... I hope.

Quote from: SpikeWell, there is always a need to define a character as 'strong' or 'not strong', and if they are actually 'weak' you should define that too.   The key point, for me, is that relatively speaking we don't really have to track variations of strength across a spectrum. Most times a character is either defined as being stronger than everyone else, or they are not defined by their strength at all.

Going along with that, the Baseline Zero concept was that your average Hero (all zeros, say) could very well be Indiana Jones, running and jumping and so forth with abandon.  A player shouldn't feel inferior for having a 'lower stat' than another hero, particularly if it's not their 'schtick'. By having every stat laid out with numbers, you create a sort of competetion over stats, and everyone tries to either 'bulk up' their stat lines or whatever.  It's artificial and unnecessary to define a character that way.

So, to follow up, how do you differentiate between two characters? Let's say, just for discussion, an arm wrestling contest. What about something like trying to roll the 500lb boulder from in front of the cave entrance?

Not that attributes help - I'm just drawing out the concepts a bit more to help me make that shift. I'm so driven by quantification (it's in the genes) that I struggle to move beyond it sometimes.  Like I said, I've kicked the idea around, but my breeding keeps dragging me back...

Quote from: James J SkachSo, to follow up, how do you differentiate between two characters? Let's say, just for discussion, an arm wrestling contest. What about something like trying to roll the 500lb boulder from in front of the cave entrance?

Not that attributes help - I'm just drawing out the concepts a bit more to help me make that shift. I'm so driven by quantification (it's in the genes) that I struggle to move beyond it sometimes.  Like I said, I've kicked the idea around, but my breeding keeps dragging me back...

When I originally posted the Idea a few months back, I made the intial buy in 'open ended'.

That is, you buy strength, say for five points. Now, if anyone wants to be strong they must pay AT LEAST five points.

Mechanically you get the same benefit if you put 5 points into it, or 50. The only reason to put extra in is for when you are confronting someone with the same advantage.

So, two strong guys get into a fight. One guy put no extra points in, the other guy put in 1. the first guy actually 'loses' the benefit of his Strength against the second.  He's still strong against anyone else, but not against any other 'strong' people.  Guy two loses his 'strength' against anyone with one or more points 'extra'.

Now, you also have other advantages the could be factors, different levels.

Sosuke from Kenshin (anime) is a normal looking guy, but he is 'Strong', making him a powerful opponent to everyone he meets.

Yet he does get beaten occasionally by brutes who's strength is as far beyond his as his is to ordinary fighters. Generally they are massive giants of men. They are 'Brutes', who are to Strong people what strong people are to ordinary people.

Or we can look to something like Jet Li's Black Mask, where all the supersoldiers, among other things, are Strong.  Supersoldier is the actual advantage, yet it counts as "Strong" among other things. Buying Strong on top of that makes the Supersoldier strong even comparatively... it stacks.

Interesting - seems almost Amber-influenced...

Thanks - you've given me something to think about...

Quote from: James J SkachInteresting - seems almost Amber-influenced...

Thanks - you've given me something to think about...

I'm not sure using 'open ended' automatically mean's it's amber influenced, but then again its nearly impossible to do anything truely unique without alienating the audience.

I can see the resemblence, however.  The only real difference is that Amber assumes that a significant percentage of players will be opt-in on Strength et cet. while I assume that a significant percentage won't.

To be honest, I think the multiple types of scaled 'strong' owes more to Heroes Unlimited....

Quote from: SpikeI'm not sure using 'open ended' automatically mean's it's amber influenced, but then again its nearly impossible to do anything truely unique without alienating the audience.

I can see the resemblence, however.  The only real difference is that Amber assumes that a significant percentage of players will be opt-in on Strength et cet. while I assume that a significant percentage won't.

To be honest, I think the multiple types of scaled 'strong' owes more to Heroes Unlimited....

Ahh...well we can only see the influences from things we know...

It's kinda like Amber in that players can bid up from the base and that your strength is important in relation to others - like coming in second in the bidding, you get to be second strongest. You'll kick every else's ass, but that person that won - you'll have to be careful around that individual...

So in your setup the guy who only buys another 5 can still kick ass - he's 5 points higher than Strong! - but he might run into the person who bought another 6 points - and then he'll have to be careful of her...

That's just my first impression when you explained it - my mind went right back to the examples in Amber for some reason.

The Irony, James, is that apparently FATE/Fudge/Whatever already did away with static attributes and has 'attributes' as aspects.

Too freeform for my tastes, etc, yadda yadda, so forth.

Not unique at all, just outside my realm.

bastards.

Dare I quote about roses and names and olfactory senses?

Quote from: James J SkachDare I quote about roses and names and olfactory senses?

I must be tired. It took three read throughs for me to get that.  I think Ima sleep through the entire weekend. I haven't been awake all week!

:haw:

I know the feeling...

I was thinking about this last night and I was kicking around the idea of just having skills that match the things the attributes "cover."

so for Strength, you could have a lifting skill, etc. Then I just get bogged down trying to figure out what the "Lifting" skill would represent, mechanically.  Then end up back at attributes...

It's a viscious cycle what with the quantifying and the mathing...

Quote from: James J Skach:haw:

I know the feeling...

I was thinking about this last night and I was kicking around the idea of just having skills that match the things the attributes "cover."

so for Strength, you could have a lifting skill, etc. Then I just get bogged down trying to figure out what the "Lifting" skill would represent, mechanically.  Then end up back at attributes...

It's a viscious cycle what with the quantifying and the mathing...

I suppose it depends on how detailed you want to get in 'modeling reality'.  I don't see a need for a 'lifting skill', as I have no intention into getting into weights and measures for things, thus necessitating the level of detail a 'lifting skill' more or less dictates.

Are you an ordinary heroic guy? Yeah? You can carry ordinary things without problems, but forget moving that twenty foot tall statue. Are you 'strong'? Okay, tossing refridgerators around isn't out of the question then.

Do we really want to know the exact weight comparison? I don't. Its too much detail, too 'mundane' for the sort of play I'm looking at.

You cut me to the quick, sir.  Mundane?  That's the best you could conjur?

I understand.  But it was an example. Even take your own breakdown.  You have different levels of "strength," No? It seems to me that it's all about where you want to be in a broad spectrum of detail.

So you're not talking about doing anything but abstracted to a hand-waved resolution mechanism.

What's the result if Joe, who bought "Strong" for five, says "I pick up the concrete block and throw it at the approaching mob." What about, "I pick up the VW." What about "I pick up the Mack truck."

I'm not being facetious.  I don't expect that your answer will match my preference or anything like that; I'm just curious as to how Joe does this if he's no different than Frank who bought "Strong" up to 50 if the difference only matters when they face each other.

Now in Amber, this is handled by the "We're essentially gods, so we can do just about anything (within reason)," and other setting constraints.  How are you going to handle that?

Quote from: James J SkachYou cut me to the quick, sir.  Mundane?  That's the best you could conjur?

I understand.  But it was an example. Even take your own breakdown.  You have different levels of "strength," No? It seems to me that it's all about where you want to be in a broad spectrum of detail.

So you're not talking about doing anything but abstracted to a hand-waved resolution mechanism.

What's the result if Joe, who bought "Strong" for five, says "I pick up the concrete block and throw it at the approaching mob." What about, "I pick up the VW." What about "I pick up the Mack truck."

I'm not being facetious.  I don't expect that your answer will match my preference or anything like that; I'm just curious as to how Joe does this if he's no different than Frank who bought "Strong" up to 50 if the difference only matters when they face each other.

Now in Amber, this is handled by the "We're essentially gods, so we can do just about anything (within reason)," and other setting constraints.  How are you going to handle that?

Part of that depends on the 'power level'.  So for example, if you were running something more ordinary (say a Kung Fu flick) where tossing cars was out of the question, then Strong guys could huck a cinder block with relative ease, but cars are out of the question. the 'open ended' portion doesn't have a mechanical difference to the game except as a point of comparison in contests with other 'strong guys'.  Even if you put a thousand points into being 'strong' the brute with the bare minimum (brute being our 'next level up'...) is still stronger than you, he's on another scale.

And in our Kung Fu Flick reality, he's the guy you go to if you want cars moved. Probably not hucked, but moved. And with a big grunting, groaning, dice rolling sort of scene, he could move that mack truck by virtue of being that fucking strong. Still no Hucking, however

On the other hand, the same scale could be used in 'superheros' mode, where Strong guys toss VW bugs around and Brutes (probably Bricks for Genre reasons) DO toss Mack trucks and struggle with small planetiods.

What I want to avoid is cross referenceing the exact weight of the car against your ability to toss a 1 kilo rock, with areodynamics to determine that.... hey, look at that, it's easier just to punch the guy!