An attribute is defined as "a quality or characteristic inherent in someone or something." In many traditional games, attributes are the basic components of a character. In the two games with which I am most familiar, there is a mechanic that allows these attributes to be increased. In D&D, you are allowed to increase one ability score one point upon achieving various levels. In GURPS, you can spend character points to increase one of the four attributes.

This leads me to think that while these describe a character, there is something even more fundamental to a character that is not being captured in this traditional structure. In current incarnations, these games allow these attributes to be changed over time, theoretically without limit. But are there aspects of a character that will rarely change?  Are there traits that are even more fundamental to a character's makeup that could be used instead?

For example, at a basic level, there is a limit to how much improvement can be made with respect to one's strength.  So, for example, a character could train hard to increase strength, but will, sooner or later, reach a threshold.  The limit might be the result of various factors such as overall build, muscular structure, or even a lack of the mental toughness to work at improvement.  While it is true that will-power can help individuals overcome many obstacles, there are always limits that cannot be overcome through sheer force of will.

So, are there qualities that are more fundamental to a character's progression? Are there traits could be used to govern the rate and upper limits of improvement?

My proposal is to have a few basic traits that govern the improvement and set the limits of a character's potential. For example, instead of Dexterity, Agility, or both, a character would have a coordination trait.  Dexterity and Agility would be skills, like any other skill, that could be improved through learning and practice.  The Coordination of the character would impact the rate of improvement and upper limit of Dexterity for that character.

To simplify, there would be a small number of basic traits, perhaps three or four. My current incarnation establishes four: Constitution (an overall physical makeup that would influence skills things like Strength), Coordination (as described above), Mind (an general measure of a character's mental makeup), and Will (a general measure of a character's self control/discipline). Everything else, like Strength, Agility, Dexterity, Stamina, IQ, Wisdom, etc. would be skills and treated like all other skills in current games like D&D3.5 or GURPS.

Thoughts? Opinions?

Eh, I don't know, I figure it's possible to improve or allow to deteriorate just about any aspect of the self.

On topic, though, every RoleMaster (2nd edition) character has two sets of stats: temporary and potential.  Temp stats are the values which you use in play, while potentials are the values your stats can reach as a result of levelling.  There is also a chance your stats will decrease upon gaining a new level.

I'm not down with making them skills. That leave a much to broad application for each attribute.

It just seem like characters would be just too good at too many things.

Quote from: McrowI'm not down with making them skills. That leave a much to broad application for each attribute.

It just seem like characters would be just too good at too many things.

Thanks for the input!

Well, that would, in many cases, depend on how you define things.  For example, if strength is defined strictly as the ability to apply a certain amount of force, say for lifting, then the application is limited.

Secondly, that's exaclty how things are done now. If you have a high Dexterity, in D&D, you get benefits from that in all Skills that are based on Dexterity, as well as specific combat rules like AC modifiers. So existing applications are already impacting many many things.

Quote from: James J SkachThanks for the input!

Well, that would, in many cases, depend on how you define things.  For example, if strength is defined strictly as the ability to apply a certain amount of force, say for lifting, then the application is limited.

yeah, if you define them more narrowly then it would work better.

QuoteSecondly, that's exaclty how things are done now. If you have a high Dexterity, in D&D, you get benefits from that in all Skills that are based on Dexterity, as well as specific combat rules like AC modifiers. So existing applications are already impacting many many things.

yes, if you mean to have them work exactly as the do in d20. stat bonus+ranks=skill level. Seems to me if that is the way you want it to work that in makes sense to leave that part of the sytem alone and just give each stat a cap for how many times it can be improved.

I have often thought about ruling that characters can pick 1-3 areas of focus: Primary, Secondary, Tertiary (my, but I'm creative with those names, aren't I?)

Every other attribute is average.  A Primary gets a +6, a Secondary gets a +4 and a Tertiary gets a +2.

Thus, giving you a 16, 14, 12, 10, 10, 10  (using a generic six attribute, 3-18 styled system).

From that point, you can move attribute points, but only by subtracting points from the average attributes, and only in two point increments.

Off the top, that seems pretty fair and it clearly shows a character who is more alligned with (what I perceive to be) reality.  

What is (my perceived) reality?

Jocks don't tend to take the time to improve their brains.
Brainiacs don't tend to spend gobs of time in the gym.
Socially flighty people don't tend to be focused on libraries or gyms (aside from enough to keep them attractive).

For a different take on the matter consider Dangerous Journeys. DJ has six attributes (called "Categories"), these being:

Mnemonic: Memory, how well the character remembers things and how quickly he can recall those memories.

Reasoning: Figuring stuff out.

Physical: Strength, agility, constitution and all that stuff.

Neural: reaction speed, hand-eye coordination.

Metaphysical: Understanding. How in touch the character is with reality

Psychic: How innately connected the character is.

There's more to be said about each, but this should do for a start.

I'm a little confused you have these triats off which skills are based, but if you only actually use the skills and they don't have a limit (as you've said they are treated like other skills) then what have you done other than add another level of complexity for no disernable effect.

SR4 has racial stat maximums, and your stats determine all kinds of other maximums (skill maximums, total HP, etc.) in the game over what they govern. Also, using a dicepool system brings up diminishing returns in specialization.So having 1 die in a skill gives you a 30 percent chance for a success. 2 Dice = 46.5 percent, 3 dice = 54.75, 4 dice=57.88. So on and so forth. You nned a skill to make checks, except for things inherent in an attribute, like strength for lifting. Although lifting is something that can also be a skill.

Quote from: KrakaJakYou nned a skill to make checks, except for things inherent in an attribute, like strength for lifting. Although lifting is something that can also be a skill.

I've always considered the Lifting skill to be a useless element.  Just roll Strength.  If you fail, you pulled something.  End of dicing, back to the story...

Quote from: BagpussI'm a little confused you have these triats off which skills are based, but if you only actually use the skills and they don't have a limit (as you've said they are treated like other skills) then what have you done other than add another level of complexity for no disernable effect.

Sorry I wasn't clearer.  Let me see if I can do better...

Traits are the essence of what an entity is.  For example, I have an inherent capacity for strength.  There are times when I was stronger, though age has changed that dramatically. Regardless, there is/was always a limit - no matter how dedicated I was lifting (like in college) and how well I trained (football, baseball), there was always going to be a limit how much I could improve.

So this trait, say Constitution, would govern the rate and limit of improvement on any skill/ability with which it is associated, say Strength. So there would be an average Strength for the race of the character. The cost, rate, and limit on improving Strength would depend on my Constitution. But once play starts, all I ever have to know is my Strength.

Does that help?

Quote from: KrakaJakSR4 has racial stat maximums, and your stats determine all kinds of other maximums (skill maximums, total HP, etc.) in the game over what they govern. Also, using a dicepool system brings up diminishing returns in specialization.So having 1 die in a skill gives you a 30 percent chance for a success. 2 Dice = 46.5 percent, 3 dice = 54.75, 4 dice=57.88. So on and so forth. You nned a skill to make checks, except for things inherent in an attribute, like strength for lifting. Although lifting is something that can also be a skill.

I'm thinking of handling diminishing returns in the purchase or earning of resources that allow you to improve - so the cost goes up, making even a straight line increase (say a d20) a diminshing return for the cost. But that's a separate issue, or only tangentially related.

See, racial stat maximums are very close to what I'm thinking, but in a broader sense.

Quote from: James J SkachTraits are the essence of what an entity is.  For example, I have an inherent capacity for strength.  There are times when I was stronger, though age has changed that dramatically. Regardless, there is/was always a limit - no matter how dedicated I was lifting (like in college) and how well I trained (football, baseball), there was always going to be a limit how much I could improve.

In Epic RPG we use mental attributes to govern how difficult or easy it is to progress in a skill.  Exceptional Will, for example, means that it's easier for you to improve in Melee Arms skill, which improvement becomes especially useful as the cost (in experience) to improve skills cascades up geometrically.

We call it Talent.  Someone with a high Talent for a given skill will find it easier to learn.  Someone with a low Talent for a given skill will still be able to progress in the skill, it'll just take a lot more focus and dedication to advance.

I think it really models well that ceiling you're talking about, and different people, depending on how talented they are for a skill, have pretty differentiated ceilings.

Quote from: James J SkachThis leads me to think that while these describe a character, there is something even more fundamental to a character that is not being captured in this traditional structure. In current incarnations, these games allow these attributes to be changed over time, theoretically without limit.

For example, at a basic level, there is a limit to how much improvement can be made with respect to one's strength.  So, for example, a character could train hard to increase strength, but will, sooner or later, reach a threshold.  

d20 Already incorporates this concept.

Any ability score can be increased by +5 tops, assuming you spent all level gained ability modifiers on one ability.

Thus (barring magic) your "potential" is 5 points above what the ability is initially.

This also puts a cap on maximum ability scores (again barring magic) of 23.

Been awhile since I played heroic-level GURPs but I believe they have maximums on ability scores as well. I know "human level" Hero characters did.

Chuck

Mongoose's new Runequest has changed Con and Pow rolls (stat rolls) into the Resilience and Persistence Skills.  It doesn't seem to have been very well received.  I know at least I don't like it, so I might tend to notice the complaints more...
Aquellare (Spanish RQ/BRP inspired) uses stat x 5% as a cap on skills related to the skill.
See also Unknown Armies.  Stat caps skill.  Very few stats.  Freeform skills.

I see a couple disctinct topics here:
-stats capping skills
-stats affecting learning/improving skills
-redefining [some] 'traditional' stats as skill... why not go all the way and get rid of stats altogether?  I'm not saying you should, but that's the extreme point in that direction.  Heroquest, for example.

As for your specific choice of stats: Constitution, Coordination, Mind, and Will.
It's a pretty good breakdown, but I like to keep a social/charisma stat, too.

I did, earlier in my thinking, go down the path of making everything a skill.  But it seems to me that there are things about an entity (person) that are more essential.

Take, for example, two human males, Hyco and Loco. Both are 5' 11" tall  and weigh 180 pounds. In theory, they would both start with a constitution of 10 (out of 20), the average constitution for humans. Both would have the default strength for humans of this height and weight.

But Hyco has a constitution of 13. He is, essentially, more fit, with greater muscle mass, etc. Loco, on the other hand, has a constitution of 7. He is frail, having less muscle mass.  Now the default strength would be greater for Hyco than for Loco.  Hyco can increase strength faster and with less effort than Loco. Hyco's potential highest strength is greater than Loco's.

Constitution would rarely comes into game play. For the most part, everything is based on skills, as you suggest.  This is just a character-based input into some of the things governing of those skills. So it's a way of basing the large proportion of game play on skills, but allowing there to be certain essential nature that governs those skills.