Quote from: Hairfoot;349763What's the minimum number of character attributes you've found workable in a game system?

This is a really good question that I have pondered many times. I still haven't come up with an answer for myself. I see a lot of good feedback and ideas in this threads.

I don't think the number of attributes themselves are really a problem. It seems that systems with fewer attributes just use derivative stats, skills, and special abilities in place of using more attributes. I'm not sure if that is really better or not. I think this really comes down to how detailed the system is and how well it is thought out.

In most systems magical, psionic, and super powers are separate abilities for attributes. But what if a system used a flight attribute? A score of 0 would mean the character has no flight capability where a 5 might mean basic flight ability and a 10 extraordinary ability. By this methodology a game system could have 100 attributes reflecting all kinds of special powers and abilities like flight, x-ray vision, invulnerability, healing, and anything else you can think of. There would be no need for separate special abilities or derivative attributes. Would this really be any more complicated than our standard systems.

That said I don't think I have even played a game with more than eight attributes. I have played a couple with less and I actually found those to be more complicated because of all of the derivative attributes and abilities it took to finish defining a character.  Although the end result of a system with these attributes and derivatives seemed more detailed in the end, it was harder to learn in the beginning.

So, it's not really the number of so  called attributes as much as it is the way they are used in the system.

Quote from: rezinzar;351050["attributes" is] a pretty loose term (along with abilities, characteristics and its other cousins,) as RPG designers use it; that much is clear.

Quote from: MalvorThat said I don't think I have even played a game with more than eight attributes. I have played a couple with less and I actually found those to be more complicated because of all of the derivative attributes and abilities it took to finish defining a character.

I've recently decided that there should be an ISO 9000 standard for roleplaying game terms.

An attribute is a fundamental ability of the character which is difficult to change long-term, and which affects skill use to varying degrees.

A derived attribute is an ability which comes entirely from other attributes, and cannot become better or worse on its own, but only through altering the attributes.

A skill is an ability which must be learned, though attributes may give a character certain innate ability in it.

A dis/advantage is a dis/ability which affects some physical, mental or social aspect of the character.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;351279I've recently decided that there should be an ISO 9000 standard for roleplaying game terms.

How do level-dependent Saving Throws (xD&D) and class-dependent, unchanging Life Points (Midgard) and level-dependent Hit Points/Endurance Points (xD&D, Midgard) fit in that scheme?

Usually those are derived attributes. Sometimes they're effectively attributes themselves (eg rolled hit points).

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;351413Usually those are derived attributes. Sometimes they're effectively attributes themselves (eg rolled hit points).

Thinking a bit more about your categories I guess if you count class, race, and level as attributes ("a fundamental ability of the character which is difficult to change long-term, and which affects skill use to varying degrees") then you are right. (Although saving throws could also be skills then: "an ability which must be learned, though attributes may give a character certain innate ability in it".)

I am just afraid that this use of the term "attribute" won't fly with the majority of gamers because for them class, race, and level are a fifth category unto itself, and trying to lumping them together with other stats borders on the arbitrary redefinition of established language as "secret handshake jargon" - and we know where that leads.

I mean, "attribute" (natural abilities like strength, dexterity, etc) and "trait" (whether xD&D's "magic-user level 5" or OTE's "retired cop" or "patrician familiy") are different, and naming them differently adds a valuable information to a short description of a game.

Quote from: rezinzar;351050Yes, 2.

However, 9 is workable and need not be annoying or anal-retentive. Interlock, for example, has that many. Then again, some of its attributes (such as Movement Allowance, Cool and Luck) would be Saves or other traditionally derivative/separate mechanics, in many other games.

It's a pretty loose term (along with abilities, characteristics and its other cousins,) as RPG designers use it; that much is clear.

Yeah, sorry, that's anal-retentive.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;351279I've recently decided that there should be an ISO 9000 standard for roleplaying game terms.

An attribute is a fundamental ability of the character which is difficult to change long-term, and which affects skill use to varying degrees.

A derived attribute is an ability which comes entirely from other attributes, and cannot become better or worse on its own, but only through altering the attributes.

A skill is an ability which must be learned, though attributes may give a character certain innate ability in it.

A dis/advantage is a dis/ability which affects some physical, mental or social aspect of the character.

That's how I use the terms.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;351635That's how I use the terms.

-clash

Likewise, with "trait" being the umbrella term for any qualitative or quantitative ability defined in the game, and rating or score for quantitatives. Merit is an acceptable synonym for Advantage and Weakness for Disadvantage, but Edge is ambiguous (it could mean a karma mechanics) as is Drawback (could be a Disadvantage, but could also be a price exacted for an ability or some kind of story-based mechanic to balance a trait).

Using Kyle's definition, I don't see a need for any attributes as they could be rolled into skills, mechanically.

The need, Halfjack, is for brevity on the character sheet.

If "default skill" = "attribute level", and we don't have attributes, then we have to list every single skill on the character sheet. If we have attributes we can just list those.

I don't fancy a character sheet with as many entries as there are skills in the game, not when most skill-based games have 100+ of them. Clutter.

And from playtesting a system with 36 skills, I've learned that since in any one campaign only half of the skills will be useful, if your skill list has less than 50-60 different skills on it, the skills are in effect not "skills" but rather "character classes." That's because the greater the number of skills, the more narrow the field of each skill; the fewer, the broader. And a character class is just a very broad skill. "He knows about this stuff because he's a fighter (4)."

And that could be a cool game, where there were no attributes or skills, just different levels in various of 4-24 classes. But most people would like a bit more detail than that.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;351715And a character class is just a very broad skill. "He knows about this stuff because he's a fighter (4)."

And that could be a cool game, where there were no attributes or skills, just different levels in various of 4-24 classes. But most people would like a bit more detail than that.

The Japanese RPG Sword World works almost like that. Your hero is usually multiclassed (e.g., Bard 2 / Sorcerer 1 / Thief 1) with the class level acting as a bonus to a 2d6 skill roll. To this is also added an attribute bonus, but since attributes are not rolled randomly but derived from the classes (think "advance scheme" of Warhammer FRP) they only reinforce class-appropriate behaviour.

Barbarians of Lemuria is very close match.

But that's not how classes and levels work usually - that is, as a qualifier that limits access to other abilities and rules.