'Bastards 0.2 - Attribute/Skill Change Discussion - Feedback Wanted.

[Agamemnon]

Encountering a new combination of Attributes would be rare, it's kinda hard for me think of any... Did you use any other combinations in your playtesting?
If this is really rare, it's not an issue.

I do remember it coming up a time or two. The primary benefit of an X+Y setup is to flexibility in doing stuff. The more clunky the setup is the less the flexibility is useful.

Come on, 2A+B is only slightly more complicated than A+B. At character creation there is already some math involved.

We're doing more math for eight attributes as opposed to less math for the three that would otherwise be proposed.

Dice bloat? The "dice over 10 grant automatic successes" rule will be more used. It is fun.

Obs... I imagine I would use 8 steps of difficulty (1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15).

The rub here is two-fold. The 10+ rule works when 10+ is the exception, rather than the rule. It was originally invented to help deal with animals and monsters at the top of the scale so that we weren't rolling buckets of dice. Every die over 10 is worth 2 dice under it at base TN. As the TN goes up, this is even more so. If the average pool is 9 (before SAs!) then the probability is shot.

Right now, the obs are actually pretty intuitive. 1-5 is normal stuff people do, 6+ is heroic. When in doubt, I can almost always start at ob3 and +1/-1 if i want it to be harder or easier. Given that the average pool is 6 this works out. Even if they are slightly higher, it's still only +1 success per +2 dice to the pool.

If we went with your setup, people will have 9 dice average, which is going to be 4.5 successes. But if you add +2 dice that becomes 6 successes. +2 dice from there is 8, 3 of which are automatic, even if I'm severely wounded.

You'd have to drop the 10+ rule and then just consign yourself to rolling buckets of dice for skill checks.

1. This is why you have to get more dice per SA. If you enter a conflict you get 1 SA, and if you win you get 2. That's 1.5 or more on average, per conflict. To turn a profit, you then need to spend ~1 SA on average to win a conflict you could have otherwise avoided to make it worth while to enter. 1 dice for 1 SA just isn't enough for that. If you are getting 4 dice per SA, you can reasonable expect to earn SAs and it isn't zero sum. It is a positive feedback loop, with the excess siphoning off to character advancement.
2. If you want to retain the "perform better for following motivations" you can just scrap the SA cost. Just simplify SAs to be so they fire for a constant 2 for skills and a constant 4 for combat, instead of the variable 1-5. It's simpler and has the same feeling. The only problem then is putting some tighter restrictions on when SAs can fire. SAs firing all the time becomes routine. Ideally, I would want SAs to fire 30-50% of the time. To quote myself from the other thread:

I think I'd rather be more strict on when SAs fire and keep the current SA setup than any of the above. The fact that SAs build over time through following them has so many handy side-effects that I'd be loathe to change it to a flat bonus if we could fix the issue some other way.

• Incentivizes picking long-term arcs instead of short-term goals
• Discourages them from being simply used as quest markers as they take a bit to pay off (above).
• Makes players balance their desire to advance the character against the immediate usefulness of the bonus dice.
• Serves as a visual feedback mechanism for progress -- when it's been a while since a given SA has advanced, it's obvious to both the player and GM that it's not working.
• Serves as an inherent cap against PC resource hoarding, forcing them into using said SAs instead of saving them all up "just in case." (Every Fate, BW, or Savage Worlds game I've ever played had someone who refused to spend their points unless absolutely forced).
• Creates an interesting kind of strategy in which SA you choose when. Two SAs might apply to the same conflict, but do you want to go with the one which is higher (more beneficial now), or go with the weaker in order to build it up for a later conflict?

I think I am in the minority when I don't shed many tears for X+Y.

It's a neat feature, but one I was clearly willing to barter away if need be.

Personally I would have ditched even the starting level for skills based on an attribute.

I considered that as well. It might make things simpler and do away with the "Dead levels" argument in general. We'd just have to adjust the priority tables. If someone wants to use a skill they don't have, they can make an attribute roll instead on TN6 (on a d6. TN10 on a d10, I suppose).

Of course, the natural argument might then be "but why isn't my high-intelligence character better at X?" which can be legitimate from a simulationist perspective.. but we do give you the chance to choose how important your skills are to you from the start, so that might not be an issue.

The real question would be whether attributes had enough value if we removed them entirely from skills. That's one to chew on.

Having just a skill to worry about works wonderfully in general and I don't see why it wouldn't in BoB. In this case the skill represents the knowledge, actual performance but also possible financial trivia about it. I don't see the need to add an attribute to the roll. Besides even if the skill is based on a single attribute it is just a starting point and that's the end of the link. No reason to think about it during a gameplay only during character generation.

My default opinion as well.

I would go even as far as remove attributes except for "derived attributes" that would be bought using points. Instead of attributes everyone is by definition average but edges/flaws (with ratings?) would tell how strong your character is, how smart he is etc. if that differs from average. The down side of this is how to do attribute checks but I think most often a skill check can be substituted with edge/flaw being a modifier.

This sort of thing works wonderfully on a human scale, but tends to break on an animal scale. Remove attributes and we need a different way to deal with grizzly bears and such that are way stronger than humans and every animal needs its own damage modifiers, rather than being able to have "claws" and "Teeth" as their own categories with damage increases based on strength.

This would also remove the problem of "dead levels" that divisions can cause.

Thats true, however. Though, so would ignoring the link between skills and attributes. Derived attributes are another issue, but not as big of one. There's no such thing as a "Dead level" when we're averaging two attributes, because different attributes are at different levels. Two evens and two odds will produce the same thing. The only "dead levels" you might see argued are in Brawn being divided for Body, but I'm of the notion that we can make Brawn do enough other stuff that you have reasons to raise it besides just "I want to increase my damage"

I really don't have an opinion about the die type. I suppose I have enough of both type to not complain Still, d10 gives a bit smoother grade for TNs.

It does, but it also means those shifts have less impact. I've found the that dis/advantage feels a bit anemic on a d10 unless you're already so wounded that you're just desparately trying to avoid using TN10. If we don't go to a d6, I'll probably argue to make advantage +2/-2 TN instead of +1/-1.

As for using or not using dots on a character sheet. I created a character sheet for Cyberpunk 2020 quite a while ago. I just made two sets of 5 dots for skills and it is quite easy to read, even for skill rating of 8.

Ha. There's a thought.

[Korbel]

The real question would be whether attributes had enough value if we removed them entirely from skills. That's one to chew on.

The Social Attribute would end up being useless (I think), but the rest? Brawn and Will give Trauma, Agility and Cunning give Reflex and Combat Pool, Perception is perception.

[Agamemnon]

The real question would be whether attributes had enough value if we removed them entirely from skills. That's one to chew on.

The Social Attribute would end up being useless (I think), but the rest? Brawn and Will give Trauma, Agility and Cunning give Reflex and Combat Pool, Perception is perception.

From the skype conversation where I tossed the idea by Henri.

[thirtythr33]

Doesn't the rating for skills get wonky going through the first few points?
Assuming you have something for untrained skills like, nearest attribute at TN6 (on d6s).
You can be better off untrained (say 6 dice at TN6) than with 1 rank in said skill (1 dice at TN4).

You could even be super brutal and cut social from attributes entirely, giving support for charismatic characters through edges, skills and social class.

[nemedeus]

If you end up deciding on merging attributes, i really just hope Body is not going to end up Brawn/2 or Brawn/3.
I used to think that directly adding strength to damage was a bit much, but from a player perspective, it makes more sense to get 1 for 1.
If i got 1 for 2, i would end up wondering why i can't just buy +damage directly.
Also, technically, it would mean you're always better off buying into Agility or cunning, because you still can do a power swing at essentially half/a third of the cost. Unless you want to change that too?

I can only see two options to make this work:

A: Weapons have a brawn requirement that is somehow tied to the damage they do. I used to do it like that, but it's kinda not worth the hassle in retrospect.

B: You get to split Brawn into +damage and +damage reduction. So instead of Body, there are derived stats that i'm gonna call "Punch" and "Toughness" for now.

While preferring option B, I'm not exactly happy with either option, but they would be better than "flat" dividing.

[Korbel]

You know what? Scrap Social, scrap Perception. Make Stealth rolls against Obs based on terrain and equipment worn.
That leaves you with 4 main and 2 derived Attributes.

[Agamemnon]

Doesn't the rating for skills get wonky going through the first few points?
Assuming you have something for untrained skills like, nearest attribute at TN6 (on d6s).
You can be better off untrained (say 6 dice at TN6) than with 1 rank in said skill (1 dice at TN4).

That would get a bit weird, but it's a tiny blip overall.

You could even be super brutal and cut social from attributes entirely, giving support for charismatic characters through edges, skills and social class.

Yes. Social then would be entirely the domain of the skills that it otherwise would have backed. Even for some kind of social conflict pool, you could mix cunning and will to get the attribute portion.

If you end up deciding on merging attributes, i really just hope Body is not going to end up Brawn/2 or Brawn/3.
I used to think that directly adding strength to damage was a bit much, but from a player perspective, it makes more sense to get 1 for 1.
If i got 1 for 2, i would end up wondering why i can't just buy +damage directly.

Body would be a byproduct of Brawn. You aren't buying Brawn just to get damage, particularly if we tie it to encumbrance. If Brawn is a thing, then attributes are on a 1-10 scale, in which case 1:1 breaks for damage/damage resistance because the variation is too wide.

Also, technically, it would mean you're always better off buying into Agility or cunning, because you still can do a power swing at essentially half/a third of the cost.

You've always been better off sinking into agility or cunning as a fighter character than into strength or stamina. There's a reason why the champion longswordsmen are lean and athletic, rather than power-lifter types.

I can only see two options to make this work:

A: Weapons have a brawn requirement that is somehow tied to the damage they do. I used to do it like that, but it's kinda not worth the hassle in retrospect.

Even a zweihander is under five pounds. Melee weapons generally don't weigh enough that any reasonably healthy adult can't wield them.

B: You get to split Brawn into +damage and +damage reduction. So instead of Body, there are derived stats that i'm gonna call "Punch" and "Toughness" for now.

While preferring option B, I'm not exactly happy with either option, but they would be better than "flat" dividing.

I don't follow. Dividing it into one stat that does both things is less desirable than "splitting" it into two stats that do the same thing? Wouldn't that wind up being mechanically identical?

You know what? Scrap Social, scrap Perception. Make Stealth rolls against Obs based on terrain and equipment worn.
That leaves you with 4 main and 2 derived Attributes.

What about when players want to look for something or I as a GM want to see if players notice something? It's just after sunset, the twilight is fading. Do the players see the rider in the distance?

[nemedeus]

If you end up deciding on merging attributes, i really just hope Body is not going to end up Brawn/2 or Brawn/3.
I used to think that directly adding strength to damage was a bit much, but from a player perspective, it makes more sense to get 1 for 1.
If i got 1 for 2, i would end up wondering why i can't just buy +damage directly.

Body would be a byproduct of Brawn. You aren't buying Brawn just to get damage, particularly if we tie it to encumbrance. If Brawn is a thing, then attributes are on a 1-10 scale, in which case 1:1 breaks for damage/damage resistance because the variation is too wide.

I keep forgetting that. Makes more sense that way, yes.

You've always been better off sinking into agility or cunning as a fighter character than into strength or stamina. There's a reason why the champion longswordsmen are lean and athletic, rather than power-lifter types.

So you want to make it even worse putting points into it? If the answer is "no there's gonna be other stuff", i'd honestly like it if you'd give a bit more details already about this other stuff you keep alluding to.

I can only see two options to make this work:

A: Weapons have a brawn requirement that is somehow tied to the damage they do. I used to do it like that, but it's kinda not worth the hassle in retrospect.

Even a zweihander is under five pounds. Melee weapons generally don't weigh enough that any reasonably healthy adult can't wield them.

Which is exactly why i don't recommend it.

B: You get to split Brawn into +damage and +damage reduction. So instead of Body, there are derived stats that i'm gonna call "Punch" and "Toughness" for now.

While preferring option B, I'm not exactly happy with either option, but they would be better than "flat" dividing.

I don't follow. Dividing it into one stat that does both things is less desirable than "splitting" it into two stats that do the same thing? Wouldn't that wind up being mechanically identical?

The difference is that, instead of getting 2 things every 2 ranks, you'd get 1 thing every 1 rank. It removes the dead levels, so to say (assuming X/2 is chosen instead of X/3). Also more customization i guess?

All in all, i'm still not for the 1-10. The only change in scale i'd be okay with i think would be 1-7, tbh (as in 1-6 with 7 as the extra dot).

[Marras]

I think I am in the minority when I don't shed many tears for X+Y.

It's a neat feature, but one I was clearly willing to barter away if need be.

It has it's benefits as you get variable pool sizes with smaller amount of skills when you combine them with various attributes. Still, one of the problems systems like this (attribute + skill) have is that if you have proficiency based on skill rank it really doesn't take into account the total. Granted, it's only about how things look and anyone with any system experience knows how important attributes are in this kind of system. In any case the proficiency should be listed based on the total pool as that attribute is sort of how talented the character is. Well, this is sort of moot rambling if you will keep the more skill based system.

Personally I would have ditched even the starting level for skills based on an attribute.

I considered that as well. It might make things simpler and do away with the "Dead levels" argument in general. We'd just have to adjust the priority tables. If someone wants to use a skill they don't have, they can make an attribute roll instead on TN6 (on a d6. TN10 on a d10, I suppose).

Of course, the natural argument might then be "but why isn't my high-intelligence character better at X?" which can be legitimate from a simulationist perspective.. but we do give you the chance to choose how important your skills are to you from the start, so that might not be an issue.

The real question would be whether attributes had enough value if we removed them entirely from skills. That's one to chew on.

I think Thirty33 has a point about unskilled rolls using attributes with highest TNs. It might not be a biggie but something to take into consideration when other things get settled.

The response the question of "but why isn't my high-intelligence character better at X?", whether simulationist perspective or not, is that "you didn't buy your skill high enough" Seriously.

I would go even as far as remove attributes except for "derived attributes" that would be bought using points. Instead of attributes everyone is by definition average but edges/flaws (with ratings?) would tell how strong your character is, how smart he is etc. if that differs from average. The down side of this is how to do attribute checks but I think most often a skill check can be substituted with edge/flaw being a modifier.

This sort of thing works wonderfully on a human scale, but tends to break on an animal scale. Remove attributes and we need a different way to deal with grizzly bears and such that are way stronger than humans and every animal needs its own damage modifiers, rather than being able to have "claws" and "Teeth" as their own categories with damage increases based on strength.

As long as the game is supposed to work on human scale PCs, I don't see a problem. BoB is mainly if not wholly human centered game with possible demi-humans added later on but even those are at the same scale. So, why would animals or possible monsters (that are bound to appear with magic system) need same/similar stat blocks as PCs? What's stopping slapping over the PC scale strength to bear as long as it doesn't break the base system. Of course I don't know how detailed stat blocks animals are planned to have so there can be some problems that I can't see but my main point in this one is that you can handle animals differently from humans as long as you don't intend to let players create animal characters (or whatever).

This would also remove the problem of "dead levels" that divisions can cause.

Thats true, however. Though, so would ignoring the link between skills and attributes. Derived attributes are another issue, but not as big of one. There's no such thing as a "Dead level" when we're averaging two attributes, because different attributes are at different levels. Two evens and two odds will produce the same thing. The only "dead levels" you might see argued are in Brawn being divided for Body, but I'm of the notion that we can make Brawn do enough other stuff that you have reasons to raise it besides just "I want to increase my damage"

If you divide something by 2 or by 3, people tend to optimize to pay as little as possible to get the result they want. This is very familiar from RuneQuest/Mythras and many other RPGs through ages, so that's not a big problem. But if you can avoid it altogether, wouldn't it be grand?

I really don't have an opinion about the die type. I suppose I have enough of both type to not complain Still, d10 gives a bit smoother grade for TNs.

It does, but it also means those shifts have less impact. I've found the that dis/advantage feels a bit anemic on a d10 unless you're already so wounded that you're just desparately trying to avoid using TN10. If we don't go to a d6, I'll probably argue to make advantage +2/-2 TN instead of +1/-1.

+2/-2 for advantage/disadvantage sounds good.

[Korbel]

What about when players want to look for something or I as a GM want to see if players notice something? It's just after sunset, the twilight is fading. Do the players see the rider in the distance?

I was going to say that you can always use Cunning for searching, or Survival in wilderness... but if you're going to make Perception involved in ranged combat, I think it makes it a more meaningful stat and probably should stay

[nemedeus]

For the X+Y paradigm, to solve the problem of skill characters vs. generalists, i'd suggest the following:

Picking up the mastery level idea, instead of the higher ranks granting bonus dice or auto successes, let's set it up like this:
--Normal Skill Range: 1 - 5, where every rank adds a die as before
--Mastery Range: 6 - 8, where every rank decreases TN by 1.


I guess, it would work just as well for d6 if we limit it to one mastery level (that is, 6 for TN3 and TN2 with advantage). Essentially like the Shades in Burning Wheel.

So yeah, i'm definitely advocate for this system, if X+Y stays (I guess i'll write that down in my campaign doc).

[PsiPhire]

Personally I would have ditched even the starting level for skills based on an attribute.

I considered that as well. It might make things simpler and do away with the "Dead levels" argument in general. We'd just have to adjust the priority tables. If someone wants to use a skill they don't have, they can make an attribute roll instead on TN6 (on a d6. TN10 on a d10, I suppose).

Of course, the natural argument might then be "but why isn't my high-intelligence character better at X?" which can be legitimate from a simulationist perspective.. but we do give you the chance to choose how important your skills are to you from the start, so that might not be an issue.

The real question would be whether attributes had enough value if we removed them entirely from skills. That's one to chew on.

I think Thirty33 has a point about unskilled rolls using attributes with highest TNs. It might not be a biggie but something to take into consideration when other things get settled.

The response the question of "but why isn't my high-intelligence character better at X?", whether simulationist perspective or not, is that "you didn't buy your skill high enough" Seriously.

I've always had the opinion that attributes should make skills easier to learn/improve, but not add to them directly. Just because your character has a high intelligence score doesn't mean they automatically know something about everything, but they'll find it much easier to learn or improve intelligence-based skills. The same can be said for other attributes. I can't think of a game that has attributes implemented in this fashion though.

I would go even as far as remove attributes except for "derived attributes" that would be bought using points. Instead of attributes everyone is by definition average but edges/flaws (with ratings?) would tell how strong your character is, how smart he is etc. if that differs from average. The down side of this is how to do attribute checks but I think most often a skill check can be substituted with edge/flaw being a modifier.

This sort of thing works wonderfully on a human scale, but tends to break on an animal scale. Remove attributes and we need a different way to deal with grizzly bears and such that are way stronger than humans and every animal needs its own damage modifiers, rather than being able to have "claws" and "Teeth" as their own categories with damage increases based on strength.

Is it not possible to handle animals or demi-humans through edges/flaws as well? Instead of figuring out the stats of animals/monsters you just need to make an Edge with their damage mod, etc. I fail to see how this is less convenient than the current system with attributes.

[Korbel]

I've always had the opinion that attributes should make skills easier to learn/improve, but not add to them directly. Just because your character has a high intelligence score doesn't mean they automatically know something about everything, but they'll find it much easier to learn or improve intelligence-based skills. The same can be said for other attributes. I can't think of a game that has attributes implemented in this fashion though.

The first easy-to-implement solution that came to my mind...

At character creation, the cost for buying skills is:
up to the value of the corresponding Attribute - 1 point for 1 dot
above this value - 2 points for 1 dot.

Or something like this. So, if your Social is 5, and you want to have 7 dots in Manipulation, you need to pay 5x1 + 2x2 = 9 points.

[PsiPhire]

I've always had the opinion that attributes should make skills easier to learn/improve, but not add to them directly. Just because your character has a high intelligence score doesn't mean they automatically know something about everything, but they'll find it much easier to learn or improve intelligence-based skills. The same can be said for other attributes. I can't think of a game that has attributes implemented in this fashion though.

The first easy-to-implement solution that came to my mind...

At character creation, the cost for buying skills is:
up to the value of the corresponding Attribute - 1 point for 1 dot
above this value - 2 points for 1 dot.

Or something like this. So, if your Social is 5, and you want to have 7 dots in Manipulation, you need to pay 5x1 + 2x2 = 9 points.

Yes, something like that can work, with a similar price increase for advancing skills with SAs. Between making skills cheaper to acquire, attribute tests and contributing to melee and ranged (and magic, eventually) pools, attribures have enough usefulness without adding to skills directly.

[Korbel]

with a similar price increase for advancing skills with SAs

Currently, they cost you 2 x new level points. Just make it x3 when you're moving to a level which is higher than your Attribute. Hmm, but that means buying level 10 will be 30 SA points, which is freaking high