91 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Howdy do, BSN.

I'd like to start a conversation about Attributes.


Attributes define who we are as people. Smart, charming, funny, stoic, head strong... all of these are attributes you or others would use to define your tendencies as human being.

In RPGs, we use attributes to define our character, as well. Strength, Willpower, Cunning... all of these help define and shape our character and the experiences they have. They give us a chance to create a new persona and character that helps change how we can view the game world and how the events in it affect us.

However, there are ways Attributes can go wrong. For instance, in the DA games, a Level 1 Warrior can have a high Strength of over 20. This let's him wear most equipment he comes across and use brute force to handle enemies in combat. A Level 1 Mage, on the other hand, can have Strength as low as 10 and be, comparably, much weaker. However, by Level 20, the Warrior can have 50, 60, 70 or even higher Strength. And the same Mage at Level 20 can, through permanent stat boosts, have their Strength score boosted to 20 without even putting a point in that Attribute during the Level Up screen.

Is that Mage as strong as the Warrior once was? They cannot use a two handed sword or wear armor, despite the Level 1 Warrior being able to.

Is the Warrior now, truly, two or three times stronger than he was before? If he could lift a barrel before, can he now lift a boulder?

To try and talk out some ways we can look at Attributes and how they function, I'm going to talk about three different existing Attirbute systems pulled from other games, with some of my own tweaks, and see if perhaps there are some systems out there that maybe appeal to us all. Let's get started!

Set Attributes:

This type of system has Attributes which are static (for the most part), where upon character creation, they are set in stone. If you have 18 Strength and 9 Constitution, you're stuck with them until the day you(r character) die(s). This harkens back to the days of D&D and before, but many people would look to Fallout's SPECIAL system as a popular gaming example. 

You can create a character who is super agile, who has superior brain power or who is, simply, incredibly lucky. The system also makes you choose corresponding weaknesses. Or you could even be fairly middle of the road in all things, having no real defects, but no real benefits, either. Games in the past have allowed you to be a strong brute who is barely smart enough to have a conversation, a quick draw, dexterity based character who is fragile to the touch or an average Joe who is luckier than anyone has a right to be.

The perks of this system (pun only slightly intended for you Fallout fans) are that you have great levity in creating the character you want. In fact, this may be the best system in terms of role playing, as it let's you create a more defined setup for your character that you then have to follow throughout the game. The downfalls, however, are the fact that certain builds are incredibly difficult to play due to gameplay imbalances. If you don't put any points into Attributes essential to combat like Strength, Dexterity/Agility or Endurance/Constitution, often it results in the game treating your character like a human hacky sack. In addition, other builds can be so overpowered that the game loses all challenge.

Since these types of systems are so ingrained and hard set after character creation, errors can result in a restart of the entire game, which can be punishing to many. However, the option to respec mid-game can result in many things about the character's identity changing, so that's not the best solution many times as well. Ultimately, the way Fallout 3 did this, where character creation was done but then requried you to play through a fairly large opening level that introduced combat, the chance to use non-fighting skills and a variety of weapons, and THEN confirmed whether you'd like to keep that build or not was fairly effective. But let's see if there aren't some other systems that we can look at.

Increase As You Go:

This type of system is like the DA system, where every time you level up, you can place points into your Attributes. This is also seen in many types of other games, such as the Diablo series. It lets you experience progression, and the feeling of being stronger. In addition, it gates off equipment to only those characters that have put enough points into the requisite Attributes. As outlined above, though, there are a few disconnects.

For instance, the gamplay/story segregation I outlined above - does a Level 1 character and a Level 20 character with the exact same Attribute point act as powerful? The answer is no, obviously. Does it make any sense that one could not be agile enough to use a dagger? Or cunning enough to put on armor? Not being able to use them well, maybe... but to not be able to use at all? 

Then there is the obvious question of "If my character is a warrior and only uses Strength and Constitution, why put points in anything else?" This results in Attribute dumping, where you know where the points are going to go every level, no matter what. Which nearly defeats the point of Attributes, honestly. If you have to put all your points in Strength to become more powerful and there is very little incentive or reason to do anything else, then what point it that Attribute serving? It may as well be a set Attribute as outlined about and just provide bonuses at every level up.

Lastly, some of it just doesn't make sense. If you liked, you could dump Magic into Oghren or Varric. This would give them no Magic ability (they aren't Mages, obviously) but it would give them high magical resistance. Except that they are dwarves and should already be nigh-impervious to magic... so should they have a natural high Magic score...? Logic like this leads to serious problems when your Attribute system revolves around putting points every level.

I think this might be able to be fixed with a matter of portions. In the DA games, you get 4 points to divy up. Instead of putting them all in one or two attributes, a system that says you can only put one point in an Attribute per Level Up would be a good way to prevent dumping, to manage over-inflation of Attribute values and to promote more experimental builds. Maybe your Warrior would use that point to invest in Cunning, and get a defense bonus as well as a better Crit chance. Maybe he'd put some points into Magic to increase his resistance, despite never being able to cast a spell. 

Point is this could be used to make Attributes more flexible and fluid in a system like this, rather than something that is automatic and requires zero planning or thought.

No Attributes:

Ah, and here is the last system. Why have numbers at all? Why not get all the math out of the system? 

A leveling system like Skyrim removes Attributes altogether. Instead, level ups allow the character to select an ability or bonus that further defines their character. Been using your sword a lot? Get a bonus to damage, or get an ability to dual wield. Been casting lots of spells? Get a bonus to improve that type of spell's strength, or get a discount to its casting cost.

This type of system can be pretty brilliant, but while it does add a lot of definition to your character, it also makes any character capable of absolutely anything. Want a character that wears the heaviest armor in the game, but can sneak as silent as a ghost while running full speed and can cast spells while doing so? Skyrim let's you do this and, while sometimes fun, is a little over-the-top.

To refine a system like this, I would propose bringing Attributes back in a different way. In Skyrim, all your perk choices are tied strictly to your skills. But what if instead, it was tied to the Attributes in the following manner:

You are a Level 1 Warrior and level up and get to choose a Perk. Since your character is taking a lot of damage, you use your Perk to get a reduction of damage while wearing armor, a skill under the Constituion Attribute. At the next Level Up, you want to start doing more damage with your special moves, so you take a Perk that reduces the cost of your Warrior skills, which is under the Strength Attribute. At your third Level Up, you are taking lots of damage again and really want to get a Perk that increases your Health, but you would need another Perk to be chosen in the Constiution tree in order to get it. If you had used the last Level's Perk in Constiution, you'd be able to get it, but since you didn't, that means you'll either have to take a different Constitution Perk now and get it next level, or use that Perk somewhere else completely.

This could keep from the player making an uber character that can do all things, regardless of how mismatched they are. It could also lead to really unqiue builds and focuses, it doesn't reduce leveling to pumping numbers into the same categories and it also doesn't beg the question "my number used to 20 and now its 70... but nothing has changed!" 

TL;DR:

Wrapping up, I do like games that let us build different Attributes and different characters that match them. I love when these Attributes affect more than just combat, but also let us define our character in more personal ways. However, sometimes the systems can wind up causing more problems and consequences than the design really intends. 

So what do you say, BSN? What's your thoughts on Attributes?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 12 janvier 2013 - 04:26 .

[Gazardiel]

Good topic!  I'd like to flesh out this discussion with a couple points. 

First, it's better to look at attributes as a mechanic that relates to other mechanics in a character build - how do they interact with skills, class abilities, and survivability?  For example, D&D 3E incorporated skills and feats to augment the implementation of attributes. 

So even though your STR tended to stay the same over the course of a game, you could add points to a skill based on STR to represent improvement.  Another nice thing about skills was that you could mitigate a weak attribute, like Charisma (#1 dump stat), with skill ranks in Coercion or Bluff - that represented how you, even though you're not inherently charismatic, is still working hard at something and able to do it despite natural inability.

So this type of system gives you a squishy outside around a solid core.  It also helps to explain why attributes could be the same but outcome different (lack of training, not skilled in something). I tend to prefer this type of relational setup because it both recognizes inherent ability and trained ability.

2) Consider the philosophy behind improvement.  When you level up (a design choice in itself to Skinner Box players) and have a chance for attributes to increase, you have one of three systems: a) you assign points (DA),  points are assigned in a class-specific pattern (WoW), c) points are assigned/allowed based on usage/practice (Oblivion).

I personally dislike b because it really negates attributes in an RPG; they just serve as a shaping/scaling mechanic rather than as character building - and you see the impacts of this as WoW is very gear-based (good to encourage grinding).

Assigned points with complete freedom is rather unrealistic, as you point out, but avoids the required tracking by the game of usage and serves as a way for the player to retain control over the development of their character. 

In Oblivion (and I presume Skyrim, though I haven't played it yet), there are plenty of guides that show you how many times you need to jump to make sure your Agility goes up at leveling - I like the idea of usage-based advancement, but it needs a computer to tally iterations to be effective and can lead to intentional "exercise" for the PC (which is ironically like RL working out).

3) While these are not necessarily opposed approaches, you tend to see #1 in tabletop and #2b & 2c only in computer games.  #1 requires a more open-ended gaming environment, since skills add another layer of complexity to interactions, especially role-playing based ones like coercion and wilderness survival, which need to be modeled in a computer game with opportunities to be useful, but can be applied in tabletop more freely.  So the use of skills that allow for character development will be much more limited, despite their usefulness in balancing character definition.  

class-restricted attribute advancement (2b) is just a convenience (and
in WoW, vestigial) to keep players from making a "wrong" choice (and
then wanting a mechanic to fix it) and to keep game balance (since in
MMOs your toon needs to play nicely with other toons). Meanwhile, tabulation-heavy methods (2c) favor computer games because you have the computer to track all that data; it would be much harder for tabletop to track that with everything going on, so that gets shorthanded to player choice of assignment. 

------
I tend to see the design of game systems as a balancing act between simulating (some aspect of) reality and finding a workable mechanic that reflects a philosophy of what a PC is and how they should develop.  Part of what makes games fun is that they are unrealistic in some way, so we don't want something that perfectly reflects reality, even if it is workable.  I would like to see a way to find a balance between these concerns though, and wouldn't mind some refining of the attribute mechanic to make the game richer.

[Fast Jimmy]

Gazardiel wrote...
snip

I would recommend playing Skyrim, personally, as an exercise in viewing an interesting leveling model in action, alone.

It does, as you state, allow for the increased leveling of skills by working out, again as you state. The game does little to try and mitigate this. I, for example, was able to max out both my Light Armor and Block skills by hanging out with a Mudcrap for an hour (RL time).

That being said, the inclusion of the Perk system made most of this ancillary. Your Block skill could be maxed out and it would only be one (ironically small) piece of the puzzle. The Perks which allowed you to perform stuns when you successfully blocked an attack made counter attacks with a shield or weapon a reality. In addition, you had Perks which made Blocking more effective by quite a significant degree, up to 80% more effective.

In this manner, getting up to 100 Skill was less important for the bonus the Skill number provided, but more for the correlating Perk in unlocked. And while you could have a character with 100 in every Skill, you could never have enough Levels to apply all the Perks, which put a ceiling (eventually, it took a while) to the character progression.

It was pretty ingenious. But it also completely removed the concept of Attributes, making it 100% Skill based. Which I thought was throwing the baby out with the bath water a little.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 12 janvier 2013 - 04:07 .

[Fast Jimmy]

krul2k wrote...

i seen BIOWARE, i thought JIMMY

LOL I'm glad I'm getting a type of... brand recognition I suppose?

attributes, i dont like them i never have, the health blah de blah your char starts out with should be nigh the same she/he ends with gear/weapon enhancements provide aside

I do get this sentiment. It is hard to give a feeling of progression, yet also root a character in certain strengths and limitations without seeming arbitrary. There isn't a completely easy answer, hence there are so many different attempts and solutions in games.

[SweQue]

I think Fallout 3 has the best version.

skillpoints+ passive abilities to choose from on each level.

I rather have all the warrior skills ready from the get go, do I really need to be level 4 to learn taunt as a warrior tank etc?

Dragon Age 2 had a good system but also had some flaws in it, lets say I wanna use a certain skill... many times I req to put 2 extra levels into just that skill to learn it, that just isnt as fun.
I understand that Biowared wanted to give something back to players who loved a certain skill and wanted it upgraded but, every level should be exciting like in Fallout, Dragon Age 2 lacked that.

[Gazardiel]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I would recommend playing Skyrim, personally, as an exercise in viewing an interesting leveling model in action, alone.

Oh, it's on my list, but I probably won't get around to it until I upgrade my gaming rig and get some breathing room (yay grad school).  I tend to play games to learn their systems, so it's good to have the recommendation though.

That being said, the inclusion of the Perk system made most of this ancillary. Your Block skill could be maxed out and it would only be one (ironically small) piece of the puzzle. The Perks which allowed you to perform stuns when you successfully blocked an attack made counter attacks with a shield or weapon a reality. In addition, you had Perks which made Blocking more effective by quite a significant degree, up to 80% more effective.

In this manner, getting up to 100 Skill was less important for the bonus the Skill number provided, but more for the correlating Perk in unlocked. And while you could have a character with 100 in every Skill, you could never have enough Levels to apply all the Perks, which put a ceiling (eventually, it took a while) to the character progression.

It sounds a bit like the Feats system in 3E, but more specifically tied to certain skills or item usage.  I'm tempted to compare them to DA2's ability upgrades, actually - they change a combat rule rather than allow your character to do something completely novel... fascinating. 

I'd be a bit concerned about what it would take to balance this sort of implementation - the benefit of having straight up attributes is that it's an arithmetic progression to allow you to more easily balance the geometric/exponential progression that comes from other level-ups (skills); if you had extra modifiers on attributes, it could make balancing a bit harder.  Not to say it wouldn't be fun...

It was pretty ingenious. But it also completely removed the concept of Attributes, making it 100% Skill based. Which I thought was throwing the baby out with the bath water a little.

Did Skyrim continue with a classless system?  That's another important thing - DA2, coming from the BG legacy, is still class-based fundamentally, and restricts weapon choices and playstyles as a result of this.  It seems that classless systems focus much more on a richly detailed skill system with universal progression methods to fill the hole left by the determinism of classes.  I'm curious now about where classless systems came from - GURPS, maybe?

Back to topic - I find that I tend to underpower my characters in games because I instinctively distribute my attributes for character balance.  Even in Diablo you had to balance stats somewhat (giving priority to prime attributes).  It's an unappealing trend that the simplification of attributes has led to nearly mindless stat dumping for min/maxing - and that something that I'd like to see changed (maybe this is unique to class-based systems).  However, implementing a perks system like you suggest might give players reasons to pursue other attributes for more character balance; I'm all for new ways to set these systems up.

[Celene II]

Without any attributes the game is not a roleplaying game its an interactive story

In most systems you could increase your attributes even in the old moldy games you could because it showed progression.

I would rather have some odd feelings about my character compared to other characters then to remove yet another rpg element because it might make people feel odd about their mage vs their warrior.

[Sir JK]

Thank you again for a interesting topic of discussion Fast Jimmy, especially this one seeing it is a topic I am very interested in. I have a great interest in tabletop roleplaying games and the theory behind their mechanics. This topic usually sits on the very fore.

Attributes are interesting, because they have usually served both as mechanical foundations for the character in the system and as a description of the character themselves. This is in fact were the 3d6 3-18 spread popularized by DnD comes from. The spread fits on a bell curve and can thus be applied to an entire population. In a given population, roughly half of them will have a value between 9 and 13 and only 1 in 216 will have 18 or higher.
By establishing the attributes that way, it thus describes the characters made. Quite neat.

It is of course far from the only way to do attributes. The percentile spread is also a common one. 1-100. It also can be used to describe a population, higher numbers are frequently rarer but often such systems relies on external modifactions altering the score (and thus succeschance).

We also have a trait based system, where you have base values modified by character traits you choose. You don't have a set of attributes as such, the base chance to suceed is pretty much the same all over, but if I pick say: Strong Back as a trait, I recieve a bonus to all my rolls at succeeding in anything relying on endurance, stamina and carrying stuff. Unlike the previous two systems it generally allows you to choose your character's advantages rather than randomize or purchase them. Often it is also much less reliant on high numbers.

Then there's systems that are entirely skill based and attributes only serve a supporting role or have been omitted. They're completely wired differently and puts up completely different expectations, but can often be very neat and efficient systems.

All those systems work a little bit different, but are generally governed by some unifyinf thoughts. They're generally rather simple in premise, since calculus sheets tend to be rather impractical at the game table. A computer game would not be hurt by a more complex system, as long as the UI is easily navigated.

The big question, one that I've asked a number of times, is... what purpose does the attributes in DA serve. That they improve the mechanical output of the characters' is rather undoubtable, but it strikes me as rather apparent that they serve no descriptionary role. The only tie in they have to the character is the specific attributes needed to improve certain class specific traits.. It could have been interesting if the attributes allowed us to significantly alter our relation towards the rest of the game, if depositing in constitution allowed us to become significantly more tough than the game expect or in Dex/Str and we'd be hitting quite hard. Some of that is in there, but largely to remain efficient you actually have to spend the vast majority in the attributes needed for your build. Tying the attribute increase to natural progession.

So it does not alter play expectations much (that is class choice), it does not alter in game range of action (that is abilities) and it does not serve a descriptionary role (that is... uh... dialogue?). So why exactly do we have attributes? Could not tossing the little that remains into the ability system be a better way to achieve what we desire? So if we want more stamina this level, we'd need to choose an ability that provides us with more stamina (preferably in addition to something else as well). That way the abilities would both be our progression, and in a sense, reflecting a description of our characters as we are shaped by what we learn and use. Kind of similar to the trait-based system described above.

Some might find this a bit unpalatable. But if the attributes do practically nothing, what good are they? And if they're strictly neccessary, what should they do exactly?

[philippe willaume]

hello

Attribute do not exist in the vacuum, For me the issues steams from the direct impact on games statistics and it is even made worse when used with class system.

The fixed attribute system does not scale very well. i.e. play a Minotaur in Dragonlance using the 2nd edition rules or play the island of the sorcerer for strombringer.
Ultimately attribute=extra level hence the scaling problem

Increasing attributes tend to have dump stats and that have a detrimental effect on game play, the game either too easy is you max out or terribly tedious to implacable according how far you stray from the optimum attribute dump

The no attribute tend to create jacks of all trades and tend to blend classes. The perk/weakness tends to lead to the famous Rolmaster/MERP super sighted one eyed character.

I don't believe that attribute should have a direct influence on game statistics.
i.e. have 20 in strength should not give you a +n % in attack and damage.
So Instead under the label Strength, for example we could have a perks/traint/talent called powerful physique that give you n % in attack and damage and give you x % in lifting and carrying, y in speed and increase the fatigue stamina cost by z %


phil

[twincast]

Ah yes, power hiking attributes, oh how I hate them.

On the other hand, never being able to grow stronger is stupid, too.

I think The Dark Eye 4.1E (and indeed AFAIK most point-buy systems) handle it pretty well in that they can be increased, but only at considerable point cost.

[philippe willaume]

twincast wrote...

Ah yes, power hiking attributes, oh how I hate them.

On the other hand, never being able to grow stronger is stupid, too.

I think The Dark Eye 4.1E (and indeed AFAIK most point-buy systems) handle it pretty well in that they can be increased, but only at considerable point cost.

Is it not an economically unviable and hence a non-option?

 I mean in the scope of a very finite development period as DA, so ROI is much more direct.

ie in DA not spending point in the directing attributes is very costly in term of efficiency, so developing an other attribute is very often sub-optimal and not really an option. (yes you can dab point here and there but can't really stray far from home)
phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 12 janvier 2013 - 12:17 .

[nightscrawl]

Both DAO and DA2 encouraged point dumping, but DA2's stricter armor requirements (at least at the start of the game, later reduced by patches) left little room for experimentation. I actually preferred DA2's secondary stat function over DAO, so that if I wanted I could certainly make a crit based warrior or mage. There are runes, rings, amulets, and some weapons that increase crit chance and damage to go along with that plan.

As you mention, a problem is gameplay and story integration and showing progression. While I like this function in general -- this worked particularly well for the middle third of DAO where you could do any area in the order you want --, the level scaling, in addition to the linear story progression (you can't go back to the starting areas), in the DA games greatly reduces the feeling of progression. In fact, the only sign of progression are larger numbers (in health and mana/stamina, damage, and attributes) and a growing amount of skills on your bar. If a level 20 character can go back to a level 1 area and obliterate things with a single hit, that feels like progression, you feel much more powerful than you did when you were in that same area as a level 1 character.

For Diablo 3 they did have automatic attribute leveling for your class. You choose attributes for your gear, so a barbarian would naturally want Str, but Dex also increases dodge even though it is the primary attribute for monks and demon hunters, so something with Str and Dex isn't so much worse, even if you would prefer something with Str and Vit. The main way to see progression in D3 is that every few levels a new skill unlocks.

Being flexible is the most important thing. I don't mind having a primary attribute for your class, but I think there should be the freedom to experiment with some other stats as well. In Ragnarok Online for example, the priest class enjoyed many builds: I played a tank soak priest. Dump all points into Int until they are maxed out (to increase spell power) and then put points into Vit. Vit gives more HP and also reduces damage taken, so I just stood there and healed myself. A priest of that kind can round up scores of undead mobs and slowly pick them off with holy spells. It was pretty entertaining.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 12 janvier 2013 - 12:54 .

[Wulfram]

I support getting rid of attributes and replacing them with something similar to talent trees or perks in much the way you talk about. I made a thread about it.

If you wanted to be sneaky about it and try to reduce backlash, you could have every attribute perk you bought add a couple of points to a counter, so that attributes still have the appearance of existing. You could even make that have a practical use, by using it for some in game checks - only someone with a strength of 16 - or to put it another way, who has bought 3 strength perks - can lift this log.

Failing that I'd like to see less obligatory investing in attack stat just to stay where you are. You're more or less obliged to put 2 of the 3 points into the attack stat, so I'd suggest cutting down the assignable stats you're given to 1, and either just give what you'd have gotten from the 2 points as a default part of levelling up the class, or have enemy defences increase by less to achieve the same thing.

Also, if we do keep attributes, how about scrapping Magic as an attribute? That is I think one of the more troublesome attributes because:
If you're a mage, then it's obviously going to be the stat you focus on. That's just obvious and too transparently sensible to be really avoidable
If you're not a mage, then it's obviously not going to be something you invest in, and any attempt to make it worth taking as a non-mage is going to end up being kind of silly
So either way, the Magic stat doesn't really do anything interesting. It's either obligatory or useless, with no middle ground. Better to just assume Mages have Magic by virtue of being Mages, and non-Mages don't have it because they aren't Mages.

[Dhiro]

I was expecting breasts.

Carry on.

[nightscrawl]

Wulfram wrote...

Also, if we do keep attributes, how about scrapping Magic as an attribute? That is I think one of the more troublesome attributes because:
If you're a mage, then it's obviously going to be the stat you focus on. That's just obvious and too transparently sensible to be really avoidable
If you're not a mage, then it's obviously not going to be something you invest in, and any attempt to make it worth taking as a non-mage is going to end up being kind of silly
So either way, the Magic stat doesn't really do anything interesting. It's either obligatory or useless, with no middle ground. Better to just assume Mages have Magic by virtue of being Mages, and non-Mages don't have it because they aren't Mages.

I like this idea. If mages are going to focus on one area or another, they can choose their mana, meaning that they are in the fight for a longer period of time, or health for more survival, and things like that. It also leaves room for roleplay ideas, such as the fun concept of just being a terrible mage. Perhaps you have little discipline and willpower, so you can't control your spells very well, maybe you are a small thinker and have difficulty conjuring, that sort of thing.

The main issue is: what do you tie a mage's power level into? If the other classes have Str and Dex, shouldn't the mages have something as well? If you don't think so, doesn't it seem odd to say that mages at level 1 are as strong as they are ever going to be? What kind of stats do you put on weapons and armor? Should it be percentage based? This staff increases magic power by 2%, this ring increases MP by 1%, and so on?

Modifié par nightscrawl, 12 janvier 2013 - 01:16 .

[Anomaly-]

Really glad to see this. The lackluster attributes in DA2 really turned me off, and I had to heavily mod the attributes in DA:O before I became satisfied with it.

[quote]Fast Jimmy wrote...
However, there are ways Attributes can go wrong. For instance, in the DA games, a Level 1 Warrior can have a high Strength of over 20. This let's him wear most equipment he comes across and use brute force to handle enemies in combat. A Level 1 Mage, on the other hand, can have Strength as low as 10 and be, comparably, much weaker. However, by Level 20, the Warrior can have 50, 60, 70 or even higher Strength. And the same Mage at Level 20 can, through permanent stat boosts, have their Strength score boosted to 20 without even putting a point in that Attribute during the Level Up screen.

Is that Mage as strong as the Warrior once was? They cannot use a two handed sword or wear armor, despite the Level 1 Warrior being able to. [/quote]

I'm pretty sure they could, in DA:O. I liked that system. There is no reason a mage can't use something a warrior can as long as the mage meets the same requirement. This is really all attributes should represent. A mage should be able to invest in strength as much as they wish -- while seeing benefit -- though their skill-set may not best accomodate it.

[quote]
Is the Warrior now, truly, two or three times stronger than he was before? If he could lift a barrel before, can he now lift a boulder?[/quote]

I just see that is taking the attribute too literally. Attributes are there to create an abstraction for representing relative proficiency and advancement.

[quote]
Set Attributes:

This type of system has Attributes which are static (for the most part), where upon character creation, they are set in stone. If you have 18 Strength and 9 Constitution, you're stuck with them until the day you(r character) die(s). This harkens back to the days of D&D and before, but many people would look to Fallout's SPECIAL system as a popular gaming example. [/quote]

I don't mind this system, as it does a good job of representing a character's strengths and weaknesses at the most basic level. However, I dislike not having the ability to represent changes in a character's basic physiology over time.

[quote]
Increase As You Go:

This type of system is like the DA system, where every time you level up, you can place points into your Attributes. This is also seen in many types of other games, such as the Diablo series. It lets you experience progression, and the feeling of being stronger. In addition, it gates off equipment to only those characters that have put enough points into the requisite Attributes. As outlined above, though, there are a few disconnects. [/quote]

I think this is my preferred system. I feel it does the best job of balancing roleplay with a feeling of choice and freedom.

[quote]Does it make any sense that one could not be agile enough to use a dagger? Or cunning enough to put on armor? Not being able to use them well, maybe... but to not be able to use at all? [/quote]

No, but that was where DA2 went wrong. They attempted to make classes more different by more rigidly tieing certain attributes and requirements to them. Unfortunately, it had the opposite effect as it really only narrowed the field of possibilities considerably.

Strength is the only attribute that should dictate whether or not you can wear/equip something. It makes sense, and it makes strength an attribute of relevance to every character type.

[quote]
Then there is the obvious question of "If my character is a warrior and only uses Strength and Constitution, why put points in anything else?" This results in Attribute dumping, where you know where the points are going to go every level, no matter what. Which nearly defeats the point of Attributes, honestly. If you have to put all your points in Strength to become more powerful and there is very little incentive or reason to do anything else, then what point it that Attribute serving? It may as well be a set Attribute as outlined about and just provide bonuses at every level up.[/quote]

Agreed 100%. I disliked the narrow focus of attributes in DA:O, and was dumbfounded when the issue was made worse in DA2. This isn't a fault of the system itself though, just the way they chose to use it.

[quote]
Lastly, some of it just doesn't make sense. If you liked, you could dump Magic into Oghren or Varric. This would give them no Magic ability (they aren't Mages, obviously) but it would give them high magical resistance. Except that they are dwarves and should already be nigh-impervious to magic... so should they have a natural high Magic score...? Logic like this leads to serious problems when your Attribute system revolves around putting points every level.[/quote]

I don't really see the issue here. A high magic score implies high magical resistance, but that doesn't mean the converse is true. One can -- as in the case of Dwarves -- have a high magical resistance without a high magic score. However, there is no reason they can't also raise it through putting points in magic. To my understanding, Dwarves just lack an aptitude for casting spells.

[quote]
I think this might be able to be fixed with a matter of portions. In the DA games, you get 4 points to divy up. Instead of putting them all in one or two attributes, a system that says you can only put one point in an Attribute per Level Up would be a good way to prevent dumping, to manage over-inflation of Attribute values and to promote more experimental builds. Maybe your Warrior would use that point to invest in Cunning, and get a defense bonus as well as a better Crit chance. Maybe he'd put some points into Magic to increase his resistance, despite never being able to cast a spell. [/quote]

I dislike this idea, just because I dislike arbitrary restrictions. I see no reason a person shouldn't be able to focus on one or two particular areas, if they choose. In fact, one of my favorite things to do in RPGs is create characters with clearly defined strengths and weakness -- true specialists. If I am arbitrarily forced to spread my attributes around, I will always be limited to creating fairly well-rounded characters.

Instead, I prefer tweaking the attributes to have more uses to all classes. For instance, I don't see the act of casting a spell as only being tied to Magic. I chose to have magic represent the relative magnitude of a spell, dexterity dictate the casting speed, willpower influence duration/chance to interrupt and cunning determine critical chance and resistance checks. These abstractions all make perfect sense to me, and best of all it opens up a lot more attributes for mages. Now arbitrary restrictions are no longer necessarry, as the system essentially balances itself.

For example, you can have an incredibly powerful mage (magic), but the system itself will balance this by causing that mage to have a hard time getting a spell off before being interrupted (willpower/dexterity). Similarly, a warrior can have an incredibly powerful swing (strength), but experience great difficulty hitting anyone (dexterity), and experiencing fatigue quickly (willpower/constitution). This offers a unique challenge and playstyle that operates well within the game mechanics, but doesn't impede choice or thought with arbitrary restrictions.

[quote]
No Attributes:

Ah, and here is the last system. Why have numbers at all? Why not get all the math out of the system? 

A leveling system like Skyrim removes Attributes altogether. Instead, level ups allow the character to select an ability or bonus that further defines their character. Been using your sword a lot? Get a bonus to damage, or get an ability to dual wield. Been casting lots of spells? Get a bonus to improve that type of spell's strength, or get a discount to its casting cost.

This type of system can be pretty brilliant, but while it does add a lot of definition to your character, it also makes any character capable of absolutely anything. Want a character that wears the heaviest armor in the game, but can sneak as silent as a ghost while running full speed and can cast spells while doing so? Skyrim let's you do this and, while sometimes fun, is a little over-the-top.[/quote]

This system is possible, but only if it's very extensive. Not only for the reasons you mentioned above, but things like perks have a hard time replacing attributes entirely. When playing Skyrim, I literally modded the perk trees to increase the number of available perks to 4 times the previous value. As I mentioned above, I really enjoy making specialists. Unfortunately, in Skyrim, I couldn't really make a character who specializes in sneak because the sneak perk tree only had like 10 ranks altogether. Afterward, I'd be forced to invest in 2 or 3 other trees, despite not wanting to.

The only game I've played that comes close to pulling off this system is Path of Exile, and the reason is simply because the passive tree is massive -- literally 1400 passive skills to choose from.

[quote]
So what do you say, BSN? What's your thoughts on Attributes?
[/quote]

What it boils down to, for me, is refinement. Don't give attributes such a narrow and shallow focus, don't give arbitrary restrictions, and don't remove them completely. Create ways of making (nearly) all attributes useful to all character types in meaningful ways, and the system will facilitate freedom, thought, and balance.

[quote]Wulfram wrote...
Also, if we do keep attributes, how about scrapping Magic as an attribute? That is I think one of the more troublesome attributes because:
If you're a mage, then it's obviously going to be the stat you focus on. That's just obvious and too transparently sensible to be really avoidable
If you're not a mage, then it's obviously not going to be something you invest in, and any attempt to make it worth taking as a non-mage is going to end up being kind of silly
So either way, the Magic stat doesn't really do anything interesting. It's either obligatory or useless, with no middle ground. Better to just assume Mages have Magic by virtue of being Mages, and non-Mages don't have it because they aren't Mages.[/quote]

As I detailed above, there are better ways of handling magic rather than getting rid of it completely. The act of spell casting can be tied to several other attributes, making magic far less obligatory to mages. Likewise, there are many types of magic, which can allow for other abstractions involving the attribute, such as increasing the potency of alchemical ingredients. Now the stat is useful to herbalists, while having nothing to do with spell casting. Similarly, I tied effectiveness of many Reaver talents to magic, as I considered them to be of a magical nature. Now you have a warrior who can make use of the attribute. All it takes is a little creativity and balancing.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 12 janvier 2013 - 02:02 .

[Wulfram]

Anomaly- wrote...

As I detailed above, there are better ways of handling magic rather than getting rid of it completely. The act of spell casting can be tied to several other attributes, making magic far less obligatory to mages. Likewise, there are many types of magic, which can allow for other abstractions involving the attribute, such as increasing the potency of alchemical ingredients. Now the stat is useful to herbalists, while having nothing to do with spell casting. Similarly, I tied effectiveness of many Reaver talents to magic, as I considered them to be of a magical nature. Now you have a warrior who can make use of the attribute. All it takes is a little creativity and balancing.

I don't think what you detailed above is better than getting rid of it completely.  You can stretch and strain to force the round peg into the square hole, but really you're better off getting a different peg.

nightscrawl wrote...

The main issue is: what do you tie a
mage's power level into? If the other classes have Str and Dex,
shouldn't the mages have something as well? If you don't think so,
doesn't it seem odd to say that mages at level 1 are as strong as they
are ever going to be? What kind of stats do you put on weapons and
armor? Should it be percentage based? This staff increases magic power
by 2%, this ring increases MP by 1%, and so on?

Level.  Which should be most of what the other classes attack power comes from too.  No need to make people invest in an attribute just to stay level with the opposition.

Modifié par Wulfram, 12 janvier 2013 - 02:18 .

[Anomaly-]

Wulfram wrote...
I don't think what you detailed above is better than getting rid of it completely.  You can stretch and strain to force the round peg into the square hole, but really you're better off getting a different peg.

I'd much rather increase the number of options than decrease them, anyday. It really didn't feel like stretching and straining, it actually felt pretty natural and made sense to me. After playing with the changes, I'd have to say they worked really well. But, admittedly, "better" is subjective here.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 12 janvier 2013 - 02:20 .

[Wulfram]

Anomaly- wrote...

I'd much rather increase the number of options than decrease them, anyday. It really didn't feel like stretching and straining to me, it actually felt pretty natural and made sense to me. But, admittedly, "better" is subjective here.

You could replace it with another attribute if you wanted to.  Something less directly tied to a particular class (or a particular class and one specialisation with your tweaks).  Though I wouldn't, because I think having too many attributes leads to stretching to make them all worthwhile.

Modifié par Wulfram, 12 janvier 2013 - 02:23 .

[Anomaly-]

Wulfram wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

The main issue is: what do you tie a
mage's power level into? If the other classes have Str and Dex,
shouldn't the mages have something as well? If you don't think so,
doesn't it seem odd to say that mages at level 1 are as strong as they
are ever going to be? What kind of stats do you put on weapons and
armor? Should it be percentage based? This staff increases magic power
by 2%, this ring increases MP by 1%, and so on?

Level.  Which should be most of what the other classes attack power comes from too.  No need to make people invest in an attribute just to stay level with the opposition.

The need to invest in an attribute is to determine how they relate to the opposition. If attack power is tied to level, then everyone will have the same relative attack power at similar level. There is no longer anything differentiating them. That gets rid of a lot of the fun and interest in the system for people like me.

Wulfram wrote...
You could replace it with another attribute if you wanted to.  Something less directly tied to a particular class (or a particular class and one specialisation with your tweaks).  Though I wouldn't, because I think having too many attributes leads to stretching to make them all worthwhile.

Adding to magical resistance makes it useful to all classes. Aside from that, my changes meant it was no longer the only attribute of importance to spell casters. This essentially brings it on par with strength -- about as useful to mages as strength is to warriors/rogues, while having comparable usefulness to warriors/rogues as strength does to mages. Feels like a good fit to me.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 12 janvier 2013 - 02:32 .

[philippe willaume]

Dhiro wrote...

I was expecting breasts.

Carry on.

Well at least those exepecting asses will not be disapointed albeit may be for the said asses to be of the smart category 

phil
sorry that was too tempting

[philippe willaume]

Anomaly- wrote...
snip
.

About basing attack or any game stat to level.

That is the points of perks/talent instead of attribute ( or parks/tallend depend of a given attribute)
The difference in performaces comes from the talents you choose.

ideally the talent/perks should contain the bonuses and the cost.

phil