On Stats, Skills, and Abilities

[Major_Blackhart]

Assuming we all know what they are, my question is this:

Should stats be stagnant? Should they have a limiting factor? Regarding intelligence, eyesight, and other things, it's possible to be limited to what you started with (as in real life, there are no miracle operations for the most part). But there are some exceptions to the rule.

Eyesight can be improved nowadays via surgery and glasses, etc.

Appearances (beauty) can be modified, improved upon etc. via surgery, makeup.

Strength can be augmented, like endurance, through excercise and hardwork or steroids of various kinds.

The list goes on and on. Some things, however, like Charisma, are stagnant because they rely on personality.

Skills, on the other hand, are mutable, always changing with each level, depending on what you put into them, etc. However, they rarely degenerate in a game, if ever. In real life, this is not so. People fall out of practice.
Now, it's true some skills come naturally to a person, but really, everything is practice, practice, and more practice. It's how skills are improved upon in the real world. Without oiling the gun, it gets jammed easily. People are the same way.

Abilities, the third topic, are a horse of a different color. They are often based either on background, or on a combination of skills and statistics. Many are available to all individuals, and some are available only if the proper combination of stat and skill are chosen, or if a person has chosen the appropriate background. Often, they are applied as bonuses with little to no drawbacks.
If there are background options, as in Arcanum, they often have a drawback to them of some significance, in a way forcing you to play a certain style, or trying to balance things out. Races are often done in this way as well, gaining a bonus while losing out on something else. Others, like titles of master rank, etc, are available only to those that have invested incredible amount of effort in that skill, etc, and the bonuses are incredible, with the drawback being that the player invested an incredible amount of himself into that skill.

Now, here's my point:
Should stats be mutable or static throughout a game? I have to wonder myself, because in games like Wizardry 8, etc, skills and spells and abilities are directly dependent upon stats, while in games like Fallout, they are the basis, and continue to have a huge impact throughout the game on the character, but are stagnant and in the end, only give you a starting bonus to work on with your skills. Should stats have a limit? Or is it possible for a character to reach a certain point where he's beyond everyone else?
Regarding skills, should they deteriorate over time if you don't use them? SHould they have a base value that they will ALWAYS fall to if they do deteriorate and never go below? Or should it not be regulated? And also, how do you do it in a game without making it tedious? That's a biggie.
Regarding abilities, what type of rarity should they have? Should they be based on stats, skills, or both? Should the rewards depend upon the rarity obviously? Should NPC's have access to the same abilities if they meet the appropriate requirements? Should they be based on level? What if a game (like AoD) has no levels?
That's it for now. To me, abilities are more of an afterthought, but skill degeneration and surpassing natural statistics are both biggies that I want to get other's opinions on.

 

[Phelot]

Now, here's my point:
Should stats be mutable or static throughout a game? I have to wonder myself, because in games like Wizardry 8, etc, skills and spells and abilities are directly dependent upon stats, while in games like Fallout, they are the basis, and continue to have a huge impact throughout the game on the character, but are stagnant and in the end, only give you a starting bonus to work on with your skills. Should stats have a limit? Or is it possible for a character to reach a certain point where he's beyond everyone else?

IMO it really depends on the game. My personal favorite, however would be stagnant stats simply because it makes my character feel more real and I tend to put more effort into character creation.

I guess having stats that can be leveled up fit more with the "epic" scale games that are made. For some reason, every character nowadays has to finish the game as a god.

Regarding skills, should they deteriorate over time if you don't use them? SHould they have a base value that they will ALWAYS fall to if they do deteriorate and never go below? Or should it not be regulated? And also, how do you do it in a game without making it tedious? That's a biggie.

Since I prefer stagnant stats, I do prefer that skills are based on said stats. What would also be nice is to have stats determine your maximum level of a skill.High agility allows for a high lockpicking skill or whatever.

Regarding abilities, what type of rarity should they have? Should they be based on stats, skills, or both? Should the rewards depend upon the rarity obviously? Should NPC's have access to the same abilities if they meet the appropriate requirements? Should they be based on level? What if a game (like AoD) has no levels?

I think abilities should be based on skills even though they seem to be based on stats. I also believe they should simply be granted when a skill reaches a certain level, rather then being bought at level up. A certain level in, say sword fighting allows a different ability depending on level.

 

[Liberal]

Regarding skills, should they deteriorate over time if you don't use them? SHould they have a base value that they will ALWAYS fall to if they do deteriorate and never go below? Or should it not be regulated? And also, how do you do it in a game without making it tedious? That's a biggie.

Why would you want this in your game? Would it make it more interesting? More realistic? More fun to play? Developing a character is not only about the direction the player chooses, but also (and possibly more importantly) about the gains he makes as he nears the end-game. Why would you implement a mechanism that slowly takes away those gains for no good reason, forcing the player to either constantly read depressive warnings of "stat decreased", or using skills he doesn't actually need just to avoid them? Skills/stats degrading over time is probably the most unfortunate suggestion which enthusiasts keep making because it sounds hardcore. It's not. There is not a single classic, revered RPG which implemented this mechanism, at least not successfully. It does not model reality, as in real life it is possible to recall a skill one hasn't used for a very long time, rather than having to learn it anew, as if one never possessed any knowledge of it in the past. And I can't imagine how a constant drain on your experience/skill points would make the game more balanced and interesting to the player. Would you have to compensate it with unlimited exp awards, such as from killing re-spawning monsters? There goes the Bloodlines system of exp award for completing quests. Or would you rather risk seriously undermining the PC far into the game?

No, no, and no. There will never be a successful RPG with skill points drain, and thank God.

 

[Castanova]

Obviously it's hugely game dependent and I don't think there's any one good answer.

Personally, I'd be interested in a system where your basic attributes (strength, dexterity, intelligence, etc.) are almost entirely static. These attributes, then, would strongly influence skills (like sword, climbing, intimidation, etc.) in the following ways: starting value and maximum potential. Then your skills would level up over time but never over the maximum determined by your innate attributes.

Obviously there might be a super awesome quest or item or trainer or something that changes your base attributes too and people would get a hard-on when they find it.

 

[bhlaab]

I like for stats to be static, but with buffs/debuffs. Like in your example, wearing glasses could improve eyesight while getting your eye jabbed with a fork could damage it.

As for skills deteriorating, I think it would be interesting for a game to try but it should definitely not be the expected norm.

Abilities/Backgrounds/Traits, totally 100% static. If Stats are "who you are" and skills are "what you can do", then abilities would be "what you've done" and/or "who you are wholistically" which aren't things a person can really change about themselves.

 

[denizsi]

I just thought of an RPG where you start the game as a godly hero, nearing his senior years. You can start the game as a master swordsman who has beaten everyone there's to beat in the past and can take on and beat anyone in a few moves. Or a master of language and a source of inspiration to people. Or what have you.

As you play the game, your stats decline. New young upbeat sword fighters emerge that wants to challenge your throne. New communal leaders that drive masses to their causes, etc. Every failure you receive is a major dip in that skills/whatever. Every wound is a further limiting factor. Every public humiliation a deep crack in your ego. But you must endure because, HERP DERP DERP.

By the time you finish the game, you likely are literally dying, or disabled, retarded, etc. but you have succeeded in making your last series of actions ones to be remembered well beyond your ages. Or HAVE YOU?!

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I like cRPGs where stats, skills and abilities are handled in a realistic ways.

 

[gothemasticator]

Stats should not increase at level ups, while skills should.

Stats should have a limited number of possible increases which come in the form of gameplay decisions/rewards. For example, completing a quest-series that culminates in the acquisition of the Romboid Stone of Strength: permanent +1 to STR. This approach allows you to increase stats, thus becoming more epic/heroic of a character, which is fun. It also avoids the max all stats issue, which is less fun.

Skills should be the things you can get better at by practice/training. XP are a generic currency for having spent time in the world getting better at stuff. What you choose to spend them on is how you declare what you spent your time learning.

Max skill gains or max points spendable on a skill class (specialized, etc.) should be tied to stats.

I prefer attributes to be one-time non-levelable.

 

[bhlaab]

I just thought of an RPG where you start the game as a godly hero, nearing his senior years. You can start the game as a master swordsman who has beaten everyone there's to beat in the past and can take on and beat anyone in a few moves. Or a master of language and a source of inspiration to people. Or what have you.

As you play the game, your stats decline. New young upbeat sword fighters emerge that wants to challenge your throne. New communal leaders that drive masses to their causes, etc. Every failure you receive is a major dip in that skills/whatever. Every wound is a further limiting factor. Every public humiliation a deep crack in your ego. But you must endure because, HERP DERP DERP.

By the time you finish the game, you likely are literally dying, or disabled, retarded, etc. but you have succeeded in making your last series of actions ones to be remembered well beyond your ages. Or HAVE YOU?!

im pretty sure everybody here has had this idea at some point

or at least i have, and you stole it from me.

 

[Phelot]

Regarding skills, should they deteriorate over time if you don't use them?

This is certainly more realistic, but then in order to make it fair, the game would have to follow a strict real world time otherwise an hour of real time could mean a lot of game time has passed and thus skills would deteriorate too quickly, giving the player an unnecessary burden to keep up on skills and if the player is like me, then they'll even end up trying to keep skills they normally wouldn't use up just for the sake of not losing anything.

I think it might work better if there were a stat based range that a skill allows for. For example:

Dexterity of 10 allows for lockpicking skill of 30 to 40 points. Keep using the skill and you'll max it out at 40. Don't use it at all for awhile and it'll drop down to 30. We'll say it's kind of like riding a bike so you always keep the base knowledge of how a skill works. Not only that, but it should be easier to "relearn" old skills so if a character had a skill at 38 and it dropped down to 33 then it'll be easier to increase it back up to 38 and then the learning takes as long as it normally would after 38.

Still, would this be fun? It's bad enough that players grind for XP would it be twice as bad to also have them grind to keep their skills up?

 

[denizsi]

I'm more interested in what the point would be. It could work as a trade off for things to be automated/abstracted during travel and rest, between other things where passage of time affects quests so you often have an incentive to use time sparingly. Do you travel fast with minimal rest, skipping various options you can select to have done in travel menu, like practice to keep yourself on the edge, repairs & maintenance to keep your gear in shape, such activities slowing you down and increasing your odds of being waylaid later etc.

If it doesn't provide a meaningful trade-off between itself and anything else, I just don't see the point.

im pretty sure everybody here has had this idea at some point

or at least i have, and you stole it from me.

Too late now that I've posted it first, so, suck it down!

 

[skybox3d.com]

I just thought of an RPG where you start the game as a godly hero, nearing his senior years. You can start the game as a master swordsman who has beaten everyone there's to beat in the past and can take on and beat anyone in a few moves. Or a master of language and a source of inspiration to people. Or what have you.

As you play the game, your stats decline. New young upbeat sword fighters emerge that wants to challenge your throne. New communal leaders that drive masses to their causes, etc. Every failure you receive is a major dip in that skills/whatever. Every wound is a further limiting factor. Every public humiliation a deep crack in your ego. But you must endure because, HERP DERP DERP.

By the time you finish the game, you likely are literally dying, or disabled, retarded, etc. but you have succeeded in making your last series of actions ones to be remembered well beyond your ages. Or HAVE YOU?!

Lol. I love the "you must endure because HERP DERP DERP"

That's what all games boil down to. You must save the princess and the entire kingdom because... well... errr... because it's something to do?

On the subject of stats, I've always preferred leveling up. I think leveling down should also be an option, but it depends on the game. I know in real life, I am not stagnant, and I've definitely "leveled up" and down at different times in my life. I think those experiences should work with stats to provide an authentic role playing experience.

 

[Overweight Manatee]

Fallout handled stats/skills pretty well IMO. Stats were mostly static, but could be buffed a little throughout the game. Skills could have used a bit more hard limits based on stats (INT 1 character can have 100% science wut?), and of course the whole thing wasn't balanced as well as it could have been, but the bare system ideas were pretty good.

 

[shihonage]

I'm not sure how Fallout handled low INT, high Speech combinations. This kind of clash confuses me.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I'm not sure how Fallout handled low INT, high Speech combinations. This kind of clash confuses me.

Intelligent doesn't necessarily mean smart. You can find guys who will convince you to buy a bridge yet don't even know how to write their own name.

See these door to door salespersons. If they were intelligent, they'd get a better job, but they will convince you to buy anything, because their "speech skill" is high. Come to think of it, the vault boy pic for speech in Fallout is a salesperson selling shitty used cars as if they were new ones.

We also have the massively intelligent (due to massive apsergers) guys here on the codex who couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag. Some can't talk to a girl despite knowing all there is to know about the current export rates in Sri Lanka.

The list goes on and on. Some things, however, like Charisma, are stagnant because they rely on personality.

Charisma can be enhanced, but it relies on either a lot of time (quiet kid may become a friendly teen) or an active effort to change (" I will try to be more friendly from now on").

 

[Dire Roach]

Any attribute should be allowed to increase through training or technology/magic. The time it takes to train an attribute should increase exponentially as the value goes up, to the point where it becomes unfeasible to keep training. This limit should depend on the value where the character started at; midgets cannot achieve Herculean strength through training alone, just as retards can't be trained to become Einsteins. Mental attributes should take more time to train than physical ones. Permanent attribute increases through tech/magic should be very costly and include serious trade-off penalties.

The time span of the story in most games is usually too short to allow skills to degrade and characters to age significantly. If a game were to begin when the character is young and end when he retires of old age, then skills and attributes could decrease through their chronic lack of use. Skill decay would vary according to each skill; unpracticed languages, for example, would decrease dramatically over time, while riding a bicycle would hardly decrease at all. Assuming the characters are human, physical attributes could get a small cumulative penalty every 10 years or so, while mental attributes would remain relatively unaffected. The chance of suffering a permanent crippling injury or disease could also increase as the character ages.

Ultimately, most of these things would be irrelevant if the game's story is only supposed to span a couple of days.

 

[shihonage]

Intelligent doesn't necessarily mean smart. You can find guys who will convince you to buy a bridge yet don't even know how to write their own name.

See these door to door salespersons. If they were intelligent, they'd get a better job, but they will convince you to buy anything, because their "speech skill" is high. Come to think of it, the vault boy pic for speech in Fallout is a salesperson selling shitty used cars as if they were new ones.

We also have the massively intelligent (due to massive apsergers) guys here on the codex who couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag. Some can't talk to a girl despite knowing all there is to know about the current export rates in Sri Lanka.

A vivid picture for sure. However, then, how should a game handle a character with high Speech and low Charisma ? What do we get then... a car salesman who is really good at his job but has terrible body odor ?

 

[zenbitz]

Intelligent doesn't necessarily mean smart. You can find guys who will convince you to buy a bridge yet don't even know how to write their own name.

See these door to door salespersons. If they were intelligent, they'd get a better job, but they will convince you to buy anything, because their "speech skill" is high. Come to think of it, the vault boy pic for speech in Fallout is a salesperson selling shitty used cars as if they were new ones.

We also have the massively intelligent (due to massive apsergers) guys here on the codex who couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag. Some can't talk to a girl despite knowing all there is to know about the current export rates in Sri Lanka.

A vivid picture for sure. However, then, how should a game handle a character with high Speech and low Charisma ? What do we get then... a car salesman who is really good at his job but has terrible body odor ?

It doesn't really matter. If the game has a test for "speech" (which is a wildly abstract concept anyway) then it doesn't matter what you Charisma is -- except how it influences the test skill (in this case speech). A system like GURPS or SPECIAL used stats for the "base roll" for many skills which were then bought up.

This can actually be used to set a Maximum or at least effective maximum on a speech based on low charisma. Gurps was like this - a DX skill cost geometrically more depending on how high you bought it. So to get archery at DX + 3 might cost 8 points (I don't really remember), DX + 4, 16 points.

So having really low DX would create an effective cap on Archery because it would be prohibitively expensive to get a really high level. Other methods are possible including a hard cap (you can only get Speech at a level = Charisma + 5).

"Terrible body odor" should be a "perk" anyway. It would be a negative to human reaction rolls (unless they are asnosmatic), and a bonus for creatures to track you...

 

[zenbitz]

Regarding OP, depending on how you define them, it's not totally unreasonable to (non magic/tech) increase your Int or Chr during a game. Height would be static though!

Some game systems define even more sets - mutable stats, immutable stats, and skills.

 

[Longshanks]

Intelligent doesn't necessarily mean smart. You can find guys who will convince you to buy a bridge yet don't even know how to write their own name.

See these door to door salespersons. If they were intelligent, they'd get a better job, but they will convince you to buy anything, because their "speech skill" is high. Come to think of it, the vault boy pic for speech in Fallout is a salesperson selling shitty used cars as if they were new ones.

We also have the massively intelligent (due to massive apsergers) guys here on the codex who couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag. Some can't talk to a girl despite knowing all there is to know about the current export rates in Sri Lanka.

A vivid picture for sure. However, then, how should a game handle a character with high Speech and low Charisma ? What do we get then... a car salesman who is really good at his job but has terrible body odor ?

High Speech, low Charisma? Meet former diplomat, current Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd:

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Yeah, low charisma + speech reminds me of a boring politician - he will be able to convince you if you're the kind of person who wants facts (truth or not, he might fool you); if you're the kind who just likes someone with a permasmile on his face, the low charisma is going to be a problem.

You're still gonna pay attention due to how captivating his talk is, but you wouln't be as mesmerized as you'd be if he was both charismatic AND knew what to say. He should have a penalty in a speech test, but surmountable if the listener finds the subject itself interesting enough (it's hard to pay attention to a boring teacher, but you will if he makes the subject sound important enough)