Base stats or base stats?

[u/Setholopagus]

Edit: title is a typo, should be "base stats or NO base stats?"

Currently revisiting some designs, and im stuck on this question.

Originally I ditched stats (might, cunning, etc) in favor of just verbs (attack, defend, lie, etc). You have a list of things you can do, and you can get good at that thing. End of story.

But some part of me wonders if this is good. There's something about seeing a high 'might stat' that makes it easier to understand what the character is all about, compared to having to comb through specific actions. Does that matter? I might be getting too caught up in presentation lol.​

[u/Mars_Alter]

It can work. As with most things, it all comes down to execution.

My biggest concern would be that the players feel limited by what it says on their sheet. With basic stats, you always have something you can roll against, so you're free to improvise.

[u/Quiet-Refuse5241]

I think that you're over thinking it, dude. I'm also working on a game that, while it has attributes, none of them have traditional stats. I've found that in all of my playtests so far, no one has complained about there not being numbers or about being confused about what they're good at

[u/Setholopagus → u/Quiet-Refuse5241]

Describe your attributes? 

It might be the same thing, if you're getting tripped up on the word 'stat'

[u/Dumeghal]

Hmmm I gotta go with base stats....

There are so many variables that inform this part of a game, and we don't have much to go on for yours.

A good start is the intended genre and experience, and then maybe the core design goals. How important is this choice as it relates to these things? Is it part of your intended vibe that players are able to feel that their character is strong or skilled? Are intrinsic qualities more or less or not at all important compared to trained skill?

I'll use my game as an example: I wanted skill to weigh more than attribute excellence. But I also wanted attribute excellence to matter. So Attributes are 1-3. Skills are 0-3, but also have specializations of 0-3. What we end up with is that at low skill levels, being faster and stronger and more fit gives you an advantage. But at higher skill levels, physical ability is not as important. I wanted the mechanics to allow for the frail old master to still whip the shit out of the untrained oaf. I wanted the mechanics to allow the champion to go into a fight unarmored against an inferior foe, knowing the opponent will never land a blow.

[u/Setholopagus → u/Dumeghal]

All skills are still 'attributes'. Like its a ttrpg - you roll something based on some numbers, compare to another number, etc. 

The thing I'm asking about is that abstraction layer that is often used to drive multiple things at once. A high might character can probably carry a lot, hit hard, push stuff, etc. One stat affects multiple things. Does that make sense?

Some games call it attribute, some call it characteristic, some call it approach, some even call it skill / proficiency (skilled in martial weapons, but i separately get a unique benefit for using a bow)

My game is medium crunch - heavily inspired by things like L5R and Genesys / SWRPG. Progression happens via downtime. I want to emphasize cool 'anime moments' in combat, tactical decision making (e.g., if i block with my arm, it could shatter), things like that.

None of that reaaaaaally matters for deciding about attributes, not that I can think of at least. Attributes are really just a category number that other things can key off of. I'm wondering about the importance of that. 

[u/__space__oddity__]

Everything in RPG rules is optional. If you think your game benefits from stats because they give a basic idea of the characters and how they are different from others, sure.

[u/Setholopagus → u/__space__oddity__]

Yep.

I'm asking the question here because I'm not sure. Does that make sense? If I was confident in a decision I wouldn't ask. 

If you have any arguments to contribute I'd be happy to receive them, if not then no worries.

[u/Ryou2365]

There are a lot of games that more or less ditched base stats.

Call of Cthulhu / Pendragon / BRP games still have them, but they mostly matter on character creation to determine stats derived from them. Nearly everything is resolved using skills only.

Tag based games like City of Mist have freeform descriptors (the tags) instead of base stats.

Characters in the third edition of Over the Edge consists only of a main and side trait, a trouble (a disadvantage or problem) and a question (something that even you yourself aren't sure about and want to explore further). All of them are totally freeform.

So yes, you can have a game without base stats. Base stats may make it easier to understand your character at a glance, but not having them can make a character feel more nuanced, because nothing is reduced to a base stat (i'm no longer the 2nd strongest character behind Bill, it is my mastery with an axe that sets me apart from his mastery of climbing - yes that is totally possible by having base stat, but more often than not only the base stat will be compared. After all it sits there at a glance).

It depends entirely what you want your game to be like. Do you think it needs a base stat?

[u/RPG-Nerd]

I get it. D&D treats attributes as crazy powerful. Attributes basically cap your abilities until your next level. But, you already see what happens when removed completely. Am I smart? strong? agile? Who am I?

The basic formula is attribute+skill. That's the problem. Two numbers for the same job. I changed that.

Skills are broken into training and experience. Training is how many dice you roll for a check. Experience is per skill and determines the skill's level added to rolls.

Experience in a skill begins at the skill's related attribute score and increases through use at 1 point per scene in which the skill is used. When the skill goes up in experience level or training, it adds +1 to the attribute.

Attributes have their own uses. For example, a person with high agility might start out as a slightly better dancer, but actual practice and usage will soon take priority. Raw talent only gets you so far, and there is no XP cap forcing everyone to earn the same amount. As your dancing skill improves, your agility does as well (much slower than the skill), which is reflected in a better dodge.

Attributes are descriptive of the character in general and form a slower advancement, but your most common tasks are skill checks, not skill bonuses to attribute checks.

[u/flamfella]

What would base stats actually do in your game? If they just summarize what the character is good at, what does anyone do with that information? Does comparing them serve your game’s goals?

Ask whether the mechanic is in the simplest form that still accomplishes what you want. If yes, you’re probably on the right track.

My guess is that adding base stats back would muddy it. If the game worked without them, they probably weren’t doing much. If you want a middle ground, it’s probably just presentation: group the verbs, add tags (even non-functional ones), or find another way to make it easier to track what verbs exist and what you’re good or bad at.

Borrowing from computer science, lazy evaluation could be helpful in simply only having verbs listened on a character sheet that they are especially good or bad at. The default case of being average, is simply left out. So, let's say you had 30 verbs. You might see only 11 on a sheet, and the remaining 19 you know you just roll a single dice with no modifiers for, or whatever the procedure is.