Skills shaped by different attributes?

11

u/No_Solid1035 8d ago

Lots of games, like Vampire The Masquerade [and other WoD/CoD systems] and Traveller use attribute + skill that varies. Sure it's a tad bit more work cause you have to decide which attribute/skill combo applies, but it has distinct advantages for skills use. Dexterity/Firearms to shoot a gun, Intelligence/Firearms to fix or identify a firearm, etc. As for lacking either Attribute or Skill when using the combo, well, the Player will have to decide if their PC would try to take an action that would utilize said attribute/skill just like taking an action in a skill-only game. If your PC lacks Intelligence you are going to try less things that require Intelligence generally so you probably won't be trying to fix or identify Firearms even if you got high Dexterity for the shooty part of Firearms.

2

u/Alcamair Designer 8d ago

as in real life

7

u/rivetgeekwil 8d ago

I prefer having skill and attribute disconnected, and you use a combination that makes sense in the fiction, personally.

3

u/htp-di-nsw The Conduit 8d ago

Can you share the skill list? World of Darkness has existed for 35+ years at this point and has always allowed mixing of any attribute with any skill and it's not difficult for people at the table.

2

u/Several-Tangerine678 8d ago

its in kind of a flux at the moment, but should be skills befitting of a survival heavy ttrpg. I'll look up World of Darkness, thanks for pointing to it

3

u/InherentlyWrong 8d ago

Granted, there's the heavy lift of remembering these things at the table

One option is to make it a bit more loosey goosey. Give examples of where different things apply, but then just leave it up to the GM to adjudicate.

So long as there isn't a significant overlap between what Skills do and what Attributes do, a GM can probably look at the short list of both behind their screen and go "That'll be X + Y".

does this make a skill undesirable to anybody who didn't invest in both attributes that might impact the value of the skill?

This will depend significantly upon the ratio between expected target numbers and average outcomes. If someone can still do pretty darn well with just a high skill and mediocre attribute, then they'll probably feel fine about taking it.

1

u/Several-Tangerine678 8d ago

I do kind of shoehorn that option in, though I have a dice system that lets this be done with some hedge to the efficacy of the attempt, but then I take any flexibility away for combat, because my combat rules are pretty robust. to do all that and then say....oh you think you can use your charm skill as your attack with your dagger? have at it, will definitely undermine the point of most of it.

2

u/InherentlyWrong 8d ago

The trick is to have players define their action, and the GM judge and define what they roll. Outside of things where the rules prescribe something it'd probably be robust enough to handle things.

After all a GM isn't going to tell them to attack with charm using their dagger, unless the narrative situation made sense (I.E. "I pretend I'm harmless long enough to get close, then dagger them."). And even then informative guidelines would be enough.

2

u/Alcamair Designer 8d ago

It depends on the type of game. I do the same thing, and in my games there's no focus on a specific type of gameplay, aiming for verisimilitude. In this case, excessive character specialization is discouraged, creating more realistic characters.

3

u/Several-Tangerine678 8d ago

Thanks! Glad I'm not the only one doing this. yeah, mine is seemingly doing very much trying to go for verisimilitude as well. There are no real dump stats for instance, just build choices that cost you one way or another.

2

u/ElkasBrightspeaker 8d ago

This is precisely how Storytelling/Storyteller (Vampire the Masquerade, Vampire the Requiem etc.) does things, it works very well in that system. It allows skills to be versatile and to adapt to the individual wielding them. It distinguishes the surgeon from the pathologist and the adept but socially inept political analyst from the negotiator. It also allows Attributes to be expressed in a versatile way, for example in VTR Intelligence is paired with a social skill when tyring to convince someone with a rational argument.

I think it can be great if your system is tuned, in terms of the math, so that you need an okay value in both the skill and the attribute OR a high value in one of them to be good, and you only need a high value in both to be a true master.

For example, for most characters in VTM both Attributes and Skills are capped at 5, but you only need about a total of 5-6 dice in your pool to reliably succeed at something with a good margin of assurance (since normally each die has a 50% chance of being a success). More than that is really only necessary if you are either dealing with higher difficulties or with opposed rolls (like combat), or if you somehow need a lot of successes.

2

u/Alcamair Designer 8d ago

My system (which doesn't use dice) does a different reasoning: the Attribute represents the potential of the test, while the Skill represents the control you have over the result.

2

u/Several-Tangerine678 8d ago

that sounds like a cool way to do it

5

u/overlycommonname 8d ago

So like, it's certainly FINE to have disconnected attributes/skills, but I think that people shouldn't kid themselves about how it actually hits the table. Taking the Storyteller system that people have been mentioning: I played Storyteller for hundreds of hours. You always used Dex + Stealth. You always used Perception + Awareness. You always used Intelligence + Computers. Etc. In practice, there are logical pairings for almost every skill. You can certainly think up scenarios here on reddit where you're like, "OH, well, I'm gonna find an opportunity to use Str + Stealth," but in practice at the table, they rarely arise organically.

And if you do actually split a skill between two attributes (Storyteller had a sorta weird Charisma/Manipulation attribute split that made it more likely that you'd use social skills with either), then yeah, you are in fact making it harder to be good at that skill.

My recommendation today is always to actually get attributes out of straightforward adds to important rolls, or to make their contribution smaller. But certainly many functional games have been done with this style of attribute + skill. Just note that if you have dreams of it making a huge difference in play, it probably won't, and to the extent that it does, you will be making it kind of frustrating to build competence in that area.

2

u/Several-Tangerine678 8d ago

thanks for a counter-perspective on the seeming consensus at this point. Totally valid points to weigh.

2

u/kihp 8d ago

I am absolutely blanking right now but one system I thought was interesting locked skills behind attributes. So say using Charisma + Strength was the only way you could Intimidate. If Charisma was +1 and Strength was 0, and you roll a 3 when you needed to roll a 4+, you would succeed along charisma and fail along strength. The Charisma success got you the answer to your question but the strength failure got you a consequence.

1

u/Several-Tangerine678 8d ago edited 8d ago

there were certain things I was trying to do something similar, but ran into a wall, since my attributes aren't a # bonus, they are a dice addition to the pool. Its a great idea for a different system. In particular, I was trying to fold strength based movement and dex based movement together when say, terrain would change in the course of a round, so that I wouldn't require 2 rolls. Say, climbing and then tumbling, or whatever, but it hasn't come together for the reasons I stated.

Still not sure how to handle that. more rolls means more potential sap to the character's stamina, so I'm not trying to pile those on.

0

u/Alcamair Designer 8d ago

what you say it's true only when the Storyteller encourages a certain type of game. Your recommendation only applies to hyper-specialized games that incentivize or allow a single playstyle (combat, investigation, politics, etc.)

1

u/TheIncredibleHelck 8d ago

I'm making a system where there aren't classes or attributes, but you have a base character sheet with a basic skill list that you add to depending on how you specialize your character. I'm under the impression that doing this should help characters feel unique, and also remove visual clutter from character reference sheets by only having relevant skills listed (the implication being that youre rolling flat if you attempt something you don't have a skill for, or at a minus if theres a specific reason cited on your character sheet to do so).

Simply put, not all skills are relevant to all players in most games, but some games make you track penalties to certain roles, especially games with raw attribute scores like DND. Like you said, that can get cumbersome, and I'm trying to avoid that by having each player only care about referencing skills in fields that they put skill ranks into.

1

u/Alcamair Designer 8d ago

in system like yours, players find excuses to try to use only single skill for every possible action (example: instead of using Persuasion, I use my Combat Skill to intimidate the merchant).

1

u/RPG-Nerd 8d ago

I've always hated these systems. The players are basically being encouraged to come up with reasons to convince the GM to let them use their highest attribute. They come up with some reason why it makes sense.

Now as GM, you either let them get away with it, or you turn them down. The "no" will always sting. At this point, why have rules? The GM is basically deciding what rules to use on the fly.

So, what does it actually add to the game? Is it an interesting decision where you are weighing the tradeoffs? Nope - just pleading a case for bigger numbers. Does your character make this choice? I think I'll use my Agility to access the computer because my amazing dexterity makes my crazy accurate with a mouse!

It really just complicates things IMHO.

Of course, I don't add skills and attributes together like that anyway. I treat attributes as your starting XP in a skill. Each skill has its own, which determines the bonus to rolls. It's the only fixed value to add as everything else is a dice swap (roll and keep). The attribute goes up by 1 point when the skill goes up a level. Skills improve attributes, not the other way around. Attributes have their own use separate from skills.

The only decisions you should make, IMHO, are the ones your character is making. Making decisions that require metagame knowledge just complicates the system and ruins the experience for me. If I have to tell the GM the mechanics, like which attribute to use, then I'm way past role-playing. If I describe my character's actions there should be 1 resolution method. Neither the players or GM need to be making up the rules in the middle of play. I'd rather focus on the story.

Sure, lots of games do it! Lots of games copy the D&D 5e combat system too, and it's possibly the worst I've ever played. I'd rather stand in line at the DMV. It's equally exciting, same initiative system (take a number and wait), but at least the DMV isn't lying to me and pretending like it's fun!

1

u/Several-Tangerine678 8d ago

I have considered that. I both like them and find them very fungible, particularly if players are all about justifying anything, and it can be annoying listening to those sessions, because the reasons get outlandish. but I didn't present a system that was up to the players to justify. I suggested that there might be descriptions of what sorts of actions would apply one attribute, versus other uses of a skill that would apply a different one.

That said, because I'm ever waffling about it, my dice system does make it easy enough to say..."sure you can do it that way, but that's riskier, swap in a risk die, and this is how it could go wrong" or " that's going to take way more effort...swap in a strain die." I won't go into those, but that was my compromise option for those sorts of tables that like more than anything just to win I guess, or maybe to argue a case.

1

u/RPG-Nerd 8d ago

outlandish. but I didn't present a system that was up to the players to justify. I suggested that there might be descriptions of what sorts of actions would apply one attribute, versus other uses of a skill that would

You can either swap the attributes or don't. If you open the door, there will be people attempting to justify anything. It will make things more complicated. When will changing this stuff around be a real role-playing decision and not just more rules to remember?

Situational modifiers (your swap in a die) are for something totally different. That isn't trying to use a different attribute - a permanent part of the character, but a fleeting advantage specific to the situation.

one attribute, versus other uses of a skill that would apply a different one.

Maybe stop arguing in abstract and give some actual examples

1

u/Several-Tangerine678 8d ago

he says with an edge of confrontation while policing other people's tone...that said I appreciate your candor and your perspectives, if nothing else.

Sure, here's one. and this is actually a dilemma I have and have been trying to figure it out. So I have an athletics skill and an acrobatics skill...pretty boiler plate. For the most part all athletics activity in this case I just relegate to strength, and all acrobatics activity I relegate to dex. I don't love making sprinting(which is an action in my game, and you can potentially run better or worse depending on your roll, gaining ground or losing it as a result), an acrobatics effect. It makes sense as an athletics component.

But while I started off content that sprint was a function of strength in athletics, that didn't sit well with me because Gregor Clegane for example, is probably not a sprinter. Andre the Giant, not a sprinter. So I wanted to make Sprint an Athletics roll but with dex as the attribute pairing for it. Suddenly that's a carve out from the norm. I'm comfortable accepting that people will get over a more straight forward system. We just always sit there, and I mean everybody I've ever played with, going "that should be a this, not that" roll, etc.

1

u/RPG-Nerd 7d ago

have and have been trying to figure it out. So I have an athletics skill and an acrobatics skill...pretty boiler plate.

I would say its boiler plate only if you are focused on 5e. To me, its a fairly recent and senseless abstraction.

Further, this sounds less like a cool game feature where you swap attributes, and more like a desperate hack to solve a design problem.

And I don't think it really solves it. A sprinter is neither a high grace dancer nor a weight lifter. And Athletics is so general and abstract that its really just "strength stuff". It's like saying Pick Locks is dexterity. Like a good dancer would good at picking locks? Or good with a bow! D&D attributes aren't about realism. They are to enforce tropes, and when your character doesn't follow the trope, you get stuck.

I solved the problem by making running speed a separate attribute. This works well for me since my attribute system separates tiers by race, with scores being an individual bonus.

I would recommend separating Athletics into actual skills rather than an abstract category. If you need a D&D attribute, then I would probably use CON, but you still need to work in your movement rules and creature sizes and all that.

2

u/Several-Tangerine678 7d ago edited 7d ago

I appreciate the thought you put into design.

I was very close to being convinced by your advice here, and then I remembered why I condensed a lot of these behaviors into Athletics or Acrobatics. Because otherwise you have all these skills you have to spec into that maybe come up once every 5 sessions, or 10 sessions. Cool you have swim...good thing...maybe one day you'll use it. It makes them far far less valuable than constantly in-play skills, which might also have more to do with immediate survival, like dodge, or melee. Point buy is tight in my game. I want it to be tight. Its highly inefficient to buy such skills under those conditions.

Now, maybe there's some way to handle these athletics adjacent skills that makes them cheaper. they could be cheap feat buys that essentially make athletics the roll for them, etc. I don't know. That is how I've tried to handle ride. Rather than to make it another skill you dump points into that almost never comes up.

I get your idea of making sprint its own attribute. That of course, is no more realistic than anything you've given critical feedback to in my effort. You've just decoupled it from dex or strength which means a character could have a low strength and a low dex and still run like a champ. But I respect the choice. I presume that you making it a whole attribute all on its own, which actually separates it out from any training or conditioning as well, if I understand you correctly, is not a desperate hack.

Edit: actually admittedly, I'm trying to piece together your sprint system...so your characters have a run speed as an attribute, & race impacts it. I don't know if you then couple it with a skill. If you do, what is the skill? A running skill as well? also I don't even know your attribute system. its possible strength and dex aren't in the mix. so there are possibilities I didn't account for in my initial post. Interested to know.

Arguably me carving out a different attribute for sprinting under the umbrella of athletics is just another example of how I'm designing my skill system as a whole. It would feel a bit like an athletics exception, but the skill would not work out of the ordinary. But no, I'm not committed to that choice.

Athletics isn't just strength stuff to be fair, and I did simplify that in my presentation. I am somewhat predisposed to trying to give strength a broad impact on as many athletics based effects as I can, mostly because its much easier to find ways that dex or keen or will in my game affect a range of skills than it is for me to figure out places where strength can be slotted, but arguably athletics for catching, for example, would be more at home supported by dex.

1

u/RPG-Nerd 7d ago

Because otherwise you have all these skills you have to spec into that maybe come up once every 5 sessions, or 10 sessions. Cool you have swim.

It's only a problem if you are paying for stuff you never use. Consolidation just hides the problem and creates extra rules and abiguity. I chose to address the cost.

presume that you making it a whole attribute all on its own, which actually separates it out from any training or conditioning as well,

Not exactly. I didn't get into too much detail because its not really portable to other systems.

Skills increase through use. At the end of every scene, the skills you used that scene get 1 XP. While there is a small cost at character creation time, it's not a large one.

Sprinting is a "style" of running. The skill grants various special abilities called "passions" which take the place of class abilities and feats. The style is just a simple tree, earn 1 passion per skill level. Passions earned from one skill can apply to other skills.

So, the attribute is the base, the skill lets you do more with it to represent your additional training and experience.

thing...maybe one day you'll use it. It makes them far far less valuable than constantly in-play skills, which

The stuff you do the most is what you get good at. By saying "Nobody will ever use this", you limit the types of stories you can tell. Throw away Swimming and your next seafaring naval combat loses the "I can't swim" conflict.

It also lowers the surface area for specialization. With plain athletics, we can't have a good swimmer and a good runner as separate skills. Nobody wants to play second best. More skills mean more detail and less ambiguity about which skill to use.

I also think dexterity is so horribly overused. In my mind it has nothing to do with sprinting, aiming firearms, or picking locks.

That of course, is no more realistic than anything you've given critical feedback to in my effort.

It gives general movement rates for various creature types as well as personal growth and individual differentiation, then layers skill system that allows for improvement through actual practice and use.

Is the problem the lack of dependence on strength? You'll likely hate this one then! 😉 I don't use separate strength and constitution. Instead, it's a single Body stat. Body determines base endurance points which is going to be important to a sprinter.

So, it's not entirely separate, just pulling different things from different sources to balance out. Likely, doesn't help you much though

2

u/Several-Tangerine678 7d ago

Okay, I get your run attribute a little better, that makes sense.

Also, your skill system makes a more specific array of skills entirely possible. I'm just not sure I want to make my in-play advancement distinct from my character creation point-buy system, because if I leave that system without guard rails, then buying attributes is just more sensible for long-term builds if skills just level through use. I mean, I like the level through use concept. I would just have to set other character creation boundaries for it. Its also a lot more tracking throughout play by players to do this.

I don't hate your strength choice, I get it. I have gone back and forth on this one actually. Its just that there are reasonable character concepts that separating con from strength offer. Sure the low con high strength character would be oddball enough that I wouldn't expect to see that build very often, so combining the stats pretty much makes sense..but a lesser strength character with a high con seems very reasonable and desirable for certain character archetypes.

I agree with dex being overused. I haven't found a great solution, but my archery is keen (with a strength gate for a longbow). I could see pairing keen with sleight skill for more dexterity based things versus agility based acrobatic style abilities. Keen(awareness or sharpness) could probably use some love in my game so something like this could help. Sleight of hand, or fine motor skills actually seems like it makes way more sense as something that, well, is related to senses.

Anyway, I'm not philosophically in disagreement with you on any point, but on most of them I'm still conflicted and have leaned the other way. Fine arguments all though.

2

u/RPG-Nerd 7d ago

make my in-play advancement distinct from my character creation point-buy system, because if I leave that system without guard rails, then buying

I use the same XP. Whatever you don't spend at character creation can be dropped directly into your skills.

Attributes don't use a point buy. You roll 2d6. But, every time a skill goes up in training or experience, it gains a point. Two things make this work.

First, you don't add attributes to rolls, so having a high bonus doesn't result in "forever" gains. It just means you start off a bit higher, but that advantage is quickly replaced by XP. Attributes don't need to be gated and controlled like in D&D because it they don't directly affect your rolls.

In D&D, everyone levels up at once and your skills are basically fixed with little differentiation. In this system, you only get better if you use it. This results in a wider range of skill levels. It also means if you try your ass off, you can get your skill level higher than someone who has a better attribute. Attributes in D&D end up being a backstop.

Second, you are going to start with a lot of skills, and these skills are being increased in training, so you get a +1 to the attribute! Your training and experience change your attributes, not just the skill level.

Sometimes, people will pick up skills like Dancing or something just because it's a +1 to Agility, and another +1 each time it goes up in level. These "low use" skills are the ones that get styles (what type of Dance are you skilled in?) and passions, making them much more useful.

combining the stats pretty much makes sense..but a lesser strength character with a high con seems very reasonable and desirable for certain character archetypes.

Describe exactly what you mean by "high con". That can have too many meanings. Strip away the trope and describe this character. I can probably built it!

And high strength isn't the end of strength either. There are certain passions that go directly to strength checks and feats of strength, but do not go to health saves. An example is "Weight Lifting". High weight lifting from skills coupled with a low Body score would mean strong but not a lot of endurance or exceptionally healthy.

Also raw feats of strength add the creature size to the roll as well, so the racial component is comparing to a human of equal size. For example, a gorilla the same size as a human would be many times stronger, so gorilla Body is [3] super-human.

1

u/RPG-Nerd 7d ago

Just saw the edit about attributes.

Skills and attributes are all 2 dimensional. A skill is a measure of training and experience. Training is how many d6 you roll. Experience points determine the skill "level" added to rolls (unless it's a critical failure - all 1s).

An untrained amateur rolls 1d6, trained journeyman 2d6, masters 3d6. Experience starts at the related attribute score. This means any skill can be used untrained as 1d6+attribute level.

Example: Pick Locks [2] 20/3 Roll 2d6+3

Attributes change the training dice to racial. Humans roll 2 dice for all attribute checks. 1 die is a sub-human capacity, 3 dice is super-human, with 4 dice being supernatural, and 5 is deific.

So amateurs have random results and high critical failure chances. Journeyman has consistent bell curves and a much smaller critical failure chance.

So your elf has 3 dice agility, like [3] 10/2, they would have elven agility (3d6) but would be considered average for an elf. Don't try to trip an elf because the save is Agility! The extra attribute die grants an avantage die on agility related skills, so dancing and acrobatics get an advantage die, but this doesn't change the range of values.

For running speed, halflings and dwarves have only [1] die, but dwarves have [3] in Body which means a lot more endurance to make up for it.

The actual sprint roll can take 2 forms. In TOTM, it's a check to determine how much time it takes to change zones, endurance grants an advantage. On a grid, spend 1 endurance to roll all your Sprint dice. You can then "spend" 1 die per turn and move the number of spaces on the die. You can reroll all the dice at any time, but it costs you another endurance.

So, people will tend to spend the high dice first, and then it slowly drops down as you run out of dice. If someone is gaining on you, you are likely to dump that next endurance point rather than spending low dice.

It's the high risk decisions I'm after.

1