Pyramid #3/120: Alternate GURPS V

[dataweaver]

Originally Posted by Joe

Naturally I tremble before disagreeing, but I'm not sure I agree with this one - there are just so many forms of fiction in which the brainy archetypes are socially inept, and vice versa.

Those who favor grid layouts for attributes have near-universal agreement on some sort of body/mind/spirit axis, and have a firm idea of what belongs in the “body” category. There's also pretty firm agreement that if a trait represents something cerebral in nature, it probably Belinda to the “mind” category. It's the visceral, social, and supernatural stuff where the arguments seem to break out: some want “spirit” to be primarily or entirely about supernatural stuff (sometimes to the point that they actually call the category “supernatural”), and argue that visceral/social traits ought to be “mental” (where “mental” encompasses everything that's not physical and not supernatural), while others want “spirit” to be the visceral and/or social stuff, with the supernatural stuff either folding in with it or not part of the attribute grid at all. I'm in the latter camp: I prefer “mind” or “mental” to mean “cerebral” and “soul” or “spirit” to mean “visceral and/or social”, with supernatural attributes as strictly optional things that are left out, added on, or mixed in as the metaphysics of a particular magic system require.

The other aspect of a grid-based system is an axis of functions: this is often things like “power, aptitude, and resistance”, though I've seen each of these three further subdivided (e.g., precision, agility, and/or perception instead of aptitude, or toughness and health instead of resistance). This is where there's the most disagreement about how to set up a grid, IMHO; and it's the reason why many stop short of defining standard functions that cut across the body/mind/spirit categories. Personally, I split the difference: I define four standard functions for each category (proactive strength/power, proactive aptitude/affinity, reactive strength/toughness, and reactive aptitude/health) and two custom functions for each (body gets mobility strength and aptitude, or speed and agility, roughly analogous to Move and Speed; mind gets perception strength and aptitude, or acuity and discernment; and soul gets social strength ad affinity, or presence and guile).

The other part, though, is that presentation is (more than) half the battle. Arguably, GURPS doesn't have four attributes even as written; it over a dozen, maybe as many as two dozen, depending on what you call an Attribute. But most of them are folded together (e.g., Lifting ST, Striking ST, and HP, which are folded together into ST) or presented as secondary stats (e.g., Speed and Move). Other games use other means of hiding their complexity, such as d20 having six characteristics and three saving throws, or how In Nomine has six characteristics, three kinds of supernatural power (the Corporeal, Ethereal, and Celestial Forces), and three kinds of Hit Points (Body Hits, Mind Hits, and Soul Hits), for twelve traits in a grid that doesn't look like a three-by-four grid, even though that's exactly what it is.

[b-dog]

This is a good discussion. I think that having more attributes is better and having supernatural powers separate from IQ is better for Dungeon Fantasy. If the wizard or cleric has a high IQ they get spell benefits and they also know everything too. This really tramples on the Scholars time to be useful. To me supernatural knowledge can easily be explained as being entirely different than academic knowledge. I have no problem with a wizard that knows how to cast spells and read mystical symbols yet not being able to program a computer or solve an equation.

One thing that I think could be corrected would be having skills directly add to DX or to IQ. It may not be realistic but it is fun from a fantasy standpoint it is fun to have a swordsman who is an expert at it but does not have superhuman dexterity. In GURPS it does not make sense to invest in high skill levels because it makes more sense just to buy more DX. So you are a fool to have high skill when you can have high DX and get high skill from that and also are faster, have better balance, quicker reaction etc.

[dataweaver]

Originally Posted by Kromm

I'm not even sure what that means.

there's a reason I deleted that post.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

If there were "social conflict" rules that were intuitive, worthwhile, logical, and resulted in pleasing outcomes, then the mechanics would be used, sought after, and points spent on them. Those that hew to "just use player skill" could still do so; those that wanted mechanical help ("I roll persuasion!") could also do so.

Yeah! Big cheers from me! I'm in total agreement here, for what that's worth.

Originally Posted by Joe

Naturally I tremble before disagreeing, but I'm not sure I agree with this one - there are just so many forms of fiction in which the brainy archetypes are socially inept, and vice versa.

Originally Posted by Kromm

Sure, but please note that my proposed structure acknowledges that. This is why (using the most recent names upthread), Presence and Intellect are different things. Also, Keenness is distinct to cover the canny, cunning archetype. And Willpower for the rock of stability. All of these things fall under "Mental" or "Mind" or whatever, but only one is archetypally brainy. I'm simply arguing that you can distinguish social ability from, say, the mathematical and artistic kind without giving each branch of the tree four attributes.

Thanks for pointing that out - you're right, of course. I guess what I had in mind was a system that would require enough differentiation within the "Social" realm that it would really constitute a fourth (fifth?) branch.

Originally Posted by Joe

But - throwing my two cents in - my instinct is to take the other route. Rather than accepting that GURPS handles social interactions in a significantly more freeform way than it does, say, fighting, my preference would be to try to build a new set of sub-systems for social interaction that would make social encounters as mechanically and tactically rich as GURPS combat already is.

Originally Posted by Kromm

I agree.

Yeah! Huge cheers once again!

Originally Posted by Kromm

Currently, though, that's not the case . . . and I was setting up my alternative framework to replace the attribute system while leaving just about everything else alone. ....I'm not talking about writing more rules to go with more attributes; I'm talking about introducing extra attributes for use with the existing rules, largely with the goal of making it hard to be omnicompetent via a couple of "god attributes."

This is also a very helpful clarification - thanks.

It seem to me that the inevitable upshot of all this is that someone with the chops is soon going to write a supplement containing a fully-detailed set of sub-systems for mechanically deep, tactically satisfying social interactions in GURPS! So that's a win for all of us. I shall expect it within the week!

(Side note: I've been away from these forums for a while. Missed you all :) Being able to chat with the game designers, from time to time, is one of the real privileges of being a GURPS fan)

[Refplace]

I dont really like Psi, Spirit, and Magic using the same supernatural attribute, its partly flavor and partly I want them distinct. That said if the attribute was Spirit I could see it at least helping with resistance for the others.

Also I dont think each section needs to match the others in numbers, though it might be easier to understand and certainly looks neater.
Most people prefer symmetry to asymmetry.
However RAW GURPS puts its emphasis on the physical with 3 attributes vs. Mind with 1; probably why IQ tends to get most of the talk about being too powerful.

Wondering from a different angle, first pick the aspects such as Power. Manipulation, Resistance, and Endurance and then apply them to the categories.
So for example
Body [40/level]
Endurance (HT checks and FP) 10/level
Manipulation (DX) Ability to accurately and precisely manipulate physical objects. 10/Level
Power (ST) How much damage you do and how much you can carry. 10/level
Resistance (HT and HP) Withstanding damage and resisting things that affect the body such as poison and disease.

You then have a core Body attribute you can buy up for overall capability and components you can adjust up or down to get the right character for your needs.
This gives a simple option and a more fine tuned option without adding too much complexity. You could add modifiers for even more fine tuning, at the cost of increasing complexity. Examples here would be HP, Arm ST/DX, FP, etc.
Ideally each component adds up to the same cost as the higher component.

And you could declare in a mundane campaign that your not allowed to change the Spirit or Supernatural attribute. Its just ignored for that campaign.
You could effectively add attributes for different functions if desired, treating them as new advantages.
Hacking for a Cyberpunk game for example, everyone starts at Base 10 or even 0 with the netrunner types putting points into it that at the expense of other areas. Decks might be gadget based while implanted interfaces and hardware had the electrical limitation or not even that if military grade.

One of the key things I like about GURPS is its modularity, part of why I suggested the decoupled attribute idea up thread.

[dataweaver]

Originally Posted by Refplace

I dont really like Psi, Spirit, and Magic using the same supernatural attribute, its partly flavor and partly I want them distinct. That said if the attribute was Spirit I could see it at least helping with resistance for the others.

This is one reason why I agree that any supernatural traits should be specific to the magic system in question. More on this below.

Originally Posted by Refplace

Also I dont think each section needs to match the others in numbers, though it might be easier to understand and certainly looks neater.
Most people prefer symmetry to asymmetry.
However RAW GURPS puts its emphasis on the physical with 3 attributes vs. Mind with 1; probably why IQ tends to get most of the talk about being too powerful.

Wondering from a different angle, first pick the aspects such as Power. Manipulation, Resistance, and Endurance and then apply them to the categories.
So for example
Body [40/level]
Endurance (HT checks and FP) 10/level
Manipulation (DX) Ability to accurately and precisely manipulate physical objects. 10/Level
Power (ST) How much damage you do and how much you can carry. 10/level
Resistance (HT and HP) Withstanding damage and resisting things that affect the body such as poison and disease.

You then have a core Body attribute you can buy up for overall capability and components you can adjust up or down to get the right character for your needs.
This gives a simple option and a more fine tuned option without adding too much complexity. You could add modifiers for even more fine tuning, at the cost of increasing complexity. Examples here would be HP, Arm ST/DX, FP, etc.
Ideally each component adds up to the same cost as the higher component.

I like it in principle; but I'm not so sure of it in practice. For one thing, why those four aspects? Why not, say, Endurance, Manipulation, Nimbleness, Awareness, Fast Power (i.e., Striking ST), Slow Power (i.e., Lifting ST), Resistance, and Supernatural Power (i.e., Chi)?

Originally Posted by Refplace

And you could declare in a mundane campaign that your not allowed to change the Spirit or Supernatural attribute. Its just ignored for that campaign.
You could effectively add attributes for different functions if desired, treating them as new advantages.
Hacking for a Cyberpunk game for example, everyone starts at Base 10 or even 0 with the netrunner types putting points into it that at the expense of other areas. Decks might be gadget based while implanted interfaces and hardware had the electrical limitation or not even that if military grade.

Then you have cases like Shadowrun's Technomancers, where the cyberspace attributes are innate.

Originally Posted by Refplace

One of the key things I like about GURPS is its modularity, part of why I suggested the decoupled attribute idea up thread.

True enough.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Originally Posted by b-dog

In GURPS it does not make sense to invest in high skill levels because it makes more sense just to buy more DX. So you are a fool to have high skill when you can have high DX and get high skill from that and also are faster, have better balance, quicker reaction etc.

I would wonder if DX needs its cost adjusted to take into account everything it adds to, except part of it is just because it adds to a skill does not mean anyone's going to bother with said skill. You'd have to adjust the cost for every different game based on what skills are likely to be used, and at that point you might as well not even have DX and just force players to buy up every derivative individually.

The best solution I've heard so far is capping: allow DX to 16 to offset certain default penalties, and then require the player to buy up individually from there.

Personally, though, I feel like attributes are a mess that has no great solution.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by dataweaver

I like it in principle; but I'm not so sure of it in practice. For one thing, why those four aspects? Why not, say, Endurance, Manipulation, Nimbleness, Awareness, Fast Power (i.e., Striking ST), Slow Power (i.e., Lifting ST), Resistance, and Supernatural Power (i.e., Chi)?

I just offered one example to float the concept, not a final build. Body, Mind, and pick one of Supernatural for example could be different Primary or Core attributes.
Awareness or Perception would be under Mind, though Supernatural might have its own Per component.
Fast Power and Slow Power would be sub components like Lifting or Striking ST are now.
Nimbleness could be a component of Manipulation ie.. Agility (Manipulating your body) and Dexterity (Manipulating other things).
Social would probably be under Mind but as its modular a socially focused game could create a new top level attribute with the same structure.

I agree with Kromm that Social interaction is largely a mental issue, just not always a cerebral one.

Originally Posted by dataweaver

Then you have cases like Shadowrun's Technomancers, where the cyberspace attributes are innate.

That good or bad?
I dont recall Technomancers but I think I played first edition.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Kromm

On the other hand, being on the receiving end on customer feedback as I am, I can assure you that a significant minority and perhaps the majority of gamers aren't happy with "That's just special effects."

Systems of powers, because they don't point to any objective reality, are inherently setting-specific. What this means is that power systems are either setting-specific (and don't belong on a generic character sheet or in a list of default attributes) or effects-based (and don't need separate attributes).

There's a legitimate argument for setting-specific rules, as they let you tweak costs to encourage the sort of character that is appropriate to the setting, but having fixed supernatural attributes just seems like the worst of all possible worlds.

As a side note, the best simplification for power sources is to adjust them so they're all +0%.

[dataweaver]

Originally Posted by Refplace

I just offered one example to float the concept, not a final build. Body, Mind, and pick one of Supernatural for example could be different Primary or Core attributes.
Awareness or Perception would be under Mind, though Supernatural might have its own Per component.
Fast Power and Slow Power would be sub components like Lifting or Striking ST are now.
Nimbleness could be a component of Manipulation ie.. Agility (Manipulating your body) and Dexterity (Manipulating other things).
Social would probably be under Mind but as its modular a socially focused game could create a new top level attribute with the same structure.

My point was two-fold:

1. Endurance, Manipulation, Power, and Resistance isn't necessarily the best set of aspects to spread across the categories — in the case of Body, you often need more specificity; other categories might have different needs. In your response, you basically suggested adding another layer below that one, which presumably isn't copied across the categories.

2. “Supernatural” doesn't necessarily work best as a category. Consider a game that has chi powers, psionics, and spirit magic: in such a setting, it might make more sense to have supernatural attributes in each of three categories: Body for chi powers, Mind for psionics, and Spirit for spiritual powers. Bardic magic might work better drawing off of social traits instead of dedicated supernatural attributes. Divine favor may be best left completely divorced from attributes. And so on.

Originally Posted by Refplace

I agree with Kromm that Social interaction is largely a mental issue, just not always a cerebral one.

It depends on what you mean by “mental”: if you mean “anything that isn't physical or supernatural”, then yeah; social stuff is mental. If you mean “cerebral”, then obviously social can't be mental.

Originally Posted by Refplace

That good or bad?
I dont recall Technomancers but I think I played first edition.

Yeah; Technomancers were a much later development. Basically, they're people who can interface with the Matrix without the need for any hardware, be it a deck or an implant. Not technically “magical”, per se; but very definitely not technological. Basically, they're what you get when you let the Machine Telepathy Power (with an ambiguous Source) into a setting that uses Netrunning rules. In terms of your suggestion, the “supernatural” traits that a Technomancer might have could correspond to the traits that a cyberdeck has.