Raising/not raising Attributes in C/RPGs

[Romanian_Dude2005]

Normaly this isn't a crucial aspect of C/RPGs that needs to be dicussed, but I've seen too many games that treat attribute advancement differently. First you have Fallout or Baldur's Gate which have no attribute advancement, Intelligence remains the same throughout the game.

Then you have games that slightly raise attributes, like Arcanum, Torment or the AD&D3 and 3.5 games, which gives a bigger variety of possible outcomes each alter-ego may have at higher levels.

And then you have games that increase the attributes at a ridiculous rate, such has Daggerfall where you start with a strength of 45 and wind up later with a strength of 94.


Now I know that RPGs aren't about realism, but the 2 extreme oposites suck out much of the believability. While psychological attributes like Intelligence can never grow from where it started at birth, the physical ones such has Strength can be raised, has speacialy if you spend time in the wasteland fighting mutties and giant animals, but not to the exagerated extent of Daggerfall.

In the end it seems like the middle design is the best, but in Arcanum, attributes felt too... CHEAP! If skills could only be raised up to 5 points, if magic schools had only 4 spells to teach and if scientific disciplines only had 7 ranks, then it's overpowering to build attributes up to 20 points.

 

[suibhne]

Normaly this isn't a crucial aspect of C/RPGs that needs to be dicussed, but I've seen too many games that treat attribute advancement differently. First you have Fallout or Baldur's Gate which have no attribute advancement, Intelligence remains the same throughout the game.

It isn't worth getting hung up on this, but BG allowed attribute increases (according to AD&D rules, just as NWN2 does with 3.5E D&D rules). For that matter, FO had plenty of opportunities to increase attributes, tho attribute increase wasn't strictly built into the character system per se.

I'm looking forward to seeing VD's implementation in AoD.

 

[callehe]

From a RPG point of view, i like to have that attributes don't rise, then you have to live the consequences of what you have chosen for your character and that makes character creation fun and makes you think.

logically though they should be able to rise. perhaps a small rise like in arcanum is best.

@romanian dude: of course you can raise your intelligence - it's called going to school

 

[HardCode]

The main problem is the concept of time in an RPG. Most games use "days". You rest until the next morning to regain health. So logically you shouldn't get much stronger over the course of the game. Some abilities could pass of as increase-able, if the time scale of the game was different, or if the increase in the ability made subtle differences. And the rate of increase should be more tailored to the ability. However, what your character does in-game should drive the increases. More or less a "use ability to increase" system, but nothing like in Oblivion where people tape down the controller overnight while the character runs into a wall to increase whateveritis.

Something like this:
* Strength could be convincingly increased over time. Just like in life.
* Agility could be increased over time, but less than strength.
* Intelligence would be static, but it could drive the increase rate of other abilities like Perception, Wisdom, and any other ability that should naturally rely on Intelligence. Basically, the character's ability to learn.
* Charisma possibly could increase, but only by very specific in-game actions. Maybe learning an Etiquette skill could contribute. Or perhaps an increased Perception + base Intelligence score could contribute to a Charisma increase to imply your character learning how to interact through observation.

What is really needed is a logical, complex system where skills and attributes affect other skills and attributes, with in-game actions thrown in too. Just clicking the "+" button on level up never made sense to me. But neither does a system like Morrowind where you could intentionally use a weapon you have less skill in, so you can "level it up" by getting in more attacks, and not worry about dying because of your million hit points.

Sure, it's no easy task to develop a truly integrated ability/skill system, but what the fuck, it's a designer's job. That's why they call it work.

 

[Jim Kata]

While psychological attributes like Intelligence can never grow from where it started at birth, the physical ones such has Strength can be raised, has speacialy if you spend time in the wasteland fighting mutties and giant animals, but not to the exagerated extent of Daggerfall.

.

I don't think that's true. You can practice juggling and such to become more dexterous and that is a mental, not physical skill, in a sense. The more math and logic you do, the smarter you will become, as well. I have seen that with people many, many times. You can also increase memory.

Now, no doubt there is a talent factor as well, just like for physical stuff - some guys are just huge and strong with no effort and some people are similarly intelligent, but average people can become much better in both pursuits.

 

[RGE]

I too have read that it's quite possible to increase one's intelligence. But I'm way too lazy to bother doing it.

Then you have games that slightly raise attributes, like Arcanum ...

I wouldn't call going from 8 to 20 "slightly".

And then you have games that increase the attributes at a ridiculous rate, such has Daggerfall where you start with a strength of 45 and wind up later with a strength of 94.

So only absolute values matter then, not the ratio? Because relatively speaking, going from 45 to 94 is only slightly more than doubling the original number, while going from 8 to 20 is a 150% increase of the original value.

In the end it seems like the middle design is the best, but in Arcanum, attributes felt too... CHEAP! If skills could only be raised up to 5 points, if magic schools had only 4 spells to teach and if scientific disciplines only had 7 ranks, then it's overpowering to build attributes up to 20 points.

You have a strange way of looking at things. How is it 'cheap' to have to pay 12 points to max out an attribute if you start at 8, while it only costs 5 points to max out a skill, assuming that you somehow managed to get a high enough attribute for doing so? And magic schools had five spells in each, not 4.

Personally I don't care for advancement at all - it usually feels rather unrealistic and annoying. But if there's going to be massive advancement, such as levels, hit points and skills, then I don't really care if attributes are advanced a lot as well.

 

[Dire Roach]

If a game's story could easily span many months or years, then it makes sense to allow small attribute increases as a part of the "natural" advancement system. For shorter time spans, you could use "artificial" mechanics to allow attribute increases, such as magic elixirs and cybernetic implants.

 

[Romanian_Dude2005]

From a RPG point of view, i like to have that attributes don't rise, then you have to live the consequences of what you have chosen for your character and that makes character creation fun and makes you think.

On paper, this concept sounds great! But when put inside the computer screen there can be alot of problems, in Fallout's case the main problem was ballance. You had to be a dead-beat if you didn't max out your Luck, Agility or Perception.

snip

That's complicating it a bit too much, but if there was a ballance between [rate of advancement] and [preformance] for all atributes, then it would help in making each attribute more unique and offering very different gameplay.

Now, no doubt there is a talent factor as well, just like for physical stuff - some guys are just huge and strong with no effort and some people are similarly intelligent, but average people can become much better in both pursuits.

Which basicly translates into having to choose a "Primary Attribute", which can be riased 2x as fast or starts with +3 points. This could only work in a system where there is alot of space to level up, not just a scale between 1 and 10. Something like Arcanum's 20 points barrier.

You have a strange way of looking at things. How is it 'cheap' to have to pay 12 points to max out an attribute if you start at 8, while it only costs 5 points to max out a skill, assuming that you somehow managed to get a high enough attribute for doing so?

I ment that the way they level up is cheap, if adding a point to firearms makes the road to perfection, 20% shorter. Then adding a point to an attribute makes the way to perfection 5% shorter.

 

[Flux_Capacitor]

It depends on how its handled and the game system, but I usually don't like much change in attributes over the course of the game. Some isn't bad, but if you allow for too much, any decisions concerning strengths, weaknesses, and character concept made at character creation are effectively lost.

Maybe allow for relative increases, based on the actions performed by the character, and their current attribute values.

For instance, if a character had low Strength and Constitution, and then was immediately subjected to intense physical activity, both attributes would have a fairly good chance of increasing. However, if the character already had fairly high values in both, the chance of them increasing would be much lower (although, this may be required in order to maintain their current levels).

I would also say that, from a balance and gameplay standpoint, all attributes should be able to be raised in a similar fashion. Otherwise, its just too open to exploitation. If I can raise Strength, but not Intelligence, why would I start with a low Intelligence and high Strength?

 

[LCJr.]

I'm with RGE Arcanum's increases were pretty dramatic especially the bonus effects for hitting 20. Skills in Arcanum didn't really do that much until you got the mastery bonuses which cost a big fat zero CP and greatly amplified their effect.

 

[Nog Robbin]

The biggest problem is really the god like growth - which can often see a relative newcomer become the worlds most powerful person in a very short space of time. Some of this is due to the mechanics of most RPG's, particularly in that you can find a tough challenge, go away for a while and come back stronger to overcome it. In fact, that is one of the main things people look for in an RPG and one of the biggest complaints levelled at Oblivion.

However, if skills/stats could only grow very slightly over the course of an average game and the starting levels were more important this could lead to a greater replay value. Mostly because each character should feel and play differently. It does mean, however, that you are not likely to see huge growth in the character, and therefore shouldn't see massive gains in ability either. So maybe each starting character is actually a reasonable level of experience already rather than a total noob. Someone starting as a wizard/mage would have a reasonable spell selection, but little chance of getting many more (or certainly not massively more powerful spells!). Your basic warrior would have more advanced constitution, strength and martial skills, but again is not going to see them change dramatically over the game. A thief/assassin/rogue would have the highest dexterity and sneak skills, but again, is not going to get hugely better. A jack of all trades would be the most average - and again, over the game is not going to become a main specialist in anything.
This means the challenge of the game can remain constant - a tough creature/person is tough regardless. Certain initial characters may find some challenges easier than others, but may struggle with other challenges.
It would also mean you don't need a huge (and unrealistic) level of hit points - the characters skill and equipment would denote how well damage can be absorbed or avoided instead.
But... despite the fact you are playing a role, and have appropriate skills/stats for your character, because these do not change would this be considered a role playing game? Many would probably argue not and instead class it as an action adventure even though the stats are utilised for success/failure rolls.

 

[dagorkan]

ROA1 got the balance exactly right. Pretty much the perfect character system - at least I haven't seen any better. Fallout was not so good, D&D as well, Arcanum was broken for the reasons LC mentioned.

 

[Jasede]

Realms of Arkania, definitely.
Also, for a "learning by doing" system: Betrayal at Krondor.

 

[Ladonna]

ROA? Not up on my abbreviations this morning....

I liked Fallout's character system. Stats could be changed, but it was virtually unknown how....and when you got that 1 point, it felt pretty good. Games without such growth are quite acceptable though. Many of the old games had this system.

Arcanum has been misrepresented here; Yes, you could raise a stat to 20 (depending on race) however, you are forgetting that doing this will eat a large amount of points, and these are not given away lightly.

If you want a 20 character, then it will be a narrow, specialist character. As it should be. There is no 'character for everything' in this game, and I prefer this system.

So I think that whatever way you go, it can still work out in regards to character/stat building.

 

[JoKa]

@ladonna: Realms of Arkania...

 

[Azael]

The boring answer is that it depends on what kind of game you're aiming for. A tight adventure that takes place in a relatively narrow timeframe probably shouldn't have attribute advancement, and likely not a great deal of skill advancement either, while a great sprawling epic could have them. It's all in the implementation.

 

[Surgey]

Even though Daggerfall's rose at a higher rate, I'm sure the numbers covered a wide range of values. Like, 50-90 in DF might be 10-20 on a D&D 3.5 scale.

As for increasing attributes, I think they should go up, but not at an incredible rate, and it should require some effort. D&D's method isn't bad (+1 to any every 4 levels), but at times it feels stupid ("Wait, so if I lift weights, I can't get stronger until I gain 4 levels?"). As for raising mental attributes, I don't see why it can't be done. Scientifically, you can get smarter with practice.

I like the ability to raise attributes, but they should require use. You shouldn't be a big meathead doing caber tosses then deciding to increase your perception.

The Conan PnP RPG actually has a neat system. The entire system is a modified D&D 3.5 system. You increase one stat every 4 levels, like in D&D, but also every 5 levels or so, all 6 of your scores increase by 1. They explain it by saying that basically, every adventurer gets stronger, smarter, tougher, faster, etc. as they adventure. The world of Conan is really tough, so just surviving as an adventurer means you get better. I like the method, but I'm sure they added it because there really aren't any magic items in Conan (well, by D&D standards, there aren't. There aren't Gauntlets of +4 Strength and stuff, I mean).

I just hate how some people who play D&D are like "Whoa, that's insane to just get better ability scores! That's unbalanced!" D&D is a lot more than ability scores. While they're important, it's not like everyone's were equal in the first place, and if they increase at largely the same rate, it's not that bad.

In general, I'll say that if your stats grow very little during the course of a game, they should start at respectable and strong levels, depending on your strengths. If they grow quite a bit, they could be a bit lower.

 

[LCJr.]

Arcanum has been misrepresented here; Yes, you could raise a stat to 20 (depending on race) however, you are forgetting that doing this will eat a large amount of points, and these are not given away lightly.

Misrepresented how? You don't need to raise all of them just the ones that fit your character build. Raising Str to 20 doubles the damage bonus. Con isn't worth it since it just gives poison immunity, which is never problem. Beauty gives a +100% reaction. Intelligence give +10% to every skill. Perception not worth it either, sense invisible even though there are no invisible creatures. Willpower gives immunity to spells that allows a willpower save. Charisma gives followers 100% loyalty and they can never abandon you. Dex gives a speed of 25.

Except for the crappy ones those are massive bonuses over the starting 8.

And there is the god quest.

 

[Section8]

The boring answer is that it depends on what kind of game you're aiming for. A tight adventure that takes place in a relatively narrow timeframe probably shouldn't have attribute advancement, and likely not a great deal of skill advancement either, while a great sprawling epic could have them. It's all in the implementation.

What he said.

 

[Nog Robbin]

The boring answer is that it depends on what kind of game you're aiming for. A tight adventure that takes place in a relatively narrow timeframe probably shouldn't have attribute advancement, and likely not a great deal of skill advancement either, while a great sprawling epic could have them. It's all in the implementation.

What he said.

Yeah, but "great sprawling epic" - how long a period is that taking place over, and are there any such games out there?
Fable was based over a characters lifetime, but in short chunks.
Other games, while going for the epic title, are still only in a relatively short amount of time that would really limit the sort of (non magical) gains you could expect.

 

[Limorkil]

It's a RPG; there is no realism. Sure, some game rules aim to be more realistic, but it is just different shades of grey.

The original PnP D&D tried to be more realistic, since there was no standard mechanic for raising attributes. In fact, the rules went as far as to say that you could not level-up without going through a period of training. You could not really learn anything new without some time passing for you to learn it. Seems to me that many people ignored those rules, but even if people did not ignore them it is easy enough to do in a PnP game, since the DM just asks people what they want to do, makes some rolls and then says "3 months pass ..."

CRPGs tend to cut out the less essential details of play, particularly if they slow the pace or are perceived as spoiling enjoyment. So character development rules went the same way as hunger, thirst etc. To some extent, recent PnP roleplaying systems, such as the D&D 3E rules, are really just catching the PnP game up with the CRPG games. The same logic applies: if it is slowing down the game then get rid of it. Not that the newer D&D does not have the rules for training, they are just de-emphasized.

Given that attribute increases are just part of the game rules, whether they are appropriate or not just comes down to the game. In Elder-Scrolls games attributes have varied in importance: In Arena they influenced everything because there were no skills; in Daggerfall they influenced how quickly your skills increased but had less effect on gameplay; in Morrowind some attributes were important (strength, intelligence and endurance) but most were only really useful for attaining guild ranks; in Oblivion they are mostly unimportant except for strength and agility. Despite all that variation, attributes in ES games are generally less important than in D&D.

In 3E D&D, attributes are important at low levels but become less so quickly. At level one you might get a +4 skill modifier from an attribute and have 4 points in the skill, for 8 total. As you level up your main skills will increase but the contribution from your attributes will largely stay the same. In fact, any attribute increase is mainly through items, since the natural increase you get from levels only amounts to 1 modifier per 8 levels, which means that most characters are only going to see +2-4 on only one attribute throughout the length of the character (or +2-4 spread around several attributes, but most people do not do that). So, for example, you could go from a +3 bonus to dexterity to a +7 bonus, which sounds like a lot but it is only +4 AC, +4 to-hit (missile, or finesse), +4 reflex save and +4 to several skills (and that is probably the attribute with the biggest overall effect). In other words, the D&D attribute increases add a little flavour but they are not overpowering, particularly when compared to item bonuses.

My own take on attribute increases is tied in with my take on character development as a whole. The way I see it, there should not be too many 'moving parts' in one game. D&D is a classic example of having too many parts: attributes, skills, feats, levels, hit-dice, spells. It's just too much stuff and what you end up with is different classes that focus on different components. For example: fighters have feats, rogues have skills, wizards have spells. To some extent, feats are spells for fighters, skills are spells for rogues and most other classes just have spells; they might as well have used the spell mechanic for everything, which is what MMORPGs like WoW do. Really, having attribute increases on top of all that is just pointless.

I see attributes as being more about potential than actual effect. I have low agility and high strength. My wife has low strength and high agility. Neither of us know how to climb or how to fight with a battleaxe. Chances are, I would lose the climbing competition and my wife would lose the battleaxe competition (shut up Del Boy) but luck would be more a factor than anything. If either of us were to receive training then the trained person would almost always win. If we were to both receive training then I would probably be better with the axe than the climbing, and my wife vice versa. My point is that my high strength gives me greater potential for certain skills and my wife's high agility gives her greater potential for other skills (I'm warning you Del). In game terms, attributes should not have much of a direct in-game effect, but should influence how good you can be at the various skills.

 

[Jim Kata]

Arcanum has been misrepresented here; Yes, you could raise a stat to 20 (depending on race) however, you are forgetting that doing this will eat a large amount of points, and these are not given away lightly.

Misrepresented how? You don't need to raise all of them just the ones that fit your character build. Raising Str to 20 doubles the damage bonus. Con isn't worth it since it just gives poison immunity, which is never problem. Beauty gives a +100% reaction. Intelligence give +10% to every skill. Perception not worth it either, sense invisible even though there are no invisible creatures. Willpower gives immunity to spells that allows a willpower save. Charisma gives followers 100% loyalty and they can never abandon you. Dex gives a speed of 25.

Except for the crappy ones those are massive bonuses over the starting 8.

And there is the god quest.

The only ones unbalanced are the strength and dex ones. Espcially dex since you are no doubt going to have items raising dex already. The others don't make any real difference.

Having 250% reaction doesn't do any better than 150% reaction. Reaction seemed to be almost completely meaningless anyhow and even starting at 5 reaction you could get people up to 'love' easily if you had a good speech and good smoking jacket.

As above, followers won't abandon you almost no matter what anyway. I never once had it come up, and if you have a high charisma it's already basically not going to happen.

The +10% doesn't do jack shit. If you don't have real points in a skill it's worthless, except skills where you need to have just so much, and in that case having it be more is pointless.

The strength bonus is really not bad either. The only reason it becomes bad is because the rest of the system is unbalanced. When you have a balanced sword (available at first level for rigth build) you can attack way, way too many times. If the speed on it (and a couple of other unbalanced weapons which are somehow better than the ones thata re obviously supposed to be the 'good' weapons) were cut down, then it would not be so ridiculous, though 25%-50% would be better.

Even the dex one is not bad except that it is so easily obtainable and dex in general just decided too much in combat.

 

[Greatatlantic]

Of all the advancement systems I've seen, I think Fallout did it the best. Basically it divided stats into two categories, innate and learned (sort of). Obvious attributes represent innate abilities. What made this system so nifty in my eyes is those stats were in theory "locked" and remained constant through out the game. In practice there were ways to raise them, but in theory I very much like the idea of a character being defined by fixed set of stats.

Skills, however, were acquired abilities. And this makes sense. Somebody might not start out as a great gambler, but you can easily see how just a few pointers can make somebody better at poker.

As a final incentive, there were perks. Perks helped further define characters while leveling up and some perks are aqcuired by doing ingame things, like having to much sex.

 

[mondblut]

Prelude to Darkness had the best attribute advancement system, bar none. You have a skill, you increase it hard via practice, training and skillpoints, and at reaching certain important peak, you get a +1 to a related attribute. At second (and last) bigger peak you get a +2 to a related attribute (or +1 to two). No levels, no other increases... well, unless you count a bug with multiple re-peakings with stat-increasing magic items, that is %). And plays much better than "run overloaded for 17 hours of realtime to get +1 to strength".

(come to think of it, the system in Morrowind would be pretty close, were it not ruined by "OMFG I must jump 30 million times be4 sleeping or I get not +5 strength @ levelup LOLZ").

...Anyway, realistic or not, I hate systems that strongly enforce a strict limit on stats advancement. (yes, I do mean Fallout and AD&D in particular...though, most decent AD&D games allowed you to "modify" your stats to all eighteens @ chargen for free, and FO had perks). All games are geared towards one or very few specific "character builds", with all the rest being just not too fun at best, and doomed to failure at worst. This ain't going to change anytime in future either. Stat-restricted RPG forces you to stick with whatever you have chosen at the beginning, likely losing all interest in process and giving up. With unrestricted development, you can make anything out of anything with enough persistance. I prefer it that way. Sure, grinding a thousand of random encounters isn't a best kind of recreation around, but still a bit more appealing than hitting a "jump" button for a million times, ain't it?

 

[Surgey]

I can tell you one with a bad progression. Silent Storm's Hide skill. You could just stand in your home base and hide over and over to boost your skill to insane levels. However, to be fair, lots of enemies were godlike in spotting you even while you were hiding for some reason.