Removing ability scores

[jmucchiello]

I'm moving a conversation that started in a recruiting thread in the play-by-post forum here to avoid derailing the recruiting. My apologies to anyone joining this in media res. It started here.

Life is not min-maxed. Some people have naturally high reflexes or hand-eye coordination without knowing all the skills that benefit from it. Some people are really smart but only dig ditches. Not everyone is equal.

Your statement "not everyone is equal" makes the assumption that the purpose of the game is simulation. That your character sheet must reflect these characteristics about you that don't contribute to conflict. Why isn't there an Honor stat? Shouldn't Superman have to spend 10-12 points on Honor. It reflects who he is. But there's no game effect. Conflicts are not resolved based on Honor.

The game is balanced based on Combat and conflict. If it wasn't, time travel and precognition (for example) would cost A WHOLE LOT more. For a game based on Combat, having high hand-eye coordination without the skills to back it up is meaningless system-wise. So there's no purpose in putting it into the game. The points are there to balance combat effectiveness. Anything that doesn't add to your effectiveness probably doesn't need to be purchased with points.

I don't think you can argue against the idea that the game values combat and conflict resolution when pricing its powers. If you take that to its logical conclusion, and you acknowledge that the abilities are not balanced among themselves, you can see that their contribution to balance is unbalanced.

[kenseido]

There is an "Honor" stat. It's called a Complication. They are part of the roleplaying aspect.

Min-maxing only makes sense if your think your job is to win every encounter. I think seeing my characters fail from time to time is good for their growth. There is no logic in every character being "point optimized" or perfectly balanced unless you think it's you vs the GM.

And having been in games where GMs think that way, I can promise you that players will always lose that one.

I have had this discussion many times before. There is literally (the actual literally, not the fake one) nothing you can say that will convince me you are right. I would never want to play in a game where everyone thinks you are right.

Edit: The purpose of the game, in my mind, is to tell a good story. The GM and players work together to tell a fun and enjoyable story.

[jmucchiello]

I'm not talking about min-maxing. I'm talking about how the game is balanced. And the way the game is balanced is inconsistent with how abilities work.

The purpose of the game is to facilitate the telling of a good story. The game doesn't tell the story. The people playing the game tell the story. For the game to facilitate the telling of a good story, we generally expect the game to be fair and balanced. The core of my presentation that abilities as defined in the game are unbalanced. Removing them increases balance and thus makes the game better able to be fair and balanced.

[kenseido]

I don't understand this expectation that the game be "fair and balanced." It's unrealistic to expect that. It has never happened in the history of roleplaying games. Maybe Rolemaster, but then you are spending your first three game session creating a character and one round a combat could take an entire session.

The rules provide a framework for handling general and specific challenges PCs will encounter. The character sheet provides a general quantitative framework for the character's abilities and personality.

Let's consider two salesmen. One is self-confident and general likable. He has a magnetic personality and enjoys building rapport with people. The other has no self-confidence. He is generally unlikable. But he has learned all the different persuasion techniques. He knows how to build rapport with people, he just doesn't like doing it. Both have Persuasion +8.

If you can't tell them apart on the sheet, then what's the point?

[jmucchiello]

If you can't tell them apart on the sheet, then what's the point?

Why do you need to tell them apart on the sheet? What is the point of that? On person role-plays as the confident salesman. The other one role-plays as the unlikeable salesman. Just because the mechanics say the same thing doesn't mean the characters aren't distinct. There's nothing on the character sheet that informs you of their favorite home decor style. Why is knowing how likeable they are on their character sheet more important than knowing their favorite home decor style?

Spider Man's character sheet says nothing about him making wisecracks while he fights. Is it required that he spend 1 point of a feature for this or else he's not allowed to do it? No, that's just role-playing. That character trait shouldn't be less important than likeability. Should it? If someone wants to be so unlikeable that it affects personal interactions, that's what complications are for. But the necessity for a Presence ability? No, there's no necessity for it.

And let me turn what you said around completely. What if there's two character with all the exact same abilities, skills, powers, etc? Are they going to be identical at the table? Chances are no. The two players will make them distinct from one another. And yet you cannot tell them apart on the sheet. So why is being different on the sheet important at all when being the same on the sheet doesn't produce predictable results?

[kenseido]

As a GM, especially one trying to pick characters for a game, I need to see. Some games would favor the first salesman, while others would favor the second.

This isn't D&D where the goal is to kill monsters, gather treasure, and gain XP. You can't just put any brick on a team and have a fun game.

[Ares]

I look at it this way:

A roleplaying group comes together to be part of a story, whether it's guiding it (the GM) or participating in it (the players)

The rules of a roleplaying game exist to resolve the conflict that occurs within those stories, because good stories thrive on conflict. The rules are there to have a mechanical, impartial way of handling said conflict that everyone has access to and everyone agrees to abide by.

The types of rules generally fall into one of two categories: simulation and narrative.

Simulation RPGs are games like Dungeons and Dragons, Mutants and Masterminds, and generally most RPGs out there. They're based on various types of heroic fiction seen in novels, comics, television and movies. In those types of stories, action plays a big part, so it's important to know the character's actual physical, mental and social abilities, how they stack up against other people, what kind of unique abilities they have, etc. You need a mechanical way to represent who is stronger, faster, more skilled and so forth because those are the kinds of conflicts that regularly come up. The focus is on emulating the various abilities the characters have. Anything that can't have a mechanical effect on the game is left purely to roleplaying. Spider-Man's tendency to quip is a note jotted down in the character personality section of the character sheet, unless he has an ability that lets him use said quipping to achieve a mechanical effect (such as enraging opponents, etc.)

Narrative RPGs are games like FATE and Cortex, where the focus is less on exact statistical differences and narrative flow. Character's attributes are more loosely defined, and the focus is more on active influence of the narrative itself. This is a game where Spider-Man's quipping would be a Quality on their character sheet and something they can use for altering scenes. It's more important here to understand what aspects of the character are vital to them, what their narrative role is, etc.

Essentially, a Simulation RPG is the idea of the players are controlling characters dropped into a specific situation, and immerse themselves in those roles and scenarios. Its the daydreams of "If I were in this movie" and getting to act it out. They shape the narrative purely by the decisions they make in character and the results of the game rules.

Narrative games is more like a group of improv actors where everyone is aware they're telling a story together, and actually do things to affect the narrative out of character. It's more akin to the writing room of a TV show where everyone has control of a particular character, and it's more about the character's narrative strengths and weaknesses that matter and how they influence the story.

Neither is objectively better or worse, they're just better or worse for the game and the players involved.

So a Simulation RPG might have Spider-Man with a strength of 8, while a Narrative game might just have "Proportionate Strength of a Spider" as a term for his strength, or even just "Does Whatever a Spider Can" as a blanket term for his spider powers. The Simulation game might ask Spidey to make a roll to lift a certain amount of weight, Narrative game have Spidey say he wants to influence the scene by using his "Proportionate Strength" quality to remove a complication from the narrative.

Again, whichever is best or worse depends on the group. But like I said, the rules exist to resolve conflict created by the choices the players make in response to scenarios the DM creates. The group tells the story, the rules help the storytelling resolve conflicts in a way that everyone can agree with.

[jmucchiello]

As a GM, especially one trying to pick characters for a game, I need to see. Some games would favor the first salesman, while others would favor the second.

You just need to see what? You don't know that the player of the first salesman is going to play to the strength of that charisma. He might end up being likeable because he's a disaster with words. You don't know the player of the second salesman won't be the slickest, glibbest asshole in the world. Numbers of a page do not tell you the story. Words spoken (written) by the players do.

Do you really pay attention to abilities when picking characters for a game? Really? You don't read all the backstories and pick the ones where you want to find out how character X and character Y get along and how character Z might disrupt or enhance those interactions? A freaking 4 in Presence is more important to you than story hooks?

This isn't D&D where the goal is to kill monsters, gather treasure, and gain XP. You can't just put any brick on a team and have a fun game.

Odd, most of the D&D games I play involve intrigue, character growth, and politics. Most of the D&D games I play are milestone based where the DM never gives out XP, doesn't equate actions to XP. Leveling up happens for story purposes. Killing monsters and gaining treasure is 1979 D&D. I don't know why you keep bringing up D&D. Every RPG can be played as killing monsters, gaining treasure, and getting more powerful. And every RPG can be played for personal goals, personal growth, and exploring interpersonal relationships. And every RPG can also do both at the same time, too. Some RPGs are focused more on one than the other. But sitting at the table, the players and GM decide if the character care more about one than the other regardless of what numbers exist on their character sheets.

None of this relates to "Power points are balanced with conflict resolution in mind. So let's get rid of spending power points in ways that obscure that balance." That was my thesis. I don't see how D&D is related.

[Ares]

Now, the point of my previous post is that I feel the debate is partially a disagreement of the nature of the rules (that of conflict resolution) and the nature of the games (simulation vs narrative).

I think I've spelled out my thoughts on the rules being there to arbitrate conflict more than anything, so my thoughts on Simulation vs Narrative is as follows:

I think that, as a Simulation game, M&M does just fine. It doesn't have a specific "honor" stat, but a character's honorable nature can be handled with Complications, or appropriate game mechanics, such as high Will saves, decent interaction skills, and even Powers that are designed to reflect those aspects of the character.

As a Narrative game where you'd expect Superman to have a quality like "Big Blue Boy-Scout", then M&M does come up short, but to me that's like judging a fish on its tree climbing ability. Sure, a fish does legitimately suck at that, but if you wanted something that was good at tree climbing, you need to pick a whole different animal.

M&M isn't my favorite game, but it does what it does pretty well, and it needs to be judged on those merits.

[jmucchiello]

A roleplaying group comes together to be part of a story, whether it's guiding it (the GM) or participating in it (the players)

The rules of a roleplaying game exist to resolve the conflict that occurs within those stories, because good stories thrive on conflict. The rules are there to have a mechanical, impartial way of handling said conflict that everyone has access to and everyone agrees to abide by.

And this affects my thesis how? I don't need a lecture on simulation versus narrative. M&M is a narrative game with a simulation veneer. If it were a true simulation, complications would have points too, like HERO/Champions does disadvantages. It doesn't. Complications are a narrative component. Condition levels in lieu of tracking points of damage is a narrative component.

Abilities are simulation element that is unnecessary and is just a vestige of the game's origins. Cutting them loose reduces places where Min/Maxing can occur. Stamina vs Fortitude and Toughness. There is no in game difference between 0 Stamina, 10 Fort, 10 Tough and 10 Stamina, 10 Fort, 10 Tough. (And do not tell me Stamina checks are a thing. Every environment need to "stamina" is a fortitude check.)

Sure, narratively, you can say the first character is a little puggy and the latter character is ripped. But that's narrative. That's not simulation. You don't need a number on a character sheet for this since the number doesn't affect game play. So explain to me why this aspect of the narrative needs a number but political fervor isn't a number on the character sheet? Or faith? or honor? or loyalty? Why is having some baby fat vs having six-pack abs on the sheet when it serves no conflict resolution purpose? The answer is "it's always been there." That's not a good reason.

[jmucchiello]

M&M isn't my favorite game, but it does what it does pretty well, and it needs to be judged on those merits.

Who is judging the game? I'm proposing a change. The change would (along with growth and shrinking changes) eliminate 90% of the min/maxing that people do. Most games with figured characteristics have thresholds where setting the base value to X is less optimal than setting it to X+1. If you eliminate figured characteristics or stop basing some characteristics on others, then you remove these thresholds. If you want to be a scientist, spend points on science skills. But having a bunch of skills doesn't equate to being smart. That's a narrative decision.

People resist change. But I'm trying to get the heart of the resistance. Because Abilities are not needed. There are few edge cases where they provide some utility. But that is outweighed by the harm they do in point balancing. IMO.

At some point I will run a game without them to see how it fairs. And I invite (any and all of) you to play in it to find out how it goes. The great thing about my proposal is you can still use Hero Lab (and other chargen software) to make a character. Just don't spend points on abilities.

[kenseido]

You just need to see what? You don't know that the player of the first salesman is going to play to the strength of that charisma. He might end up being likeable because he's a disaster with words. You don't know the player of the second salesman won't be the slickest, glibbest asshole in the world. Numbers of a page do not tell you the story. Words spoken (written) by the players do.

I need to know everything about the characters because they come first, then story. I may have some broad strokes in mind that some characters will be better suited for, but the story details come from the characters.

I have a (RL) friend who is naturally good at anything physical. He picks up any physical skill easily, but gets bored and moves on. He has a decent Dex and Agi, and a bunch of skills with one or two ranks. He doesn't have to try as hard to get to the same skill level as someone with average physical abilities.

How would you reflect that without ability scores half way thru the game? He wants to start learning archery. Your way, he has to start from zero like everyone else. My way, once he learns the basics (i.e. gets his first rank), he is already +4 to +5.

The same works with INT, AWA, and PRE. The first salesman learn about to be deceptive or intimidating much easier than the second, who has to start from zero.

[Ares]

So explain to me why this aspect of the narrative needs a number but political fervor isn't a number on the character sheet? Or faith? or honor? or loyalty?

Because unless those things have a mechanical representation in the M&M system, even as simple as generating Hero Points the way Complications do, then they're pointless.

Other game systems do take attributes like that into account. Some games actually track things like your Honor score, your Sanity, your Faith, so on and so forth, because those are things that are important to that game to the point that they're fundamental mechanics of the system. Games like Legend of 5 Rings and 7th Sea track various aspects like that because they're important to the system and the genre.

Mutants and Masterminds is, first and foremost, a superhero game and it does this by emulating the superhero genre. And there, things like Faith or Political Fervor are represented by Powers, Saves, Skills and Advantages used to simulate the purely mechanical sides of things.

I mean, what mechanical effect does "Political Fervor" have mechanically? Does it make someone more resistant to Persuasion checks that go against their political beliefs? Does it help them convince people to follow his cause, with a bonus if they already believe him? Can he use it to hype up a crowd? All of these things can be handled by other mechanics built into the system, because "Political Fervor" was not determined to be an important enough aspect of the game to be given a core mechanic.

M&M, as a superhero game, decided that the core mechanics it should emulate are the various physical, mental and social attributes common to most people. Not everyone has Faith, not everyone has Political Fervor. But outside of rare circumstances, everyone has some degree of Strength, Stamina, Intellect, Persuasion, Agility, Fighting, and so on, even if those ability scores are very low. They're attributes everyone can relate to on some level because they're fairly universal to people in general. Skills, Advantages and Saves then let you create areas of specialization within those abilities. And then Powers are meant to handle things outside of those core abilities.

M&M was designed with those Ability Scores serving as foundational elements for things like Skills and Saves. If you get rid of them, you need to make a cascading amount of adjustments to other aspects of the system. Things like a Weaken designed to impair Intellect now has to be modified to impair all Intellect related skills. You have to create something that gives a default Lifting Score and now everyone has to purchase a Damage Power to represent their base unarmed damage. You'd basically have to go through and tweak everything, because the rules are based around those central ability scores.

I won't argue that the current set up of how M&M works is inelegant in a lot of way. The ability score break down is a bit clunky, such as Dexterity, Agility and Fighting all doing the job that some systems assign to a single ability, all to avoid said ability becoming the 'god stat'. But since M&M started as a D20 mod, those little holdovers are to be expected.

If your goal is to simply run M&M and have everything resolved through purchasing Skills, Saves and including things they can purchase to represent Lifting Strength and Unarmed Damage, and you're willing to go through the Advantages and Powers to reflect those changes, then I'd say give it a try, by all means. I think the net result will be only slightly different amounts of book keeping, but if that's the kind of book keeping that works for you, then you've created the right kind of homebrew for yourself. But I don't see that as a clear sign that Ability Scores are unnecessary or bad for the game itself.

Why is having some baby fat vs having six-pack abs on the sheet when it serves no conflict resolution purpose?

Because you're starting from a false premise. There is no 'baby fat vs six pack abs' in M&M because those are purely cosmetic attributes with no in-game effect unless you buy an Advantage like Attractive. Both the Blob and Colossus likely have similar Strength scores, but the Blob is morbidly obese while Colossus has a body builder physique. But it is important to know that both Colossus and the Blob have the Strength scores that they do to determine if they can lift an object they're trying to lift, if they're trying to grapple with someone, etc. Because the Strength score does have a conflict resolution purpose. Whether that strength comes with abs or a gut is up to the player's interpretation and/or whichever artist they got to draw the picture.

[jmucchiello]

I have a (RL) friend who is naturally good at anything physical. He picks up any physical skill easily, but gets bored and moves on. He has a decent Dex and Agi, and a bunch of skills with one or two ranks. He doesn't have to try as hard to get to the same skill level as someone with average physical abilities.

It doesn't matter to the game. That's narrative. Why your friend has +10 Guitar Playing and someone else has +10 Guitar Playing does not matter. Only the +10 matters to the game.

[jmucchiello]

Because unless those things have a mechanical representation in the M&M system, even as simple as generating Hero Points the way Complications do, then they're pointless.

And I'm saying the 8 Abilities in M&M are equally pointless. They do not need a mechanical representation in the game.

M&M, as a superhero game, decided that the core mechanics it should emulate are the various physical, mental and social attributes common to most people.

And I'm suggesting it doesn't need these things.

If you get rid of them, you need to make a cascading amount of adjustments to other aspects of the system. Things like a Weaken designed to impair Intellect now has to be modified to impair all Intellect related skills. You have to create something that gives a default Lifting Score and now everyone has to purchase a Damage Power to represent their base unarmed damage. You'd basically have to go through and tweak everything,

Yes. I would have to do this. Working on it in my spare time.