Attributes vs. Aptitudes

[anthraxus]

Hi All...

I have been watching with interest the discussion on skills and their controlling attributes, and thought I should make a few comments based on some of the new rules we are playtesting for 3rd edition.

First, let me say that I agree with the observation that some of the existing controlling attributes and skills don't really 'match'. This is mainly an observation based on years of playing Dark Conspiracy, and the general feedback received from those 'one-off' players you play with at conventions. As a result of this sort of feedback, in addition to our own ideas on updating DC, we have been playing with a new set of derived attributes call 'APTITUDES'.

To explain this concept, each Aptitude (of which there are seven) is the average of two Attributes, and represent the character's natural abilities or, as the title so correctly points out, their aptitude in certain areas of ‘life’. As an example, the Computer Use skill would be listed under the MANIPULATIVE (AGL+INT/2) Aptitude list, while the skill Programming (as in writing and testing computer applications) would be part of the TECHNICAL (EDU+INT/2) Aptitude list.

System-wise, Aptitudes will be used exactly like the existing controlling Attribute mechanic, with the only addition that the Aptitudes will be calculated during character creation. There is, of course, a bit of skill realignment associated to this, and perhaps even the addition of a few more skill points to assign during character creation (as averaging two attributes will generally give a lower value than the exist controlling attribute mechanic).

Anyhow, this is just a playtest idea at the moment and will be fully tested during the upcoming playtesting programme. Until this time, however, your feedback/ideas/comments are more than welcome.

Marcus Bone

[anthraxus]

Forgive the double post, but I figured the Marcus's original suggestion should be isolated.

Now to my comments on the idea. I would have to say that I agree with vadersson's reservations. If one of the central tenants of DC3 is backwards compatability, and I agree wholeheartedly that it should be, then the addition of an additional mechanic this drastic needs to be heavily reviewed as to what it adds to the game, especially if it is going to introduce a restructuring of the skill trees.

A possible alternative would be to introduce the Aptitudes as an optional modifier for skill tests. The Aptitudes would be calculated at character creation and would basically function as case-specific modifiers for skill tests. Some of these cases would be very broad (aimed gun fire or language use for example) while others would be very narrow (i.e. complex mechanical tasks). Ultimately when an Aptitude modifier was applicable would be a call by the GM. This method has the advantage of being backward compatible and easily ignorable for those that don't want it, but providing an interesting mechanic to encourage players to not necessarily min/max their stats as completely as they often do with the current system.

[Linden]

Forgive the double post, but I figured the Marcus's original suggestion should be isolated.

Now to my comments on the idea. I would have to say that I agree with vadersson's reservations. If one of the central tenants of DC3 is backwards compatability, and I agree wholeheartedly that it should be, then the addition of an additional mechanic this drastic needs to be heavily reviewed as to what it adds to the game, especially if it is going to introduce a restructuring of the skill trees.

I'm inclined to share the reservations expressed about the aptitude mechanic. I appreciate that some, if not all, skills are a function of several attributes. However, I think in the interests of playability it makes sense to assign one skill to one controlling attribute. As I recall D20 does something like this and it's one of the aspects of the system that works quite well. I think the problem with the GDW D20 system was some of the attribute/skill combinations were, to put it mildly, rather strange. As long as any revised version avoids any particularly egregious combinations I'd hope that this wouldn't be too controversial an issue.

Incidentally doesn't Call of Cthulhu divide its skills up into mental, manipulation etc? I've found it rarely has an effect on the game, barring a SAN loss induced attack of amnesia, but the category table in the rulebook might be a useful reference for reorganising DC attributes and skills.

[Antenna]

The use of apptitudes would really call for using D10's to roll attributes. Those who has a slight idea what I talk about would understand that the center around 4, 5, 6 if 2d6-2 is used instead will be very powerful for 2d6-2 for the apptitudes. you would never encounter a PC or NPC with anything else but 4, 5, 6 in apptitudes.

Antenna

[anthraxus]

I don't see how you figure that aptitudes derived from a 2d6-2 generated set of base stats would always be 4,5, or 6. As Marcus states above, the Aptitudes are derived as an average of two base stats. I often have character that have a 1,2, or 3 in one or more base stats. That would serve to drag the average of any associated aptitude down significantly.

[Linden]

I thought I'd revist the hoary old debate about what attribute controls which skills.

Played in a short World of Darkness campaign. Much to my surprise I rather enjoyed it but that's by the by. The thing is a lot of the rolls in that game are against whatever attribute and skill the GM feels is relevant to the situation. Now, I'm not suggesting DC should use huge dice pools but it did occur to me that the relationship and attributes needn't be quite so rigidly defined.

As an example take the interrogation skill which is charisma based. One of my regular players has a charisma of 3 and an interrogation skill of about 5 (the exact number escapes me). However, he is an absolutely huge bloke (STR and CON both equal 10) and very intimidating. Under a rigid application of the rules he'd only have a 40% chance of making Average skill roll. However shouldn't his formidable presence count for something? Is there a case for calculating his chance of success based upon his STR rather than CHR? (or CON, or even an average of the two).

I suppose what I'm suggesting is that in many situations the controlling attribute can be decided on an ad hoc basis by the referee.

What do you think?

[Zvezda]

I personally do not do it. Changing the controlling attribute during the play I mean. This causes too much trouble and arguments I think.
Several years ago we have changed some of the attributes for some of the skills, and we have developed some own skills. Intimidation is now a separate skill and Pilot for example is now controlled by AGL rather than by INT though it is arguable whether this makes more sense or less…
Now back to topic: To me it makes sense that this particular tough guy (who is not very sociable [if that word exists] hence not a good listener) misses certain information. So he asks the captive ghoul how many members his clan has and he says:


“my sister has the exact same number of brothers and sisters and her oldest brother has twice as many sisters as brothers.”

Since he does not listen too carefully but rather stares the guy down he misses the answer. If he would have listen carefully enough the would come to the conclusion that there are three of them. This is a rather wired example but I guess you understand what I mean.

But there are a lot of different options. First you could make a ‘Willpower’ roll for the NPC if he indents to lie, based on the intimidating interrogator. Second you could role play the whole situation. How does the target react to the threads and whatever. If the information is rather compact like an accesses code or something I would always do this. Well, now that I think about it I use this option rather often. Third you could lower the difficulty level if his threatening appearance gives him a bonus. If he is forcing the “access code” out of someone it could be easier for him than for a less impressive person. If he is doing a telephone interview with a corporate executive on the other hand this would give him no bonus in deducting the valuable data from the PR talk.

[Marcus Bone]

Hi All,

I thought I'd pop in and say a few words.

The creation of the Aptitude mechanic is the direct result of feedback from players (obviously none of those who posted, however ) and in practical and game sense, I believe Aptitudes are definitely the way to go, as you don't end up having skills based on odd statistics or which are left right out of play. Moreover it allows everyone to have some slight ability in all skills (just like we all can do - it's the experience that differentiates us).

I've toyed with the idea of variable Aptitudes, but this (at the moment) is just an optional rule, mainly because of the slowing down of the game.

I have to also say that in playtesting (both at local Cons and in my group) Aptitudes were accepted without a comment (unsurprisingly as it was likely none of them knew anything different), but moreover no one asked the typical stat/skill question that always comes up - why is shooting controlled by Strength!?! This - if nothing else - is a success in my book!

Still, keep the comments coming... they all help...

[Linden]

Marcus/Zvezda, some good arguments there. I've changed some of the controlling attributes (including making piloting a function of AGL - great minds think alike!).

Making variable attribute-skill relationships an optional rule strikes me as a good compromise.

[Linden]

Have been taking a look at STOCS Litewhich seems to owe a fair bit to Dark Conspiracy and maybe GURPS. It uses an aptitude sytem similar to the on described by Marcus, in the advanced version anyway. Having seen it written down I can see how such a system would work, and it doesn't strike me as a bad idea at all.

[Zvezda]

Very interesting. Unfortunatly it always comes up with "Page not found" regardless of what I do! They've got some nice scenarios in the other games though. Is there a pdf version of STOCSlite available?