Check out Hymn of the Dragonflower for the Cypher system and grab yourself a FREE Cypher System adventure! www.backerkit.com/call_to_action/02f1d44d-2c2c-4ef0-a082-fed5878932d5/landing
That is freaky. Pathfinder and Call of Cthulhu are right there. That is just the tip of the iceberg. There are so many other TTRPGs out there. There are also plenty of video game ones. I am especially fond of World of Warcraft and Pokemon.
Yea! I use Might, Agility, Sense, and Will in my homemade ttrpg system. Each contributes to 2 of 4 subattributes: health, mana, attack, and evasion, so any character class will benefit from any attribute increase.
GURPS: ST, DX, IQ, HT. Sure, it has secondary ones like Hit points, fatigue points, will and perception. But those 4 stats are the core. Oh, and they actually mean something, unlike D&D and Pathfinder, where they are just bonuses to a d20.
Big fan of the “I’m an [adjective] [noun] who [verbs]” style of character creation for the Cypher System and while I like the smaller number of ability scores I dislike how the pools are both your ability resources and your HP. Makes it feel like every time you do something you’re hurting yourself. Aside from that, the system is so evocative
In real lifeX every time you do something you are also taking away from your mental and/or physical energie, you recharge by resting. That’s why Cypher has a more versatile rest system.
@@MrTarrasque I get the idea, but there’s plenty about real life that we don’t want to model in a game. From a player psychology point of view, using my ‘spells’ and losing ‘health’ just feels like I’m doing the enemy’s work for them. If I run all day I’ll be exhausted, if I get physically beaten all day, I’ll probably be dead. Effort being the same as damage feels odd in my play experience. Thanks for the video! Got a new subscriber 😁 Do you know of a great one-shot for Cypher system that would be a good intro to the system? I’m looking to run a bunch of new games at my LGS
@@treymclemore3418 on the other hand, if you run all day and then get into a fight you probably don't last as long as if you go into that situation well rested. So you kinda did the enemies work, when you did any strenuous work before fighting.
@@Yarradras Plenty of systems have an exhaustion condition to represent that while not equating HP and combat resources. My point is I don’t enjoy that aspect of the cypher system as a player. Fewer ability scores? Yes please. Ability scores are health and combat resources? No thanks.
It's a very gamified view that a circus athlete is not strong but dextrous. He must be both. Yes they are not pumped up like a deadlifter that can lift multiple 100 kg, but hell they have much more strength than the average person. Same for an archer. Longbows have easily a draw weight of 100+ pounds. The typical build of dumping strength and maxing out dexterity would not work in reality.
I’ve run a couple of CypherSystem games and I love the HP/Pool system from the 3 scores, but in my limited experience, Intellect seems way overpowered since it is used for magic as well as all social and investigation skills with a good number of exploration skills as well. Right now, I feel Savage Worlds does the best job at handling attributes vs skills, but it is a more complex ruleset than Cypher.
I suppose (no experience with the system) that the game master would have to suggest "inabilitizing" a character that is way too smart (smart but bad social skills, bad perception, whatever). In other words make some rolls that require intelligence be penalized because of some character flaw.
It's a tradeoff that might not be as overpowered as it seems though, because you spend from your pool to use effort. If you're trying to use magic, social skills, etc. all from your intellect pool, then you'll drain it out pretty quick. You spend points to try to smooth talk someone, you won't have them for the spell you need to cast afterward or vice-versa. And if you're trained in magic but have an inability in social skills or vice versa you're probably going to pick differently. There's also focus, descriptor, and type that give you special abilities. If your focus is magic, sure you can try to grift someone but it might be easier to use one of your magical abilities. Meanwhile if your focus is geared toward grifting people you might be able to fumble with magic, but it would likely be easier to use your abilities to talk someone else into doing it for you.
In my own homebrew system, I was wondering if I needed attrjbute scores, or if I could just let skills and specializations do the talking. I picked up EZD6, and DM Scotty showed me that there are lots of ways to make a system workable.
It seems that indie game designers have recognized how much redundancy there is in modern D&D, especially in regard to character generation. There are character classes, attribute scores, attribute modifiers, and equipment lists, but they all point in the same direction. If you look at a D&D character’s equipment list, you can probably figure out the class and the attribute scores, right? From there, you can figure out armor classes and hit points, etc. Games like EZD6 and Knave provide a game with mechanical differences (which are important for role playing and niche protection) while allowing for character customization, and all wrapped up in a more streamlined ruleset. In my homebrew, I’m currently starting with skill packages and letting the abilities selected define the attribute scores (if I need attribute scores at all). My goal is to maximize player options with the simplest ruleset that fits the mechanics I want. I don’t need granularity if it doesn’t make the game more fun to play, and I certainly don’t want rules bloat or clunky play. My only concern is that there is so much genius in the indie market now, that there may be no point in my meager contribution. 😄
people who are nimble enough to quickly climb walls, or do jumps like in a circus, are usually very muscular. They may be lean muscular, but they are muscular.
10:30 while flaws are definitely greater I prefer to distinguish flaws from weakness. If I choose to give my 5e barbarian a -1 in strength, it doesn’t make them more interesting it just makes them weak.
My reasoning for why fewer attributes are better than many are as follows: The fewer attributes there are, the easier it is to balance each attribute. Attributes related to action and activity get more use than attributes related to reactivity. I personally would go for a four-attribute system breaking them into two sets of categories: physical/mental and direct/indirect (or power/finesse). The physical direct attribute would be Strength/Might. The physical indirect attribute would be Dexterity/Reflexes. The mental direct attribute would be Will. The mental indirect attribute would be Wits. The indirect/finesse approach is generally cleaner and more subtle when getting results, so that would typically see more use. To balance this, a character's reserves can be based on their direct/power attributes. If a particular game goes beyond the physical and mental spheres (such as magical, spiritual, etc.), it's not hard to incorporate power and finesse attributes for those spheres of influence.
I went even further into the simple game hole by becoming a fan of tricube tales. You can be so creative in how you make your characters. But because there are no stats for those choices it makes traditional ttrpg players bluescreen
Cypher is my favorite to run as a DM. Doesn’t DC20 have four stats, which work similar to DND stats? Then there’s the Storyteller System which has nine Attributes: 3 physical, 3 social, and 3 mental attributes. The more dots you have in an attribute, the more d10s you get to roll on related tasks. They also have a static list of physical, social, and mental skills (“deal with it”) that also give you a d10 to roll on tasks related to that skill for every dot you have in that skill. So, if you have Dexterity 3, Firearms 2 you get 5d10 to roll on trying to shoot enemies with a gun.
💯- I actually enjoyed the reduced ability scores in combination with the reduced skills that differentiate based on which ability/stat that you combine with the general skills. Great video - thanks.
See Microlite20 for examples of how that works. My own hack of it used 4 stats and 5 skills in various combinations. I enjoyed that for simplicity and creativity.
On the swimming example, I think an interesting thought is that you have say a specialization in Swimming (Might), but an inability via the messed up leg (Speed), you have the endurance to keep moving but you're probably not very fast. That's what jumped out to me there
Kinda on the opposite spectrum with the same idea, is Vampire the Masquerade. It’s been a while since I played, but you basically had like 3 types of abilities, 3 of each of those types, and then like 9 skills in each type. And the Gm could call any ability with any skill based on the situation. Skills and abilities had different pips put in to add or subtract how many dice you roll. You could specialize in a skill and get more dice for that roll. And every dice was a D10. 1’s were crit fails, 10’s were crit pass but you needed 2 of them and for every pair they counted as double wins. The DC was basically how many passes you needed for the check. I’m on the fence which style I like better, with a long list of skills and the ability to specialize and hand write in what you specialized or hand write in All your skills. They both have ups and downs
This is a cool system. I am a huge fan of DND. I also dabbled with Pathfinder and Tales of the Valient. I think such a system would be better if it was streamlined. The video shows one way to do it. Just lower the amount of ability scores. I like the number four. So I would like to have these three ability scores plus charisma. I streamlined things on a different way. It simplifies the math while still providing a lot of flavor. I came up with sixteen attributes (ability scores). Then they are given in a simple way. I have a whole chart about levelling. Certain features get bigger due to leveling like health and attack damage. I have two such features related to attributes. There is proficiency and bonus. An attribute is proficiency plus any applicable bonuses. If two fighters are the same level, thier proficiencies cancle eachother out. So one gets to use only ther bonuses. Fighters have bonuses mainly from thie class and subclass. They can also get bonuses temporarily due to elemental effects and food effects. A great way to streamline atteibutes is to make it binary. Either someone is good at something or not. That determines whether they get one bonus or no bonus at all. There is no middleground between the two. This simplifies things without loosing much flavors. Beggeners and roleplayers would appreciate this sustem. I think only the most hard core players would care about specific amounts of attributes. They are the ones that are into power gaming and crunch.
Here are my sixteen attributes. This is made for a system where all classes are magicians. Everybody gets mana pool. There are also four groups of magic that one can specialize in. This is nature, arcane, occult and holy. There are eight bodily attributes. They affect health and mana. Potency increases damage of the user's melee magic attack called a sparkle. This attack doesn't cost mana. Resistance decreases sparkle damage from the opponent. Vitality decreases health of opponent. Stamina increases health of user. Agility decreases mana of opponent. Endurance increase mana of user. Evasion increases mana cost of opponent's spells. Perception decreases mana cost of user's spells. There are eight mental attributes. They affect the damage and healing of spells. Intellecence increases effects of user's arcane spells. Charisma increases effects of user' occult spells. Serenity does the same for holy spells. Bravery does the same for nature spells. Willpower decreases effect of opponent's occult spells. There are three that do the same thing but with other kinds of spells. Protection does this for arcane spells. Fortitude does this for nature spells. Reflexes does this for holy spells. A lot of attributes have a lot of flavor. However there is simplification elsewhere. That makes this system manageable. Perhaps there is flexibility in my system to have a magical circus performer. There can be good agility and stamina without focus on strength. Two of my classes are bard and illusionist. Illusionist is a unique class I made up. It is like a stage magician. It uses real magic to perform illusions. This is like the illusion magic school in DND. Both classes are performers. Both have bonuses in bravery and charisma. Charisma is used to captivate and audience. Bravery is used to overcome stage fright. A circus person is another kind of performer. From a roleplaying and flavor perspective, I recommend charisma and bravery. Bravery is especially helpful. Circus people work with wild animals and perform elaborate stunts. That takes a lot of bravery right there.
I go Health, Adrenalin, and Willpower ... if I must explain how they are like three "hit point" pools. Cypher is so easy at its core. D20 roll against the Level/Difficulty chart - the rest is variation.
I prefer GURPS from a math perspective, as it is built into the skill system, where a 1 point spend will give you a skill based on how hard it would be to become skilled in it. For example, using a sword is a Physical/ Average one. Guns are Physical / Easy. Physical skills being based on DX (Dexterity). Roll 3d6 under that and then add/subtract modifiers, and you are golden.
@Nolinquisitor Seriously. Whenever I see requests for 5th edition, I have to ask, why? The biggest improvement to it would be more 'powered by' box sets that make it more focused and then supplements for those. A lot of the work is already done.
@@slaapliedje Thing is, with GURPS, any edition, even a new one, will still be GURPS : a generic toolbox to build your own RPG. There's a long list of reasons to make a 5th edition, but people will still use 3rd and 4th edition with no problems. It's not going to be a hard line in the sand, more like a new Lego set that will work with your old ones.
From my experience three stats model feels like the minimum effort to make two characters different from each other. Which is fine when you’re making a system for minimum effort gaming. But the more effort you put in the game, the more excitement and satisfaction you get from it. And most three stats systems can’t provide you ways to put more into the game. Cypher has a good skills system to compensate its shallow stats, but for every Cypher there is a dozen of Tunnel Goons hacks. It is not very surprising that people develop strong opinions about three stats model as an abstract concept.
Excellent breakdown. I really appreciate the variety of ways a character can be represented in various games. One of my favorite things to do is to take a character from one RPG system and "translate" it into another system.
I don't think it's better or worse - it's just whatever you want to play. As the saying goes - "You pays your money, you takes your choice." Cypher is great, I've used it for multiple genres, but it's a highly narrative system that relies on the players and GMs to "play the game" and not abuse the abstract mechanics - so it's a "rulings" focus. For example, you could have high Speed character who was fast on their feet but clumsy with their figners - you'd have to agree to roleplay that or invent some flaw to apply a penalty in some conditions. D&D-like systems are more "simulationist" (though not the extent of some other systems) and the players and DMs can rely more on the rules to provide the boundaries - so it's a "rules" focus - but still suffers from the bucketing of attributes above, e.g. High Dexterity but lack of fine manual control made a character an excellent duellist or archer rather than a pickpocketing thief - that might be reflected in the class choice, but might not be. The latter, having prescriptive rules, can help when there is less trust between the players and GMs or where the group just doesn't want such a reliance on narration to make things interesting and can let the dice tell the story to a greater extent. The Fate system is similar to Cypher in it's narrative nature, but, as I recall, has NO ability scores and relies entirely on unique character "stunts" and the "aspects" that people place on people, places, and objects - in Cypher terms these are similarly reflected in the "Adjective, Noun, Verb" structure of the character descriptor. Conversely, AD&D 2.5e, with the "Player's Options: Skills and Powers" supplement, actually broke the six base ability scores down into twelve; stamina, muscle, aim, balance, health, fitness, reason, knowledge, intuition, willpower, leadership, and appearance so there was even more granularity (but still didn't address the problem above!).
Love me some Nimble - I think they could have gone even further by merging int and wis, but they sort of address this with a great change back to the three save system, letting you take you best from int, wis or cha for will saves
I love Cypher and also Savage Worlds. Both are much simpler and thus also more compelling a system than the legacy RPG trying to play off of the infamy of 1980s Dungeons and Dragons. Too much of how modern DnD is done at the table is pathetic and/or abusive. I do not need a complicated and overwrought ruleset of combat resolution getting in the way of my gaming. I wrote up an RPG on a single 3×5 note card back in the 1990s just to prove it could be done. Played RPGs with it for YEARS to great success.
Shadow of the Demon Lord uses four ability scores and it is a perfect example of how four is the sweet spot. Two mental, two physical. Three is too few and six too many. Four is perfect and five is still good (like in the James Bond 007 RPG)
I think they reason for there to be six ability score is just an artifact from older editions. I would be totally fine with fewer ability scores. The first ability score I would get rid of is constitution. Almost every character players makes has a high constitution because it gives hit points, so it's close to being the same for every character in the game. There are also no skills based on it. I really not see any need for it.
4:15 "you need to, like, Shift your Paradigm, man!" ...lets face it, A.D. really hit the nail on the head with that "Paradigm Shift" philosophy! Anywho... Great video, Mr T!
The cypher like skills don't require a baseline attribute to function, it would be better to remove the 3 attributes but grant more skills to define your capabilities. I think the 6 is not enough to describe the differences in raw physical and mental abelites of a character/person(the reason Dexterity is so strong in those games is because Dexterity and Agility are full attributes in capability but they are merged into one double strength attribute). Reducing it is even less descriptive. It think The Dark Eye does it great, 8 abilities and you NEVER roll just one of them. And you can boost individual skills a more dynamic ways then +1s to a roll. Social encounter sounds WAY too broad to be a good skill. I think the only places I've liked ~3-4 attributes, which are arguably 0 ability scores but ~3-4 broad skills are: Sentiment system, where every character has unique 3 Abilities that they do/have(+0 to +9 bonus). This also covers their skills. The Stuff of Legends, where you have Roles defined the same as Sentiment's Abilities but they are bought with scaling cost so diversifying is cheaper then specializing resulting in different characters having different amounts of Roles. Roles are ranked 1 to 5 and go against difficulty of tasks, exceeding gives perks and if you are 1 short a roll is done based on situational modifiers like time pressure and proper supplies. Overlapping Roles are 1 higher then the highest in the overlap, so you don't have to fear loosing out on functionality due to an overlap. Both are in Beta testing, The Stuff of Legends close to release (I'd argue it is releasing in 7th edition, they just haven't been publishing it every edition, it has been in development for over a decade) I think FATE/Spirit of the Century has something like that but I haven't actually read the rules yet. So, yeah, I think abilities should be more then 6 or not used at all. Few abilities and something else works worse then just fully committing to something else.
Nice vid. The 6 ability scores in 5e have always bothered me. Too many dump stats. Virtually every character build has at least 3 ability scores that it doesn't care about at all, but the skills associated with those scores might be something that you envisioned you'd be good at (i.e. the barbarian is rarely good at intimidation?!?!). There's just... no... winning. My group is switching to DC20 soon. Only 4 stats, you're not forced into any of them, and there are optional rules for flexible skill checks if that's the direction you want to roll.
Using strength for intimidation is a relatively common suggestion. Then it's a matter of whether you're proficient in intimidation, but that's a specific skill choice you make if you envision yourself good at it. That you have to use specific ability scores for specific skills is a myth. RAW allows for variation from suggested ones.
GURPS doesn't use Charisma as a stat and it makes sense. You can however take Charisma and / or Leadership as an Advantage or Fast-Talk as a skill, if you want that kind of character. Charisma is the default dump-stat for a reason.
Charisma was one that made a lot of sense as a stat back in the days of original D&D where everyone would basically have their own hired retainers and hirelings, so it was a big benefit to have more hired help you could lead around. It only really became a dump stat once having NPC allies was no longer the norm playstyle.
@@taragnor Not everyone. You had to be at least 9th level and it mostly affected Fighters. Also, I think you are referring to "followers", not hirelings who work for pay. It was always a bit of a dump stat.
Swimming in GURPS is simple, Swimming skill is HT (Health) based. So if you are an out of shape elf dropped into a river, you'll probably become a drowned elf.
Imho, Might and Speed is as bad design as Strength and Dexterity, I noticed this only when I found about this game where you have 4 attributes: physique, precision, logic & empathy. Then you under physique you have skills like force, agility and close combat and under Precision you have Stealth, range combat and medicine. It is a better abstraction of real word physics, you train your body to be fit then you can specialize in being strong, quick or both, and using a range weapon does not depend on how fast you are.
I don't understand how this system proves that less ability scores can be better then more. This system has nothing to do with ability scores, it just a different way for skills to work. This system can perfectly work with any number of ability scores, even with more than 6.
this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem people have with having stats that represent multiple aspects of a character fused into fewer numbers. what people find off about it is that it makes certain aspects fundamentally tied that go against common sense, shich makes the system feel gamey. for example intellect. having one stat that affects both social skills and knowledge goes against common sense because those 2 things are entirely independant from each other IRL. the only reason they are tied is because the game system says so. yes this incongruence can be fixed through the skill system (which is completely separate from the stat system, by the way) but people don't like that it exists to begin with. and this is an issue fully acknowledged and intended by the developers, fusing stats together is a compromise made for the sake of streamlining gameplay. it always has been. players who don't like this stat system do understand it, they just don't like it.
I hate skill systems for one reason - it presumes I understand what challenges the player has to face. If I’m playing a pirate game, swimming is something that might come up. If I’m the Asian guy from Oceans 11, do I know that an acrobatics check will come up? In a pirate adventure, yes, but what about a vampire game or a cyberpunk game? Less specific attributes allow broader gameplay applications but enough character differences to imply that your wise guy is not your first choice for negotiation. Three stats requires skills, but I need to understand the fantasy to create a character that interacts with the genre well. I play hobbit thieves a lot. Guess who read Tolkien?
It also depends on how specific the skills are. If there's stuff like "Thievery" and "Athletics', it's not too bad, but some systems get really granular with skills (GURPS is notoriously bad for this), where you have dozens of specific skills for all manner of things.
@@taragnor D&D is a mess, with abilities for race etc, ability scores, feats, then the checks etc on top. I appreciate the desire for more more more. I think the game being led by character sheets instead of player ideas is a problem!
@@Xplora213 I have mixed feelings about that. Get too granular with skills and abilities and you remove all creativity because players only do the defined actions. Though if the game gets too simple and it turns into the old days of "I roll to attack" every turn because you don't have any options and you're just "man with sword."
This seems true, considering the original D&D attributes were "we need a number for each class, Fighter gets strength, Thief gets dexterity, Wizard gets intelligence. What does Cleric get? Uh... Wisdom, which is intelligence, but for Clerics!". Then people started writing justifications about what the difference between intelligence and wisdom was, but in reality it was "we can't have both classes use the same stat."
@@leorblumenthal5239 fine no thief but the argument holds since you had STR for melee and DEX for ranged weapons … btw hi Sergio, fancy seeing you here jaja
@KiMo7PDC Except that wasn't really what the Strength and Dexterity ability scores did in 1974. The bonuses were for very high scores. Most Fighting Men wouldn't have gotten to hit bonuses from high Strength scores, they would have gotten an XP bonus from the high Strength scores.
I find it that the less stats you have the harder it is to work with. But so does to much crunch, so the best, for me, is something in the middle. Imo the Basic Roleplaying (Chaosium) is one of the better systems out there. Simple, but yet still enough to work with if you want to tweak and mod. I for example like to create items but want them to have some differences in stats to make them feel more unique for my players, in BR its simple, in "streamlined" systems its hard because the stats is so compressed and/or merged so if you give a bonus it changes more then just one stat and all the subskills etc. or you have to specify exactly what it gives the bonuses for with text (which makes it feel more crunch). And also, all things have the same stats which for me is kind of boring. The same goes for skills etc. And for me, if its to few or to simple stats/rules it just feels like playing "rock, scissor, paper", and then its like whats the point?. But for shortgigs "simple/streamlined" systems is great! Longer campaigns, not so much. But, ofc, this is just my opinion and the way I like my games. =)
5 stats in 5e needed. Con is out of Deathsaves. A feat like Tough can give extra hp There's no Attack Rolls with con nor Skills nor Tools. Only pure Con ability check or saving throw. Con is just the memory of a 6th Stat. Whatever it was. It's no longer NEEDED
@@obiwankenobi9439 In fantasy Con can basically just be merged with strength honestly. There's nothing that's big and strong in fantasy that also isn't durable. The two just go hand and hand.
This tells me _nothing_ about why having three ability scores is better than having six. What it does tell me is that having custom skills makes all the difference. But you can just run a DnD game and use custom skills like that instead of the standard ones. That would accomplish the exact same thing as you're describing. Just use proficient and expertise ruling for trained and specialised, and add inability.
@@Xplora213 I mean, I agree with having more character-defined skills being better at defining a unique character, especially with flaws more specific than just a low ability score. For instance, to keep with the DnD custom idea I mentioned, if you have a character who's trained with using traps, that skill could replace the skills for perception, investigation, and thieves' tools involved in detecting and disarming traps, without necessarily being better at the other things those skills do (like tracking or lockpicking). But that's still about the benefit of skills rather than ability scores. And it's not like the DnD ability scores don't have problems. Sure, strength is pretty straight-forward, but wisdom is a complete mess.
The problem with skills in systems like DND is the proficiency System. And that you automatically become better in a proficient skill like animal handling, even if you never used it. I like skill points.
All stat systems are abstractions. The only real difference is how finely grained they are. And there are long arguments and many, many definitions of what it means to be at half HP.
Check out Hymn of the Dragonflower for the Cypher system and grab yourself a FREE Cypher System adventure!
www.backerkit.com/call_to_action/02f1d44d-2c2c-4ef0-a082-fed5878932d5/landing
People really cannot fathom that there are other RPGs besides Dungeons & Dragons TM and there are other ways you can design a game.
That is freaky. Pathfinder and Call of Cthulhu are right there. That is just the tip of the iceberg. There are so many other TTRPGs out there. There are also plenty of video game ones. I am especially fond of World of Warcraft and Pokemon.
Yea! I use Might, Agility, Sense, and Will in my homemade ttrpg system. Each contributes to 2 of 4 subattributes: health, mana, attack, and evasion, so any character class will benefit from any attribute increase.
GURPS: ST, DX, IQ, HT. Sure, it has secondary ones like Hit points, fatigue points, will and perception. But those 4 stats are the core. Oh, and they actually mean something, unlike D&D and Pathfinder, where they are just bonuses to a d20.
Big fan of the “I’m an [adjective] [noun] who [verbs]” style of character creation for the Cypher System and while I like the smaller number of ability scores I dislike how the pools are both your ability resources and your HP. Makes it feel like every time you do something you’re hurting yourself. Aside from that, the system is so evocative
In real lifeX every time you do something you are also taking away from your mental and/or physical energie, you recharge by resting. That’s why Cypher has a more versatile rest system.
@@MrTarrasque I get the idea, but there’s plenty about real life that we don’t want to model in a game. From a player psychology point of view, using my ‘spells’ and losing ‘health’ just feels like I’m doing the enemy’s work for them. If I run all day I’ll be exhausted, if I get physically beaten all day, I’ll probably be dead. Effort being the same as damage feels odd in my play experience.
Thanks for the video! Got a new subscriber 😁
Do you know of a great one-shot for Cypher system that would be a good intro to the system? I’m looking to run a bunch of new games at my LGS
@@treymclemore3418 on the other hand, if you run all day and then get into a fight you probably don't last as long as if you go into that situation well rested. So you kinda did the enemies work, when you did any strenuous work before fighting.
@@Yarradras Plenty of systems have an exhaustion condition to represent that while not equating HP and combat resources. My point is I don’t enjoy that aspect of the cypher system as a player. Fewer ability scores? Yes please. Ability scores are health and combat resources? No thanks.
It's a very gamified view that a circus athlete is not strong but dextrous. He must be both. Yes they are not pumped up like a deadlifter that can lift multiple 100 kg, but hell they have much more strength than the average person.
Same for an archer. Longbows have easily a draw weight of 100+ pounds. The typical build of dumping strength and maxing out dexterity would not work in reality.
That is exactly my point when I say they are strong but different strong
The One Ring 2E is fast becoming my favourite TTRPG. Love the mechanics. Only three main stats, too.
I’ve run a couple of CypherSystem games and I love the HP/Pool system from the 3 scores, but in my limited experience, Intellect seems way overpowered since it is used for magic as well as all social and investigation skills with a good number of exploration skills as well.
Right now, I feel Savage Worlds does the best job at handling attributes vs skills, but it is a more complex ruleset than Cypher.
I suppose (no experience with the system) that the game master would have to suggest "inabilitizing" a character that is way too smart (smart but bad social skills, bad perception, whatever). In other words make some rolls that require intelligence be penalized because of some character flaw.
It's a tradeoff that might not be as overpowered as it seems though, because you spend from your pool to use effort.
If you're trying to use magic, social skills, etc. all from your intellect pool, then you'll drain it out pretty quick. You spend points to try to smooth talk someone, you won't have them for the spell you need to cast afterward or vice-versa. And if you're trained in magic but have an inability in social skills or vice versa you're probably going to pick differently.
There's also focus, descriptor, and type that give you special abilities. If your focus is magic, sure you can try to grift someone but it might be easier to use one of your magical abilities. Meanwhile if your focus is geared toward grifting people you might be able to fumble with magic, but it would likely be easier to use your abilities to talk someone else into doing it for you.
“You get an extra skill, but you take an extra inability.”
“Okay. I’ll take an inability in yodeling!”😂
Continue watching
@@MrTarrasqueAnd I’ll be trained in Claymation!
😂
EZD6 doesn't use stats at all. I thought it would be a deal-breaker for me, but I don't miss them at all.
In my own homebrew system, I was wondering if I needed attrjbute scores, or if I could just let skills and specializations do the talking. I picked up EZD6, and DM Scotty showed me that there are lots of ways to make a system workable.
Cypher has quickly became my favorite system, I love the simplicity of the system, but then you can go in so deeeeep with that system
I played an awesome game of Basic Roleplaying (Chaosium), and less is more, just need the buy in
It seems that indie game designers have recognized how much redundancy there is in modern D&D, especially in regard to character generation. There are character classes, attribute scores, attribute modifiers, and equipment lists, but they all point in the same direction. If you look at a D&D character’s equipment list, you can probably figure out the class and the attribute scores, right? From there, you can figure out armor classes and hit points, etc. Games like EZD6 and Knave provide a game with mechanical differences (which are important for role playing and niche protection) while allowing for character customization, and all wrapped up in a more streamlined ruleset.
In my homebrew, I’m currently starting with skill packages and letting the abilities selected define the attribute scores (if I need attribute scores at all). My goal is to maximize player options with the simplest ruleset that fits the mechanics I want. I don’t need granularity if it doesn’t make the game more fun to play, and I certainly don’t want rules bloat or clunky play. My only concern is that there is so much genius in the indie market now, that there may be no point in my meager contribution. 😄
people who are nimble enough to quickly climb walls, or do jumps like in a circus, are usually very muscular. They may be lean muscular, but they are muscular.
Exactly my point
10:30 while flaws are definitely greater I prefer to distinguish flaws from weakness. If I choose to give my 5e barbarian a -1 in strength, it doesn’t make them more interesting it just makes them weak.
My reasoning for why fewer attributes are better than many are as follows:
The fewer attributes there are, the easier it is to balance each attribute. Attributes related to action and activity get more use than attributes related to reactivity.
I personally would go for a four-attribute system breaking them into two sets of categories: physical/mental and direct/indirect (or power/finesse). The physical direct attribute would be Strength/Might. The physical indirect attribute would be Dexterity/Reflexes. The mental direct attribute would be Will. The mental indirect attribute would be Wits. The indirect/finesse approach is generally cleaner and more subtle when getting results, so that would typically see more use. To balance this, a character's reserves can be based on their direct/power attributes.
If a particular game goes beyond the physical and mental spheres (such as magical, spiritual, etc.), it's not hard to incorporate power and finesse attributes for those spheres of influence.
I went even further into the simple game hole by becoming a fan of tricube tales. You can be so creative in how you make your characters. But because there are no stats for those choices it makes traditional ttrpg players bluescreen
Cypher is my favorite to run as a DM.
Doesn’t DC20 have four stats, which work similar to DND stats?
Then there’s the Storyteller System which has nine Attributes: 3 physical, 3 social, and 3 mental attributes. The more dots you have in an attribute, the more d10s you get to roll on related tasks. They also have a static list of physical, social, and mental skills (“deal with it”) that also give you a d10 to roll on tasks related to that skill for every dot you have in that skill. So, if you have Dexterity 3, Firearms 2 you get 5d10 to roll on trying to shoot enemies with a gun.
I know Exalted Essence, as opposed to previous editions, simplified the 9 scores down to 3
I'll stick with castles and crusades siege engine. I love how I only need the 6 attributes for everything no skills allowed.
💯- I actually enjoyed the reduced ability scores in combination with the reduced skills that differentiate based on which ability/stat that you combine with the general skills.
Great video - thanks.
See Microlite20 for examples of how that works. My own hack of it used 4 stats and 5 skills in various combinations. I enjoyed that for simplicity and creativity.
On the swimming example, I think an interesting thought is that you have say a specialization in Swimming (Might), but an inability via the messed up leg (Speed), you have the endurance to keep moving but you're probably not very fast. That's what jumped out to me there
Kinda on the opposite spectrum with the same idea, is Vampire the Masquerade.
It’s been a while since I played, but you basically had like 3 types of abilities, 3 of each of those types, and then like 9 skills in each type. And the Gm could call any ability with any skill based on the situation.
Skills and abilities had different pips put in to add or subtract how many dice you roll.
You could specialize in a skill and get more dice for that roll.
And every dice was a D10. 1’s were crit fails, 10’s were crit pass but you needed 2 of them and for every pair they counted as double wins.
The DC was basically how many passes you needed for the check.
I’m on the fence which style I like better, with a long list of skills and the ability to specialize and hand write in what you specialized or hand write in All your skills.
They both have ups and downs
This is a cool system. I am a huge fan of DND. I also dabbled with Pathfinder and Tales of the Valient. I think such a system would be better if it was streamlined. The video shows one way to do it. Just lower the amount of ability scores. I like the number four. So I would like to have these three ability scores plus charisma.
I streamlined things on a different way. It simplifies the math while still providing a lot of flavor. I came up with sixteen attributes (ability scores). Then they are given in a simple way. I have a whole chart about levelling. Certain features get bigger due to leveling like health and attack damage. I have two such features related to attributes. There is proficiency and bonus. An attribute is proficiency plus any applicable bonuses. If two fighters are the same level, thier proficiencies cancle eachother out. So one gets to use only ther bonuses. Fighters have bonuses mainly from thie class and subclass. They can also get bonuses temporarily due to elemental effects and food effects. A great way to streamline atteibutes is to make it binary. Either someone is good at something or not. That determines whether they get one bonus or no bonus at all. There is no middleground between the two. This simplifies things without loosing much flavors. Beggeners and roleplayers would appreciate this sustem. I think only the most hard core players would care about specific amounts of attributes. They are the ones that are into power gaming and crunch.
Here are my sixteen attributes. This is made for a system where all classes are magicians. Everybody gets mana pool. There are also four groups of magic that one can specialize in. This is nature, arcane, occult and holy. There are eight bodily attributes. They affect health and mana. Potency increases damage of the user's melee magic attack called a sparkle. This attack doesn't cost mana. Resistance decreases sparkle damage from the opponent. Vitality decreases health of opponent. Stamina increases health of user. Agility decreases mana of opponent. Endurance increase mana of user. Evasion increases mana cost of opponent's spells. Perception decreases mana cost of user's spells. There are eight mental attributes. They affect the damage and healing of spells. Intellecence increases effects of user's arcane spells. Charisma increases effects of user' occult spells. Serenity does the same for holy spells. Bravery does the same for nature spells. Willpower decreases effect of opponent's occult spells. There are three that do the same thing but with other kinds of spells. Protection does this for arcane spells. Fortitude does this for nature spells. Reflexes does this for holy spells. A lot of attributes have a lot of flavor. However there is simplification elsewhere. That makes this system manageable.
Perhaps there is flexibility in my system to have a magical circus performer. There can be good agility and stamina without focus on strength. Two of my classes are bard and illusionist. Illusionist is a unique class I made up. It is like a stage magician. It uses real magic to perform illusions. This is like the illusion magic school in DND. Both classes are performers. Both have bonuses in bravery and charisma. Charisma is used to captivate and audience. Bravery is used to overcome stage fright. A circus person is another kind of performer. From a roleplaying and flavor perspective, I recommend charisma and bravery. Bravery is especially helpful. Circus people work with wild animals and perform elaborate stunts. That takes a lot of bravery right there.
I like the Cypher system. I found a better name for the three stats is the words we use to describe these stats. What is Speed? Ah that's Dexterity.
I go Health, Adrenalin, and Willpower ... if I must explain how they are like three "hit point" pools.
Cypher is so easy at its core.
D20 roll against the Level/Difficulty chart - the rest is variation.
I prefer GURPS from a math perspective, as it is built into the skill system, where a 1 point spend will give you a skill based on how hard it would be to become skilled in it. For example, using a sword is a Physical/ Average one. Guns are Physical / Easy. Physical skills being based on DX (Dexterity). Roll 3d6 under that and then add/subtract modifiers, and you are golden.
@@slaapliedje Every RPG problems leads to GURPS. The best.
@Nolinquisitor Seriously. Whenever I see requests for 5th edition, I have to ask, why? The biggest improvement to it would be more 'powered by' box sets that make it more focused and then supplements for those. A lot of the work is already done.
@@slaapliedje Thing is, with GURPS, any edition, even a new one, will still be GURPS : a generic toolbox to build your own RPG.
There's a long list of reasons to make a 5th edition, but people will still use 3rd and 4th edition with no problems. It's not going to be a hard line in the sand, more like a new Lego set that will work with your old ones.
From my experience three stats model feels like the minimum effort to make two characters different from each other. Which is fine when you’re making a system for minimum effort gaming. But the more effort you put in the game, the more excitement and satisfaction you get from it. And most three stats systems can’t provide you ways to put more into the game.
Cypher has a good skills system to compensate its shallow stats, but for every Cypher there is a dozen of Tunnel Goons hacks. It is not very surprising that people develop strong opinions about three stats model as an abstract concept.
The idea that six is some magic number for attributes is wild. There are games with none that are great.
Excellent breakdown. I really appreciate the variety of ways a character can be represented in various games. One of my favorite things to do is to take a character from one RPG system and "translate" it into another system.
Cortex similarly uses 3 basic scores.
Cypher System is so elegant. Love it.
I don't think it's better or worse - it's just whatever you want to play. As the saying goes - "You pays your money, you takes your choice."
Cypher is great, I've used it for multiple genres, but it's a highly narrative system that relies on the players and GMs to "play the game" and not abuse the abstract mechanics - so it's a "rulings" focus. For example, you could have high Speed character who was fast on their feet but clumsy with their figners - you'd have to agree to roleplay that or invent some flaw to apply a penalty in some conditions.
D&D-like systems are more "simulationist" (though not the extent of some other systems) and the players and DMs can rely more on the rules to provide the boundaries - so it's a "rules" focus - but still suffers from the bucketing of attributes above, e.g. High Dexterity but lack of fine manual control made a character an excellent duellist or archer rather than a pickpocketing thief - that might be reflected in the class choice, but might not be.
The latter, having prescriptive rules, can help when there is less trust between the players and GMs or where the group just doesn't want such a reliance on narration to make things interesting and can let the dice tell the story to a greater extent.
The Fate system is similar to Cypher in it's narrative nature, but, as I recall, has NO ability scores and relies entirely on unique character "stunts" and the "aspects" that people place on people, places, and objects - in Cypher terms these are similarly reflected in the "Adjective, Noun, Verb" structure of the character descriptor.
Conversely, AD&D 2.5e, with the "Player's Options: Skills and Powers" supplement, actually broke the six base ability scores down into twelve; stamina, muscle, aim, balance, health, fitness, reason, knowledge, intuition, willpower, leadership, and appearance so there was even more granularity (but still didn't address the problem above!).
Love me some Nimble - I think they could have gone even further by merging int and wis, but they sort of address this with a great change back to the three save system, letting you take you best from int, wis or cha for will saves
I’d love to see a Mind, Body, Spirit system
I love Cypher and also Savage Worlds.
Both are much simpler and thus also more compelling a system than the legacy RPG trying to play off of the infamy of 1980s Dungeons and Dragons.
Too much of how modern DnD is done at the table is pathetic and/or abusive.
I do not need a complicated and overwrought ruleset of combat resolution getting in the way of my gaming.
I wrote up an RPG on a single 3×5 note card back in the 1990s just to prove it could be done.
Played RPGs with it for YEARS to great success.
Shadow of the Demon Lord uses four ability scores and it is a perfect example of how four is the sweet spot. Two mental, two physical.
Three is too few and six too many. Four is perfect and five is still good (like in the James Bond 007 RPG)
I think they reason for there to be six ability score is just an artifact from older editions. I would be totally fine with fewer ability scores.
The first ability score I would get rid of is constitution. Almost every character players makes has a high constitution because it gives hit points, so it's close to being the same for every character in the game. There are also no skills based on it. I really not see any need for it.
4:15 "you need to, like, Shift your Paradigm, man!"
...lets face it, A.D. really hit the nail on the head with that "Paradigm Shift" philosophy!
Anywho...
Great video, Mr T!
The cypher like skills don't require a baseline attribute to function, it would be better to remove the 3 attributes but grant more skills to define your capabilities.
I think the 6 is not enough to describe the differences in raw physical and mental abelites of a character/person(the reason Dexterity is so strong in those games is because Dexterity and Agility are full attributes in capability but they are merged into one double strength attribute). Reducing it is even less descriptive.
It think The Dark Eye does it great, 8 abilities and you NEVER roll just one of them. And you can boost individual skills a more dynamic ways then +1s to a roll.
Social encounter sounds WAY too broad to be a good skill.
I think the only places I've liked ~3-4 attributes, which are arguably 0 ability scores but ~3-4 broad skills are:
Sentiment system, where every character has unique 3 Abilities that they do/have(+0 to +9 bonus). This also covers their skills.
The Stuff of Legends, where you have Roles defined the same as Sentiment's Abilities but they are bought with scaling cost so diversifying is cheaper then specializing resulting in different characters having different amounts of Roles. Roles are ranked 1 to 5 and go against difficulty of tasks, exceeding gives perks and if you are 1 short a roll is done based on situational modifiers like time pressure and proper supplies. Overlapping Roles are 1 higher then the highest in the overlap, so you don't have to fear loosing out on functionality due to an overlap.
Both are in Beta testing, The Stuff of Legends close to release (I'd argue it is releasing in 7th edition, they just haven't been publishing it every edition, it has been in development for over a decade)
I think FATE/Spirit of the Century has something like that but I haven't actually read the rules yet.
So, yeah, I think abilities should be more then 6 or not used at all. Few abilities and something else works worse then just fully committing to something else.
In D&D you can use athletics and acrobatics for swimming checks. Isn‘t it the same (chain mail + rucksack vs. speed swimming without gear)?
Yes the last part was about all RPGs, just that it’s okay to adjust that as a GM. Many people still hold on to one ability score per skill
@@MrTarrasque 👍
GURPS is the goat imo. Lots of flexibility.
Nice vid. The 6 ability scores in 5e have always bothered me. Too many dump stats. Virtually every character build has at least 3 ability scores that it doesn't care about at all, but the skills associated with those scores might be something that you envisioned you'd be good at (i.e. the barbarian is rarely good at intimidation?!?!). There's just... no... winning. My group is switching to DC20 soon. Only 4 stats, you're not forced into any of them, and there are optional rules for flexible skill checks if that's the direction you want to roll.
Using strength for intimidation is a relatively common suggestion. Then it's a matter of whether you're proficient in intimidation, but that's a specific skill choice you make if you envision yourself good at it. That you have to use specific ability scores for specific skills is a myth. RAW allows for variation from suggested ones.
GURPS doesn't use Charisma as a stat and it makes sense. You can however take Charisma and / or Leadership as an Advantage or Fast-Talk as a skill, if you want that kind of character. Charisma is the default dump-stat for a reason.
Charisma was one that made a lot of sense as a stat back in the days of original D&D where everyone would basically have their own hired retainers and hirelings, so it was a big benefit to have more hired help you could lead around. It only really became a dump stat once having NPC allies was no longer the norm playstyle.
@@taragnor Not everyone. You had to be at least 9th level and it mostly affected Fighters. Also, I think you are referring to "followers", not hirelings who work for pay. It was always a bit of a dump stat.
Swimming in GURPS is simple, Swimming skill is HT (Health) based. So if you are an out of shape elf dropped into a river, you'll probably become a drowned elf.
Imho, Might and Speed is as bad design as Strength and Dexterity, I noticed this only when I found about this game where you have 4 attributes: physique, precision, logic & empathy. Then you under physique you have skills like force, agility and close combat and under Precision you have Stealth, range combat and medicine. It is a better abstraction of real word physics, you train your body to be fit then you can specialize in being strong, quick or both, and using a range weapon does not depend on how fast you are.
I don't understand how this system proves that less ability scores can be better then more. This system has nothing to do with ability scores, it just a different way for skills to work. This system can perfectly work with any number of ability scores, even with more than 6.
Next step: no mechanics attached to race/ancestry.
In cypher, you don't have any mechanics attached to race/ancestry. Race/ancestry is more a roleplay thing than a mechanic
this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem people have with having stats that represent multiple aspects of a character fused into fewer numbers.
what people find off about it is that it makes certain aspects fundamentally tied that go against common sense, shich makes the system feel gamey.
for example intellect. having one stat that affects both social skills and knowledge goes against common sense because those 2 things are entirely independant from each other IRL. the only reason they are tied is because the game system says so.
yes this incongruence can be fixed through the skill system (which is completely separate from the stat system, by the way) but people don't like that it exists to begin with.
and this is an issue fully acknowledged and intended by the developers, fusing stats together is a compromise made for the sake of streamlining gameplay. it always has been.
players who don't like this stat system do understand it, they just don't like it.
I hate skill systems for one reason - it presumes I understand what challenges the player has to face. If I’m playing a pirate game, swimming is something that might come up. If I’m the Asian guy from Oceans 11, do I know that an acrobatics check will come up? In a pirate adventure, yes, but what about a vampire game or a cyberpunk game? Less specific attributes allow broader gameplay applications but enough character differences to imply that your wise guy is not your first choice for negotiation. Three stats requires skills, but I need to understand the fantasy to create a character that interacts with the genre well. I play hobbit thieves a lot. Guess who read Tolkien?
It also depends on how specific the skills are. If there's stuff like "Thievery" and "Athletics', it's not too bad, but some systems get really granular with skills (GURPS is notoriously bad for this), where you have dozens of specific skills for all manner of things.
@@taragnor D&D is a mess, with abilities for race etc, ability scores, feats, then the checks etc on top. I appreciate the desire for more more more. I think the game being led by character sheets instead of player ideas is a problem!
@@Xplora213 I have mixed feelings about that. Get too granular with skills and abilities and you remove all creativity because players only do the defined actions. Though if the game gets too simple and it turns into the old days of "I roll to attack" every turn because you don't have any options and you're just "man with sword."
I want eight ability scores.
This seems true, considering the original D&D attributes were "we need a number for each class, Fighter gets strength, Thief gets dexterity, Wizard gets intelligence. What does Cleric get? Uh... Wisdom, which is intelligence, but for Clerics!". Then people started writing justifications about what the difference between intelligence and wisdom was, but in reality it was "we can't have both classes use the same stat."
This isn't true, especially considering there was no Thief class in the OD&D box set.
Thief wasn’t an OG D&D class.
@@leorblumenthal5239 fine no thief but the argument holds since you had STR for melee and DEX for ranged weapons … btw hi Sergio, fancy seeing you here jaja
@KiMo7PDC Except that wasn't really what the Strength and Dexterity ability scores did in 1974. The bonuses were for very high scores. Most Fighting Men wouldn't have gotten to hit bonuses from high Strength scores, they would have gotten an XP bonus from the high Strength scores.
I find it that the less stats you have the harder it is to work with. But so does to much crunch, so the best, for me, is something in the middle. Imo the Basic Roleplaying (Chaosium) is one of the better systems out there. Simple, but yet still enough to work with if you want to tweak and mod. I for example like to create items but want them to have some differences in stats to make them feel more unique for my players, in BR its simple, in "streamlined" systems its hard because the stats is so compressed and/or merged so if you give a bonus it changes more then just one stat and all the subskills etc. or you have to specify exactly what it gives the bonuses for with text (which makes it feel more crunch). And also, all things have the same stats which for me is kind of boring. The same goes for skills etc. And for me, if its to few or to simple stats/rules it just feels like playing "rock, scissor, paper", and then its like whats the point?.
But for shortgigs "simple/streamlined" systems is great! Longer campaigns, not so much. But, ofc, this is just my opinion and the way I like my games. =)
Idk, Candela Obscura uses this system and Candela Obscura is bad, really bad!
D&D needs six stats. Nothing else makes sense. For other games, it doesn't matter how many or few stats there are.
5 stats in 5e needed.
Con is out of Deathsaves.
A feat like Tough can give extra hp
There's no Attack Rolls with con nor Skills nor Tools.
Only pure Con ability check or saving throw.
Con is just the memory of a 6th Stat.
Whatever it was.
It's no longer NEEDED
@@obiwankenobi9439 In fantasy Con can basically just be merged with strength honestly. There's nothing that's big and strong in fantasy that also isn't durable. The two just go hand and hand.
🤔😏 I still like D&D and WFRP with more stats!! 😉
This tells me _nothing_ about why having three ability scores is better than having six.
What it does tell me is that having custom skills makes all the difference. But you can just run a DnD game and use custom skills like that instead of the standard ones. That would accomplish the exact same thing as you're describing. Just use proficient and expertise ruling for trained and specialised, and add inability.
Fair criticism. Video seems like it is talking past the mechanical issues, but the fundamental premise of positive vs negative is sound.
@@Xplora213 I mean, I agree with having more character-defined skills being better at defining a unique character, especially with flaws more specific than just a low ability score. For instance, to keep with the DnD custom idea I mentioned, if you have a character who's trained with using traps, that skill could replace the skills for perception, investigation, and thieves' tools involved in detecting and disarming traps, without necessarily being better at the other things those skills do (like tracking or lockpicking). But that's still about the benefit of skills rather than ability scores.
And it's not like the DnD ability scores don't have problems. Sure, strength is pretty straight-forward, but wisdom is a complete mess.
The problem with skills in systems like DND is the proficiency System.
And that you automatically become better in a proficient skill like animal handling, even if you never used it.
I like skill points.
It is too broad and also counts as a characters hit points. It works fine as a system, but has little connection to how the real world works.
All stat systems are abstractions. The only real difference is how finely grained they are. And there are long arguments and many, many definitions of what it means to be at half HP.
So there are pros and cons for every system. Play whatever you want!!!