Do you like when the game has lots of attributes/character stats or less?

MMOExposed

Over the years I remember how a popular single-player RPG series (Elder Scrolls) constantly reduced its stats down to 3 in Skyrim which was down from Oblivion.  This carried over to Elder Scrolls Online the MMO.             
Correct me if I am wrong on this but some MMOs like Vanilla WoW had more stats/Attributes (whatever that game calls them), and some of them I believe were scaled down or removed. 

Is this better with the less stats/attributes or more. The thread talking about Horizontal Progression sparked my interest in this subject again, because I was self debating this in regards to how I feel about GW2's stats vs ESO stats. I believe more stats could make the gear in Horizontal Progression more interesting since more combos of gear stats to be rewarded. 

Ancient_Exile

I think D&D/AD&D got it right with the attributes it used.

Strength

Dexterity

Constitution

Intelligence

Wisdom

Charisma

Some games add Luck, but I don't think I like that.  It is possible that Will (as in Willpower) could be added to the list.

Iselin

It's not how many attributes there are it's more about how much each attribute affects your game play experience and if they are balanced relative to each other. I've played many RPG systems with huge attribute systems where many of the attributes had a few token affects on game play but paled in comparison with the importance of others.

Your example of Skyrim is good for highlighting a minimalist system but don't forget that it also simultaneously had a large skills system separate from attributes where many of the things that are attribute dependent in other games were their own separate thing that could be increased independently.

Things like speechcraft, lockpicking, pickpocket, sneak, etc. were their own separate things that were not influenced by the magicka/health/stamina base attributes.

It works as an RPG system because it still had build diversity despite having the attribute system pared down to just 3. Just a different way to do it.

Kyleran

Games like DAOC required Excel spreadsheets to calculate character build stats which helped ensure each was as close as possible to the stat cap without going over.

It often involved combining powerful / unique gear with crafted items to round out the build.

Everything had resistence factors, rapiers did much less damage to skeletons than swords which were less than crushing maces and hammers.

I loved those older systems,  even EVE had a complex ship fitting / character skilling system which again,  often brought spreadsheets into play.

Ancient_Exile

@Kyleran

I like systems that are logical and realistic.  Added depth can definitely be a plus.  (Sure, Alternate/Fantasy/Sci-Fi worlds have elements that most people would consider to be totally unrealistic, but they can seem more realistic if they are internally consistent.)  People that don't like to think and read probably shouldn't be playing rpgs.  However, rpgs could be used to educate people and help them understand that learning can be fun.  Though it can be difficult to train people who are both stubborn and lazy. 

iixviiiix

I don't like current RPG stats design (that base on DnD) , they are worst design that create many problem at late stage of game where player have too much stats to the point ruined gameplay

I prefer stats counter

for example fire attack vs fire resist , physical attack vs physical resist . It mean you can add more stats to the game without create too many problem . If player have high physical resist , then use magic attack to hurt them .

That's a way balance the game as player have strong point and weakness .

In modern games , player are all mighty and overpower , and that was bad design IMO

Image you mix magic attack mobs with physical attack mobs

some stats can be raise and something shouldn't

For example you shouldn't raise the attack speed reduce stats (which cause problem to gameplay) , But you can raise attack speed cooldown

also moving stats can be raise as it cause less problem

in fact , modern game design logic are too depend on assaul instead of protection . IMO player's assault ability should be keep in check

In first place , too much assault power add to a single player can kill the game's fun .

I find it funny when developer add ton of critical rate stats , hit rate stats ects ...

the type of stats like critical , hit rate or evasion should not be raise carelessly . What of the point of RPG when player have 100% get critical rate or never miss or never get hit ?

For me , to know an MMORPG is good enough or not , i will look at the stats design . Bad stats design mean the game will not go far , because it lack of room to grow big

Ancient_Exile

@iixviiiix

The problem with MMORPGs is that they are more based on Final Fantasy/Dragon Warrior than D&D/AD&D.  They are way too gear dependent and vertical progression is out of control.  A max level player character is like a god compared to a noob. 

Anyway, D&D/AD&D was designed for small group play, not MMORPGs.  Neither were the systems present in single player Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior/Knight designed for MMORPGs.  The mobs, gear, and player characters all grow stronger in order to give the player an illusion of progression.  But, in reality, mortals have limits to how strong/powerful they can become.  That goes for Player Characters, Non-Player Characters, and Mobs.  However, there are other types of progression that can be used.  Such as gaining social, economic, political, and military ranks.  Gaining reputation/favor with factions (and even deities).  Gaining or losing renown/Infamy could be a major part of an MMORPG.

And, yes, regression can be used in MMORPGs.  Attributes, skills, talents, and abilities can atrophy if they are not used very often.  Reputation/favor can be decreased as well as increased based on a Player Character's choices and actions.

Vrika

Number of stats doesn't matter as long as they are well designed.

If I know what my stats do in practice and have at least 3 viable options to customize my character then I'm happy.

Amathe

I agree that DnD got it right.

AlBQuirky

Iselin said:

It's not how many attributes there are it's more about how much each attribute affects your game play experience and if they are balanced relative to each other. I've played many RPG systems with huge attribute systems where many of the attributes had a few token affects on game play but paled in comparison with the importance of others.

Your example of Skyrim is good for highlighting a minimalist system but don't forget that it also simultaneously had a large skills system separate from attributes where many of the things that are attribute dependent in other games were their own separate thing that could be increased independently.

Things like speechcraft, lockpicking, pickpocket, sneak, etc. were their own separate things that were not influenced by the magicka/health/stamina base attributes.

It works as an RPG system because it still had build diversity despite having the attribute system pared down to just 3. Just a different way to do it.

I wanted to agree you with but I disagree on Skyrim. Skyrim is the first Elder Scrolls game where fighters can be THE Archmage with casting just ONE spell to gain entry. That same "in-your-face" warrior can be THE Guildmaster of the Thieves Guild with nary a sneaky skill about them. To me, that's wrong.

Many players complained about Morrowind's (keeping this in the Elder Scrolls games) spreadsheet stats where a player needed to keep track of their skill-ups to maximize each level up and think about what they were doing. I also liked Morrowind's major/minor skill system. I liked that skills were based off of your stats. It not only made sense, but also kept players from being Gods in everything, without considerable grinding

[OT]
Overall, how the game uses those stats means more than how many there are. Stats for stats sake is no better than a total lack of stats.

However for me, a character without stats is a blob of mud with no definition. How strong are they? How smart are they? How charismatic are they? How healthy are they? Without stats, we don't know.

On the flip side, Intelligence and Wisdom I'm unsure about. Players use their own intelligence and wisdom rather than RP their character's, which most RPGs make necessary by their very design. Many times a player cannot advance the story without choosing "the right" dialogue choice even if their character would have no clue about it.

Also, Charisma is basically about personality, which is usually defined by dialogue choices, not a stat. And those choices are VERY limited, at best, non-existent at worst.

As for physical stats, the way RPGs are headed (with some good, notable exceptions), even these don't matter any more. Action combat has taken over and it matters not how good your avatar is with a weapon or skill, but rather how good the player's controller or keyboard/mouse skills are. I also feel the same about "minigames" sprinkled throughout RPGs to keep the easily bored busy by using player skills/abilities instead of character skills/abilities. Lockpicking anyone?

So... I guess it's all moot now. We, the players are now our avatars...

Iselin

AlBQuirky said:

Also, Charisma is basically about personality, which is usually defined by dialogue choices, not a stat. And those choices are VERY limited, at best, non-existent at worst.

I was thinking specifically about that when I said "balanced relative to each other." Charisma is one of those that is usually treated by developers as the red-headed step child of stats.

As to Skyrim and becoming the leader of all the guilds, you can do that but I don't. I typically focus on Destruction, Stealth, Archery as my main. I do the thieve's guild, dark brotherhood and mage's guild but I ignore the companions. My skills fit what I do in the game.

Gamer54321

"Is this better with the less stats/attributes or more?"

I want ARTISTIC MERIT. Not some cookie cutter game, made in a hurry, or for the money, or in some random ass way.

Sovrath

Frekcion said:

Of course More = better
In the beginning lots of skills, stats etc. looks hard, but after playing few days you getting to it and it's more fun

I'm going to go the opposite and say "less equals better."

If there needs to be a stat for something, such as climbing, sure.

but I think these games can go overboard as if they're created by people who don't so much as want a great adventure but really just want to read about it.

I remember, a loooong time ago, a D&D session where everything halted because we were mired in charts and rolls and before long the combat sequence ground down into drudgery. One of the reasons I gutted a lot of that stuff in the interest of storytelling.

I always liked the D&D original stats of Intelligence, Dexterity, etc as it boiled things down to important but simple guidelines for what a character could do.

I do agree that Charisma is usually dealt with less. Maybe the devs don't get it because they don't understand it?

I like how in the video game, Vampire the Masquerade, conversation options would open up depending on what clan you were part of. I think Charisma could work the same way. Of course that would mean more conversation options and it seems Role Playing games have done away with a lot of that. 

to me that's the bigger pity. 

Another odd example of conversation options not working is Neverwinter Nights 2 where at the start you are making your way through your town after an attack. All of a sudden I see an option to slit someone's throat. what? Why? What's my motivation? Because I'm "evil?"

"We need to have some evil options, throw something evil in there."

I guess, for me, as long as the stats and bits make sense, are easy to use and don't mire down the story telling in tedium then I'm ok with it. 

AlBQuirky

Iselin said:

AlBQuirky said:

Also, Charisma is basically about personality, which is usually defined by dialogue choices, not a stat. And those choices are VERY limited, at best, non-existent at worst.

I was thinking specifically about that when I said "balanced relative to each other." Charisma is one of those that is usually treated by developers as the red-headed step child of stats.

As to Skyrim and becoming the leader of all the guilds, you can do that but I don't. I typically focus on Destruction, Stealth, Archery as my main. I do the thieve's guild, dark brotherhood and mage's guild but I ignore the companions. My skills fit what I do in the game.

That's a good point about Skyrim. Yet you can if you wanted to.

In the previous Elder Scrolls games, you didn't even have the choice, unless you did some skill grinding. You had to raise your skills in order to advance in the guilds, which makes sense to me

AlBQuirky

Sovrath said:

Frekcion said:

Of course More = better
In the beginning lots of skills, stats etc. looks hard, but after playing few days you getting to it and it's more fun

I'm going to go the opposite and say "less equals better."

If there needs to be a stat for something, such as climbing, sure.

but I think these games can go overboard as if they're created by people who don't so much as want a great adventure but really just want to read about it.

I remember, a loooong time ago, a D&D session where everything halted because we were mired in charts and rolls and before long the combat sequence ground down into drudgery. One of the reasons I gutted a lot of that stuff in the interest of storytelling.

I always liked the D&D original stats of Intelligence, Dexterity, etc as it boiled things down to important but simple guidelines for what a character could do.

I do agree that Charisma is usually dealt with less. Maybe the devs don't get it because they don't understand it?

I like how in the video game, Vampire the Masquerade, conversation options would open up depending on what clan you were part of. I think Charisma could work the same way. Of course that would mean more conversation options and it seems Role Playing games have done away with a lot of that. 

to me that's the bigger pity. 

Another odd example of conversation options not working is Neverwinter Nights 2 where at the start you are making your way through your town after an attack. All of a sudden I see an option to slit someone's throat. what? Why? What's my motivation? Because I'm "evil?"

"We need to have some evil options, throw something evil in there."

I guess, for me, as long as the stats and bits make sense, are easy to use and don't mire down the story telling in tedium then I'm ok with it. 

Obsidian did a great job with Fallout: New Vegas, too. Many dialogue options were skill or attribute based. Having a super low intelligence made some funny options appear

I guess Bethesda did this somewhat with some of their options in Fallout 3, but not to the extent that Obsidian did, that I recall.

Aeander

My attitude towards character customization is that:

Options should be robust and expansive
My character should play very differently than someone else using the same class.

Customizable options should be tangible, important individual choices
Choosing a skill or perk is tangible. A few points of stats is not.

Permanent choices should be simple, and impossible to fuck up.
IE: your choice of class. There is no "wrong answer" if balance is anything even remotely in the realm of acceptable, and "fixing" that choice is as simple as rolling an alt.

To elaborate, permanent stat allocation is bad game design
No, I don't want to permanently assign small amounts of stats that add up to a large margin of error. It's boring. It creates tons of room to ruin your character permanently. And there are far better ways to handle character building.

Mendel

Over the years, I've varied a lot on this topic.  Each system (minimal stats or many stats) has good points and limitations.  One of my pnp systems had 10 stats which in combination influenced 10 additional characteristics.  It accomplished what I had wanted -- to prevent a single very high roll from dominating the character.  However, it was a nightmare to run -- too much math to be enjoyable.

xpsync

When there is use for it, then for sure, bring it on.

Early EQ2 was incredibly deep and you'd find use for 99% of the plethora of spells, some you never used until that ultimate Oh Shit moment, and wasn't just one thing would be combination used correctly and oh man the feeling so proud of yourself and honestly amazed that you'd just pulled that off, and your guildies stunned of what you just did.

And the only way you'd ever get that good is through extensive playing and leveling slowing was bliss and getting to really know your character inside out, cause there was tons to know. For today's players as many unless you played back then it means your rotations were varied and fruitful full of options, many ways to skin a cat, i mean the nutshell is not like a retail mage spamming one button (the i win button) as your rotation.

As far as i'm aware as i haven't been in EQ2 for many years now, but hear it's just a pile of crap on an super simplified game now. Then no, i wouldn't like that.

Now wow is like oh we over simplified, well it's a little late, you've shown the players it can be done all that way, and now throwing things back feels like you're doing it for the sake of just throwing it back becasue people love classic so much more.

In classic there are reasons to have certain things, in retail not so much, basically it's just bloating the game back up.

There has to be real purpose for a large majority of it all, if not then it's only bloat.

cameltosis

MMOExposed said:

Over the years I remember how a popular single-player RPG series (Elder Scrolls) constantly reduced its stats down to 3 in Skyrim which was down from Oblivion.  This carried over to Elder Scrolls Online the MMO.             
Correct me if I am wrong on this but some MMOs like Vanilla WoW had more stats/Attributes (whatever that game calls them), and some of them I believe were scaled down or removed. 

Is this better with the less stats/attributes or more. The thread talking about Horizontal Progression sparked my interest in this subject again, because I was self debating this in regards to how I feel about GW2's stats vs ESO stats. I believe more stats could make the gear in Horizontal Progression more interesting since more combos of gear stats to be rewarded. 

This is essentially a question of complexity vs depth.

Complexity, by itself, is bad. There is no benefit to the player for making your game more complex just for the sake of being more complex. It's just bloat. So, adding more stats simply to have more stats is a bad thing to do.

However......

Complexity is the coin used to purchase depth. So, if you want to add stats, it is only worth doing if those additional stats lead to real gameplay changes, i.e. the complexity must add depth in order to be worth doing.

Depth is pretty much the holy grail for game developers, but it is also incredibly difficult to achieve. That is why we get tons of RPGs with really complex stat systems, but still lacking in depth.

An example:

I'm playing WAR again on the RoR private server, and it has a complex stat system. For attacking in melee, I have:

• Strength
• Weapon Damage
  
• Crit Chance
• Crit Multiplier
• Melee Power
• Weapon Skill
• (maybe more, im still relatively new to it!)

That's six stats just to determine how hard I hit. That is complex, which by itself is bad.

However, the combat mechanics have relatively good depth to them, so changing your build to focus on differing stats has a genuine effect on gameplay.

Some classes need to crit in order to open up a skill. So, focusing on crit gives them more regular access to to those skills and changes the nature of the game.

Weapon Skill increases armour penetration, so focusing on that stat would make you better at killing tanks at teh expense of raw damage against squishies, and so your ingame focus switches to seeking out tanks.

Likewise, my ironbreaker tank has a knockdown skill that only opens if I block an attack, so it's in my interest to build for blocking in order to have access to that skill. This makes me better against melee enemies, but leaves me slightly more vulnerable to magic attacks.

So, in WAR, the complex stat system leads to real gameplay changes, real depth, and results in emergent gameplay.

Compare that to something like Diablo 3.

D3 also has a complex stat system. There are a hell of a lot of stats in that game, and whilst the primary stats (strength, vit etc) are pretty straight forwards, there are loads of other stats on the gear.

But almost all of it is bloat.

Building for crit instead of raw damage, or avoidance instead of mitigation, has absolutely zero effect on the gameplay. The only stats that have any impact tend to come with the endgame set bonuses, which do change the gameplay in a major way. However, this still doesn't lead to depth, in fact it has the opposite effect: the bonuses are so powerful that it effectively forces you to play a specific way, removing choice.

Finally

One of the major downsides to complexity is that it can be avoided. Sure, it can be fun learning how everything works and experimenting with stats, but most people will skip that step by either resorting to trial-and-error (instead of trying to understand the complexity) or by simply looking up guides and builds online.

TL;DR:

I want as many stats as possible, as long as those stats add to the depth of the system. If they are just added bloat, then there's no point.

Ungood

Only if it makes sense and adds to the fun of the game, and not just stats to throw out stats at people to give them numbers to play with.

Xatsh

More stats are better as it allows for unique builds, situational builds, and specilizations.

With that said the game has to be made to support it. Adding them with no real meaning is pointless. The current trend is ultra simplification and dumbing down of every aspect of the game and it does not seem to be slowing down.

FFXIV and Current WoW for example DPS is the only thing that matters in every single fight. So honestly you could have 1 stat lets call it Item level. The higher it is the more health you have, the less dmg you take, and the more dmg you deal. FFXIV has secondary stats... but the difference is less then 2%... so basically they all do the same thing.

In FFXI for example where it was very horizontal and situational gear was the name of the game. The dozens of stats and effects made the game and gearing actually interesting in my opinion. There was no end all be all set for everything.

Vrika

Ancient_Exile said:

I think D&D/AD&D got it right with the attributes it used.

Strength

Dexterity

Constitution

Intelligence

Wisdom

Charisma

Some games add Luck, but I don't think I like that.  It is possible that Will (as in Willpower) could be added to the list.

I think the correct attributes depend on the game. Each attribute must be linked to something you do in game or some resource you have in game. A game that's all about monster bashing requires different attributes from a game that also ties attributes to a lot of out-of-combat skill checks, and a game with lots of magic requires different attributes from a game with little or no magic.

Ancient_Exile

@Vrika

I see your point.  It is largely because 90%+ of MMORPGs do not include many non-combat skills besides crafting that Int, Wis, and Cha are not as useful as they could be.  Actually, even Str, Dex, and Con are tied to many non-combat skills.  Like bashing in a door, picking a lock, or being able to swim across a river.

Ancient_Exile

@AlBQuirky

The game can be designed to limit or expand your character's options based on your character's Int, Wis, and Cha.

A stupid character might only be given stupid options in a dialogue or be given stupid choices to make if the game included things like that.

A wise character might be given wise options in a dialogue or be given wise choices to make.  2 or 3 choices in a given situation (out of a larger pool of choices which are randomly drawn).  So that a character with the same wisdom score might be given different "wise" choices in the same situation or dialogue.  Although that level of options and randomness might be too much for the programmers.  Maybe.  But it would be cool.

Uncharismatic or ugly characters would be treated differently by NPCs than charismatic or beautiful characters.  Even party cohesion in battle might be effected if a character has low charisma.  So you would want a player character with higher or at least average charisma to be the leader of a party/group.

AlBQuirky

Ancient_Exile said:

@AlBQuirky

The game can be designed to limit or expand your character's options based on your character's Int, Wis, and Cha.

A stupid character might only be given stupid options in a dialogue or be given stupid choices to make if the game included things like that.

A wise character might be given wise options in a dialogue or be given wise choices to make.  2 or 3 choices in a given situation (out of a larger pool of choices which are randomly drawn).  So that a character with the same wisdom score might be given different "wise" choices in the same situation or dialogue.  Although that level of options and randomness might be too much for the programmers.  Maybe.  But it would be cool.

Uncharismatic or ugly characters would be treated differently by NPCs than charismatic or beautiful characters.  Even party cohesion in battle might be effected if a character has low charisma.  So you would want a player character with higher or at least average charisma to be the leader of a party/group.

Agreed, but many gamers, myself included when I'm in a mood, prefer to use their own "stats."

I've watched quite a few streamers play RPGs and their dialogue choices are basically "go right down the list so I don't miss anything." That's not even roleplaying to me, it's "gaming the game."

Here's an example of Fallout: New Vegas's "dumb character" speech options


Unfortunately, the NPC doesn't seem to react to the choices...

Ancient_Exile

@AlBQuirky

Well, we already have a lot of games where players can totally play as themselves if they want.  I think there's room for one MMORPG that encourages actual role-playing.  Even one that gives players incentives and bonuses for doing so.  Most MMORPGs give players absolutely little to no reason to even think about role-playing their characters.