Thoughts on progressive stat systems vs static stat systems?
I'm trying to design an RPG stat and leveling system. I can't decide which style I want to go with. Static ones seem to be more traditional, where you choose (or roll) your stats at the beginning, and barring few exceptions, they remain the same. Sort of like in Fallout where you can get implants, bobbleheads, or perks to raise your SPECIAL stats, but it's limited so you aren't meant to get everything to 10 on every character. These systems are pretty good for constantly feeling the consequences of your character, even as you get more advanced. Your starting 3 in strength is always going to limit your ability to use Physical weapons, or carry heavy things.
Then there's the system that I mostly know from Elder Scrolls (my main inspiration for this game), where the skills you advance determine what Attributes you can raise at level up. If done properly, it's possible to get all attributes to 100, or you can fall horribly short at high levels based on how well you optimize. The issue then becomes "How do you make playing at low attribute levels acceptable and normal while still making high levels something desirable" If your starting Spell Points feels like it's already enough, why should a player put points into Intelligence? If your starting speed is fast enough, why put more points into speed? It's not necessarily a hard question to answer, but it's the approach and method that holds all the nuance.

People who have played many older RPGs, what games do these sorts of stat systems good and bad, and Elaborate on why.

If you're making a proper RPG, you go with the old school static system.
The limitations of your character isn't (or should be) a restriction on the content you can experience, but a reason to look for different solutions to a given problem. The modern system takes that away and replaces it with "you can do this now if you have the stats or do it later when you get the stats". It takes away the meaning of your choices and RPGs are all about making choices.

>>3788292 (OP)
Depends on if your game has multiple solutions to quests and levels.

>>3788312
I can see what you mean. It risks turning it away from labeling your character's natural abilities, and more toward just secondary levels or skills. As the game goes on, a player is more likely to think functionally rather than thematically. "I need to grind up strength for a few levels because my weapon damage is a bit low" instead of "Aruthor the Wise has low physical strength, so he must use his brain to outsmart foes, and decimate them with magic."

Morrowind actually had a couple points where it went "You don't have the Strength/Speed to keep going. sucks to be you" but then put infinitely respawning enemies that all drop fortify strength/speed drinks that have effects that stack as many times as you can drink them. Kind of a weird proof of concept that doesn't really amount to much.

>>3788327
Also consider the effect it has on your thinking when designing the game. If grinding is an option then you're less likely to spend extra effort to come up with different solutions to every situation to accommodate for different builds.

>>3788328
Skill checks are probably only going to be in place for certain rare things.
Like, you find a book on ancient magicks that you need to use to bypass a magical barrier. You might need to search for an expert in that type of magic to help devise a trinket to help break the shield, or if you've got the skill in that magic type, you can just learn the spell yourself after the expert translates the language for you.
Or just simple things like needing to prove you have a bit of skill in martial combat to advance through the warrior's guild, or the military legion. because if you're not planning on using a blunt weapon, why do you join the hits-things-with-a-club club.
I'm not all that big a fan of the "have skill, quest complete. otherwise, you get to actually play the game" design, but modifying quests to at least acknowledge your skills sounds like a lot of fun.

>>3788335
I lot of this depends on how you make the game but the:
>"have skill, quest complete. otherwise, you get to actually play the game" design
Can still creep up on you even if you try to avoid it. Take your own example of the ancient magicks book. If you have the skill you get to continue on with the quest right away but if you don't you need to backtrack to some town, find some expert and yada yada and then continue with the quest.

>>3788292 (OP)
I prefer Static but always peer over at Progressive, thinking how that might be fun. But then I remember shit like maxing something but jumping everywhere and I realize I shouldn't be able to gamify it. But then again that's really skills and not stats.
I would prefer Static with something like gateways where at this point you can raise X stat, and it better mean something.

>>3788425
That gives me an idea. Maybe I could use that to incentivise doing as many dungeons as possible.
Maybe upon clearing out a dungeon, you could get an inspiration point (or multiple if it's a particularly hard one) and once you get enough of them, you can use them to upgrade one stat point. But you might need more every time to keep you from just grinding everything to max.
There could also be feat rewards. Like once you finish the Mages guild questline or something, you get a permanent +1 to Intelligence.

>>3788441
Not him.
Don't waste feats or perks with stat bumps. They can be so much more interesting if they actually change or introduce some new mechanic. Think Underrail feats.

>>3788292 (OP)
As a guy who has played a lot of RPGs, you need to avoid attributes. As a player, you hate fucking up your build at the start and only realizing it 15 hours in. I recommend avoiding the pitfall of punishing the players who want to min-max. If people want to play as a weak archer, let them. If people want to play a demi-god with perfect stats, let them. As much shit as people give Skyrim, the devs were correct when designing the skill system.

>>3788482
I'm going to try and make the stat system simple enough that you don't really need to try hard to understand it. Hopefully leaving little room to mess it up early on if you just don't do something completely retarded. You'll be able to see a little paragraph on what each attribute actually does when you get started so you can at least make a somewhat informed choice. "Oh, so Wisdom helps my spell power? cool, guess I should put some points into that so I don't make a bad mage."
I don't want to do the bullshit "Nah, you can't even touch this weapon. It requires 18 Strength, and you've only got 17."

I know how bad it is to make a suboptimal character, and be forced to live with it, but in well designed systems, it's still viable to have low skills in certain areas.

The reason why they abandoned the system in Skyrim was because they sucked at making low attributes bearable to play with, couldn't stop high attributes from being stupidly overpowered, or couldn't make the difference between low and high great enough to feel like a meaningful upgrade. Sometimes a combination of the three.
Meanwhile, in Fallout 4, they managed to actually make the Special system a lot better by giving them all a good range of benefits and perks to create your own widely diverse playstyle. It's the only Fallout game without a "stat that you're an idiot for not cranking up to 9 or 10 immediately"

Now that I really spell that out, I think I answered my own question from the beginning. Static is probably the way to go. RPGs are already hard enough to balance, but trying something that made a studio like Bethesda just go "y'know what, fuck it. it goes to the block" is probably not a smart idea.

>>3788292 (OP)
I think an import thing for you would be to sit down and decide on some basic prinicples for the system. What is it that you want the system to make possible? Once you have that in place you can start working on the technical details. But it's very hard to work on the technical details if you haven't decided on basic principles to guide you. And then you don't have to ask "What is the best [thing]?", because you can answer that yourself by just applying your basic principles. You haven't specified in what way TES is an inspiration: Is it the mechanics, or the world?
>>3788312
This guy gets it. Limitations are definitions. They give shape to a character, and thus to the story. Without shape, everything falls apart. A system where choices are sacrifices makes for truly interesting games, it's not a loss. And coming up with different solutions will also be a good experience for OP.

>>3788591
good points here.
I was mostly asking for some semi-anecdotal experiences with different types of RPG stat systems to explore the concepts more so I can better decide on what would work better for my game. Sometimes it can take multiple playthroughs of a game to really get a feel for the flaws in a system's design. Before my most recent couple playthroughs of Morrowind, I wouldn't have said there was any issue in the way it implements Attributes, and would possibly try to re-implement it nearly one-to-one. I haven't played nearly enough RPGs to consider myself well versed in their design.

This game is going to be a dungeon crawler first and foremost where you choose or create your class. There will be various skills that contribute to level ups through progression. That's why I called it an Elder Scrolls inspired game.
What brought this out is theorycrafting potential character growth mechanics using the systems of Morrowind and Skyrim as main inspiration. I want to tap into the feeling of old school number cruncher games without the often associated tedium and opaqueness associated with those old games. I've described it to co-workers as "What I assumed Arena would be like after only playing Skyrim"

In this thread, I was hoping to hear about examples from older classic RPGs about ways that these stat systems could be used properly, or poorly. From the sounds of it, The Elder Scrolls style of growing your attributes throughout the game isn't all that common at all, and potentially for good reason.

>>3788603
>From the sounds of it, The Elder Scrolls style of growing your attributes throughout the game isn't all that common at all, and potentially for good reason.
They aren't different from raising any other kind of number.

The mistake that TES made was allowing players the choice to grind all attributes up, instead of focusing on 2-3 primary attributes.

>>3788292 (OP)
The value of character growth systems is entirely dependent on the narrative and the structure of the game, not the other way around.

The main problem with having any skills/stats that increase based on how much you do them isn't grinding, but rather that it forces you to make choices to improve your build rather than to achieve a desired outcome narratively or strategically.

For example, say you have to get an item from a group of people and could kill them, talk them down, pickpocket it, etc. You want to sneak up in the night and pickpocket the item without being spotted so that in the future you'll have no trouble with them. But your speech skill/charisma stat is looking pretty low at the moment, and you want to convince some guy to join your party or something in the future, so you decide to take the diplomatic route and pay them for the item, or promise them a favour they'll collect in the future, or intimidate them and get on their shitlist, etc. You were forced to take a particular action and get a suboptimal outcome because of the awkward leveling system rather than because of your own roleplaying or poor decisionmaking.

Basically the only RPGs where the learn by doing system can work and doesn't feel terrible are RPGs where narrative choices are not influenced by stats/skills or are entirely cosmetic (eg. Skyrim) or purely combat focused RPGs (eg. Marauder). Colony Ship RPG used a learn by using system and it was one of the two terrible things about the game that dragged all the great stuff down (the other being the three major factions).

forgot picture

>>3788690
>it forces you
>you decide to take the diplomatic route
>You were forced

>>3788706
Yes. You are forced to make a decision you don't want to make because otherwise you won't have enough stats to do the shit you wanna do.

>>3788708
Maybe the game should "force" you to focus on that stat if you want to use it

Or maybe "force" you to increase it some other way

>>3788711
The logical solution is to just do what nearly every other RPG since the dawn of man has done and just give the player complete or almost complete freedom in what stats/skills to improve. If you want to be good at talking, put points into it when you level up, or when you do a notable deed, or when you visit a skill trainer.

>>3788726
This genre is big enough for both approaches and preferences.

>>3788726
I hate the “things go up as you use them” because it incentivizes playing in gamey and an inorganic fashion to optimize gains, which is the opposite of the point. IMO feels a lot better when it’s “here you go, kill stuff however you want and get some xp/gold”.

Last time I played a tes game, I modded it so that skills don’t increase at all except by training. Go earn some money and then train whatever you want, and don’t train what you don’t want. Feels much better imo and I would do the same in any future tes replays.

>>3788744
>playing in gamey and an inorganic fashion
Did you ever try playing normally? Develop skills naturally, and get some training lessons?

Seems like your solution was just to restrain you from grinding, or whatever you did to "optimize"

>>3788761
>Develop skills naturally
How many thousands spell casts you need to level up a skill like restoration in Oblivion?

>>3788767
What does it matter?

>>3788770
Because it takes much less casts to level Conjuration, enough to feel leveling it natural. Leveling Restoration is the opposite of natural, at least there was no training limit in Morrowind and that was not an issue.

>>3788711
Alternatively your returns are relative to the stat requirement.
Got 5 strength for a 10 strength sword, you do 50% damage with it. You got 15 strength you do 150%. It helps keep low stat equipment viable and doesn't lock out the high stat eq. for those who didn't spec.
Same thing with events, you dumped int. and are trying to bumbe through diplomcay... Well you succeded but the xp rewards are reduced because, even though you succeded for narative purposes pises you didn't do a particularly good job at it.

>>3788786
>Leveling Restoration
Why are you concerned with leveling? It comes naturally over time, and you can supplement with training lessons.

I do remember that a breton mage can reach journeyman restoration by level 2 with training. I didn't bother rushing it.

>>3788312
No, that's stupid. You want your RPG to try to model reality in at least some form. That's why D&D's system was fucking retarded, short of far rarer disability than the stat implies, some 7 STR weakling isn't going to stay 7 STR when they're forced to do a lot of physical work.

>>3788788
What's the points of stats if you can succeed with everything at its minimum? Just remove them and provide progression with gear instead.

>>3788292 (OP)
It doesn't really matter as long as you avoid a "be good at combat" skill compete a "get more content" skill or similar unfun decisions

>>3788804
There is no reason why RPGs should model reality at all unless they are explicitly simulationist. The primary purpose of an RPG is to be a fun gaming and roleplaying experience. Sometimes in trying to achieve those goals you will by coincidence model reality to some extent. But more often than that attempting to model reality will preclude those two goals.

>>3788804
Some abstraction is better. For a classic example 99% of games with a hunger bar should not have it

>>3788825
I'm not arguing for a perfect simulation of reality, I'm saying you need some relation to it. Stats not improving is a huge breach that only gets away with it because of tradition.

>>3788834
Depends how granular you want your system.
If, in your 7 STR example, the attributes can go as high as a 100, then sure maybe STR should improve somewhat.
But if you're already 7 STR out of a maximum of 10, how much are you improving, really? You may need something more "expensive" in terms of character progression, like finding a cybernetic implant and a doctor to perform the operation. Or maybe spend a rare(ish) perk to focus on your STR.

>>3788292 (OP)
Static > Progressive for the following reasons:
Static stats work better at conveying your character's actual attributes. If your character has 15 Intelligence at the start of Oblivion - what does that mean? Nothing. What does 100 Intelligence mean? Nothing. There isn't a clear definition of what these stats mean for your ROLEplay, it's just meaningless numbers. Meanwhile, if your character has 3 Intelligence throughout Fallout - he or she is clearly a knuckledragger. And if he or she is 9 - that's clearly a genius.
Constantly progressing stats also mean that your character is hardly defined. While something like Strength can usually be trained with exercise and a diet, you can't really work out your brain until you gain 50 extra IQ, you can at most learn more information and become more knowledgeable. A static attribute system allows keeping your character with defined strengths and weaknesses inherent to him or her.
Additionally, this is not necessarily on topic, but I think it'll be useful info to you - DO NOT make bullshit stat systems where only a couple stats are important to a given archetype. Take notes from Fallouts, most notable New Vegas, where most stats were engaged in most builds.
STR was useful to melees because raw damage increase but also useful to shooters because certain guns were heavy and required certain STR.
AGI was useful to shooters because of reload speed, but also useful to melee because of the Slayer perk granting extra melee attack speed.
A GOOD attribute system will make it so the player can have a given attribute at any amount and it will be useful for SOME build (STR at 1 because I only use lightweight knives and pistols, STR at 2 because my magnum pistol requires 2, [skip] STR at 5 because I use medium rifles and need the Super Slam perk, [skip] STR at 8 because I use very heavy weapons, etc). Otherwise there is no point in allowing us to pick certain stat thresholds.

>>3789643
>Static stats work better at conveying your character's actual attributes. If your character has 15 Intelligence at the start of Oblivion what does that mean? Nothing.
That's not about static vs strength. Otherwise you could have used strength attribute as an example.

You could argue that "Intelligence" is a poor term for magicka pool

>>3789655
>That's not about static vs strength
What does that mean?
>Otherwise you could have used strength attribute as an example.
Any attribute can be used as an example. Those stats do not actually convey the real abilities of the character on a scale from barely functional to peak perfomance.
>You could argue that "Intelligence" is a poor term for magicka pool
Not sure how that's relevant, either.

>>3789682
>>That's not about static vs strength
>What does that mean?
Oops, I meant static vs progressive

Your issue seems to be their effects, not that they can be improved.

>>3789693
It's a multifaceted issue.
Progressive stat systems don't usually allow you to have even one of your stats at max. If an RPG doesn't allow you to start off with a genius character because he hasn't killed enough rats - it's idiotic and unimmersive. Generally a character with low stats across the board at the beginning feels unimmersive.
And the issue with them being improvable was addressed in this part of the post:
>Constantly progressing stats also mean that your character is hardly defined. While something like Strength can usually be trained with exercise and a diet, you can't really work out your brain until you gain 50 extra IQ, you can at most learn more information and become more knowledgeable. A static attribute system allows keeping your character with defined strengths and weaknesses inherent to him or her.

>>3789643
>Constantly progressing stats also mean that your character is hardly defined. While something like Strength can usually be trained with exercise and a diet, you can't really work out your brain until you gain 50 extra IQ, you can at most learn more information and become more knowledgeable. A static attribute system allows keeping your character with defined strengths and weaknesses inherent to him or her.
Functional intelligence is also a product of exercise, diet and a million other things. If you're talking about innate potential physical stats have similar limits; most people cannot train their way to a 600 pound bench press or a 2:15 marathon.

>>3789704
>Progressive stat systems don't usually allow
But they could?
>Constantly progressing stats also mean that your character is hardly defined
Why?

>>3789734
>But they could?
If you want this conversation to be civilized - I have to ask you to stop using the effeminate faggy passive-aggressive "Using a statement as a question" mannerism. I won't storm out or anything, I'll just stop being friendly.
Something I want to clarify is I poorly worded that sentence. They usually don't allow you to have even one of your stats at maximum AT THE BEGINNING. It could have been extrapolated from the rest of the paragraph, but I'll clarify anyway.
They COULD, theoretically, allow such a thing, but practically, I can scarcely see a system that both engages stat progression properly and allows for these stats to meaningfully reflect the character's nature.
>Why?
You have the answer in the second sentence. While I'm not willing to cease a constructive conversation over hostile mannerisms, I will cease a constructive conversation if one of the sides outright refuses to read.
>Functional intelligence is also a product of exercise, diet and a million other things.
Mostly a technicality mentioning very subtle improvements, if not outright dogshit pseudoscience.
>most people cannot train their way to a 600 pound bench press or a 2:15 marathon.
Which only serves to support my stance on static stats. If a 1 STR guy in an RPG cannot guzzle protein shakes until he's 10 - that sounds like something that should be conveyed by a static stat system.

>>3789717
I forgot to reply to you in my post >>3789769
My bad.

>>3789769
>They COULD, theoretically, allow such a thing
Maybe OP or someone finds a way.
>you can't really work out your brain until you gain 50 extra IQ
Maybe instead of "Intelligence" or "IQ", the stat could be named Wisdom or Knowledge

Then a character could be defined as wise, or perhaps a seeker of knowledge. Something most would associate with intelligence.

I don't know about direct comparisons, but I've been playing KOTOR and I hate the levelling system a fuckton. Especially in regards to levelling skills.
You get X skill points per level, but you can only raise a skill once or twice per level. You can't dump points into a certain skill and off-class skills eating twice the skill points just disincentives varying your build (in conjunction with it being a part-based rpg making certain skills useless for the player to invest in at all). The game may as well not give me the option to raise any skills myself at all.

>>3789782
>Maybe OP or someone finds a way.
Lad can't even decide which system to go for, let alone how to salvage the mistakes of one of these systems. Static does its job well, progression can be handled by skills and perks.
>Maybe instead of "Intelligence" or "IQ", the stat could be named Wisdom or Knowledge
Never use Wisdom. Nobody fucking understands what Wisdom is and can never come to a consensus about it. Intelligence is enough and always has been. Knowledge once again can just be conveyed through experience and new perks/skills.
Personally, and this is going to sound heretical to some, but I think attributes are better off not even being used, because it constantly leads to them being disconnected from the roleplay. I figure just using skills and perks should be enough for an RPG, with attributes being left up to the interpretation of the player. I've had so many RPGs put me into a situation where "This gentleman knight sucks because I put a bunch of points into Perception and Intelligence to make him seem like a refined individual and now he can't do warrior things for shit".

>>3789830
>Personally, and this is going to sound heretical to some, but I think attributes are better off not even being used
Now we're talking. I agree.

>>3789830
>Personally, and this is going to sound heretical to some, but I think attributes are better off not even being used, because it constantly leads to them being disconnected from the roleplay.
I agree with this as well.
Instead of attributes we could have "Strong", "Wise", "Retard" and similar other character traits that you could pick (similar to Daggerfall advantages/disadvantages system) to convey what the attributes are meant to do but without muddling the waters with pointless granularity that usually is all-or-nothing anyway.

>>3789841
Getting even better.

>>3789832
>>3789841
I didn't expect to find likeminded people in such a niche and turbulent subject. A pleasant surprise.

It doesn't matter as long as it's implemented correctly, which is to say, in a way where the choices of the player are recognized and incorporated by the game

If you have str and agi but there's no tangible difference between a str or agi build then you may as well not make a distinction

Similarly if having a skill at 100 instead of 50 doesn't change anything - no new skills or abilities, no greater proficiency in combat let's say because enemies scale to you anyway - then the only players who will be satisfied are ones who want to max stuff for its own sake, and relying entirely on the player to generate meaning is poor design

"The player suffers a narcissistic injury when the game ignores them" I forget who said that, but basically the point of a game is impactful feedback because the feature that differentiates it from other media is its collaborative nature of creation with the interpreter

>>3789946
>"The player suffers a narcissistic injury when the game ignores them" I forget who said that
Gabe Newell?

>>3788292 (OP)
>"How do you make playing at low attribute levels acceptable and normal while still making high levels something desirable"
>If your starting Spell Points feels like it's already enough, why should a player put points into Intelligence?
I think your problem is that you are going the wrong way about what a build even is.
It's fine if 3 Int is enough to cast the one spell player need for his character's playstyle/RP, as long as 5 Int bring more, and 6 Int even more, etc.
Making a build/char is about picking what you won't do has much as what you will.

>>3788441
>Maybe I could use that to incentivise doing as many dungeons as possible.
I vaguely remember a private WoW server bruteforcing that really hard.
Every piece of new gear you loot from a boss, you get to keep 1% of its stat, forever, always.
Meant every single dungeon is worth doing until you get all the loot in it, because it's always going to bring a few more % stats.

>>3788292 (OP)
>People who have played many older RPGs, what games do these sorts of stat systems good and bad, and Elaborate on why.
Avoid hard stats thresholds. The difference between 18 strength in AD&D and 19 strength was ridiculous.
Avoid semi-thresholds. D&D has this bad habit that character stats only actually matter on even numbers, so getting +1 to a stat often lead to fucking nothing.
Avoid large randomness with low stats bons. D&D does this a ton and it make low level build feel pointless because RNG will still be the main factor between a character that has gone all in on something vs one who didn't invest in it at all.

>have you tried not playing D&D?
OP asked what not to do with RPG. The answer will always include a lot of D&D examples.

>>3790454
I think there's a way to do stat thresholds well, but those are good examples of not doing them well because the issue is a brittle cliff where on one side of the threshold the action is impossible and on the other it's likely.

A good system that still has thresholds: at 16 agi, anything you can now do that you couldn't at 15 agi, only makes sense because while your chance was previously 0%, now it's low, and with more points it becomes proportionally better
Success is always probabilistic, but the reason you don't possess a skill is because your probability to perform it is 0%. Once you gain the ability to do it maybe your probability is now 5% or 20% (depending on how your stat system is balanced), and more stats increases your probability. A threshold like this makes sense because the 15 agi character wouldn't even realize they're capable of the action because their potential to perform it is absent. You could argue the 15 agi character should be able to try anyway and have a 0% (or maybe 1 or 5% again depending on your stat system and attitude toward miracle outcomes like auto success when you roll a 20), but in that case you'd have to not have any meaningful differentiation between character classes

>>3790533
As a rule of thumb, never expect your system to be fixed thanks to low probabilities.
This isn't at ttrpg you are making, it's a vidya. Save-scumming *will* be used.
Pretty much every single game with pick-pocketing end up with "just save-scum" as the default (due to the "meh-to-god-tier rewards, vs all-town-on-your-ass penalty" aspect).

>>3790538
Yeah, I don't necessarily like probability based outcomes in the first place "normally you can dodge a dragon but in that particular instance a goblin was able to deal critical damage to you" is kind of stupid. I think there are ways around save scumming but it should be a design philosophy to make it less necessary rather than punish it.

>>3788744
In Morrowind skills basically do only increase by training. You hit stuff to get better for the first 30 or 40 levels or so and after that it gets so glacially slow that you just use some of your dragon's hoard to pay trainers instead. It's a pretty good system already.

>>3789946
>The player suffers a narcissistic injury when the game ignores them
What a fucking pretentious way to phrase that. Whoever came up with that sentence must be an absolute cunt.