Stats and Training in Numenera
Whether they’re called ability scores, stats, or something else, most games have some numerical value to rate the basic inherent ability of a character. Most games also have some kind of mechanic that reflects training (ability gained through practice). Numenera has both of these concepts too, but they work differently than many games.
Stats
There are three stats in Numenera: Might/Health, Speed/Agility, and Intellect/Personality. But we just call them Might, Speed, and Intellect for simplicity. They represent exactly what you would think they do.
Any kind of action taken by a player character in the game can be assigned to a stat. Jumping is a Might action. Dodging an attack is a Speed action. Talking your way past a guard is an Intellect action. And so on. This is only really relevant, however, if the action in question is one that the player really wants to focus on. To do this, he or she spends points from the relavant stat to put “effort” into the action. This makes the action easier to do (and thus, makes it more likely to succeed. Points from stats can be regained, of course, but it’s still a finite resource. Thus, a player should only put effort into the actions important to them.
Training
Training also goes into reducing the difficulty of tasks. If you’re an experienced climber, climbing a steep, rocky incline is probably easier for you than someone who has never climbed before. If putting effort into an action makes it one “step” easier, then so does training. It works precisely the same way. It’s possible to get two steps of training, and it’s possible, of course, to put effort into something you’re trained to do. These things all “stack.”
Numenera also introduces a concept that I’m calling an “inability” right now. This is like the opposite of a skill. It’s an area in which your character does not excel. For example, a character might be particularly bad with people. Or clumsy. These are represented by inabilities. The cool thing is, with training and inabilities, we can take a system that has only three broad stats and really flesh out a character. For example, you might have a good Intellect stat. Intellect, of course, represents both intelligence and charm. But not everyone who excels in one does so in the other. So you might have a good Intellect, but an inability with lore. This might suggest that you’re smart and charismatic, but you’re just not good with scholarly pursuits. Or, imagine the opposite character. She’s smart, educated, and even bookish, with training in all kinds of areas, but she’s got an inability with personal interactions. She’s better with books than with people.
As I said in the character creation blog, generating a standard character is quick once you know what you’re doing. The three choices you make help determine all these things. But tinkerers can tinker with not only stats but also training, inabilities, and more, so you get a character that truly fits your concept. Because to me, that’s what it’s all about–fitting a concept, not just min-maxing.
If this all sounds intriguing or interesting, please check out the Numenera Kickstarter crowdfunding campaign.
-
Ahh, exactly what I’ve been waiting for. The idea of your ability scores being finite is incredibly appealing, especially as a resource. I’m actually kinda blown away (in a good way) by the concept. A question for you, however:
There are many games with ‘flaws’ or ‘inabilities,’ is there some sort of new plan with how they function? In example, would they be required or something to choose ‘optionally?’ I’ve always loved White Wolf for this very reason, choosing flaws and then advantages in a sort of exchange of good for bad, and I’m curious if this will be a similar experience, or if you have something wholly new in store.
Every time you post information, July seems farther and farther away; keep it up!
-
You bring such interesting new concepts up and had fears getting 20k? Keep up the great work.
-
This basically mean that we’ll be using “stamina” for swinging swords and casting spells? If so it sounds truly interesting…
-
I’ll go ahead and guess that Intellect is the stat a character type like the Nano would be interested in when casting magic. I have no clue how this inability or flaw will work. But its sounds like a juicy opportunity for role play!
-
Why must a stat be tied to a class? When i was teaching my daughter D&D, she wanted a “arcane healer who jsut knew magic, and was agile like spiderman”. D&D has long bound stats to classes, but that’s not the only way. The Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes movies show someone who fights with Intellect, and I’m sure we can picture a swashbuckler vs. a bruiser for Speed and Might. Why not be able to make a Glaive of all three? Or a Nano or Jack?
-
I suspect you might have misinterpreted that statement. You can easily have a smart glaive or a strong nano.
-
-
-
Overall I like this approach. The effort mechanic seems similar to some diceless systems I have played. I’m also very curious how the “inabilities” will work. With the exception of Fate RPG, I have been largely unsatisfied with how flaw mechanics work.
I am not so keen on the dual stat names (just a minor issue). I would probably go with generally broader terms: Might, Grace, and Psyche (just off the top of my head). The dichotomies suggested by the presentations in the article make me think about the individual elements and then makes me think how different they really are. Even though you can customize those by adding training and inabilities it seems that the names automatically bias a player into think of those stats in fairly specific ways. For instance Intellect/Personality makes me think of brains and charm but not necessarily wisdom for instance.
Silly mental exercise I know. Personally the single word stats also add to the narrative approach for me.
Still, I really like the direction that all of this is going.
-
This way of handling stats, skills, and disadvantages seems both simple and elegant–very nice.
-
This reminds me not a little of the FUDGE system, and a very good way. Many systems seem to derive a character from stats, but this is counter-intuitive; I almost always start, especially with new players, with the question “What’s your character like?” Then, I select the traits, classes and skills appropriate to match that description. But this tactic is often swimming upstream against systems that say “Start by rolling dice, then select a race, then class then skills, then…”
Numenera keeps getting better and better!
-
I can understand with might you only have so much energy but intellect? So if I concentrate real hard on something I can’t concentrate again for some period of time? Not sure I buy it.
-
John, that is called fatigue and it happens to all of us, so yeah I get the concept and I dig it
-
-
I can buy being mentally exhausted from something, albeit temporarily. Have you ever been tired? Or worked long hours at a project and found your thoughts hard to focus?
I’m quite curious about inability. That’s a simple way to approach the subject matter of rounding out a character. Will there be a list of inabilities? A suggested list? We’re still early into our glimpses of the rules of course so I realize this could all change.
-
I’m worried about the limited number of stats … how enticed is someone going to be to take an “inability”? Will a character be encouraged enough not to just slap their numbers into those duo stats and gain the benefit of high values in each? A fighter, for example, who likes big weapons and armor – who typically doesn’t see himself as a speedy guy – might just leave his Speed stat unchanged so he can gain that upper hand in initiative, when really it was the Agility he had intentionally raised to improve his chances to hit. This seems like an easy way to maximize your character without sacrificing anything.
How will having 3 paired stats really be any better than 6 independent stats?
-
John, try reading 100 pages on economy. Tell me how much you understood. Now read 100 more. Now another hundred… You see, the mind gets tired just like the body does.
I like the fact that this seems to be a system that handles all types of fatigue instead of just “spell slots”. But then, this is just me reading between lines.
-
“But tinkerers can tinker with not only stats but also training, inabilities, and more, so you get a character that truly fits your concept. Because to me, that’s what it’s all about–fitting a concept, not just min-maxing.”
Monte… you are singing my song! That is what I have been asking for, concept first and then tinker with the tools… love this idea!
-
I guess I’m not the only one looking to fast forward to jul 2013 then.
-
What? Is not tomorrow? We need a damn time machine!
Or we can FF it to just Monte’s advances
-
-
-
Oh I can not wait to get my hands on this.
-
I like spending points to put “effort” into something. Trail of Cthulhu ( the Gumshoe system) has this, and it lets the players decide when to shine.
-
Pingback: The Stat Problem « Erich T. Wade
-
Seems a good system, in my head I’m naturally mapping it to the shadow of yesterday, with it’s three pools of points for stats: vigor, instinct, reason, and I imagine with a certain amount of twist you could do the same with it’s skill system; being fudge based it has a similar kind of “the difference between ratings gives you the probability” dynamic.
The inabilities is obviously a serious divergence, it seems like you’re going for a higher general level of competence, and more rigid application of your competencies, which makes sense in an exploration based game:
Instead of wangling skills you have to apply them to a wide variety of situations, carefully assessing the applicability of your trainings and deficiencies to the situation at hand can mean better fidelity representation of the world.
One thing I would point out as a slight advantage of the shadow of yesterday system, is that their definitions of stat pools blur from social to physical, so that instinct is both quickness, agility, social intuition and streetwiseness. Vigour equally involves partying and enthusing people as much as it does swinging swords or taking blows. etc.
This is useful in that it means that the pools help set the style by which your character responds to various different situations, rather than sticking to a kind of activity. At the moment it seems a bit like your intellect/personality will be far more naturally applied to social events than the other two.
-
I don’t know how your rolls, stats, or opposed checks work out, but the way you describe skills ‘stacking’ seems very similar to my game that I’m building. Though I’m trying to avoid all rolls.
-
Pingback: Numenera – Actions in Numenera
24 Comments