INT and WIS in Angband: A starting point for the discussion

[Mikko Lehtinen]

If we are ever going to progress in making Intelligence and Wisdom more than just spell stats or dump stats, we need to come up with some definitions for them.

I don't think the stats really have any obvious definitions, and I don't want to argue about them.

Instead, I propose that all interested parties, preferably including many Angband devs, write down their definitions of Intelligence and Wisdom secretly. Don't talk among yourselves!

I'm not necessarily looking for real world definitions but ones that you think would suit Angband best.

On 5th of September everybody will post their definitions, as written on the secret note, on a new thread called "INT and WIS definitions". Whoever happens to be the first person here may start the thread.

I'd like any discussion and analysis to be held in new threads, so as to keep the original definitions thread easier to analyse.

Good idea? (Please don't tell what you think about the stats yet!)

[ekolis]

By "would suit Angband best" do you mean "describes the current state of Angband" or "describes my personal vision for the future of Angband"?

[Mikko Lehtinen]

By "would suit Angband best" do you mean "describes the current state of Angband" or "describes my personal vision for the future of Angband"?

The latter. That's why I chose the v4 forum.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

Many kinds of game effects can go just as easily under INT or WIS or both. Having some info on people's personal definitions might help designers.

I'd say definitions that give clearly separate roles for the stats are most useful. Intuitive definitions of INT and WIS tend to overlap a whole lot, and a stricter definition of the terms would help. Of course you may disagree with me. You are free to write example game effects, too.

You are free to suggest alternative names that describe the role of the stats better, too. But for this experiment I'd like you to keep the "spirit" and perhaps the tradition (if you like) of the originals in mind.

I don't want to affect your definitions but I feel I had to say something about the purpose of the experiment.

[LostTemplar]

IMHO three stats are enough, so unite str+con, int+wis, and throw away cha. Then dex will be of low importance, so increase it's value , e.g. shoots/blows per round should depend on it.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

That's one way, sure. I wouldn't unite STR & CON, though. I remember being told by Angband devs that they're both extremely good.

I'd still like to hear people's definitions of INT and WIS before jumping into conclusions. Maybe there's a way to make them interesting while staying at least somewhat true to Angband tradition? Slight renaming could help too? Or should we get all radical? I'm not sure.

I'm willing to let CHR go, though.

[Magnate]

I'd still like to hear people's definitions of INT and WIS before jumping into conclusions. Maybe there's a way to make them interesting while staying at least somewhat true to Angband tradition? Slight renaming could help too? Or should we get all radical? I'm not sure.

I'm willing to let CHR go, though.

Making them interesting depends less on their definitions than on the amount of game content that uses them (I realise that the two are related though).

The main problem at the moment is that there are very few things in the game that use mental stats: spellcasting/mana, devices, saving throw and, er, disarming.

To make them as interesting as physical stats we would need to introduce a lot more mental activity into the game (see variants with psionics). We could, for example, make ESP a function of mental stats (which could be boosted by items rather than provided by them). Ditto trap detection. Perhaps curse detection on items.

[ekolis]

Hmm, interesting... I'd suggest pseudo-ID as another thing that could use mental stats, but since the switch to pretty much exclusive ID-by-use, I guess that's kind of irrelevant now!

[Mikko Lehtinen]

It's easy to come up with new game effects. But if both of the the stats can be be defined as "practical fast thinking", no one will come up with good effects. That's why I'd like to have real, distinct definitions. D&D has had pretty good definitions since the 3rd edition so that it can have logical skill bonuses but we don't have to follow the same route.

Bonus to AC, disarming, stealth, lock picking, searching, mapping, alchemy, religion, monster lore, combat tactics, scroll lore, dungeon lore, ambush sense, willpower in psychic combats, trapping, critical hits, initiative, crafting skills, mana, spell success rate, learning new spells, repairing items, bonus to hit.

With my intuitive definitions I could put any of these under either INT or WIS or both...

[Mikko Lehtinen]

There doesn't seem to be much interest in talking about the roles of INT and WIS in the game. That's okay. I'm still going to post my own definitions on Wednesday.

I'm very interested in thinking how to make INT and WIS more relevant for every class. I did it in Halls of Mist, but I'd like to try to come up with some ideas that suit Angband better.

I honestly have no idea what you all think INT and WIS mean. What kind of a person is a warrior with high INT but low WIS? I was hoping to get some sense of other peoples' definitions, maybe to detect some shared assumptions.

For me CRPG design begins from clear definitions for stats. Then you make up game effects that fit the definition and flavour of the stats as well as possible. Maybe I'm alone in this?

Look what's happened with DEX and STR. Since the stats had so clear intuitive definitions, Derakon could create a flavourful combat system around the stats. Something similar might happen with INT and WIS.

[LostTemplar]

For me CRPG design begins from clear definitions for stats. Then you make up game effects that fit the definition and flavour of the stats as well as possible. Maybe I'm alone in this?

Maybe. E.g. I start form actions, myself. I imagine my characters and monsters and think, what they can do, when I think, what parameters I need to describe this.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

Oh yes. That is actually much more logical when designing a game from scratch.

Maybe I should have said: "For me, CRPG redesign begins from crafting clear definitions for the stats." You have to work with the legacy.

[Derakon]

Angband's legacy is Moria and D&D. You can broadly characterize INT as analytical / "hard" thinking and WIS as intuitive / "soft" thinking. For example, a scientist has a high INT score; a demagogue or psychologist would have a high WIS score. A high-INT/low-WIS person can come up with brilliant ideas without necessarily thinking through the consequences; you could also think of it as "book-smart but street-dumb". Such a person is good at solving puzzles, but bad at solving riddles. A low-INT/high-WIS person would be skilled at working with and understanding other people (or animals, etc.), and would be good at solving riddles, but bad at solving puzzles.

The problem with these definitions is that they don't lend themselves well to game mechanics. Even in D&D you see this, but it's mitigated slightly by the two scores being rolled into skill checks and saving throws -- WIS is important for saving throws to protect your state of mind, while INT is needed for a bunch of skill checks. Of course those become fairly pointless if your campaign doesn't require will saves or the relevant skill checks. Angband has a paucity of skill types that INT could plausibly apply to, though the saving throw is still pretty useful.

I think if you want to have two (let alone three -- CHA is really thrown to the wolves in Angband) mental stats in Angband, you'll really need to reconsider what they are and change what they do. And probably tweak the utility of various approaches to the game so that techniques that require strong mental capabilities can't be reasonably ignored by any player.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

Good to hear you basically agree with me. We need either better definitions (and maybe tweaked names) or to drop one of the stats.

Every time I read a new tabletop RPG book, I tend to slightly redefine and simplify the stat definitions so that I can use all attribute checks in typical game situations. I've done this in retro-D&D versions without skills, too, and I can make INT and WIS work for me.

This kind of preparation is important for me because I tend to like the Fortune decide what happens. I want to feel surprised as a game master; totally controlling the story and applying "GM common sense" to decide who wins a conflict is boring. So I always want to know which attribute to test in a given situation.

I'm so used to thinking about stat definitions in this context that I somehow assumed every GM or game designer does this.

[Nick]

There doesn't seem to be much interest in talking about the roles of INT and WIS in the game. That's okay. I'm still going to post my own definitions on Wednesday.

Hey, I'm interested, but you said not to talk about it until Wednesday