C7's Explanation About No Traits in the 2nd Edition

[Escher]

cubicle7games.com/blog/Doctor-Who-Second-Edition-traits-Revised

Where did all the traits go?

One of the main design elements in the First Edition of Doctor Who: The Roleplaying Game was the Traits you could pick for your characters. They offered a great way to round out your character. If your character was attractive, a good mechanic, intuitive about the weather, or many other interesting things, you could get a specific bonus to manage that in the game. So, it’s a fair question to ask why we chose to remove them for the Second Edition.

The main reason is that there were too many. After several supplements, each with new Traits, the list was becoming exhaustive. Some Traits were better than others as well, leaving plenty of options to unbalance the player group. It was also becoming difficult to have enough points to buy everything you needed. They stopped becoming a nice extra for character flavour, and turned into a broad ocean of things you might need. With the new edition, we wanted something that was more streamlined and easier for the Gamemaster and players, and wouldn’t become unmanageable as we expanded the line.

That is where your character’s Focus comes in. Your Focus is that one big Trait effectively, but it’s not all your character can do. Many companions had a particular trait that drove their character. For Amy Pond it was her curiosity; for Clara it was her intellect; Jo Grant was always trying to see the good in people. This doesn’t mean it is the only thing they did though: Amy could be clever; Clara was often curious; even Jo Grant could be confrontational on occasion. They tended to shine in a particular area, even if that was what often got them into trouble.

While they may have gone from the character sheet, Traits are still hidden in the design, but in a more narrative way. Story Points are effectively all the other traits you think your character should have. Let’s take the ‘Phobia’ Trait as an example. It was meant to be for characters who had a real fear of something specific, or who physically are unable to go near something. However, it was easy to end up taking something like arachnophobia just to gain a few extra points to spend on Skills. The Trait hardly came into effect, unless they ended up on Metebelis III or deep underground in Sheffield. This can all be handled with some roleplaying, the player remembering that the character has a phobia. And playing in character, keeping true to their background and experiences, means the Gamemaster can reward them with a Story Point or two. 

A Trait like ‘Keen Senses’ can be easily explained with a Story Point, too. Your character is observant, but if they need to be particularly keen-eyed to spot something important, a Story Point can give them a little boost, or change the result of the roll for the better.

There are a few things that even Story Points can’t do. You can’t just decide your character is telepathic or has natural claws with a couple of Story Points — at least, not usually. For this we use Distinctions. These replace the Special Traits that made your character alien, powered, or unique in some way. They may also provoke Story Point spends as well as offering a power or ability. A telepathic character might spend a Story Point to sense an especially strong emotion in an NPC. While empathy is not covered specifically in telepathy, it’s reasonable to believe a telepathic character might be able to pick up on a strong empathic signal. In this way we can collate many of the Doctor’s wide range of strange Time Lord abilities into a smaller list with all the minor oddities becoming Story Point spends. So, instead of creating a complex series of Traits for a Time Lord’s ability to resist radiation, you might allow a Time Lord to use a Story Point to put the radiation into one of their shoes, especially if they never use this ability again. A Distinction doesn’t just give you a special ability, it adds a new facet to your character that you can build on during the game.

Essentially, Traits haven’t actually left Doctor Who: The Roleplaying Game. The special Traits have become Distinctions, while everything else can be accomplished through potential Story Point spends, all of which is then guided by your character’s Focus and your roleplaying.

-Andrew Peregrine, one of Cubicle 7’s renowned Doctor Who RPG writers. 

[misterharry]

Yeah, I read this but I'm still not convinced by the 2nd edition, and the removal of Traits is one of the main reasons.

Some of the examples of Traits given in the opening paragraph are a bit odd. Attractive, fair enough. A good mechanic? That's an Area of Expertise (which survive in 2e as Specialisations), not a Trait. Technically Adept is too broad and also covers elecontrics and so on. As for being intuitive about the weather, where does that come from? Possibly Alien Senses, but that's a stretch.

Anyway, I don't agree that Focus, Distinctions and Story Points are an adequate replacement for Traits. It has a tendency to lead to bland characters who have to spend more Story Points to achieve things. Not only that, but if you want a character who - to use an example from the above quote - has the equivalent of Keen Senses, you can spend Story Points to do the same thing. But it misses the point that every other character has the option to do the same, so that's not anything special to you any more.

Of course, others prefer a less crunchy system, so it's all just my opinion, and YMMV.

[Stormcrow]

They say it was to prevent the proliferation of traits as they publish, but I always felt that's what the Special trait was for.

It's true that fans have a tendency to collect traits and consider them essential and "canonical," so they only have themselves to blame for the change...

[misterharry]

I also don't agree with the reasons given in this para of their statement:

The main reason is that there were too many. After several supplements, each with new Traits, the list was becoming exhaustive. Some Traits were better than others as well, leaving plenty of options to unbalance the player group. It was also becoming difficult to have enough points to buy everything you needed. They stopped becoming a nice extra for character flavour, and turned into a broad ocean of things you might need. With the new edition, we wanted something that was more streamlined and easier for the Gamemaster and players, and wouldn’t become unmanageable as we expanded the line.

The number of Traits available is purely down to Cubicle 7 publishing new ones with each supplement. If it was becoming a problem, stop introducing new ones! Though as Escher has said, it's not as if gamers have been complaining about this.

A genuine complaint could be that the more Traits there are on a character sheet, the more difficult it is to keep track of roll modifiers in the heat of the moment. In practice, most PCs have up to maybe half a dozen Traits - they don't need more unless they're power-gamers of some description. So the problem of keeping track of them is more an issue for the GM when dealing with complicated monsters with a dozen or more Traits - but a GM doesn't have to stick by the detail at all.

Yes, some Traits are "better than others", but that is reflected in their cost. I don't think there are any Minor or Major Traits which are unbalancing, and as Special Traits are available only at the discretion of the GM, any which might be considered to unbalance the group can be refused.

It isn't difficult to have enough points "to buy everything you need". You don't have to buy every Trait going to end up with a well-rounded character. And anyone who believes otherwise is more interested in roll-playing than role-playing.

It feels to me as if Cubicle 7 wanted to publish a second edition of the game and have reverse-engineered some justification for doing this.

[drinkplentyofmalk]

Reading this interview has given me a tiny bit more perspective on the change, but I still can't say it makes any sense to me.

I'm probably repeating points that have already been articulated, but I need to express them myself.

Speaking as someone who's generally a non-crunchy type, I'd feel sorry for any new GM opening 2nd Ed with their pals and realizing that they have to craft their own distinctions and focuses (practically) from scratch, and attempt to make it balanced and fun on the fly. That'd be a tall order for someone like me who's (compared to most of the others in this hobby) an inexperienced GM - I can't imagine how strange it'd be for a complete newbie! I also think that if I did have to make up some new rules for my friend's characters, I'd appreciate the relatively easier to troubleshoot system of individual traits, which the book would already present enough of that I could probably reverse-engineer something vaguely balanced.

I also feel like a lot of the arguments brought up by C7 feature playtesters who maybe... don't really get what the spirit of what they're doing is? If a player puts arachnophobia on their sheet, it's an implicit agreement between them and the GM that it's going to crop up a handful of times (I also find arachnophobia a funny example to use as an 'obscure, min-maxxy' phobia when it's SO easy to plop spiders into any old adventure!). I do understand that a player putting far too many traits on their sheet until it's confusing could be an issue, but I feel like you'd really need to be deliberately min-maxxing to get to a serious point: I haven't played enough Vortex to say for sure, but I'd bet money that players memorize the 4 or 5 traits that they always use (Keen Senses, Run for Your Life, Psychic) and anything they don't use often would still crop up while glancing at the sheet.

I find the argument of 'well, you can just keep all those traits in mind and roleplay them!' baffling due to it's logical conclusion: if a character has quirks or aspects of their personality that the GM/player wants to remember in case it's important, they'll write it down in list form. They'd just reverse-engineer the idea of traits, but without the extremely comfortable safety net of each trait having a concrete rule assigned to it. I'd also argue that all of the really minor traits (Sense of Direction, Screamer, Clumsy) really help differentiate otherwise similar characters and give them each some personal flavour, such as if multiple companions were contemporary Earth humans. I also just don't love the idea of everything being down to story points, I feel like they should be used less often than 'every other roll' and for generally more interesting or important things than 'Oh, can I use a point to look at something better? Despite the fact that we've established that my character has above average eyesight as one of their individual quirks?" I can't imagine, say, playing a fantasy game where I'd have to spend a story point every time my fairy wanted to flap their wings, to give a slightly cheeky comparison.

I'll also make the only-half-joking point that while crunch can be problematic for new players, chargen is possibly one of the most widely agreed upon fun bits of playing TRPGS. Doubly so if the system is as easy and modular as 1st Ed., triply so if the game is based on an existing piece of media, and quadruply so if the media presents as much freedom as Doctor Who!

I also 100% hope that they make a modular generic Vortex system supplement, and will gladly announce to anyone at C7 (who is probably not reading this thread, lol) that I'd gladly throw money at every 1st Ed Vortex things that'd be put out.

[ryan]

I recently interviewed the head of C7 for my podcast Wibbly Wobbly Dicey Wicey at Dragonmeet and he had some interesting things to say about 2nd edition - they are addressing some of these points. The episode (which will be the first of Season 2 of the podcast) will be dropping soon.

@wwdwrpg

They also have some plans for the 60th anniversary...

[Stormcrow]

Dec 10, 2022 1:34:01 GMT drinkplentyofmalk said:

I also find arachnophobia a funny example to use as an 'obscure, min-maxxy' phobia when it's SO easy to plop spiders into any old adventure!

Arachnophobe: "Our new TARDIS has landed for the first time! Let's go explore!"
Other players: "Yeah!"
(Everyone exits the capsule.)
GM (as native): "Welcome, travelers, to Metebelis III."
Arachnophobe: "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!"

[misterharry]

Dec 10, 2022 20:22:10 GMT Stormcrow said:

Dec 10, 2022 1:34:01 GMT drinkplentyofmalk said:

I also find arachnophobia a funny example to use as an 'obscure, min-maxxy' phobia when it's SO easy to plop spiders into any old adventure!

Arachnophobe: "Our new TARDIS has landed for the first time! Let's go explore!"
Other players: "Yeah!"
(Everyone exits the capsule.)
GM (as native): "Welcome, travelers, to Metebelis III."
Arachnophobe: "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!"

Arachnophobe: "Our new TARDIS has landed for the first time! Let's go explore!"
Other players: "Yeah!"
(Everyone exits the capsule.)
GM (as native): "Welcome, travelers, to Alzarius."
Arachnophobe: "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!"

[soultaker666212]

Dec 10, 2022 21:37:48 GMT misterharry said:

Dec 10, 2022 20:22:10 GMT Stormcrow said:

Arachnophobe: "Our new TARDIS has landed for the first time! Let's go explore!"
Other players: "Yeah!"
(Everyone exits the capsule.)
GM (as native): "Welcome, travelers, to Metebelis III."
Arachnophobe: "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!"

Arachnophobe: "Our new TARDIS has landed for the first time! Let's go explore!"
Other players: "Yeah!"
(Everyone exits the capsule.)
GM (as native): "Welcome, travelers, to Alzarius."
Arachnophobe: "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!"

Arachnophobe: "Our new TARDIS has landed for the first time! Let's go explore!"

Other players: "Yeah!"

(Everyone exits the capsule.)

GM (as native): "Welcome, travellers, to the UK."

Arachnophobe: "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!"

[Stormcrow]

You guys should have changed those to "second time" and "third time." That would have been funnier and more to the point.

[misterharry]

If they're planning on addressing some of the points mentioned, then it seems they recognise that some of the changes in 2e haven't been that well received.

[ryan]

Hopefully Sunday

[thewarchief]

Dec 14, 2022 15:55:13 GMT misterharry said:

If they're planning on addressing some of the points mentioned, then it seems they recognise that some of the changes in 2e haven't been that well received.

Well, since all the various editions of 1e rulebook get average rating of 5 stars at DriveThruRPG, while 2e has an average rating of 4 stars,it would seem pretty obvious the 1e is more popular. It doesn't make much sense to push 2e if most people prefer (and can still buy/use) 1e instead. Especially since 1e covers practically everything that has appeared in the show during the tenures of fist twelve Doctors and is mostly interchangeable between 10th Doctor, Eleventh Doctor,Limited, and Twelfth Doctor Editions. Basically it's a lot easier to adapt 2e stuff to 1e rules (and stats/aliens, etc.) than vice versa.

Considering the departure of Jodie Whittaker, the recent rebranding and change in logo for the show, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a 14th Doctor Edition in the works, perhaps with traits?

[thewarchief]

I suspect the "thought processes involved" were to make it easier to convert stats between the Doctor Who RPG (Vortex System) and the Doctors & Daleks RPG (D20 5E).Probably similar to what they did with The One Ring and Adventures in Middle Earth RPGs

Personally, I think the Vortex could certainly be streamlined and standardized a bit, especially with traits, but 2e went too far and left too much up to the GM and players to "just roleplay".

[drinkplentyofmalk]

I'm expecting an at least brief acknowledgement of the changes being unpopular, alongside some explanation for the thought processes involved. Not that I expect I'd agree with any explanation for the changes, but I'd like some perspective that makes them feel like deliberate, considered choices on behalf of C7 and not... well, an objective downgrade that feels like it was barely considered before going to print, as much as I hate to phrase it so bluntly.

EDIT: Whoops, I typed that first part out, deleted it to include a quote response thewarchief's earlier post, then he responded to the one I deleted and this post ate up the quote, resulting in a bit of a confusing mess. Oops.

Admittedly, we have no idea what the licensing deal is on if they would even be able to just jump into making a third edition so soon, as much as I'd personally enjoy that. 2e is in a very strange bind, where I'm not too sure what supplements they could release: the system's so different they can't make something like 'All the Strange Creatures Vol. 2', but making a new monster manual-type book would be redundant with that first version so recently out on the market. Likewise, covering material for Doctors before Jodie would feel redundant (esp given that 2e has WAY simpler stats than 1e by design), but I can't imagine any of the existing fanbase buying a 13th Doctor sourcebook unless it was of the exact style as the last twelve, including stats... which would just alienate any gamers who've jumped in with 2e (as few of them as there likely are, it'd be business poison to so publicly admit that the latest version of the game was a flop, even indirectly).

I do fully agree that new branding would be lovely. As nice as the Chibnall era photos look in the layout, the fact that it's over puts 2e in the same awkward position as the 1e series 8 Capaldi corebook, so tied to a passed version of the show (the fact that Chibnall's writing style has never stuck a chord with me more subjectively hurts it). A more general one that isn't so tied to a specific era would be great for future-proofing, and I'm pretty certain I recall an interview where someone at C7 said they were going to do that... but then saw how nice the Chibnall era images looked. While I agree, it doesn't do much for my perspective that every decision around 2e was made on impulse.

[thewarchief]

Dec 15, 2022 18:03:19 GMT drinkplentyofmalk said:

EDIT: Whoops, I typed that first part out, deleted it to include a quote response thewarchief's earlier post, then he responded to the one I deleted and this post ate up the quote, resulting in a bit of a confusing mess. Oops.

Wibbley-wobblely timey-whimey...

Dec 15, 2022 18:03:19 GMT drinkplentyofmalk said:

Admittedly, we have no idea what the licensing deal is on if they would even be able to just jump into making a third edition so soon, as much as I'd personally enjoy that.

No we don't know, but I doubt the deal is all that differernt from what they had in the past. A new "edtion" of the rules has happened with every changeover of Doctors, so I'd be surprised if we didn't get a new edtion for Doctor 14, or at least for 15 as 14's run is beleived to be so short. Note that doesn't necessarly mean new edtion in 3e sense.

I was thinking more alone the lines of and updated 2e, much like what happened to the rules with the 11th and 12th Doctor editions. They could decide to bring back some fo the more popular 1e rules that way.

Dec 15, 2022 18:03:19 GMT drinkplentyofmalk said:

....but I can't imagine any of the existing fanbase buying a 13th Doctor sourcebook unless it was of the exact style as the last twelve, including stats... which would just alienate any gamers who've jumped in with 2e (as few of them as there likely are, it'd be business poison to so publicly admit that the latest version of the game was a flop, even indirectly).

Nor can I, but then I can't see the logic behind doing 1e Sourcebooks for all the previous Doctors, UNIT, the Paternoster Gang, Spaceships, Aliens etc. and then invalidating it all in 2e. It's almost like they wanted to force the customers to choose between a ruleset that works for all the previous Doctors or one that only works for the 13th. Maybe C7 were froced to for some reason, but I suspect it probably had to do with translating stuff over to D20.

Dec 15, 2022 18:03:19 GMT drinkplentyofmalk said:

I do fully agree that new branding would be lovely. As nice as the Chibnall era photos look in the layout, the fact that it's over puts 2e in the same awkward position as the 1e series 8 Capaldi corebook, so tied to a passed version of the show...

I that that is one fo the things that goes along with the BBC rebranding the series. If I remember correctly, the BBC rebranding the series when Matt Smith took over was the reason why C7 had to do a new edition for the 11th Doctor. I think everyone with a license might be contractually obligated to use the current logo on new products.

But of coruse this is still just speculation. Obviously C7 had to have some reason(s) for the changes, even if we don't agree with or like said changes. Ultimately though it will come down to sales. If 2e isn't sell well (or if 1e outsells it) then that will decide things for 2e. I think the elpehant in the room is the Doctors &Daleks 5e RPG. Basically, D20 has the lion's share of the RPG sales in the USA, and if D&D 5e can tap into even 5% of the D&D makrket it will probably outsell all of the other Doctor Who RPGs combined, and make the 1e vs. 2e debate moot. It reminds me of when D&D 3e went OGL. Suddenly every RPG company was producing content for D20 because one D20 product could fiance their entire non-D20 stuff (L5R for example).

[Wieldar]

I like Traits. They give the game its distinctive feel to my mind. What would be helpful though, and I think this is where this whole point has arisen, is to have a list of all the Traits as a reference, with their rules set out. I agree that Traits are spread out across lots of rulebooks, so one key list, which potentially we as fans could keep updated, would be helpful, even if it was just a list with a reference as to where to find the definition.

[misterharry]

Dec 28, 2022 21:25:38 GMT Wieldar said:

I like Traits. They give the game its distinctive feel to my mind. What would be helpful though, and I think this is where this whole point has arisen, is to have a list of all the Traits as a reference, with their rules set out. I agree that Traits are spread out across lots of rulebooks, so one key list, which potentially we as fans could keep updated, would be helpful, even if it was just a list with a reference as to where to find the definition.

If you click on the first link in my signature below, you'll see among the various other documents, two files titled "DWAITAS Atributes, Skills & Traits Summary". One is just for DWAITAS/DWRPG traits; the other also includes traits from other games using the Vortex rules - Primeval RPG, Rocket Age and Pulp Fantastic. Although neither includes descriptions for the traits, they are listed by category and whether Good, Bad, Minor, Major or Special (and the cost in the latter case), plus the rulebooks or supplements in which they were first introduced.

[Stormcrow]

Dec 28, 2022 21:25:38 GMT Wieldar said:

What would be helpful though, and I think this is where this whole point has arisen, is to have a list of all the Traits as a reference, with their rules set out.

Not really important. If you need a character to have an unusual ability, just make up a special trait.

One reason the second edition dropped traits is because of the fans who think they have to obsessively collect them all across every book. To avoid "trait bloat," they removed traits altogether.

Most people really do overload characters and monsters with traits. You usually need a lot fewer than you use.

[misterharry]

Dec 29, 2022 14:16:35 GMT Stormcrow said:

fans who think they have to obsessively collect them all across every book.

Thanks for that! Offence taken.

[thewarchief]

Dec 29, 2022 14:16:35 GMT Stormcrow said:

Dec 28, 2022 21:25:38 GMT Wieldar said:

What would be helpful though, and I think this is where this whole point has arisen, is to have a list of all the Traits as a reference, with their rules set out.

Not really important. If you need a character to have an unusual ability, just make up a special trait.

Which is counter productive and redundant. Why keep reinventing the wheel with every new character write up?

Dec 29, 2022 14:16:35 GMT Stormcrow said:

Dec 28, 2022 21:25:38 GMT Wieldar said:

One reason the second edition dropped traits is because of the fans who think they have to obsessively collect them all across every book. To avoid "trait bloat," they removed traits altogether.

I don't see the reasoning behind that business model. "Oh look people are buying all the books just to get all the traits. Let's eliminate traits so that we won't have to sell all those supplements!"

By that reasoning they should remove stats for characters, Daleks, Cybermen Types, other alien species, gadgets, etc. etc. from all the supplements so that people won't buy the supplements to get them all. It's a great approach if a company wants to discourage sales.

Dec 29, 2022 14:16:35 GMT Stormcrow said:

Dec 28, 2022 21:25:38 GMT Wieldar said:

Most people really do overload characters and monsters with traits. You usually need a lot fewer than you use.

Well you only need the traits that get used during any specific adventure. The same holds true for attributes and skills as well. But to give an good write-up of a particular character from the show, and to beable to role-play them properly during a given adventure, you do need to keep track of all of their traits, not just the ones that you think a player might use during the adventure.

For instance Jamie McCrimmmon and Victoria Waterfield probably don't even need a Technology skill at all, considering how their adventures went, and that the Doctor was around to handle the tech they encountered.


I think that getting rid of traits just chases away existing customers in the quest to find new ones. Unless someone really has a problem with traits or prefer the 13th Doctor more that all the rest why go with 2e over 1e?


If they wanted to streamline and simplify the game play they should have started with Story Points rather than Traits.

[grinch]

Just speaking personally, I'm a big fan of the Traits system. And have found them a great boon when it comes to adapting other characters from other sources thus enabling anyone to use them without having to do in-depth research into the original source material.

Not to mention, as it says in the Rulebook having both Positive and Negative Traits can add further complexities and help further develop a basic character idea beyond its initial conception.

Although, I will concede that occasionally you can go overboard with traits. For instance, if you have an alien threat that already has the Immortal Trait and is stated to be invulnerable to just about anything then having an Environmental (Major) trait could be seen as rather superfluous.

[Stormcrow]

Dec 29, 2022 16:18:50 GMT misterharry said:

Dec 29, 2022 14:16:35 GMT Stormcrow said:

fans who think they have to obsessively collect them all across every book.

Thanks for that! Offence taken.

You think you have to obsessively collect traits across every book? And you are offended by that characterization?



That's kind of the point, isn't it? You don't have to have all the traits in all the books. And they removed traits in part because that's exactly what people thought you had to do. I see more posts here about how to collect every trait than I do about how to run the game system.

Dec 29, 2022 18:22:03 GMT thewarchief said:

Dec 29, 2022 14:16:35 GMT Stormcrow said:

Not really important. If you need a character to have an unusual ability, just make up a special trait.

Which is counter productive and redundant. Why keep reinventing the wheel with every new character write up?

You don't have to reinvent anything. Most people follow Cubicle 7's house style of commenting on each trait anyway; just do this for the "Special" trait. For example:

Special - Telescopic Vision: So-and-so gets +2 on rolls involving seeing things at long range.

Is there already a trait in a book somewhere that does this? I have no idea... and I don't need one to do this. This took less effort on my part than looking up some existing trait would. Even if I already knew an existing trait by heart, it would take no more effort to write this than writing the existing trait would.

Dec 29, 2022 19:17:55 GMT grinch said:

Although, I will concede that occasionally you can go overboard with traits. For instance, if you have an alien threat that already has the Immortal Trait and is stated to be invulnerable to just about anything then having an Environmental (Major) trait could be seen as rather superfluous.

Beyond just superfluousness, a well-rounded character doesn't need a trait that touches every single aspect of their lives. Not every technological expert needs to be a Boffin; they just need to have trained in Technology a lot. Not every female character needs to be Attractive (go ahead and look at fan-made female characters — I'll bet you find that trait more often than not). Not every character even needs traits at all — some characters are just very ordinary.

Ideally, traits should stand out, make the character special in some way. But if you've got a whole page of traits, no single trait will stand out. Characters don't stand out if every character is massively special. If you look at a character write-up, you should be able to tell at a glance what's special about them. (Yes, a few very powerful characters will have lots of traits, but these are the exceptions rather than the rule.)

By removing traits and having players simply describe what makes their characters "distinctive," the designer is also fighting back against this phenomenon of "trait-bloat." I don't like their removal either, but I understand why it was done and why it was thought to be an improvement. Overdesigned characters really are a thing in the first edition.

[misterharry]

Dec 29, 2022 20:59:17 GMT Stormcrow said:

Dec 29, 2022 16:18:50 GMT misterharry said:

Thanks for that! Offence taken.

You think you have to obsessively collect traits across every book? And you are offended by that characterization?

So you're just going to keep digging with that snide insult, are you? I'm not going to engage with you any further on this or any other topic.

[thewarchief]

You don't have to reinvent anything. Most people follow Cubicle 7's house style of commenting on each trait anyway; just do this for the "Special" trait. For example:

Special - Telescopic Vision: So-and-so gets +2 on rolls involving seeing things at long range.[/quote]

THat is reineventing the wheel every time you re-inevent the same trait as a "special.

Is there already a trait in a book somewhere that does this? I have no idea... and I don't need one to do this. This took less effort on my part than looking up some existing trait would. Even if I already knew an existing trait by heart, it would take no more effort to write this than writing the existing trait would.

It's fine for a one off, but what happens then next time you use the specials or NPC with Telescopic Vision? You either have to remember what you did before, make and keep a list of "Specials" that you can reuse (i.e. Traits), or reinvent Telescopic Vsion all over again.

Beyond just superfluousness, a well-rounded character doesn't need a trait that touches every single aspect of their lives. Not every technological expert needs to be a Boffin; they just need to have trained in Technology a lot. Not every female character needs to be Attractive (go ahead and look at fan-made female characters — I'll bet you find that trait more often than not).

Yes, but that's something that should be directed to the producers,writers and casting agents of the show, not to to people playing the RPG. We're not the ones who made sure that the Doctor almost always had a pretty girl for a companion. Likewise RPGers aren't the ones who made Captain Jack Immortal, gave Zoey, Eidetic Memory, Leela Sixth Sense or any of the other traits.

Not every character even needs traits at all — some characters are just very ordinary.

Yes, and not every character should have traits. But that doesn't mean you should eliminate traits. That's like someone saying that as they aren't attractive, no one else is allowed to be.

Ideally, traits should stand out, make the character special in some way. But if you've got a whole page of traits, no single trait will stand out. Characters don't stand out if every character is massively special. If you look at a character write-up, you should be able to tell at a glance what's special about them. (Yes, a few very powerful characters will have lots of traits, but these are the exceptions rather than the rule.)

I agree but again that's not the fault of the people playing the game, but that of the folks writing the show. Remember, the various players of the RPG aren't the ones responsible for creating such characters. That was the fault of the people who created such characters for the TV show, and/or the folks at C7 who did up the game stats for those characters.

By removing traits and having players simply describe what makes their characters "distinctive," the designer is also fighting back against this phenomenon of "trait-bloat." I don't like their removal either, but I understand why it was done and why it was thought to be an improvement. Overdesigned characters really are a thing in the first edition.

Well, I think the majority of the people who play 1e don't agree with you that it is an improvement. It wasn't the gamers who overdesigned characters, it was the folks at C7 who kept creating new traits for each supplement.

And everything that applies to traits could equally apply to gadgets (gadgets are really just a collection of special traits), or areas of expertise (just skill based traits).

The real point to be made here is that there is no reason for someone who prefers 1e to switch to 2e, or even to buy 2e supplements. and plenty of reason not to.

[Stormcrow]

Dec 29, 2022 23:24:52 GMT thewarchief said:

You don't have to reinvent anything. Most people follow Cubicle 7's house style of commenting on each trait anyway; just do this for the "Special" trait. For example:

Special - Telescopic Vision: So-and-so gets +2 on rolls involving seeing things at long range.

THat is reineventing the wheel every time you re-inevent the same trait as a "special.

No, that is literally the absolute minimum amount of work one should be expected to do when creating an adventure for an RPG, and it is less work than keeping track of and finding lists of traits scattered across half a dozen rule books. The phrase "reinventing the wheel" implies an excessive amount of work is being done over and over again.

Is there already a trait in a book somewhere that does this? I have no idea... and I don't need one to do this. This took less effort on my part than looking up some existing trait would. Even if I already knew an existing trait by heart, it would take no more effort to write this than writing the existing trait would.

It's fine for a one off, but what happens then next time you use the specials or NPC with Telescopic Vision? You either have to remember what you did before, make and keep a list of "Specials" that you can reuse (i.e. Traits), or reinvent Telescopic Vsion all over again.

No, I don't. If the next character's Telescopic Vision is +3 instead of +2... who cares? What difference does it make? None, really. Aside from the fact that I don't ever show players the NPC character sheets, who's to say that NPC 2 doesn't have a slightly better Telescopic Vision than NPC 1?

In any case, I typically stick to the normal standard of making the bonus +2. I'd only do something different if the Special were very Special.

Beyond just superfluousness, a well-rounded character doesn't need a trait that touches every single aspect of their lives. Not every technological expert needs to be a Boffin; they just need to have trained in Technology a lot. Not every female character needs to be Attractive (go ahead and look at fan-made female characters — I'll bet you find that trait more often than not).

Yes, but that's something that should be directed to the producers,writers and casting agents of the show, not to to people playing the RPG. We're not the ones who made sure that the Doctor almost always had a pretty girl for a companion. Likewise RPGers aren't the ones who made Captain Jack Immortal, gave Zoey, Eidetic Memory, Leela Sixth Sense or any of the other traits.

I'm not talking about the Doctor or companions here; I'm talking about characters that GMs make up for their own adventures.

Not every character even needs traits at all — some characters are just very ordinary.

Yes, and not every character should have traits. But that doesn't mean you should eliminate traits. That's like someone saying that as they aren't attractive, no one else is allowed to be.

I never said traits should be eliminated. I said exactly the opposite. Go back and read what I said more carefully.

I am talking about the problems with overloading characters with traits, not eliminating traits from the game. Cubicle 7 did that, not me.

Ideally, traits should stand out, make the character special in some way. But if you've got a whole page of traits, no single trait will stand out. Characters don't stand out if every character is massively special. If you look at a character write-up, you should be able to tell at a glance what's special about them. (Yes, a few very powerful characters will have lots of traits, but these are the exceptions rather than the rule.)

I agree but again that's not the fault of the people playing the game, but that of the folks writing the show. Remember, the various players of the RPG aren't the ones responsible for creating such characters. That was the fault of the people who created such characters for the TV show, and/or the folks at C7 who did up the game stats for those characters.

I'm glad you agree! Because once you recognize that I'm talking about GMs making up their own characters, not main characters from the show being transcribed, you surely agree that putting too many traits on all your made-up characters starts to make them less distinctive.

By removing traits and having players simply describe what makes their characters "distinctive," the designer is also fighting back against this phenomenon of "trait-bloat." I don't like their removal either, but I understand why it was done and why it was thought to be an improvement. Overdesigned characters really are a thing in the first edition.

Well, I think the majority of the people who play 1e don't agree with you that it is an improvement.

I literally said exactly the opposite of what you say I said in the text you're responding to.

[thewarchief]

Dec 30, 2022 1:40:23 GMT Stormcrow said:

No, that is literally the absolute minimum amount of work one should be expected to do when creating an adventure for an RPG, and it is less work than keeping track of and finding lists of traits scattered across half a dozen rule books. The phrase "reinventing the wheel" implies an excessive amount of work is being done over and over again.[/quote]

No, to reverent the wheel means: To redo work unnecessarily when it has already been done satisfactorily; to rethink an already working system, technique, etc. in a needless attempt to improve it.

Precisely what you are doing by recreating the ability every time. BTW it is also what C7 appears to be doing with 2e.

No, I don't. If the next character's Telescopic Vision is +3 instead of +2... who cares?

For starters you should. After all you cared enough to give the NPC the ability in the first place. If it didn't matter to you then why note the ability at all? Secondly it will matter to the players, if they have to make opposed rolls against that character.

Note that if you just introduced the ability to make the NPC distinctive then you could let the NPC see something off in the distance and describe it to the player characters rather than give the NPC a die roll bonus that the players will never see.

It really come down to story writing and GMing. When the writers wanted to show that a character like Toberman or an Ice Warrior were strong in the show they did it by having then do feats on strength on camera. In play a GM should do the same, not just tell the players that "he has a 7 Strength".

What difference does it make? None, really. Aside from the fact that I don't ever show players the NPC character sheets, who's to say that NPC 2 doesn't have a slightly better Telescopic Vision than NPC 1?

And who's to say he does? Well, the GM. That's part of what makes the GM the GM, they have to power to decide such tings, and more. If a GM wants to create an NPC with a hundred traits or 100 Strength for some reason, they can.If they should do so or not is another matter.

I'm not talking about the Doctor or companions here;

Ah that's where we differ. I am taking about the Doctor or Companions here, plus major reoccuring characters like Davros or the Master. They are the ones who really benefit from traits as it helps to differentiate the characters.

As far as rank and file NPCs goes, that's up to each adventure writer/GM to work out. I wound't expect every NPC to be an expert nor would I expect every one of every NPCs traits to pop up in an every adventure, but I wouldn't be surprised if, as on TV, there is a higher percentage of Attractive NPCs than what we'd see in real life. Some of that just goes alog with a TV show.

I'm talking about characters that GMs make up for their own adventures.

Then I don't see the problem with traits, as it is up to each GM to decide what abilities their NPCs have. It's fixing a problem that doesn't exist. It's not like there is some sort of overriding authority that demands that every NPC soldier has "Five Rounds Rapid" or some such. If a GM gives their NPCs too many traits that their own fault, and their own problem.

And there is nothing wrong with a given GM compiling a list of traits and applying them as they see fit. Just because you don't want to put that work into a NPC doesn't mean another GM shouldn't.

To men, unless a NPC warrants some sort of special ability I just assume a Stat of 3, Skill of 3 in the relevant area and don't every worry about a full write up. Most characters in the show are one shots. If some extra gets the players attention, and makes it though the adventure, then maybe they might get a stat block for any future appearance.

I never said traits should be eliminated. I said exactly the opposite. Go back and read what I said more carefully.

I am talking about the problems with overloading characters with traits, not eliminating traits from the game. Cubicle 7 did that, not me.

I thought you said that you considered the removal of traits to be an improvement.

The problem really isn't with traits but with the potential to go overboard with them, itself partly due to C7 adding new traits in every book, leading to newer stat block having more and more traits. For instance did we really need a game trait for military rank?

IMO the Aliens are probably the worst offenders of trait bloat as many of their traits are prerequisites for other traits.

I'm glad you agree! Because once you recognize that I'm talking about GMs making up their own characters, not main characters from the show being transcribed, you surely agree that putting too many traits on all your made-up characters starts to make them less distinctive.

Yes, although just what constitutes "too many" traits is subjective. I used to tell my players that "when everybody has an 18, no one does." It took several years of their playing high powered D&D game where the GM literally gave every named character an 18 somewhere for the meaning of that to sink in. Basically 18 became the new normal,and players needed a 26 to get the same sort of effects than an 18 used to get.

I think the rule of thumb should be if the trait would actually be noticeable in the story. A GM shouldn't give a kid Mathematical Ability unless it somehow matters to the character (Adric, a companion but the purpose of it isn't the programme is to help descibe the character to the audience) or the adventure (Milo in "School Reunion" where it is a clue to something strange going on.).

But then, as above I could see having some generic stat blocks for extras, supporting characters and so on that could be used for most of the NPCs that show up in adventures. You don't need individual stat blocks for each Bobby that shows up in the show.

I literally said exactly the opposite of what you say I said in the text you're responding to.

I must have misread your post, sorry.

But

Overdesigned characters really are a thing in the first edition.

Doesn't really make sense then, as virtually all published stats were done by C7. Many unofficial stats were posted on this site, but those used traits that fit characters from the show. Admittedly characters from the show are not always consistent in their abilities (i.e. at one time Zoey beats a superhero with her martial arts abilities, but the rest of the time she shows no such ability), so some traits, AoEs are debatable, but I don't see fan made write ups being overloaded with traits. C7 write up tended to bloat as they added more and more traits, but frankly I think that is the problem with making lots of supplements- they have to contain something unique to make them appealing to the customers.

Personally I think the traits, gadgets and areas of expertise rules could all do with some simplification and streamlining (most add a +2 to some roll) but just removing traits is going to be bad as ultimately they will add all those abilities back to the game when they stat up the previous Doctors, Companions, and Aliens in 2e-that is assuming they still can. It might very well be that with the Disney+ deal, the new show is a separate entity from the old show, again.

[Wieldar]

Dec 29, 2022 8:45:16 GMT misterharry said:

Dec 28, 2022 21:25:38 GMT Wieldar said:

If you click on the first link in my signature below, you'll see among the various other documents, two files titled "DWAITAS Atributes, Skills & Traits Summary". One is just for DWAITAS/DWRPG traits; the other also includes traits from other games using the Vortex rules - Primeval RPG, Rocket Age and Pulp Fantastic. Although neither includes descriptions for the traits, they are listed by category and whether Good, Bad, Minor, Major or Special (and the cost in the latter case), plus the rulebooks or supplements in which they were first introduced.

Thanks for this, very helpful!

[Wieldar]

Having been fortunate to have received a copy of the beautiful second edition for Christmas, and had a chance to read through, I don't doubt that if the second edition had come out first, and then the first edition was introduced as a set of revised rules, many of us would be saying things such as, "I don't like this Traits mechanism and much prefer the elegance and creativity of the rules from the original set."

[Stormcrow]

Dec 30, 2022 4:03:38 GMT thewarchief said:

Dec 30, 2022 1:40:23 GMT Stormcrow said:

No, that is literally the absolute minimum amount of work one should be expected to do when creating an adventure for an RPG, and it is less work than keeping track of and finding lists of traits scattered across half a dozen rule books. The phrase "reinventing the wheel" implies an excessive amount of work is being done over and over again.

No, to reverent the wheel means: To redo work unnecessarily when it has already been done satisfactorily; to rethink an already working system, technique, etc. in a needless attempt to improve it.

Because doing so takes unnecessary work. It's not reinventing the wheel to write "+2 to Resolve when trying to be brave" after noting the character has the Brave trait; people write characters like this all the time. It's an insignificant effort. The phrase "reinventing the wheel" is used when the work to create something would be significant. I didn't say the phrase meant only work being done over and over; I said it implies that. That's not an exclusionary statement.

Precisely what you are doing by recreating the ability every time.

It takes no less effort to just toss off a number than it does to look up an existing trait. The work is insignificant, so the phrase "reinventing the wheel" does not apply.

No, I don't. If the next character's Telescopic Vision is +3 instead of +2... who cares?

For starters you should. After all you cared enough to give the NPC the ability in the first place. If it didn't matter to you then why note the ability at all? Secondly it will matter to the players, if they have to make opposed rolls against that character.

The ability is there to perform its function. I write it down so I remember how I want that character to be when the players encounter them. Having the trait matters. What doesn't matter is that I give all NPCs who have a similar ability the exact same ability. It doesn't matter. One NPC can be more capable than another NPC. These rules don't simulate reality; there's no "standard unit of Bravery" that all brave characters in the universe must adhere to.

Note that if you just introduced the ability to make the NPC distinctive then you could let the NPC see something off in the distance and describe it to the player characters rather than give the NPC a die roll bonus that the players will never see.

Sure. But I didn't say I use traits only to make an NPC distinctive; I said this is one of the functions of traits.

I'm having to make a lot of "but I didn't say" statements in reply to you. Please consider reading my responses a little more closely.

It really come down to story writing and GMing. When the writers wanted to show that a character like Toberman or an Ice Warrior were strong in the show they did it by having then do feats on strength on camera. In play a GM should do the same, not just tell the players that "he has a 7 Strength".

I'm not sure how this relates to this conversation. I never suggested that the GM announce the stats of NPCs, certainly not just to make them distinctive. NPCs have stats so the GM can use those stats during a game. The running of an RPG usually involves a certain amount of unbiased detachment by the GM, and giving NPCs concrete stats is one way of keeping the GM "honest." Oh, they can ignore those stats and the players will never know, but I'm talking about a GM who wants to keep an NPC within their abilities.

What difference does it make? None, really. Aside from the fact that I don't ever show players the NPC character sheets, who's to say that NPC 2 doesn't have a slightly better Telescopic Vision than NPC 1?

And who's to say he does? Well, the GM. That's part of what makes the GM the GM, they have to power to decide such tings, and more. If a GM wants to create an NPC with a hundred traits or 100 Strength for some reason, they can.If they should do so or not is another matter.

I completely agree. And my argument has never been that a GM can't give an NPC a hundred traits, and not even that they shouldn't; it's that doing so isn't always a good idea. NPCs can be "overdesigned." Something that is overdesigned can still work, but it's not ideal.

And yes, "ideal" is a subjective judgment. I've never said otherwise.

I'm not talking about the Doctor or companions here;

Ah that's where we differ. I am taking about the Doctor or Companions here, plus major reoccuring characters like Davros or the Master. They are the ones who really benefit from traits as it helps to differentiate the characters.

Except this forum is full of NPCs created by fans who aren't recreating screen characters, and it has been my sense that these NPCs tend to get traits for characteristics that don't really warrant the magnitude of effect a trait has.

I'm talking about characters that GMs make up for their own adventures.

Then I don't see the problem with traits, as it is up to each GM to decide what abilities their NPCs have. It's fixing a problem that doesn't exist. It's not like there is some sort of overriding authority that demands that every NPC soldier has "Five Rounds Rapid" or some such. If a GM gives their NPCs too many traits that their own fault, and their own problem.

Sigh. I didn't say there's a problem with traits. I said I feel that GMs tend to give the characters they create too many traits for insignificant reasons, leading to an overloaded character. Yes, they are entitled to do so. Yes, that's their problem if they do so. I'm not saying otherwise. I'm just saying that I understand that Cubicle 7 noticed the heavy reliance on traits and wanted to change the focus.

And there is nothing wrong with a given GM compiling a list of traits and applying them as they see fit. Just because you don't want to put that work into a NPC doesn't mean another GM shouldn't.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. Sure, misterharry huffed off at my characterization of it as "obsessively collecting," but I have no problem with the idea of collecting all the scattered traits into an index or choosing to use them.

I not only don't want to put that kind of work into an NPC, I recognize that I don't have to. I recognize that it's actually not all that helpful. At the end of the day, traits mostly boil down to "modifier to do something" (and most modifiers are ±2) or "ability to do something not everyone can even try to do." They're not all that complicated. If I want an NPC to be able to do something differently than others, and there's no trait specifically for this, I just make one, with the same — or less! — effort it would take to try to "build" the effect using something that exists.

This is a fundamental idea in RPGs. I encounter this sort of thing all the time in GURPS, for instance. Newbies trying to "build" monsters ask, "how do I build this ability using advantages?" And the answer is usually: don't bother; it's just a monster. It does whatever you, the GM, say it does. Rules for making characters don't need to apply to monsters. It's exactly the same with the Doctor Who game: collecting all the traits in all the books in order to make the most varied NPCs is a wasted effort, because I can make any NPCs I want without them.

Now, if you're talking about letting player characters have these traits, that's a completely different story. Player characters are typically made using a point-buy system that encourages fair access to equal ability (though it doesn't guarantee equally capable characters at the end of the process). If presenting your players with a list of traits from other books to pick and choose for their characters is helpful to you, then I support that all the way. This is player-facing, and player-facing rules need to be fair to the players.

So again, I'm not against the collecting of traits. I'm against the overuse of them in NPCs. Personally, I find the traits in the core books to be perfectly sufficient for player characters, however, and have no desire to go plumbing the other books for a few tidbits to give to players. But that's just me.

To men, unless a NPC warrants some sort of special ability I just assume a Stat of 3, Skill of 3 in the relevant area and don't every worry about a full write up.

I generally do the same, though for me it's not based on whether an NPC has a special ability; it's based on what kind of "part" the NPC will be playing. Background extras get no write-up at all and are assumed to be average across the board unless the need for something else comes up. ("I run onto the football pitch!" "Okay, there are footballers here." "I tackle one of them!" Well, a footballer is probably going to have an above-average Coordination and Athletics, so I'll make a snap-judgment on that now.) Minor characters get small write-ups. Characteristics represent the character's innate abilities in areas that all characters have, skills represent training the character has received, and traits represent unusual talents or abilities that not all characters have. It the character will only appear in a limited context, then only relevant characteristics, skills, and traits will be noted. Major characters get full write-ups.

And when deciding on characteristics, skills, and traits, I do more than just decide what numbers will be useful; I picture the character in my head and compare their ability in each to minimum, average, and maximum human values (even if the character is not human). For characteristics, this is 1 for small children and frail old or sick people, 3 for average people, 6 for the absolute pinnacle of human achievement (Albert Einstein, strongest man in the world, etc.). For skills, it's 0 for untrained, 3 for a normal professional, 6 for a top expert, higher than 6 for astounding masters.

Areas of expertise (another thing that I think gets overloaded in fan characters) always start at skill level 3, and represent one's actual occupation, or one potential occupation. If you're considered a biologist, then you may have a Science skill of 3 but an area of expertise in Biology. If you wouldn't say that you have a profession of your area of expertise, it probably shouldn't be your expertise. (I will make exceptions if I really need to bump up someone's skill without bumping everything in the skill, but in general areas of expertise should be limited.)

I never said traits should be eliminated. I said exactly the opposite. Go back and read what I said more carefully.

I am talking about the problems with overloading characters with traits, not eliminating traits from the game. Cubicle 7 did that, not me.

I thought you said that you considered the removal of traits to be an improvement.

No, I said I understand why Cubicle 7 thinks that removing traits is an improvement. I don't agree with them; I just understand their reasoning.

The problem really isn't with traits but with the potential to go overboard with them, itself partly due to C7 adding new traits in every book, leading to newer stat block having more and more traits. For instance did we really need a game trait for military rank?

That's been my point all along. Actually, I think a trait for military rank does make sense in games that revolve around an area that includes a military presence, but such a trait is more useful for PCs than for NPCs. The NPC general that I write up is still a general whether or not I write "Rank: General" in his stats.

IMO the Aliens are probably the worst offenders of trait bloat as many of their traits are prerequisites for other traits.

And likewise, this is more important for players than for NPCs. Traits like Alien and Psychic are named "gateway" traits because their main point is to be a surcharge on powerful super- or non-human abilities. When I create an alien race, it's a given that it has the Alien trait. Writing it on the NPC writeup doesn't "activate" the alien abilities. I understand why Cubicle 7 includes the trait on aliens — they're trying to be complete — but it has no game-mechanical significance. When you see "Alien" in the trait list of an alien, your eyes just jump over it, because you don't actually need it to be there.

I'm glad you agree! Because once you recognize that I'm talking about GMs making up their own characters, not main characters from the show being transcribed, you surely agree that putting too many traits on all your made-up characters starts to make them less distinctive.

Yes, although just what constitutes "too many" traits is subjective.

Absolutely. Never said otherwise. I've been clear all along that I feel that people overload traits onto their NPCs.

I used to tell my players that "when everybody has an 18, no one does." It took several years of their playing high powered D&D game where the GM literally gave every named character an 18 somewhere for the meaning of that to sink in. Basically 18 became the new normal,and players needed a 26 to get the same sort of effects than an 18 used to get.

Yes, exactly.

I think the rule of thumb should be if the trait would actually be noticeable in the story. A GM shouldn't give a kid Mathematical Ability unless it somehow matters to the character (Adric, a companion but the purpose of it isn't the programme is to help descibe the character to the audience) or the adventure (Milo in "School Reunion" where it is a clue to something strange going on.).

Exactly my advice.

But then, as above I could see having some generic stat blocks for extras, supporting characters and so on that could be used for most of the NPCs that show up in adventures. You don't need individual stat blocks for each Bobby that shows up in the show.

Certainly.

Overdesigned characters really are a thing in the first edition.

Doesn't really make sense then, as virtually all published stats were done by C7.

I'm still talking about fan-created characters, like the many characters created on this very forum. Those times that I've commented on them, I've usually suggested that certain traits were unnecessary or being applied to too small an effect to be justified.