|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 25, 2017 23:15:15 GMT -6
I will just add that all these stats and scores occur so seldom, and the bonuses so small, that stats of any kind really aren't necessary. You could play an entire campaign with only class and level based stuff and no one would likely notice.
I almost never see any stats used much at all, in general. Maybe that's just me though. I feel like I'm really close to just getting rid of them completely.
Maybe keep the core 6 for tradition or inspiration. But, even then characters almost always seem to develop personality during play, and the scores never given a second thought after the initial roll up. I need to ponder this some more...
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Aug 26, 2017 10:42:34 GMT -6
The 6 scores simplify what could have been an untrackable heap of variety if they didn't exist. Not that players can't tweak their details as the game goes along, but those are slow changes I can keep up with. Not a dozens and dozens of scores for everything everywhere. Now that's an interesting perspective. Slowly develop "substats" during play as needed. This would be in lieu of front loading everything at character creation. I like this concept very much. NOTE: If I misinterpreted your point, apologies. I think it really depends upon the system you're running and if such a thing is possible within it. Other than that, I'd say custom Ability Scores like adding Comeliness can be added too. And each player aggregate might the subscores under unique categories if they want too. (Not that there aren't potential balance problems there) (And definitely don't ask me to use "every time unique" custom Ability Scores for everything I'm tracking in the entire game!)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2017 10:56:49 GMT -6
If you're using prime requisite for XP bonus like the rules say, I'd count that as significant.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Aug 26, 2017 11:21:50 GMT -6
Fighters are not all the same. Crappy players are all the same. Okay, we're done here. Somebody fetch me a beer. This seems to go against Tolstoy: And yet I completely agree with it.
|
|
|
Post by murquhart72 on Aug 26, 2017 16:08:55 GMT -6
To be fair, some players are crappy in different ways than others As far as abilities go, I like to play those fast and loose. Very subjective. In that way, they become much more valuable and useful, in a narrative sense. They pretty much give me a vague look at what any character can accomplish as far as skills and such go. Not counting player skill at any rate. As far as I'm concerned, character type (class) is the least important 'stat' as it basically just lets everyone know whether you use magic or not (give or take). The real difference isn't in "character builds" or "skill lists" or even how they equip themselves. The real difference is in how they're described and played. Saying all Fighting-Men are the same is the equivalent of saying all pro-wrestlers are the same. Why root for one or the other when they're all just powerful athletes who battle in the same ring? All this post is about is not complaining about what many think to be a design flaw, and just putting some CHARACTER in their character!
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Aug 31, 2017 11:50:44 GMT -6
Regarding ability scores and the relative merits of keeping them largely unattached to mechanical activities:
I think the most useful feature of the 3-18 range is its elasticity. The ranges represents proportional ability, but that's it. You are at your leisure to define how wide or narrow the proportional range is in any situation.
Taking strength, we can assume that all stats 3-18 are 'relatively healthy', and can therefore be ignored until two characters come to a head: then their scores can be compared to find out who is proportionally better. Think of it like a CRT in a wargame: it makes no difference whether a unit has a combat power of 2 or 6 when it is by itself. It's power only means something as a ratio against who it's fighting. Now once that 6 power unit attacks a 2 power unit, you have a 3:1 ratio in power and you know what you're dealing with.
In another situation, like lifting a car, we might say that the 3-18 range covers a wide range of "never will be able to do it" and "can do it with one hand."
Similarly, even within a single situation you don't have to treat the 3-18 range as the same for all parties. A Magic-User and a Fighting-Man get into a wrestling match. Both have Strength 12. Obviously the Fighting-Man has the edge, because a Fighting-Man of nearly any Strength would have more muscle than a Magic-User.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Sept 8, 2017 21:23:48 GMT -6
Zulygan wrote:
A fair sentiment, but messy, I expect, as players are more likely to conflate compounding elements of the rules with a character being unique as the OP suggests.
It is positive only if one wishes to slide into Advanced and later editions. The game does not remain simple. Simple means the efficacy of class is assumed in the game elements themselves, i.e. , level, weapon choice (Chnml MTM) or attack matrices (3LBBs), etc. The uniqueness, barring player skill, background and particular style (Roman, Norman, Celtic etc.), is implied in the game "elements" or abstraction. Inserting or compounding elements of the game without having a sense of what is implied in the abstraction encumbers the simplicity of the design.
To be sure, there is latitude to shade the classes; some fighters are fanatical, berserk or just a higher morale rating than those of their unit type (see Gronan's point above concerning troop type), some have military training and access to particular types of weaponry and armor while others not, etc. There are various minor permutations that may be 'applied', from morale ratings to a +1 "to hit" modifier that enumerate something characteristic of this kind of fighting man (a fanatical warrior might have +1 "to hit" as exemplified by the Dervish man type). Further, those qualities or advantages often reveal a dearth of resources or access to arms, armor and even mounts perhaps, characteristic of another type of fighting man. Nonetheless, all of this compliments the abstraction rather than burdening it with unnecessary bells and whistles that slow the game and ignore the design.
I think the DM or the DM and the players together are more likely to come to an understanding of the design and the implied "variety", rather than permitting players to tinker and play around with the game. It's a subtle distinction, complimenting the game and playing around with the game. Admittedly, most of us, myself included, have confused the two.
Sixdemonbag wrote:
You "could" and can play an entire campaign with only class and level based stuff. We rid ourselves of stats some time ago and as you suggest never think on it. Conversely, as Gronan suggests, experience modifiers and prime requisites are useful. Moreover it's a rather elegant use of stats, should one choose to use them at all.
Hamurai wrote:
The melee rounds in Chainmail are indefinite, while the turn is certain. It may be that each melee rd. is a 'chop', a swing or in a 'fast and furious' melee these are actually the telling blows.
Agreed. This is a fine example of what is assumed or implied in the abstraction, or elements of the game.
Scott Anderson wrote:
I rely on descriptors rather than stats in this case, but again, should one use stats, this is gold; well said, Scott.
|
|