|
|
Post by tdenmark on Nov 11, 2021 2:58:20 GMT -6
Of all the editions I think that Moldvay Basic is the clearest most concise definition of the 6 attributes:
Strength is a measure of muscle power and the ability to use that power.
Intelligence is the ability to learn and remember knowledge, and the ability to solve problems.
Wisdom refers to inspiration, intuition, common sense, and shrewdness. Wisdom aids in solving problems when Intelligence is not enough.
Dexterity is a measure of speed and agility. A character with a high Dexterity score is "good with his hands" and has a good sense of balance.
Constitution is a combination of health and endurance (the ability to hold up under pressure).
Charisma is a combination of appearance, personal charm, and leadership ability. It helps the DM decide exactly how a monster will react to a player character.
I find the Mentzer Basic to be the most convoluted because it is told in a narrative.
What is your favorite set of attribute descriptions?
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Nov 11, 2021 3:34:53 GMT -6
This is how I've written them up in my current RPG's.
Strength measures raw physical power.
Strength is used when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
Force open a stuck, locked, or barred door
Break free of bonds
Push a boulder over
Dexterity measures agility and quickness.
Dexterity is used when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
Securely tie up a prisoner
Wriggle free of bonds
Ride an untamed animal
Constitution measures endurance and health.
Constitution is used when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
Hold your breath for minutes
Go without sleep for days
Survive days without food or water
Intelligence measures reasoning and memory.
Intelligence is used when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
Communicate without using words
Estimate the value of a precious item
Recall complex information
Wisdom measures perception, cunning, and insight.
Wisdom is used when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
Notice if someone is lying
Spot an unnoticed detail
Sense someone’s motive
Charisma measures appeal and force of personality.
Charisma is used when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
Tell a convincing lie
Smooth over a tense situation
Rally potential allies
|
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Nov 11, 2021 6:24:20 GMT -6
This is how I think of them. OD&D (3 LBBs without supplements)
Strength is only a number that reflects a Character’s potential for advancement as a fighter. Not really a descriptor of how the character is now.
Intelligence: for magic user’s potential.
Wisdom: cleric’s potential
I use the nomenclature only as convenient tags: identifiers that are specific only to the attached mechanic. After all, what does it mean to be Strong? It’s a pretty broad term, no?
Even though three dice are rolled, I do not use the results as a bell curve representing the population. I know, I know. “Later, in AD&D, Gygax explained it that way: 3 Intelligence is basically 30 IQ!” But I don’t see the need to use the numbers in that fashion. My way eliminates the problem of players trying to Act like a Supra genius or, on the flip side, like a 5 year old.
|
|
bravewolf
Level 4 Theurgist
I don't care what Howard says.
Posts: 109 
|
Post by bravewolf on Nov 11, 2021 14:22:54 GMT -6
This is how I think of them. OD&D (3 LBBs without supplements) Strength is only a number that reflects a Character’s potential for advancement as a fighter. Not really a descriptor of how the character is now. Intelligence: for magic user’s potential. Wisdom: cleric’s potential I use the nomenclature only as convenient tags: identifiers that are specific only to the attached mechanic. After all, what does it mean to be Strong? It’s a pretty broad term, no? Even though three dice are rolled, I do not use the results as a bell curve representing the population. I know, I know. “Later, in AD&D, Gygax explained it that way: 3 Intelligence is basically 30 IQ!” But I don’t see the need to use the numbers in that fashion. My way eliminates the problem of players trying to Act like a Supra genius or, on the flip side, like a 5 year old. This. I tried to sell my gaming group on this concept but they couldn't reorient their thinking, instead choosing to despair over "hopeless" PCs and "meaningless" attributes. Schade. |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Nov 11, 2021 15:39:48 GMT -6
This is how I think of them. OD&D (3 LBBs without supplements) Strength is only a number that reflects a Character’s potential for advancement as a fighter. Not really a descriptor of how the character is now. Intelligence: for magic user’s potential. Wisdom: cleric’s potential I use the nomenclature only as convenient tags: identifiers that are specific only to the attached mechanic. After all, what does it mean to be Strong? It’s a pretty broad term, no? Even though three dice are rolled, I do not use the results as a bell curve representing the population. I know, I know. “Later, in AD&D, Gygax explained it that way: 3 Intelligence is basically 30 IQ!” But I don’t see the need to use the numbers in that fashion. My way eliminates the problem of players trying to Act like a Supra genius or, on the flip side, like a 5 year old. This. I tried to sell my gaming group on this concept but they couldn't reorient their thinking, instead choosing to despair over "hopeless" PCs and "meaningless" attributes. Schade. It’s hard for my players to grasp the concept too. Something about a low number makes a player feel like they caught a worthless fish. It’s funny. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Nov 11, 2021 20:58:45 GMT -6
It’s hard for my players to grasp the concept too. Something about a low number makes a player feel like they caught a worthless fish. It’s funny. yeah, I don't get it either. |
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Nov 12, 2021 9:38:55 GMT -6
“Later, in AD&D, Gygax explained it that way: 3 Intelligence is basically 30 IQ!” But I don’t see the need to use the numbers in that fashion. My way eliminates the problem of players trying to Act like a Supra genius or, on the flip side, like a 5 year old. As I've said somewhere before, I treat INT like Traveller's Education: INT 3 means the character has never even heard about concepts like written language, even simple mathematics will take time and are limited to what you can do with your fingers and the world basically is blank beyond the places the character has seen themselves. And even then, the memory is fuzzy and what isn't around every day may easily be forgotten soon. INT 18 means a great education, either at an elite school or by a very good personal teacher, combined with the ability to keep all that knowledge like languages, high mathematics, history, politics, plus obscure knowledge like magic rituals etc. I assume the intelligence of every adventurer to be what the player wants it to be - their character can be a genius, but if INT is low, an uneducated genius. Similarly, they can be as dumb as a stone, but if INT is high, they probably have a memory like a sponge and can keep a lot of knowledge, maybe without knowing what it actually means and how to apply it. |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Nov 12, 2021 9:58:17 GMT -6
“Later, in AD&D, Gygax explained it that way: 3 Intelligence is basically 30 IQ!” But I don’t see the need to use the numbers in that fashion. My way eliminates the problem of players trying to Act like a Supra genius or, on the flip side, like a 5 year old. As I've said somewhere before, I treat INT like Traveller's Education: INT 3 means the character has never even heard about concepts like written language, even simple mathematics will take time and are limited to what you can do with your fingers and the world basically is blank beyond the places the character has seen themselves. And even then, the memory is fuzzy and what isn't around every day may easily be forgotten soon. INT 18 means a great education, either at an elite school or by a very good personal teacher, combined with the ability to keep all that knowledge like languages, high mathematics, history, politics, plus obscure knowledge like magic rituals etc. I assume the intelligence of every adventurer to be what the player wants it to be - their character can be a genius, but if INT is low, an uneducated genius. Similarly, they can be as dumb as a stone, but if INT is high, they probably have a memory like a sponge and can keep a lot of knowledge, maybe without knowing what it actually means and how to apply it. Yeah, I can understand. I have found that it’s best, for me at least, not to police what the players want the characters to do with challenges other than giving them odds for success. When they say that they should have a better chance cause they have a high score in an attribute, then it smooths things over to give ‘em a plus 1. I’m not as concerned as others about connecting particular actions, or even back stories, to specific attributes. It’s just where I have ended up as a referee…more fluid when it comes to character actions. It supports my desire to keep players thoughts in the fantasy world vs constantly checking the sheet to spot a mechanical boon. |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Nov 12, 2021 10:04:50 GMT -6
It’s hard for my players to grasp the concept too. Something about a low number makes a player feel like they caught a worthless fish. It’s funny. yeah, I don't get it either. High strength roll equals the potential to advance faster as a fighter. Therefore a bonus to XP. That’s pretty much it. Low Strength means you advance slower. So, less potential. I’m just referring to the 3 LBBs without any supplements. Hope this helps. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Nov 12, 2021 15:52:37 GMT -6
No. I think this derailed the thread. I was hoping people would jump in with their favorite descriptions of the abilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Nov 12, 2021 15:54:24 GMT -6
After all, what does it mean to be Strong? It’s a pretty broad term, no? No. Strong isn't that broad, it is pretty straight forward. Dexterity is kind of broad, Constitution even more so. But it is Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma that are the harder ones to nail down. |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Nov 12, 2021 16:12:46 GMT -6
No. I think this derailed the thread. I was hoping people would jump in with their favorite descriptions of the abilities. My apologies, I was just attempting to answer your initial question. My favorite descriptors would be “as minimal a description as possible per attribute so as to leave room for later rulings during the game.”  Strength stands for potential to excel as a fighter. Intelligence means potential to excel as a magic user plus how many languages you can learn. wisdom means potential to rise in power as a cleric. dexterity means your potential to hit with a missile weapon. constitution means your potential to avoid a killing blow as well as surviving attempts at being resurrected charisma is your potential to command unusual hirelings, aka henchmen in battle. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Nov 13, 2021 5:14:05 GMT -6
Strength stands for potential to excel as a fighter. Intelligence means potential to excel as a magic user plus how many languages you can learn. wisdom means potential to rise in power as a cleric. dexterity means your potential to hit with a missile weapon. constitution means your potential to avoid a killing blow as well as surviving attempts at being resurrected charisma is your potential to command unusual hirelings, aka henchmen in battle. That makes more sense. To me. |
|
|
|
Post by blackwyvern on Nov 13, 2021 7:38:34 GMT -6
I prefer the original rules definitions.
Strength is the prime requisite for fighters. ... Strength will also aid in opening traps and so on.
Intelligence is the prime requisite for magical types. ... Intelligence will also affect referees' decisions as to whether or not certain
action would be taken (Not really a fan of this part as it kind of evokes a "Veto! Your character isn't smart enough to do that!" vibe.), and it allows additional languages to be spoken.
Wisdom is the prime requisite for Clerics.
Constitution is a combination of health and endurance. It will influence such
things as the number of hits which can be taken and how well the character can
withstand being paralyzed, turned to stone, etc.
Dexterity applies to both manual speed and conjuration. It will indicate the
character's missile ability and speed with actions such as firing first, getting off a
spell, etc.
Charisma is a combination of appearance, personality, and so forth. Its primary
function is to determine how many hirelings of unusual nature a character can
attract.
For the most part, with very few modifiers these descriptions, and those sprinkled throughout the text give us a picture of attributes being used as guides for the referee on adjudication of things characters attempt. I think when you start defining attributes and applying modifiers you create the "hopeless character".
I personally am inclined to just do away with attributes all together and give players a list of the positive modifiers given in the original rules and let them make one roll on it and then have them tell me what that means. "Why does your character get a +1 to hit with missile weapons?"
I think attributes were originally designed to give players an idea of who their characters were for role playing. We have lost that! Now we have to have arrays and arrange to taste so players feel like they have a chance in the game. Excessive modifiers are part of the problem but even defining an attribute to closely will start you down that path.
|
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Nov 13, 2021 9:35:03 GMT -6
I think attributes were originally designed to give players an idea of who their characters were for role playing. We have lost that! Now we have to have arrays and arrange to taste so players feel like they have a chance in the game. Excessive modifiers are part of the problem but even defining an attribute to closely will start you down that path. Here’s a link to a relevant article on this point. Cheers! boggswood.blogspot.com/2016/10/megarry-early-blackmoor-character-matrix.html |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Nov 13, 2021 17:00:14 GMT -6
In Wesley D. Ives’ Article “HOW TO USE NON-PRIME-REQUISITE CHARACTER ATTRIBUTES”,
published in Dragon Magazine’s Fist Issue, He lists the following “USES FOR ATTRIBUTES:
STRENGTH — Any extraordinary physical exertion.
INTELLIGENCE — Discovering proper method of operating all mechanical devices, including all magical devices; Discerning patterns; deducing cause & effect; recognizing types of lairs; learning new languages and skills; etc.
WISDOM — divining “correct path” of action; recognizing func- tion of devices; etc.
CONSTITUTION — all questions of stamina — swimming, running, staying awake, going hungry, etc.
DEXTERITY — manual manipulation of devices (he may know what it does, and how to make it work, and still fumble when the time comes to use it); balance and climbing; tying/untying knots; etc.
CHARISMA — believability; persuasiveness; morale of followers; etc”
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Nov 13, 2021 22:44:35 GMT -6
I personally am inclined to just do away with attributes all together and give players a list of the positive modifiers given in the original rules and let them make one roll on it and then have them tell me what that means. "Why does your character get a +1 to hit with missile weapons?" You could infer that is how Blackmoor originally worked. A list of the character's positive attributes, and nothing extraneous. The character can try to do anything, but gets no bonus if they don't specifically have it.  |
|
|
|
Post by blackwyvern on Nov 13, 2021 23:36:15 GMT -6
I don't know enough about Blackmore to have any clue how these characters actually worked. The scores are obviously rankings of some sort very war game feel to them. Weapon ability, skills and what we would call consider attributes/statistics all rolled together.
What I was talking about was doing away with attributes all together and letting characters roll on this table for one "special ability". Then they get to tell me what is special about this character that he has this ability.
All characters have the following:
75% Survive Adversity, Speak 1 language other than Common, Can have up to 4 unusual hirelings.
Roll a d8 one time to determine character attribute.
1) Earns more XP (+10%)
2) Gets more HP (+1 per die)
3) More loyal hirelings (+3)
4) More favorable reactions (+2)
5) Can have more hirelings (+4)
6) Can learn more languages (+4)
7) Always survives adversity (100%)
8) +1 to hit with missile weapons
It doesn't have a lot of staying power but for a one shot it could be interesting. Though in truth it looks fairly boring. I go back and forth with attributes every campaign I start. But getting back to your original question my preference at this point is minimal descriptions, minimal definitions. Let the characters come up with their own understanding of what the attribute is and define their character within that framework.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 14, 2021 9:51:03 GMT -6
I personally am inclined to just do away with attributes all together and give players a list of the positive modifiers given in the original rules and let them make one roll on it and then have them tell me what that means. "Why does your character get a +1 to hit with missile weapons?" You could infer that is how Blackmoor originally worked. A list of the character's positive attributes, and nothing extraneous. The character can try to do anything, but gets no bonus if they don't specifically have it. If I was to draw any conclusions just from looking at the Megarry character sheet it would be that all actions are resolved with the same mechanic- likely a 3d6 roll equal or under score. I see no +/- modifiers. In the context of D&D that would mean any action that required adjudication could be resolved using a d20. Hmm, sounds familiar  |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Nov 14, 2021 11:09:54 GMT -6
You could infer that is how Blackmoor originally worked. A list of the character's positive attributes, and nothing extraneous. The character can try to do anything, but gets no bonus if they don't specifically have it. If I was to draw any conclusions just from looking at the Megarry character sheet it would be that all actions are resolved with the same mechanic- likely a 3d6 roll equal or under score. I see no +/- modifiers. In the context of D&D that would mean any action that required adjudication could be resolved using a d20. Hmm, sounds familiar One word descriptions. 2d6 probably. I prefer the 6 of D&D. How would you describe them? |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 14, 2021 11:26:45 GMT -6
One word descriptions. 2d6 probably. I prefer the 6 of D&D. How would you describe them? I like a little ambiguity. Let the GM work out the details and applicability. As for 2d6, Megarry's sheet could suggest that early on. There are scores as low as 2. At some point it changed because he has scores of 14 for sword and mace and 13 for Brains for three different characters. Could even be 2d10. Don't know really. My main point is that, at first glance, it suggests a universal mechanic. |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Nov 14, 2021 12:31:53 GMT -6
One word descriptions. 2d6 probably. I prefer the 6 of D&D. How would you describe them? I like a little ambiguity. Let the GM work out the details and applicability. As for 2d6, Megarry's sheet could suggest that early on. There are scores as low as 2. At some point it changed because he has scores of 14 for sword and mace and 13 for Brains for three different characters. Could even be 2d10. Don't know really. My main point is that, at first glance, it suggests a universal mechanic. I played once with a guy that was an early Blackmore player. He would never reveal the mechanic to anyone asking. He loved to throw dice and then you’d see him in thought, like he was interpreting the dice. It was eerie and cool at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by blackwyvern on Nov 14, 2021 13:48:55 GMT -6
I kind of think that may be how Blackmore was done. It seems that DA kept his rules pretty close. The numbers could just be a rating that could be used to help measure a dice throw. Basically what I do with d6. "Lets see you rolled a 4 and have a 13 dex. Yeah you jump over the pit!" There may not be any hard coded rhyme or reason to it. I actually think I like that better. You don't know how good or bad your score is until you roll a die.
|
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Nov 14, 2021 14:21:20 GMT -6
We have completely gone off the map. Sorry thomden.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Nov 15, 2021 0:54:45 GMT -6
We have completely gone off the map. Sorry thomden. Heh, yeah, it did kind of move around in an interesting direction. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Nov 16, 2021 12:53:51 GMT -6
I kind of think that may be how Blackmore was done. It seems that DA kept his rules pretty close. The numbers could just be a rating that could be used to help measure a dice throw. Basically what I do with d6. "Lets see you rolled a 4 and have a 13 dex. Yeah you jump over the pit!" There may not be any hard coded rhyme or reason to it. I actually think I like that better. You don't know how good or bad your score is until you roll a die. The real secret of Blackmoor is that Arneson probably only ever pretended to have rules.  It's actually a very nice reminder, that the way probably all us naturally took to the game at first exposure is in fact the time honored way, far more venerable even than Gygax's infamous "Roll the dice for the sound they make" comment. As late as the late 90s, our default, teenaged way of playing anything was to more or less follow the round-to-round combat rules, and everything else was, "Tell me what you roll and let me think about it… hmm, yeah that seems high enough." Anyway, to round this back to the topic at hand: Count me another who prefers describing the abilities only by what they do mechanically, and just letting the players handle their characters however they get fun out of it. dicebro 's description are perfect for me in that regard. It helps move players away from assuming the character controls their options, and also allows me to "pretend to have rules" as little or as much as suits the game. Moldvay definitely has the best overall descriptions of any edition, and while I applaud Mentzer's attempt to emulate the preferred method of learning through play, I agree that it gets confusing and also sends a misleading message that this way and that way are how you interpret the stats. |
|
