Statless OD&D

[vladtolenkov]

I was reading a thread at the Knights and Knaves Alehouse and came across the following which was posted by Calithena:

Treat the six stats as adjectives. Humans get two, other races get one plus the racial abiliities.
e.g.

Gronan the Simmeryan
Level 1 Fighting Man
Strong, Dextrous

Merlynd the Magnificent
Level 1 Magic-User
Intelligent, Charismatic

Thendarin Elvenstar
Level 1 Elf
Dextrous

(or whatever. you could give demi-humans 2 also if you thought the level caps were good and a sufficient balance. or everyone 3 if you want more studmuffinish types. Or start with two base and then you can get extra ones if you trade off with Weak, Stupid, Rash, Clumsy, Frail, or Boring And Ugly.)

So then:

Strong characters get +1 to hit.
Intelligent characters get 2 bonus languages to start.
Wise characters notice things on a 1-3 instead of 1-2.
Dextrous characters get -1 armor class.
Sturdy (Tough, etc.) characters get a hit point bonus, perhaps +1 per die.
Charismatic characters get some increased number of henchmen and better morale checks (streamlining the OD&D rules).

and, you just pick.

Very interesting stuff. After reading that I felt like I'd gone so old school that OD&D had become an Indie Story Game.

From a design point of view the pre-Greyhawk stats don't really DO very much so why not just dump them? This sort of thing would be perfect for a quick con game or when you want to introduce some newbies.

Whaddya think?

Nick

[vladtolenkov]

Here's the original thread:

www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2830

[wulfgar]

I like. While I wasn't around then, this does sound like some of the descriptions of the initial D&D campaigns I've read about. Players had basically no stats, the entire "character sheet" fit on an index card and this card was usually in the hands of the DM anyway. Players just said "I want to be a warrior" for example and played.

[jjarvis]

It does look like an awfulyl simple and easy method of creating/defining characters.

I caught myself writing out a list of abilities to expand on it ever so slightly.

One may not need the thief class at all for instance if abilities such as "Sneaky" were added.

[calithena]

Hey Vlad,

Calithena's a total hack. Anything he (or is it a she? what is up with the cross dressing?) posts is pretty much suspect.

However, he/she/it followed up on that idea in this thread here on ODDD:

odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=menmagic&action=display&thread=1188650772

so that's something further to think about.

[Finarvyn]

A wonderful discussion, which brings me to a question of philosophy: "How much can you change OD&D and still call it OD&D?"

I don't really expect to get a definitive answer, because I don't think there is one. I thought of this question earlier today when I was tinkering with brown book classes and tweaking things to get a balance I liked better. Then I wondered if it was still OD&D.

The same thing is true for this statless OD&D concept. I love it, and it does sound like a simple and highly story-based system that could be a lot of fun "on the fly" with less prep time. But is it still OD&D? I'm not sure...

[vladtolenkov]

It does look like an awfulyl simple and easy method of creating/defining characters.
I caught myself writing out a list of abilities to expand on it ever so slightly.

One may not need the thief class at all for instance iabilities such as "Sneaky" were added.

This occurred to me as well, and you could even expand on it so that these "attributes" could refer to a whole variety of things, but Finarvyn's concern that we'd end up with something that wasn't quite D&D anymore is well justified.

And you know this is EXACTLY the sort of the thing that led to the creation of the rpg industry as we know it. Because what we call "house ruling" is often actually game design. Gygax's assumptions that the players would "make it up" just like he did-- led to lots of people doing just that and sometimes they wandered into places that stopped being what we might recognize as D&D.

And sometimes they were people like Greg Stafford or Steve Jackson.

These observations might better belong in the philosophy section but anyway...

[Finarvyn]

And don't get me wrong ... I'm not bashing the concept. It looks like a lot of fun and easy to play.

[vladtolenkov]

Fin,

Didn't think you were.

Another downside, I suppose, is the fun of rolling those dice!

But Gary's GenCon method in the second link even gets around that.

Nick

[vladtolenkov]

Calithena,

Have you used this in your games?

[calithena]

Not yet, but that may change soon.