|
|
Post by cadriel on Jan 6, 2013 6:08:58 GMT -6
In looking into Warlock (the old CalTech variant of D&D), one of the things that stuck out was the addition of 2 new statistics: Size, which is used in encumbrance and combat, and Agility, which functions for armor class as Dexterity does in Greyhawk and forward.
It always made a bit more sense to me to use a Dexterity / Agility split, since they are not really the same thing; Dexterity is supposed to be hand-eye coordination rather than nimbleness, which is represented by Agility. It also has the nice effect of keeping attributes focused; instead of piling more onto Dexterity you add the dodge factor to Agility. I've been thinking about using it the next time I run a game.
What alternate attributes have you used? Any other thoughts on this? Or do most folks just prefer the "original 6"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 6, 2013 9:39:53 GMT -6
I mostly favor the "big six" attributes, but have tried others at one time or another. (The biggest being trying somehow to blend INT with WIS.) My final solution is typically to give the non-combat stats (INT, WIS, CHA) more that they can do, such as using WIS for perception rolls so that players value the stat more.
I hate to subdivide stats unless more are divided up; AD&D 2E did this and my players just started to MIN/MAX the system as it was presented. This gave me a bad taste for it.
Size reminds me of the direction that RuneQuest took (essentially the same system as BRP, Elric, Call of Cthulhu, etc.). Not a bad thing, really, but it didn't feel very OD&D-like to me because of this bias.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Jan 6, 2013 9:54:06 GMT -6
In my Arkham campaign, I use the "big six" except I swap Wisdom for Sanity. Reason being, there is no Wisdom in Arkham.  |
|
|
|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on Jan 6, 2013 11:31:22 GMT -6
I've often thought of adding the T&T Luck attribute and doing away with saving throws. Modifiers to luck would apply instead of saving throws.
|
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Jan 6, 2013 13:59:25 GMT -6
I mostly favor the "big six" attributes, but have tried others at one time or another. (The biggest being trying somehow to blend INT with WIS.) My final solution is typically to give the non-combat stats (INT, WIS, CHA) more that they can do, such as using WIS for perception rolls so that players value the stat more. Yeah, I actually used to run "perception" as a separate statistic for a while when I ran 2e - it was explicitly made part of Wisdom in 3e. That actually kind of bugged me. I wouldn't run with a "perception" stat in OD&D, because there is pretty explicit perception going on in the hearing rolls and so on, that would clash with the way the game is written; at the same time there is the idea of "I rolled, so tell me what I notice" instead of actual exploration that I dislike. The system in 2e Skills & Powers was pretty much written with maximum potential for min/maxing, giving players permission to "inflate" the parts of their stats that affected day to day rolls by 2 with very minor side effects for the most part. I hear you on that. But Size in Warlock predates RQ by a bit - which can be seen as a question of an idea that flowed the other way. |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jan 7, 2013 1:56:02 GMT -6
Size worked in the old RuneQuest editions 1-3 (and now BRP) because it came into lots of things like encumbrance (the RQ "things" ENC system), knockback and stealth. I'm not sure it's needed in D&D because those things are handled differently.
Similarly, on the Dexterity/Agility split, RQ3 simulated this through the skill system by splitting the old DEX skills (manipulation) into manipulation and agility. It made sense in that system, but I can't see what would be gained by splitting it in the D&D system.
That said, I'm a minimalist when it comes to system design and the six are already as many as I would want.
|
|
|
|
Post by cleverkobold on Jan 7, 2013 8:59:26 GMT -6
I frequently add PERception as a seventh.
|
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Jan 7, 2013 9:36:17 GMT -6
Size worked in the old RuneQuest editions 1-3 (and now BRP) because it came into lots of things like encumbrance (the RQ "things" ENC system), knockback and stealth. I'm not sure it's needed in D&D because those things are handled differently. Similarly, on the Dexterity/Agility split, RQ3 simulated this through the skill system by splitting the old DEX skills (manipulation) into manipulation and agility. It made sense in that system, but I can't see what would be gained by splitting it in the D&D system. That said, I'm a minimalist when it comes to system design and the six are already as many as I would want. I actually think having separate Dexterity and Agility scores, or separate Wisdom and Perception scores - as these seem to be the big ones - adds to simplicity rather than detracting from it, in a sense, because instead of piling more and more variable stuff onto the 6 existing statistics, it keeps their OD&D simplicity and limits the expansion of what the domain of attributes actually is. I agree that Size doesn't work as such in OD&D, because Encumbrance is so much simpler. Doesn't mean I won't keep looking at the Agility and Perception split-outs which appeal to me on a symmetry basis. |
|
|
|
Post by Ynas Midgard on Jan 7, 2013 14:59:35 GMT -6
I kinda like the attribute system present in DCC RPG:
- Strength
- Agility (=Dexterity)
- Stamina (=Constitution)
- Personality (=Charisma+Wisdom)
- Intelligence
- Luck (that's actually new)
|
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Jan 7, 2013 18:44:35 GMT -6
I kinda like the attribute system present in DCC RPG: - Strength - Agility (=Dexterity) - Stamina (=Constitution) - Personality (=Charisma+Wisdom) - Intelligence - Luck (that's actually new) Luck isn't new, it's present in Tunnels & Trolls, which dates from 1975. I never was quite sure about it myself, although I like T&T fine as its own thing - I don't think I'd want it as D&D. |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jan 7, 2013 22:18:44 GMT -6
I actually think having separate Dexterity and Agility scores, or separate Wisdom and Perception scores - as these seem to be the big ones - adds to simplicity rather than detracting from it, in a sense, because instead of piling more and more variable stuff onto the 6 existing statistics, it keeps their OD&D simplicity and limits the expansion of what the domain of attributes actually is. Can you elaborate how you would use Agility and Dexterity in the rules? - Luck (that's actually new) Luck isn't new, it's present in Tunnels & Trolls, which dates from 1975. I never was quite sure about it myself, although I like T&T fine as its own thing - I don't think I'd want it as D&D. RQ also has a "luck roll", although I don't remember when it started - based on a POW x 5 roll on d%. Personally I never liked it, because it can turn into a second chance for everything if you're not careful. |
|
|
|
Post by Ynas Midgard on Jan 8, 2013 6:56:11 GMT -6
I kinda like the attribute system present in DCC RPG: - Strength - Agility (=Dexterity) - Stamina (=Constitution) - Personality (=Charisma+Wisdom) - Intelligence - Luck (that's actually new) Luck isn't new, it's present in Tunnels & Trolls, which dates from 1975. I never was quite sure about it myself, although I like T&T fine as its own thing - I don't think I'd want it as D&D. By "new", I meant Luck has no equivalent in D&D, whereas the others obviously do. |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Jan 8, 2013 7:32:14 GMT -6
Can you elaborate how you would use Agility and Dexterity in the rules? Dexterity would work like in LBB OD&D - depending on your score, you could get a +1 (13 or better) or -1 (8 or less) on missile fire. Hit probability would be similarly modified for Agility - Warlock has it where an Agility of 16 or better is -1 on attempts to hit you, and 5 or less is +1. I would probably have it modify AC like Dexterity does in later editions, but with a threshold of 14 / 7 so: Agility of 14 or higher: -1 (bonus) to AC Agility of 7 or less: +1 (penalty) to AC |
|
|
|
Post by aher on Jan 8, 2013 20:30:50 GMT -6
What alternate attributes have you used? Any other thoughts on this? Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone's inaugural Fighting Fantasy volume, The Warlock of Firetop Mountain (1982), also had a Luck attribute. In fact, the system only had three attributes: Skill, Stamina and Luck. Skill measured fighting ability. Stamina equated with hit points. Luck functioned in two ways: First, a successful Luck roll increased damage done to an opponent (by 2 points), but a failed roll decreased damage (by 1 point). Similarly, a successful Luck roll decreased the damage you sustained after a hit, but a a failed roll increased your damage. Second, the Luck roll was kind of a catch-all, used to determine the outcome of uncertain events (other than combat which used Skill), such as sneaking past a sleeping guard without waking him up. Luck was initially computed as 6 + 1d6. The Luck roll mechanic was 2d6 <= LuckIt's important to note, each time you tried your Luck, you subtracted 1 point from your Luck attribute. So, eventually, you ran out of Luck. Because of that limitation, you couldn't overuse it. You needed to be smart and use it economically and strategically. Luck could be restored by a potion of Fortune, which also added 1 additional point to your original Luck score. It's also worth pointing out that testing your Luck could backfire, resulting in bad luck -- if you missed your luck roll, something bad would happen. I think the Luck attribute works really well in solo adventuring, where you need to give the PC some help to survive, to make-up for the lack of teamwork and cooperation you get by adventuring with a larger, more diverse party. For the same reason, it could also work effectively in 1-on-1 adventures (1 DM and 1 player). The Luck attribute also works really well as a catch-all, filling-in for all the innumerable abilities absent from the game system. The current thread shows we could wind-up multiplying abilities endlessly. At some point, you just need to stop. And it makes a lot of sense to say Luck is that nebulous ability that takes account of everything else. I think both Fighting Fantasy and Tunnels and Trolls use Luck wisely, in precisely these two ways. Both systems excel at solo adventuring. And both systems were rules-lite -- Fighting Fantasy was downright minimalistic in its use of just 3 attributes (including Luck). It is worth pointing out that the Tunnels and Trolls Luck attribute functioned mechanically differently than that of Fighting Fantasy. It did increase (if above 12, or decrease if below 9) one's combat effectiveness and by implication the damage you could effectively deliver, because it was a constituent of one's "personal adds." Apart from combat, checks were made against your prime attributes versus a difficulty level. The Saving Roll (SR) was DARO + ability score >= 15 + (5 * difficulty level)where DARO means 2d6 "doubles add-and-roll-over." Ability scores, including Luck, were determined by TARO rolls -- 3d6 "triples add-and-roll-over." Bashing down a wooden door might be a Level 1 Strength SR. Winning a game of darts might be a Dexterity SR. If no other prime attribute was appropriate, then Luck was used as a catch-all. I enjoy solo adventures a lot. I recently played the Amazon Kindle version of The Warlock of Firetop Mountain and thought it was a great conversion to the e-book format. Last year, I played the Tunnels and Trolls classic Blue Frog Tavern (1981) by James Wilson, which I got in PDF format from DTRPG for a few bucks -- very fun, worth every penny. Luck is indispensible in these games for the aforementioned reasons: It compensates for not having a party of adventureres watching your back, and it helps determine the outcome of uncertain events when no other attribute really fits. In 2003, when Jamie Wallis converted The Warlock of Firetop Mountain to d20, he added the Luck attribute, and expanded its use. The Luck roll was d20 + Luck modifier >= DCThe difficulty class was 10 by default. You could use Luck rolls as a bonus "to hit", damage, skill rolls, damage reduction, etc., in the following way: For every two whole points you scored above the DC, you got a +1 to your next roll; however, in the case of a failed Luck roll, you got -1 to your next roll for every two whole points by which you failed. Moreover, every time you tested your Luck, you lost 1 point of Luck (these could be regenerated). Example: You test your luck to hit a goblin guard. Your Luck modifer is +1. If you roll 12 on your d20, your Luck roll is 12 + 1 = 13, so you get a +1 to hit the goblin, viz., floor[(roll 12 + 1 mod - 10 DC)/2]=+1. But if you only rolled a 6 on the d20, you would get a -1 to hit against the goblin. In either case your Luck attribute is reduced by one, and hence your Luck modifier may be reduced as well. In addition to "testing your luck," you could also permanently "burn" your Luck: For each point of Luck you burned, you got +1 to your next roll, e.g., you could burn 6 points of Luck to get a +6 on your next "to hit" roll. But those 6 points were gone permanently. So this is something you might hold off doing, unless your life depended on it, or you were in a "boss fight" at the end of an adventure. I actually like this d20 conversion a lot. Luck points were more flexible than in the original Fighting Fantasy series. Though they could function more like "Karma" in TSR's MSHRPG (1982), FUDGE or FATE points, Force points in S/W, or Action points in D&D 4e, Luck was still just an ability score, rolled using 3d6 during character generation. It was not a "derived" ability like Karma or a bonus for good roleplaying like FUDGE of FATE points. This thread ( 3d6, re-roll 1's) frets over how to mitigate low ability scores. One idea I had (but didn't mention there) was to introduce the Luck attribute, but instead of rolling for it randomly, it would be the "inverse" of your lowest ability score. For example, if your lowest ability score was WIS 3, you would get a Luck 18. If your lowest ability score was CHA 5, you would get a Luck 16. If your lowest ability score was INT 8, you would get a Luck 13. If your lowest ability score was 11, your Luck would only be 10. In this way, Luck would compensate for having a really low ability score. I haven't tried this idea out yet, but it's something I'm strongly considering for my next campaign. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 8, 2013 21:45:34 GMT -6
Nice post Aher, I exalt your attention to detail! While it's true that "Luck" is handled elegantly by various game mechanics, I find myself generally opposed to the concept of Luck as a PC "ability", although I'm not exactly certain why. Perhaps it's my perception that the ability scores should be empirically measurable features or capabilities of the persona, while luck is not. My notion of luck is that it is a fickle and mercurial thing, and not subject to repeatable testing in the manner of intellect, reaction speed, eloquence and so on. Moreover, all characters are implicitly imbued with a degree of luck already. It is evident in the ability scores and starting gold they drew, and in every die roll that is made on their behalf during play. The "made on their behalf" part is critical too. There is a fine distinction somewhere between "player strategy" and "game mastery". The former is intended to encompass in game ploys and stratagems that the player has his character perform in game. The latter is intended to mean character advantage achieved through the player's mastery of the game mechanics. My concern with "Luck", or any similar attribute which enables the player to manipulate the game mechanics, is that these immediately draw the player's attention away from the in game situation, and toward the rules and mechanics that govern play, wherein he might find (or believe he can find) ways in which to maximise his character's advantage by out of character machinations. More on topic though ... I've often considered cutting abilities back to just three. My "currently preferred" three would be Strength, Quickness, and Presence. Strength would encompass physical power, toughness, size and so on. Quickness would encompass reaction speed, quick wits, grace and so on. Presence would encompass wealth, influence, knowledge and so on. Strength would be for fighters, barbarians and the like. Quickness would be for rangers, thieves, acrobats and the like. Presence would be for wizards, bards, sorcerers, etc. Clerics (of the paladin/templar sort) could benefit from both strength and presence. While I've thought about this on and off over the years, I've never actually put it into action. Partly because the original six abilities work well enough as is, and partly because everyone already knows and understands them. Nothing further to explain! To be fair, a good portion of that thread frets over how to mitigate nondescript ability scores rather than purely low ability scores. |
|
|
|
Post by aher on Jan 9, 2013 1:46:32 GMT -6
ability scores should be empirically measurable features or capabilities of the persona, while luck is not. I totally agree that attributes should be empirically measurable. I love that in the AD&D DMG p. 15 we read that a PC with STR 18 can lift 180 lbs over his head, and that INT roughly corresponds to our modern IQ scores -- I interpret this as IQ = 10*INT, which works out nicely since average IQ is 100 and average INT is 10.5. It is possible to imagine fantasy settings in which Luck is also a measurable quantity, like STR or INT, and hence a good candidate for an attribute. In such settings, Luck isn't simply randomness, it's a force of nature, like gravity, that influences random events toward positive outcomes. And in such settings, a fortune teller could actually tell a PC how much Luck they had stored up, just like weight lifting can determine your STR or an IQ test could determine your INT. Imagine that the PCs in such a setting visit a casino. In a game of pure chance, the PC with Luck 18 would almost always beat the PC with Luck 3. But in a game of pure strategy, the PC with INT 18 would almost always beat the PC with INT 3, regardless of Luck. In this way, Luck could be subject to repeatable testing. Here are two examples of fantasy settings that incorporate Luck. First, consider a setting in which there is a god or goddess of Luck (e.g., Lakshmi). Appeasing the god through prayer, worship, sacrifice, and so on would add to one's Luck (or help regenerate Luck faster). Dissing the god would tend to bring about bad Luck. Second, a superstitious setting in which acts like breaking a mirror, crossing the path of a black cat, or walking underneath a ladder tend to diminish Luck, while certain charms and amulets (e.g. a rabbit's foot), finding a penny, or winning the largest piece of a dried wishbone tend to boost Luck. I've often considered cutting abilities back to just three. I concur that there's something very elegant about minimalistic systems that only use two, three or four stats. Here are the examples that immediately jump to mind: 2 Stats3 Stats- Microlite74, a rules-lite retro-clone of OD&D, only uses STR, DEX and MIND.
- Previously in this thread, I mentioned Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone's Fighting Fantasy (1982), which originally used only three stats: Skill, Stamina and Luck.
- Steve Jackson's The Fantasy Trip/Wizard (1978) used 3 attributes: Strength (ST), Dexterity (DX) and Intelligence (IQ).
- Tri-Stat dX uses Mind, Body, and Soul.
4 Stats- Steve Jackson's GURPS (1986) uses 4 basic attributes: Strength (ST), Dexterity (DX), Intelligence (IQ) and Health (HT).
- Instant Fuzion only uses 4 primary stats: Mental, Combat, Physical and Movement. While full-blown Fuzion (1998), a mashup of the HERO system and Interlock, used 4 groups of attributes. Each group (except movement) had 3 sub-attributes. E.g., the Combat group comprises Technique, Reflexes and Dexterity.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Jan 15, 2013 17:25:57 GMT -6
The thing that bugs me about a Luck attribute is that the dice rolls throughout the game are already a factor of actual luck. It seems redundant to try adding it in again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 17:32:15 GMT -6
IQ as Int x 10 produces an odd distribution. Of course, it doesn't need to mimic realism precisely, but still, just for fun, I'm going to indulge my pretentious side...It is not uncommon, even using 3d6 in order to have a character with Int 12––that's IQ 120, or the 95th percentile! At the higher end, a score of 16 is 1 in 33,000 (IQ 160).
One way you could do it is to rule that every 2 points of Int equal 1 SD. If 10 is average, 12 = 66th percentile (115), 14 = 98th percentile (I 130), 16 = 99.9th percentile (IQ 145).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 17:40:19 GMT -6
The thing that bugs me about a Luck attribute is that the dice rolls throughout the game are already a factor of actual luck. It seems redundant to try adding it in again. Agreed. What I have used in the past with some degree of success is the concept of "Fame & Fortune" points swiped from TSR's "Top Secret" RPG. Players received d4+1 Divine Favour points at character generation. Additional points were awarded when gaining a level, 1 being received unless max hp were rolled and then 2 were given. DF points could be spent a number of ways to increase favourable outcomes to players. |
|
|
|
Post by aher on Jan 17, 2013 1:36:39 GMT -6
IQ as Int x 10 produces an odd distribution I should have been more precise... There are a few different scales commonly used to measure IQ. So an IQ of say 150 is meaningless per se. The testing mechanism needs to be cited to give the number 150 meaning. Here are three of the most commonly used scales: - Wechsler scale: mean 100, SD 15
- Stanford-Binet scale: mean 100, SD 16
- Cattell scale: mean 100, SD 24
These scales all assume a normal distribution, so to convert a score x A from scale A (with mean μ A and SD σ A) to scale B, you'd use the formula: xB = σB * (xA - μA)/σA + μBBesides these commonly used scales, there's also the little known Gygax-Arneson scale... - Gygax-Arneson scale: mean 105, SD 29.5803989155
And rolling 3d6 follows a bell-like distribution with - 3d6: mean 10.5, SD 2.95803989155
So to convert from a 3d6 INT score (scale A) to an IQ score using the Gygax-Arneson scale (scale B), just plug means and SD's into the formula above to get: IQ = 29.58 * (INT - 10.5)/2.958 + 105
= 10 * (INT - 10.5) + 105
= 10 * INT - 105 + 105
= 10 * INT So you see my intuition that IQ = 10*INT is right after all! It's just a matter of choosing the right scale... |
|
|
|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on Jan 17, 2013 7:19:15 GMT -6
The thing that bugs me about a Luck attribute is that the dice rolls throughout the game are already a factor of actual luck. It seems redundant to try adding it in again. That is indeed true. Strangely never thought of it that way. Perhaps, I've always just thought of it as a "bennie" roll, such as "one more chance to save your ass" roll. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jan 17, 2013 12:19:44 GMT -6
Starting Gold has been proposed as a seventh attribute by JB of B/X Blackrazor: S is for the Social StatusI could also see it being used for Luck, or even Perception. I like the idea of using the 7th roll that every character is making anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jan 17, 2013 16:16:33 GMT -6
I like the 6 stats.
I would probably like to have Strength, Intelligence, Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma in any D&D or D&Dish game.
Wisdom, understood as spiritual wisdom (I know that because it helps clerics to pray), is specific to the fantasy genre IMO, and in a different genre I might replace it with something more valued in that genre (probably defaulting to “Luck”).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2013 16:54:38 GMT -6
Congratulations aher, you've out-nerded me!  Fair enough, but it's better for commensurability if you assume SD 15. Also, since i need to regain my nerd credibility, I have to point out that the S-B no longer uses SD 16; with the fifth revision it is now SD 15. |
|
|
|
Post by aher on Jan 18, 2013 3:32:43 GMT -6
There's been some talk already in this thread about a perception ability score--reasons (not) to use it; combining it with (or separating it from) wisdom. I just wanted to point out the existence of an article in Dragon Magazine concerning this subject. The article is entitled "Notice Anything Different" and subtitled "The perception score: a new way of looking at things." It appears in issue #133, May 1988 on pp. 12-14, written by Thomas Ruddick. This article was written for AD&D 1e. But a short synopsis may be useful for OD&Der's considering adding perception as a 7th ability. The author defines perception as follows: Perception describes the quality of a character’s vision and hearing, as well as mental habits such as attentiveness, visual and aural memory, and interest in his surroundings. Perception is important to all character classes, as it affects the character's chances to notice things that might be important in the course of the game (and not merely surprise in combat). I'll call the perception ability score "PER" for short, although the author doesn't state any preferred abbreviation. Here's how the author treats PER mechanically: Ability generation: As usual for other abilities. (The author seems to prefer the liberal Method V from p. 74 of Unearthed Arcana.) Class minimums: The author states minimum PER scores for each class, e.g., min PER 12 for Thieves and PER 15 for Rangers. Adjustments for surprise roll: -1 for PER 3,4; +1 for PER 17,18. Bonuses for class skills: Thieves get +5% for PER 17 and +10% for PER 18 applied to hear noise and find traps. Same bonuses for Ranger's tracking skill. (Penalties apply for low PER scores.) Ability checks: Use a PER check to find secret doors, traps, search for hidden items, clues, or persons in a crowd. PER check is roll <= PER score where roll is 1d20, 2d20 or 1d100, depending on the relative difficulty of the task. The author states that a PC with an average PER score would successfully make his PER check roughly 1/2 the time against a 1d20, 1/4 of the time against 2d20 ☡, and 1/10 of the time against 1d100. ☡ Unless I misread this, the author is mistaken about his 2d20 probabilities... In fact, Pr(2d20<=10) = 11.25% and Pr(2d20<=11) = 13.75%, not even close to 25%, owing to the triangular shape of the 2d20 distribution--perhaps the author assumed it was uniformly distributed ?!?!?! You'd actually need the better-than-average PER 15 to make a successful check against 2d20 roughly a quarter of the time... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2013 19:23:05 GMT -6
The thing that bugs me about a Luck attribute is that the dice rolls throughout the game are already a factor of actual luck. It seems redundant to try adding it in again. The way Champions handled Luck was that it was only used when the situation was dire. Unluck, OTOH, was only used if the PCs where having an easy time of things. So Luck won't make an easy fight easier and Unluck won't make a hard fight harder. |
|
