Ability modifiers versus XP bonuses

[waysoftheearth]

One of the great things about the D&D game design is how it's all about trade-offs.

As a player you have to choose between the benefits of demi-humans versus the limitless advancement of Humans. You have to choose between the benefits of a fighter or a magic user or a cleric. You can choose to wear heavy armour for protection, but sacrificing stealth by doing so, and so on. There are so many interesting trade-offs.

Except when it comes to ability scores. It has always niggled me that in this one area key area of the game there is no real trade-off.

High ability scores grant various combat bonuses and other dice modifiers, not to mention more hit-points. They open race and class options. They increase demi-human level limits. They give an experience point bonus. And there's absolutely no downside!

It's easy to imagine how the power gamer psychology could evolve from this set up.

So, I was thinking about how I could remedy this "perceived imperfection". One idea I have been kicking around is to turn all the experience point bonuses into penalties (and vis versa)

This way a high ability score becomes a trade-off -- with an upside (dice modifiers, level limits etc) and a downside (XP penalty). Perhaps this way players won't be lusting after characters with too many high ability scores -- since non-essential high ability score would actually be a burden on advancement.

What do people think?

[Lord Kilgore]

Interesting. I've always been a bit fuzzy on the XP bonus for high abilities to begin with. I'm considering dumping them altogether in my upcoming game.

[Falconer]

Characters with high ability scores get themselves killed more quickly.

[The Fiendish Dr. Samsara]

That's a fascinatingly gamist idea. I kind of like it.

I dumped the XP bonus a long time ago. One of my least favourite rules ever.

[castiglione]

I like the XP bonus since it made sense to me.

It all came together when I realized what a high INT, DEX, STR, etc. meant in real life.

It makes it easier to learn certain things.

I.e. I may have a high INT, but it doesn't mean I'm the equivalent of a PhD. But it makes it EASIER for me to go to school and get that PhD.

I was thinking about this when I had the kernel of an RPG engine in my head. It wasn't an old-school engine, it was a new-school engine.

Basically, everything was tied to skills; the only significance your attributes had was in how easy it was to acquire those skills, i.e. if you had a high STR, you had an easier time learning a physically demanding skill, etc.

I think the XP bonus works well in relation to the small attribute bonuses in OD&D. Once you get big bonuses, it starts being a double-whammy, though.

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 29, 2009 19:52:04 GMT -6 castiglione said:

I like the XP bonus since it made sense to me.

It all came together when I realized what a high INT, DEX, STR, etc. meant in real life.

It makes it easier to learn certain things.

I spent some time thinking about this too. Another possible explanation could be that a gifted individual (with high ability scores) derives less benefit (XP) from a given challenge than a normal individual.

This interpretation might equate (very roughly) to the real life experience the ultra bright kids who can't derive any real benefit from the usual school classes. They just aren't challenged, get bored, and lose focus. Meanwhile, the normal kids can benefit from the very same classes.

That aside, it may also be a matter of whether you care about accuracy versus playability. I was thinking more about a perceived imbalance in playability than attempting to model reality when I wrote the OP. In other words, I guess I'm prepared to sacrifice a little (perceived) accuracy for a little (perceived) fairness.

[coffee]

It's like the driving instructor who made every mistake in the book when he himself was learning to drive. He's better able to teach the new drivers, because he's made the mistakes himself.

The guy that's very bright, and never makes mistakes, won't be as prepared for mistakes.

So, yeah, I can kind of see where you're going with that. Interesting idea.

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 29, 2009 10:40:26 GMT -6 Falconer said:

Characters with high ability scores get themselves killed more quickly.

When I initially read this I took it as a light-hearted quip -- but after another look I am reading more into it.

I assume we are agreed that (in terms of game mechanics at least) PCs with high ability scores are statistically less likely to be killed by a given challenge than those with average ability scores.

If, in actual play, they are instead more likely to get themselves killed, then it says something very interesting about the psychological effect of high ability scores on players! There's probably a PhD thesis somewhere in that

Thanks Falconer for raising it.

[Deleted]

Around 1980.....81 I dumped this idea. I gave a bonus for LOW stats. I figured if a brawny str 17 hulk beat an orc in one swing with his bonus and a wimpy str 8 dork killed an orc with three or four hits....who learned more? I figure the weak one had to learn more from his fight and thus gets the bonus. The same applied to all classes.