D&D ability scores being meaningless

[jeff]

Sept 30, 2014 20:05:21 GMT -6 Vile Traveller said:

Sept 30, 2014 12:31:10 GMT -6 jeff said:

I absolutely loathe d20 under ability score checks. I've had a DM who used them consistently for everything and my PC would die to simple traps that should have been easy to avoid (slow swinging axe in a 10' corridor). I think it leads to ability score inflation and the desire to have high scores.

IMO, it's a slippery slope that often gets very slippery, very quickly. Furthermore, it's not something that can get applied to monsters easily. What if you have 2 goblin followers and a troll follower. What are their DEX scores?

I do like the idea of defining a PC by their bonuses instead of by a number. Having a character with STR +1, DEX +1, and CHA -1 is meaningful and I believe would personally help players forget about getting an 18. Furthermore, monsters could be identified much easier by a simple +1 or -1 value.

I reserve ability score check for situations where there are serious risks and consequences involved. If players can convince me that a trap is avoidable, it's avoidable with no dice rolled (unless there's a sneaky second trap ...). Most traps rely on surprise, anyway, and are easy to circumvent if you know about them. After all, that's how those dungeon denizens live with them all over their lairs.

I also roll 3d6, not 1d20. And trolls and goblins have 3d6 Dexterity of course. All from Holmes.

That's fine for a lot of people, but I just don't like rolling ability scores for monsters, even just as a one-shot. I could, of course, just claim they have average DEX of 10. I just don't like ability score checks. Never have . Why bother having a d6 roll for forcing doors then? Why not just a STR ability check? It just doesn't seem to fit with D&D. I know it's been used for a LONG time, since the very early days of D&D, but I'm just not fond of the mechanic at all.

I would much rather see a d6 or 2d6 check.

[Stormcrow]

In the game Fantasy Wargaming, all the general adventuring things you do are rolled on the Secret Door Identification Table, which is obviously badly named. In these rules, each object that presents an obstacle has degrees required, like Degree of Intelligence Required. The amount you differ from the degree required shifts the column you roll on to the left or right, depending on whether you have less or more than the required ability. (See trimboli.name/fwadventuring.html)

This doesn't really translate to D&D, however, which doesn't use a chart to determine results of general adventuring feats. You might do something similar by setting an automatic success value, a level at which you have enough of the required ability to automatically succeed. If you have less, you have to roll, with decreasing chances the farther from the automatic level you are. Or you might decide on a range of ability at which the feat is possible but not assured.

For instance, you might want to pick a lock. The referee decides this lock is pickable with dexterity 8+, with dexterity 16+ an automatic pick. He decides to roll a six-sided die, and spreads out the chances among ability scores. For instance, dexterity 8–10 picks on 1; dexterity 11–12 picks on 1–2; dexterity 13 picks on 1–3, dexterity 14 picks on 1–4, dexterity 15 picks on 1–5.

[sepulchre]

Uriel wrote:

I know it's been used for a LONG time, since the very early days of D&D, but I'm just not fond of the mechanic at all.
I would much rather see a d6 or 2d6 check.

You are not alone. The rule set as guidelines has an inherent ambiguity, e.g, two styles, a d6 dungeon key v attribute chk, lending to a descriptive rather than prescriptive orientation. Some referees enjoy various mechanics to employ in dice rolling, I prefer the d6 dungeon key with adjustments due to class or race, leaving the 'descriptive' for my choice of words in play.

[Leonaru]

Sept 30, 2014 12:31:10 GMT -6 jeff said:

I absolutely loathe d20 under ability score checks. I've had a DM who used them consistently for everything and my PC would die to simple traps that should have been easy to avoid (slow swinging axe in a 10' corridor). I think it leads to ability score inflation and the desire to have high scores.

IMO, it's a slippery slope that often gets very slippery, very quickly. Furthermore, it's not something that can get applied to monsters easily. What if you have 2 goblin followers and a troll follower. What are their DEX scores?

I do like the idea of defining a PC by their bonuses instead of by a number. Having a character with STR +1, DEX +1, and CHA -1 is meaningful and I believe would personally help players forget about getting an 18. Furthermore, monsters could be identified much easier by a simple +1 or -1 value.

Well, overusing a mechanic isn't really the fault of the mechanic, it's an issue with the DM.

The check doesn't apply to monsters because monsters aren't player characters and don't use player character rules. When a monster attempts something and there is a significant chance of failure, I'll that it has a X% chance of succeeding and roll a d10 (or something like that).

[rastusburne]

Regarding the 'meaningless' aspect of OD&D, if one is merely going by the 3lbbs then I can see why people might reach that conclusion. I rolled up a fighting-man character among about half a dozen other characters. He had pretty appalling stats - in the 5-6 category for most, but because he rolled well for gold and hitpoints he was able to purchase plate and had 5 or 6 hitpoints from memory. I would argue in a purely BtB 3 booklet game those gp and hitpoints rolls are of much more importance.

But like others have said, it doesn't make the scores themselves meaningless, rather they are descriptors more than they are mechanically functional (for the most part).

[jeff]

Oct 7, 2014 7:07:53 GMT -6 Leonaru said:

Sept 30, 2014 12:31:10 GMT -6 jeff said:

I absolutely loathe d20 under ability score checks. I've had a DM who used them consistently for everything and my PC would die to simple traps that should have been easy to avoid (slow swinging axe in a 10' corridor). I think it leads to ability score inflation and the desire to have high scores.

IMO, it's a slippery slope that often gets very slippery, very quickly. Furthermore, it's not something that can get applied to monsters easily. What if you have 2 goblin followers and a troll follower. What are their DEX scores? ...

Well, overusing a mechanic isn't really the fault of the mechanic, it's an issue with the DM.

The check doesn't apply to monsters because monsters aren't player characters and don't use player character rules. When a monster attempts something and there is a significant chance of failure, I'll that it has a X% chance of succeeding and roll a d10 (or something like that).

I disagree. I think overusing a mechanic is a fault of the mechanic as well as the fault of the DM. The d20 under ability score check is a generic check, and therefore is applied needlessly to an endless number of instances. If the mechanic were better codified, as in "use this only for x, y, and z situations", then it would be better.

Any mechanic can be abused, but a well codified mechanic...like the attack roll...is less likely to be so abused.

[Leonaru]

It it is applied needlessly, it's applied because the DM wants it to be applied needlessly. If the DM doesn't ask for a check, there is no check, so yeah, the DM is to blame.

[Deleted]

Exactly. The rule does not point a gun at the referee's head.

[dukeofchutney]

when Gming, i generally keep a copy of each of the pcs stat lines to hand. When they want to do something, i look at the stat line, listen to wha they say and come to a decision. Stats affect most of my decisions on their actions, but not in an easily quantifiable way. I vary responses of npcs in particular by the player stats. Also, i use int as learning and charisma as physical attractiveness. The actual mental characteristics are of the player him or herself, or of the acting they choose to portray. Wisdom is a bit harder in that respect though.

[foxroe]

Another, more subtle way in which scores are used (at least in my experience), is division of responsibilities among the players/party.

How often have you heard around the table: "Who's character has the highest charisma? Maybe you should talk to the Castellan?", or "Smitty Bitty-Hands has the highest dexterity. We'll send him across the rickety bridge first with a rope...", etc.

Now maybe an argument could be made that such verbal straw-comparing could be fostered by such things as ability checks, but I think a good DM is willing to listen to this task-prioritization (a better term escapes me at the moment) and simply allow the actions to transpire rather than roll the die.

[Starbeard]

I typically ignore ability scores for static 'player vs environment' tests, unless something really serious is at stake. If the characters manage to suspend a rope across a pit trap and crawl across it one at a time while unencumbered, then they do so automatically—they created a valid solution to bypass the 'puzzle', and unless they try to do something distinctly stupid or foolhardy, then no checks are necessary. However, if they just try to jump the chasm, then I'll require some kind of roll since they're not attempting to neutralise the risk at all.

In general though, I've only had to look at ability scores when a character attempts to do something in competition against another character. I always consider ability scores in those cases, since they are an ideal way to judge who has the base advantage.

[foxroe]

Something else to consider about OD&D scores is their impact on character generation. For example, I'll use Geoffrey's random character from up-thread:

May 12, 2014 15:33:05 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

I just rolled the following character, 3d6 in order, set in stone:

Str: 12
Int: 11
Wis: 8
Con: 6
Dex: 10
Cha: 14

That tells you a lot right there, completely independent of any numerical advantages or disadvantages. He lacks common sense and gets sick and tired easily. That said, he is very likable and quite good looking! Those six numbers give you a good character profile.

The character could be either a Fighting-man or a Magic-user, but if the player chooses FM, then the player can drop intelligence to 9 and raise strength to 13, thereby gaining a bonus of 5% to earned experience (that 30% survival chance and -1 per HD is a bit of a downer though). A MU would need to drop wisdom to 4 to gain the same advantage with intelligence (which is technically not allowed). Also for the FM, the high charisma would help with leading others into battle (+1 loyalty).

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2014 12:56:58 GMT -6 foxroe said:

Another, more subtle way in which scores are used (at least in my experience), is division of responsibilities among the players/party.

How often have you heard around the table: "Who's character has the highest charisma? Maybe you should talk to the Castellan?", or "Smitty Bitty-Hands has the highest dexterity. We'll send him across the rickety bridge first with a rope...", etc.

Now maybe an argument could be made that such verbal straw-comparing could be fostered by such things as ability checks, but I think a good DM is willing to listen to this task-prioritization (a better term escapes me at the moment) and simply allow the actions to transpire rather than roll the die.

Consider for a moment if these were real people instead of PCs, they would not have to be together to long to know who was best at any particular thing, here good players find out whose PC is better at what and then remember it for the next time. So I don't see ability checks as fostering anything.

[Red Baron]

I don't mind ability checks, as long as scores were actually generated using 3d6 in order, since it gives around a 50% chance of success most of the time, when I'd otherwise just be saying "roll a 1 or 2 on a 6".

I used to hate them, because people would roll 4d6 and be fudging to boost their stats, which made ability checks a poor choice when everyone had a 17/20 chance to accomplish everything.

[tkdco2]

I've seen a few ability checks rolled with 4d6 instead of 1d20. That would help alleviate the problem of high ability scores.

[Deleted]

Nov 9, 2014 23:20:50 GMT -6 Red Baron said:

I don't mind ability checks, as long as scores were actually generated using 3d6 in order, since it gives around a 50% chance of success most of the time, when I'd otherwise just be saying "roll a 1 or 2 on a 6".

I used to hate them, because people would roll 4d6 and be fudging to boost their stats, which made ability checks a poor choice when everyone had a 17/20 chance to accomplish everything.

I always use 3d6 in order, at least so far.

[Starbeard]

Has anyone ever tried actually running a session (or campaign!) without ability scores at all? How did it go?

I haven't tried it, but I've been thinking about it for a few days. It can be achieved by simply assuming that all characters have average scores in everything, with no modifiers—or, perhaps the modifiers can be attached to higher levels rather than higher abilities.

I don't think I'd want to abandon having ability scores, but I can see how it could work well. Class could be used instead of ability to determine how difficult something is: for example, a particular boulder might be movable by a Fighting-Man on a 4+, a Magic-User on a 6+, and all others on a 5+. Also, a character's level could be used in the same way: a 5th-level Magic-User might be assumed to be more intelligent than a 1st-level Magic-User, but both could be assumed to have the same relative strength.

Obviously, this produces pretty low granularity in character variation, since it essentially means that all characters of a given class and level are created equal, the only things setting them apart being items and how the players actually play them. Still, in my impression at least, that's half of the reason why we play OD&D anyway, to put as much of the action as possible into the player's hands rather than the character's statistics.

[foxroe]

Nov 10, 2014 5:49:33 GMT -6 @theperilousdreamer said:

Nov 9, 2014 23:20:50 GMT -6 Red Baron said:

I don't mind ability checks, as long as scores were actually generated using 3d6 in order, since it gives around a 50% chance of success most of the time, when I'd otherwise just be saying "roll a 1 or 2 on a 6".

I used to hate them, because people would roll 4d6 and be fudging to boost their stats, which made ability checks a poor choice when everyone had a 17/20 chance to accomplish everything.

I always use 3d6 in order, at least so far.

That 4d6-drop-the-lowest method was an AD&D-ism, and I feel it was born out of the min-max mentality forged in the early days of Greyhawk where higher and higher scores meant better bonuses. Don't get me wrong, I love me some AD&D, and I have no issue with the multiple ways in which scores can be generated (per the DMG). However, to me, rolling 3d6 in order feels significantly different... almost like abilities are more important or defining in a sense. Or perhaps I've just had a little too much coffee...

[cooper]

Nov 10, 2014 7:23:54 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

Has anyone ever tried actually running a session (or campaign!) without ability scores at all? How did it go?

I haven't tried it, but I've been thinking about it for a few days. It can be achieved by simply assuming that all characters have average scores in everything, with no modifiers—or, perhaps the modifiers can be attached to higher levels rather than higher abilities.

When one views stats as not stats but as a system of perks and flaws it is easy to do away with the numbers. Each player can determine 2 perks and 1 flaw for his character.

perk: strong as an ox. Character carries +500cn
perk: cunning linguist. Character speaks 3 extra languages
flaw: foul tempered. Character has a -2 on all reaction rolls that are effected by extended conversation.

[Finarvyn]

Nov 10, 2014 7:23:54 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

Has anyone ever tried actually running a session (or campaign!) without ability scores at all? How did it go?

I"ve tried it, long ago. It takes a certain kind of player, since they have fewer guidelines on how their character is put together. If nothing else, the OD&D attributes give a common reference of "well, I'm strong but not too bright" -- that kind of thing.

I abandoned my no-attribute game. Players wanted more guidelines.

Now, Amber Diceless loses a lot of the attributes such as intelligence and charisma so that you have to role play interactions, but it doesn't totally do away with attributes. A character's stats give a frame of reference to the character.

[Deleted]

Nov 10, 2014 7:23:54 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

Has anyone ever tried actually running a session (or campaign!) without ability scores at all? How did it go?

I've done it sometimes. The folks I play with don't tend to much care one way or the other.

[Leonaru]

I've written Shinobi & Samurai, an Asian-themed OD&D retroclone that doesn't use ability scores. It works well for me.

[Starbeard]

Nov 10, 2014 12:46:52 GMT -6 cooper said:

When one views stats as not stats but as a system of perks and flaws it is easy to do away with the numbers. Each player can determine 2 perks and 1 flaw for his character.

perk: strong as an ox. Character carries +500cn
perk: cunning linguist. Character speaks 3 extra languages
flaw: foul tempered. Character has a -2 on all reaction rolls that are effected by extended conversation.

This is a nice touch, and reminds me (oddly, I know) of GURPS. One of the things I enjoy about the GURPS rules are they are designed to assume that all aspects of a character are 'average' unless otherwise noted. A character can have a completely blank character sheet—that is, 10 in all abilities, no trained skills to speak of, and no outstanding advantages or flaws—and would still be perfectly playable within the system, without having to tweak a thing.

There's room for an OD&D variant with that mentality, I think. The character has a class and a level, and everything else is assumed to be 'average' unless something is specifically written down to say so.

In fact, if you want to go the whole hog, even character class can be treated the same way. A Magic-User would then be a character with the perk 'Magician: Character may use all magic items, and may cast spells from the magic-user list', and the flaw: 'Combat inept: Character may only use knives and normal clothes, and requires an extra level to progress in the combat table'. A character who had no perks or flaws whatsoever would simply have one statistic (level).

[Red Baron]

Nov 11, 2014 10:49:51 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

Nov 10, 2014 12:46:52 GMT -6 cooper said:

When one views stats as not stats but as a system of perks and flaws it is easy to do away with the numbers. Each player can determine 2 perks and 1 flaw for his character.

perk: strong as an ox. Character carries +500cn
perk: cunning linguist. Character speaks 3 extra languages
flaw: foul tempered. Character has a -2 on all reaction rolls that are effected by extended conversation.

This is a nice touch, and reminds me (oddly, I know) of GURPS. One of the things I enjoy about the GURPS rules are they are designed to assume that all aspects of a character are 'average' unless otherwise noted. A character can have a completely blank character sheet—that is, 10 in all abilities, no trained skills to speak of, and no outstanding advantages or flaws—and would still be perfectly playable within the system, without having to tweak a thing.

There's room for an OD&D variant with that mentality, I think. The character has a class and a level, and everything else is assumed to be 'average' unless something is specifically written down to say so.

In fact, if you want to go the whole hog, even character class can be treated the same way. A Magic-User would then be a character with the perk 'Magician: Character may use all magic items, and may cast spells from the magic-user list', and the flaw: 'Combat inept: Character may only use knives and normal clothes, and requires an extra level to progress in the combat table'. A character who had no perks or flaws whatsoever would simply have one statistic (level).

One of the things I really liked about dagger is they broke things down that way, but instead of a huge number of perks to choose from, the simplifyt things down to one per class. A knight gets two attacks per level, a dwarf can see in the dark, etc.

[Deleted]

Nov 10, 2014 7:45:56 GMT -6 foxroe said:

Nov 10, 2014 5:49:33 GMT -6 @theperilousdreamer said:

I always use 3d6 in order, at least so far.

That 4d6-drop-the-lowest method was an AD&D-ism, and I feel it was born out of the min-max mentality forged in the early days of Greyhawk where higher and higher scores meant better bonuses. Don't get me wrong, I love me some AD&D, and I have no issue with the multiple ways in which scores can be generated (per the DMG). However, to me, rolling 3d6 in order feels significantly different... almost like abilities are more important or defining in a sense. Or perhaps I've just had a little too much coffee...

I agree with you(the entire post), I would even go so far as to say it feels more honest.

[Starbeard]

Nov 11, 2014 12:36:23 GMT -6 @theperilousdreamer said:

Nov 10, 2014 7:45:56 GMT -6 foxroe said:

That 4d6-drop-the-lowest method was an AD&D-ism, and I feel it was born out of the min-max mentality forged in the early days of Greyhawk where higher and higher scores meant better bonuses. Don't get me wrong, I love me some AD&D, and I have no issue with the multiple ways in which scores can be generated (per the DMG). However, to me, rolling 3d6 in order feels significantly different... almost like abilities are more important or defining in a sense. Or perhaps I've just had a little too much coffee...

I agree with you(the entire post), I would even go so far as to say it feels more honest.

Also, for what it's worth, in my experience rolling 3d6 in order doesn't actually reduce the player's sense of ownership over the character, either. I thought it would, as they have no control over what the scores are. However, the worst I've seen is they get a little disappointed over the bad rolls, pick a class that best suits the scores, and then they're back to identifying with the character.

In AD&D (which I also love) the players almost always decide their class before they roll, and adjust their scores to fit the class they want to play. The original method encourages the player to roll first, consider the overall scores, and then think about class. In my case it wouldn't be that uncommon for someone to pick a class they probably would never have considered if it were AD&D.

[Deleted]

Nov 11, 2014 10:49:51 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

This is a nice touch, and reminds me (oddly, I know) of GURPS. One of the things I enjoy about the GURPS rules are they are designed to assume that all aspects of a character are 'average' unless otherwise noted. A character can have a completely blank character sheet—that is, 10 in all abilities, no trained skills to speak of, and no outstanding advantages or flaws—and would still be perfectly playable within the system, without having to tweak a thing.

There's room for an OD&D variant with that mentality, I think. The character has a class and a level, and everything else is assumed to be 'average' unless something is specifically written down to say so.

In fact, if you want to go the whole hog, even character class can be treated the same way. A Magic-User would then be a character with the perk 'Magician: Character may use all magic items, and may cast spells from the magic-user list', and the flaw: 'Combat inept: Character may only use knives and normal clothes, and requires an extra level to progress in the combat table'. A character who had no perks or flaws whatsoever would simply have one statistic (level).

I think Fate Accelerated could easily be hacked into this type of descriptive OD&D.

[oakesspalding]

I think completely randomly generated (with no mulligans) ability scores (3d6 in order) are an "imagination pump" for the players, as well as being or at least seemingly being more meaningful and real. However, even though in OD&D you might die quickly and often, you also might have a long existence (and you should want that). So I think it's important to define ability scores such that no one would be uncomfortable living their entire lives as, say, a "3" in one of them. In Zylarthen, I defined the range of strength as the range of strength of adventurers (so a "3" is weak relative to other adventurers--not equivalent to your bedridden grandmother). Intelligence is education rather than IQ. A high wisdom is good to have, but having a low wisdom won't make you feel like a total loser. And so on. The only "mulligan" I included was for having a low charisma, since I thought many players would have a problem with being hunchbacks (or whatever they imagined a "3" being). So, you can literally be any of the six classes whatever your stats (there are no minimums). Part of the virtue, too, of this is that it encourages players to think outside of the box: Why not be a relatively weak, but highly intelligent Fighting-Man, for example?

[Deleted]

Nov 10, 2014 0:57:38 GMT -6 tkdco2 said:

I've seen a few ability checks rolled with 4d6 instead of 1d20. That would help alleviate the problem of high ability scores.

I am not among those who see high ability scores as a problem and I would never put in a house rule to punish someone for rolling well. I could give every player straight 18's and it would not be a problem. I could even use the Greyhawk rules and gives players straight 18's and it would not be a problem. There is no problem IMO.

[coffee]

The AD&D game I'm in has started using 3d6 (or 4d6, or 5...), roll under, for ability checks. The more difficult the situation, the more dice you roll. This was adapted from Steve Jackson's Melee/The Fantasy Trip. Works pretty well so far; the bell curve makes it more predictable than a d20 roll would be.