|
|
Post by Starbeard on Nov 12, 2014 10:03:30 GMT -6
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. That mechanic goes back at least as far back as Star Trek: Adventure Gaming in the Final Frontier from 1978—and as STAGFF was the direct descendent of Space Patrol from 1977, I'm assuming it's used there as well. It's a really sound mechanic that lends a different flavour to using ability scores without adding complication or handicaps, once you reorient yourself to the spread of the bell curve. In my little STAGFF re-write I altered the ability rolls so that they mirrored the WEG Star Wars difficulty levels, since the game itself only implies this sort of difficulty progression without explicitly stating it: | Difficulty Level | Dice Roll | Very easy
| 1D6 | | Easy | 2D6 | | Moderate | 3D6 | | Difficult | 4D6 | | Very difficult | 5D6 | | Heroic | 6D6 |
If a character has an ability higher at 13+, therefore, it would never have to be tested for anything lower than Moderate difficulty. |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Nov 12, 2014 16:07:23 GMT -6
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. It depends a lot on your player's, though. If you're blessed with folks that understand that the scores are simply defining characteristics and not limiting characteristics, then the game should be "fast and furious" (as OD&D should be  ). I remember that when I was younger, it was all about the "stats". I couldn't imagine playing a fighter with anything other than 18+% strength -- I would reroll characters constantly until I had an 18 strength fighter (and no "bad" scores  ). In my olde age, I feel that I understand the wisdom of the ability scores in OD&D: The "prime requisites" give you nothing but experience bonuses/penalties, and the others (Dx/Cn/Ca) are the ones that actually give anyone adjustments. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2014 16:37:52 GMT -6
In my olde age, I feel that I understand the wisdom of the ability scores in OD&D: The "prime requisites" give you nothing but experience bonuses/penalties, and the others (Dx/Cn/Ca) are the ones that actually give anyone adjustments.By Crom, I think he's got it! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2014 17:25:52 GMT -6
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. It depends a lot on your player's, though. If you're blessed with folks that understand that the scores are simply defining characteristics and not limiting characteristics, then the game should be "fast and furious" (as OD&D should be ). I remember that when I was younger, it was all about the "stats". I couldn't imagine playing a fighter with anything other than 18+% strength -- I would reroll characters constantly until I had an 18 strength fighter (and no "bad" scores ). In my olde age, I feel that I understand the wisdom of the ability scores in OD&D: The "prime requisites" give you nothing but experience bonuses/penalties, and the others (Dx/Cn/Ca) are the ones that actually give anyone adjustments.Exactly it was never about the stats!  In my olde age, I feel that I understand the wisdom of the ability scores in OD&D: The "prime requisites" give you nothing but experience bonuses/penalties, and the others (Dx/Cn/Ca) are the ones that actually give anyone adjustments.By Crom, I think he's got it!  |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Nov 13, 2014 2:20:52 GMT -6
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. It depends a lot on your player's, though. If you're blessed with folks that understand that the scores are simply defining characteristics and not limiting characteristics, then the game should be "fast and furious" (as OD&D should be ). I remember that when I was younger, it was all about the "stats". I couldn't imagine playing a fighter with anything other than 18+% strength -- I would reroll characters constantly until I had an 18 strength fighter (and no "bad" scores ). In my olde age, I feel that I understand the wisdom of the ability scores in OD&D: The "prime requisites" give you nothing but experience bonuses/penalties, and the others (Dx/Cn/Ca) are the ones that actually give anyone adjustments.There lies, I think the main complaint some have with experience bonuses in later editions. Once ability bonuses started getting added to the prime requisites, it made high or low scores in certain abilities far more momentous than the same scores in other abilities, and the experience modifiers can then be seen by some as doubly rewarding or penalising the characr for the roll. In it's original form, the experience rewards are neatly separated from ability modifiers, and that issue doesn't exist. The way you phrased it immediately made me think of a couple of out-there options for handling prime requisite stats—say, for example, only having a single 'prime requisite' ability for every character, showing the characters natural apititude within his chosen class (making only 4 abilities instead of 6); or, having each of the prime requisites relate to the day-to-day knowledge base or skill set of its associated class, rather than a raw physical/mental trait. Strength would be a measure of familiarity and comfortablity with doing martial stuff, not just lifting things (maybe identifying a well-made sword, repairing armour, etc.), and so on. Intelligence would include the extent of formal education and Wisdom might indicate devotion to the character's alignment or deity and education in spiritual matters. |
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Nov 16, 2014 21:53:29 GMT -6
Haven't been on in a while (real-life drama), so sorry for jumping in the middle of the discussion. Just wanted to put my two cents in.
Just started up a new OD&D campaign at the LGS, with some work buddies. I wanted to try running with no attributes again (that's how I started playing actually). I have to see, it's been great. Much more freedom, the game is faster, character creation is literally seconds, and the players are having a blast. I suppose it helps that my players are very open-minded and easy going, but for whatever reason, we've been having fun. In fact I'd say it's the most fun we've had in ages.
One thing I've immediately noticed as a huge benefit to this: no attributes as an excuse. No "Well I'm going to attack because I have a Wisdom of 3, and my character wouldn't know any better". Furthermore, there was no complaining about rolling bad attributes, or one character being better than another. I've simply built in the appropriate bonuses to the corresponding classes. IE the Fighter starts with a +1 to hit, because that makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Nov 16, 2014 22:30:20 GMT -6
Jakdethe wrote:
Right. The game design becomes a question of how much one wishes to denote about the character distinct from class; in a class-based game the class itself connotes everything that matters. The accidental qualities of a PC's are left to the player's imagination; that is, they are not for further filling out of the abstraction through applied mechanics - that's been spoken for by class choice (and possibly varying degrees of profession, i.e. fighter who is a brigand or berserker background etc.) For those who desire more applied mechanics, ability scores for the sake of argument here, this is really a question of ratio; how directly proportional is your numerical representation (Lvl 1 fighter) to your concept (stout and intrepid man-at-arms for example)? Here's another way of considering this: 1 hit yields a kill for a normal man. The derivative: 1-6 hp represents a normal man, hit points involve another dice roll. Ability scores elicit another dice roll in character creation and possibly during an adventure, or must be referenced to apply a modifier in play; rather than class and level sufficing. Traps that might have killed a normal man or delivered a number of hits yield a saving throw, etc. etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2014 21:20:53 GMT -6
One thing I've immediately noticed as a huge benefit to this: no attributes as an excuse. No "Well I'm going to attack because I have a Wisdom of 3, and my character wouldn't know any better". I had somebody lose a finger that way. So I waited until he got to 4th level and told him "You can't level up any more until you find a way to restore that finger." A 4th level character isn't easy to abandon. And in response to "Why," I said, "Because there has to be a penalty for doing something stupid." |
|
).
). 
