Rolling under the stat expresses Baker's three insights

[nevin]

Let me preface:

This is a conversation starter; a distant cousin to Why do RPGs have rules? I seek more to learn than to preach. I don't think what I'm about to write is revolutionary by any means, but maybe you can see how some of the ideas here are original? This is like a first draft.

---

Vincent Baker argues that when designing a role-playing game, you are adopting three stances and expressing three distinct opinions: an opinion about the theme or literary genre of your game, a perspective on role-playing games as a practice, and a position on human nature. Your 3 Insights.

Today, role-playing game designers are capable of imprinting these three stances, with varying degrees of precision and skill, into the body of their mechanics. This might or might not be a requirement of good game design. (Is it a fruitful lens?)

Of course, it is unfair to measure the pioneers of the medium, Gygax, Arneson, et al., with the same yardstick of "aesthetic excellence". Nevertheless, I believe it is discernible to see how the subtle workings of these principles were immediately visible in the design decisions of the early editions of D&D.

It is my particular contention that what we observe next is a manifestation of this phenomenon in one particular game mechanic: Rolling dice under the stat.

Gygax had specific opinions about how the probability of events external to the characters in the fiction should be modeled. A linear distribution was more suitable for simulating the events of a game of heroic fantasy. (Read The paragraph on avoiding 'goofy bell curves'). He had stances on role-playing games as a practice and the genre of fantasy adventuring.

Gygax and Arneson eventually settled in rolling 3d6 as the method for generating statistics, assuming the stance that in the population of player characters, the rogues in the adventures, abilities should follow a "normal" distribution. They had stances on role-playing games as a practice, the genre of fantasy adventuring, and human nature.

The early DMs of oD&D, we know Arneson initially in Blackmoor, Gygax many years later, and explicitly authors like Holmes, Moldvay, Cook, Metzer, responded to these two aforementioned facts, and discovered that by combining them they generated gameplay that was aesthetically desirable. Rolling dice under the statistic resulted in a range and sequence of desirable outcomes that proved to be fertile ground for roleplaying and added positively to the decision space in the game. Probabilistically elegant, easy to read, generative, etc... They had stances on role-playing games as a practice and the workings of human nature.

In what seems like a fragmented alchemy, an emergent game mechanic was born, one that was surprisingly resilient in the popular practice of D&D until the arrival of 3rd Edition, and continues to be in the OSR. (It is that 'resilience' that originally motivated this entire post.)

That's part one. See, I told you it wasn't revolutionary: That rolling under the stat is game mechanic that expresses three insights. Because it expresses three insights, in varying degrees of depth, by itself, it's a source for continuously fertile gameplay and emergence. That what it says, how it directly maps the stat to the in-fiction competence, how it transparently communicates odds to the player, generates gameplay that is qualitatively different than any other alternative. That 'it' is the opposite of arbitrary; it's filled with intentionality. It just so happened that, in this case, it was not the thinking of a single author but rather the product of a larger play culture.

---

Part Two is even less surprising:

We know, of course, that these opinions evolved over the years, and in their evolution, subtle changes in these foundational stances rippled into more profound transformations. In AD&D, for example, we see how Gygax abandons 3d6 generation in favor of higher statistics. He wanted to eschew the probability range higher. His argument rested on the unviability of characters generated with the original method for the kind of adventuring they would soon embark on. He subtly seemed to imply the overall inadequacy of these types of characters in other forms of traditional gaming.

Gygax's change in stance created a more heroic game and, incidentally, divided the game into two equally valid branches of fantasy adventuring: AD&D and B/X, which would go on to evolve and continue to inform roleplaying for generations.

I'm not arguing that the reason for the (already well documented) historical segmentation of the two branches of D&D was because of a change in the stat baseline. We know this to be a multifaceted phenomenon, most notably one that was economically motivated. It's not like it divided the game. Rather it created a division in the game. Specifically that in one branch our characters are slightly larger than life and, in the other, they are plain average. Do you see how the ripples of this division affect our thinking decades later? Do you see how subsequent designers bought into these respective stances? (I'm also not saying that this is THE THING. Most likely it is just one of many historical accidents of whatever you may think is 'the real thing', the real rupture. My claim is that it is traceable and discernible, which makes it valuable as evidence.)

What I'm clumsily hinting with this is that when we look at game mechanics we are not just looking at naked procedures devoid of implication. We are looking at opinions and stances people have about some or all of the three converging forces in our interactions at the table. Being more aware of these opinions, being more questioning, more discerning, more ELABORATIVE about how game mechanics express people's stances can only enhance our gaming, and for those mad enough, our designs. It gives us a useful lens to interrogate design and stand with our feet on the ground to question it. What does this mechanic say about fantasy adventuring, about roleplaying as a practice, about human nature?

..and finally, it is a useful reminder to contemporary game designers to, MOST importantly, not have your insights contradict one another.

Opinions, thoughts and criticisms to my thesis are most welcome!

Yes Traditions matter. People like tradition tradition is stability and predictability. I think that's why some game mechanics in DND are so sticky much to the frustration of many people. Sure there are probably better ways to do it. But this is what we are used too.

 

[Mannahnin]

Well, there are two things here.

First, I always find it important to really interrogate assumptions. Memories are incredibly fallible. I have seen a number of people make claims about things that happened that, quite literally, could not have happened because they played a certain way for a long time and they read that back into earlier times. Or they get dates confused. To call out my own fallibility, for the longest time I remembered that I played in a module ... but it was only recently that I bothered checking the dates and realized that it was actually impossible for that to have been the module I played in because the module was published years later. To this day, because of my fallible memory, I still can't tell what I played, but I do know that it wasn't the module I thought it was!

Second, it is still entirely possible that you used that method. As has been outlined, Moldvay mentioned the method in Basic (1981). While it was certainly not widespread, and it wasn't part of the rules of AD&D or OD&D, it did exist as an ad hoc table rule (alongside many other possible table rules) prior to that.

I agree with all of this except possibly the "not widespread" part. I think that, given their prominence on the character sheet going back to (or before?) 1974, a lot of folks probably tried various forms of ability checks in the years prior to Moldvay putting it in print.

We know there are several examples of one-off uses in modules for traps and things, and in spell descriptions. For example the d20 roll under Dex check to avoid falling in a pit from the Dig spell, 1978 PH p76, or the 3d6 check against Int for Phantasmal Killer, PH p98. But my suspicion is that it was probably a pretty common house rule, though I can't confirm one way or another how widespread it was.

 

[nevin]

Well, there are two things here.

First, I always find it important to really interrogate assumptions. Memories are incredibly fallible. I have seen a number of people make claims about things that happened that, quite literally, could not have happened because they played a certain way for a long time and they read that back into earlier times. Or they get dates confused. To call out my own fallibility, for the longest time I remembered that I played in a module ... but it was only recently that I bothered checking the dates and realized that it was actually impossible for that to have been the module I played in because the module was published years later. To this day, because of my fallible memory, I still can't tell what I played, but I do know that it wasn't the module I thought it was!

Second, it is still entirely possible that you used that method. As has been outlined, Moldvay mentioned the method in Basic (1981). While it was certainly not widespread, and it wasn't part of the rules of AD&D or OD&D, it did exist as an ad hoc table rule (alongside many other possible table rules) prior to that.

hear hear. Not just fallible sometimes outright fantasy. Many studies have proven that people modify their memories as time goes on. So they way you remember things is probably not the way they actually happened.

 

[nevin]

I agree with all of this except possibly the "not widespread" part. I think that, given their prominence on the character sheet going back to (or before?) 1974, a lot of folks probably tried various forms of ability checks in the years prior to Moldvay putting it in print.

We know there are several examples of one-off uses in modules for traps and things, and in spell descriptions. For example the d20 roll under Dex check to avoid falling in a pit from the Dig spell, 1978 PH p76, or the 3d6 check against Int for Phantasmal Killer, PH p98. But my suspicion is that it was probably a pretty common house rule, though I can't confirm one way or another how widespread it was.

Back before 2 edition started trying to have a rule for everything stat checks were IME the default to cover anything not in the rules. that needed to be decided quickly.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I agree with all of this except possibly the "not widespread" part. I think that, given their prominence on the character sheet going back to (or before?) 1974, a lot of folks probably tried various forms of ability checks in the years prior to Moldvay putting it in print.

We know there are several examples of one-off uses in modules for traps and things, and in spell descriptions. For example the d20 roll under Dex check to avoid falling in a pit from the Dig spell, 1978 PH p76, or the 3d6 check against Int for Phantasmal Killer, PH p98. But my suspicion is that it was probably a pretty common house rule, though I can't confirm one way or another how widespread it was.

The reason I say that it wasn't widespread is because (as I wrote above) there were a variety of ways to deal with this.

Instead, the early period of D&D had a plethora of different adjudication methods. A lot of it assumed that there would be specialized and bespoke methods for common issues (such as breaking down doors or lifting items- such as the AD&D tables for strength). Others preferred more free-flowing methods, but there wasn't any common way of dealing with them; everything from percentiles to rolling under using d20 to rolling under using 3d6 to opposed rolls to "DM Decides" could be, and was, used.

It's not that no one would ever use that; it's more that universal resolution methods were not common, and even table that did use them didn't necessarily settle on roll under with a d20 (as opposed to roll under with 3d6, or use percentiles, or some other method).

Things that seem obvious in retrospect were less obvious then, especially because the d20 method was much less engrained at the time ... and almost everything in D&D at the time using the d20 was predicated on rolling over (attack rolls, saving throws).

 

[Mannahnin]

The reason I say that it wasn't widespread is because (as I wrote above) there were a variety of ways to deal with this.

It's not that no one would ever use that; it's more that universal resolution methods were not common, and even table that did use them didn't necessarily settle on roll under with a d20 (as opposed to roll under with 3d6, or use percentiles, or some other method).

Things that seem obvious in retrospect are less obvious now, especially because the d20 method was much less engrained at the time ... and almost everything in D&D at the time using the d20 was predicated on rolling over (attack rolls, saving throws).

Maybe it's splitting hairs, but I don't think the fact that there was a variety of bespoke ways to implement task resolution is enough basis on which to assert whether ability checks were widespread or not. I just don't think we can say one way or another. Certainly they didn't show up in a D&D book suggested as an option for a universal task resolution mechanic until Moldvay Basic in 1981, but I'm inclined to think, based on what we saw with other rules (e.g. critical hits, flanking, opportunity attacks, bonus spells for high Int, etc.) that most likely it was circulating in the community and gaining popularity for a while before it got into an official book.

As Ichabod also pointed out, ability checks (though on 3d6) were the core mechanic in 1977's Melee, by SJG.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Maybe it's splitting hairs, but I don't think the fact that there was a variety of bespoke ways to implement task resolution is enough basis on which to assert whether ability checks were widespread or not. I just don't think we can say one way or another. Certainly they didn't show up in a D&D book suggested as an option for a universal task resolution mechanic until Moldvay Basic in 1981, but I'm inclined to think, based on what we saw with other rules (e.g. critical hits, flanking, opportunity attacks, bonus spells for high Int, etc.) that most likely it was circulating in the community and gaining popularity for a while before it got into an official book.

As Ichabod also pointed out, ability checks (though on 3d6) were the core mechanic in 1977's Melee, by SJG.

Okay, so here's the thing. The first mention I can find of "ability checks" as a term in Dragon Magazine is ... 1987. And that's not for D&D- it's for Top Secret. Next is in an article about the Jester, discussing punfighting (yeah), and that's not regarding ability scores --- that's a percentile check. Again, it's easy to read our current knowledge back into the game. Informal methods were all over the place- if anything, there is a supposed use of 2d6 (Blackmoor) and 3d6 methods.

That said, if you're looking at what is published, this is the AD&D DMG-
There will be times in which the rules do not cover a specific action that a player will attempt. In such situations, instead of being forced to make a decision, take the option to allow the dice to control the situation. This can be done by assigning reasonable probability to an event and then letting the player dice to see if he or she can make that percentage. You can weigh the dice in any way so as to give the advantage to either the player or the non-player character, whichever seems more correct and logical to you while being fair to both sides.

That's percentiles. It's not that it didn't exist at all; I would just say that the obviousness of it that we think of it today cannot be used to assume that it was a common house rule in the 70s and early 80s, given the lack of contemporaneous evidence.

 

[Mannahnin]

Okay, so here's the thing. The first mention I can find of "ability checks" as a term in Dragon Magazine is ... 1987.

Sure. But whether you use that exact term, or say "roll the ability score or less on 1d20" without giving the procedure a name as Moldvay did in 1981, or call it a special saving throw against Dexterity with really convoluted language as Gygax did in the Dig spell in 1978, the idea was clearly in use in the 70s. The only point of disagreement we're having is whether there is evidence to claim one way or another whether it was a widespread practice.

I come down on the side that without further data, we can't reasonably assert that it was or wasn't commonplace.

I'd love to troll through some old issues of Alarums and Excursions some time and see if it pops up there. Maybe I'll ask Jon Peterson some time.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Sure. But whether you use that exact term, or say "roll the ability score or less on 1d20" without giving the procedure a name as Moldvay did in 1981, or call it a special saving throw against Dexterity with really convoluted language as Gygax did in the Dig spell in 1978, the idea was clearly in use. The only point of disagreement we're having is whether there is evidence to claim one way or another whether it was a widespread practice.

I come down on the side that without further data, we can't reasonably assert that it was or wasn't commonplace.

If it was widespread practice as a generalized method, then you'd be able to find some contemporaneous evidence of it. Something in Strategic Review, Dragon Magazine, A&E, some other 'zine, a letter to the editor ... something. Even reports from conventions.

Based on everything I've seen and what I know, the idea that this was a widespread generalized resolution method is just ... not correct.

 

[Mannahnin]

If it was widespread practice as a generalized method, then you'd be able to find some contemporaneous evidence of it. Something in Strategic Review, Dragon Magazine, A&E, some other 'zine, a letter to the editor ... something. Even reports from conventions.

Yes, my guess is that once either one of us takes the time to troll through A&E and other old zines, and back issues of Dragon, that we'll find some more examples of it. Meanwhile my current plan is a bit lazier- to ask Jon Peterson some time when I get a chance.