D&D 5E What if we got rid of stats entirely?

[Pedantic]

<Argument that stat-based mechanical differentiation is overrated goes here>

See, I would argue it's underrated, and stats tend to fall into that design trap of being mad players use the system to produce an optimal result and not the preferred one. The solution is better mechanical differentiation, not writing the concept off.

 

[Lanefan]

I hadn't even considered flaws, tbqh. I think that's a really good addition to help add some more character.

In theory, flaws are good design.

In practice, however, players will take flaws during char-gen in order to get the corollary benefits and then do everything they can to ignore the existence of those flaws in play, or play around them, or cajole the DM (or, on a bigger scale, the game designers*) into toning them down or even eliminating them.

* - case in point: in the 1e-2e era char-gen ASIs had both bonuses and penalties based on what non-Human species you were, with the sum of those net bonuses and penalties usually coming close to a net zero; but players didn't like penalties, and so they were slowly decreased by edition and finally removed in 5e.

 

[FrogReaver]

See, I would argue it's underrated, and stats tend to fall into that design trap of being mad players use the system to produce an optimal result and not the preferred one. The solution is better mechanical differentiation, not writing the concept off.

If I count fairly common stats, d&d has a spread of -2 to +5. That’s 8 possible degrees of differentiation.

That’s far too granular for most people. Which is why 14/16 differences in starting stats are barely noticeable. 3 to 5 degrees of differentiation is optimal and it has to be more than a -1/+1 vs a d20.

 

[FrogReaver]

In theory, flaws are good design.

In practice, however, players will take flaws during char-gen in order to get the corollary benefits and then do everything they can to ignore the existence of those flaws in play, or play around them, or cajole the DM (or, on a bigger scale, the game designers*) into toning them down or even eliminating them.

* - case in point: in the 1e-2e era char-gen ASIs had both bonuses and penalties based on what non-Human species you were, with the sum of those net bonuses and penalties usually coming close to a net zero; but players didn't like penalties, and so they were slowly decreased by edition and finally removed in 5e.

I think there’s a big difference between a flaw of your choosing and a predefined flaw/bonus package.

There’s an even bigger issue when such a package is tied to something as overtly character defining as racial choice (especially in games that had relatively few character creation choices overall from my understanding).

 

[Horwath]

In theory, flaws are good design.

In practice, however, players will take flaws during char-gen in order to get the corollary benefits and then do everything they can to ignore the existence of those flaws in play, or play around them, or cajole the DM (or, on a bigger scale, the game designers*) into toning them down or even eliminating them.

* - case in point: in the 1e-2e era char-gen ASIs had both bonuses and penalties based on what non-Human species you were, with the sum of those net bonuses and penalties usually coming close to a net zero; but players didn't like penalties, and so they were slowly decreased by edition and finally removed in 5e.

this.
Like in 3e; take -2 melee attack flaw and -1 AC to get 2 feats extra, pretty nice for a ranged character.

 

[FrogReaver]

this.
Like in 3e; take -2 melee attack flaw and -1 AC to get 2 feats extra, pretty nice for a ranged character.

Right. That shouldn’t count as the same degree of flaw for a ranged character as it does for a melee one.

 

[Umbran]

I hadn't even considered flaws, tbqh. I think that's a really good addition to help add some more character.

Flaws, however, are notorious for their min/max potential.

Somewhat less problematic are specializations, which at least have that min/max as part of the design - rather than have a fighter who is good at everything, you have the fencer, who is super-good with fencing blades, but really don't ask him to pick up a two-handed sword.

 

[Staffan]

In theory, flaws are good design.

In practice, however, players will take flaws during char-gen in order to get the corollary benefits and then do everything they can to ignore the existence of those flaws in play, or play around them, or cajole the DM (or, on a bigger scale, the game designers*) into toning them down or even eliminating them.

IMO, flaws work better when you are rewarded for them as they come up in play rather than as "build points". To go back to Troubleshooters as an example, characters there have one or two flaws, each of which can either penalize the PC or take them out of a scene entirely when they come up. But taking a flaw doesn't get you any additional stuff at the start of the game, instead you get rewarded with Story Points when a flaw comes up in-game and penalizes you. Notably in Troubleshooters, being penalized is voluntary – you might have a phobia to snakes, but if you're faced with a snake you get to decide whether that affects your PC or you grit it out.

 

[Umbran]

See, I would argue it's underrated, and stats tend to fall into that design trap of being mad players use the system to produce an optimal result and not the preferred one. The solution is better mechanical differentiation, not writing the concept off.

That's fine. I wanted to note the existence of the point, but don't find it valuable top re-litigate it here.

 

[Lanefan]

IMO, flaws work better when you are rewarded for them as they come up in play rather than as "build points". To go back to Troubleshooters as an example, characters there have one or two flaws, each of which can either penalize the PC or take them out of a scene entirely when they come up. But taking a flaw doesn't get you any additional stuff at the start of the game, instead you get rewarded with Story Points when a flaw comes up in-game and penalizes you. Notably in Troubleshooters, being penalized is voluntary – you might have a phobia to snakes, but if you're faced with a snake you get to decide whether that affects your PC or you grit it out.

Story Points are a metacurrency? (not familiar with Troubleshooters)

If yes, then for me that's a non-starter.