Ability scores - How intrinsic are they to D&D?

[billd91]

You're still thinking inside the box and assuming that the current mechanics remain. Certainly if you have the choice between strength and dexterity, you would choose whichever one is better for what you want to do.

If the game did not have explicit strength and dexterity stats though, you would be choosing between, say, melee combat and ranged combat stats. And if you put your bonuses into melee combat, any number of descriptions could go with the bonus -- not just physical strength, but agility, timing, technical skill, whatever.

With no explicit strength or dexterity stats, I can easily see power attack and defensive expertise conveying the characters concepts of hulking versus agile.

Depends on what box you want to be in. I want to be in the D&D box, not some other game's box.

But in this case, you have multiple routes to take. Do you favor basing things off a very specific case or feature? Or maybe a more base level where the development you inject can affect multiple results? D&D does a little of both. I happen to like that particular box.

 

[tomBitonti]

I think to answer this one needs to go beyond a question of whether there should be ability scores, or exactly six of them, since many games have ability scores (and D&D flirted with Comeliness). One must also consider how the operational/function details of the ability scores. That is:

Whether to use a normal distribution (more along the 3d6 model) than the more current point buy with most scores in the middle and one or two high values?

What portion of ones power level is derived from ability bonuses?

How hard is it to improve ability scores? Does one gain more points as one levels, and, are ability boosting items common or expected?

Just looking at D&D, while all of 1E, 3E, and 4E use the same six abilities, these are not the same in all three cases: I have to say, 3E and then 4E on top of it seemed to change the basic flavor of abilities, such that 3E seems to be quite different than 1E.

I also think it's worth considering different ability schemes, for example:

1E D&D (normal curve; more random)
3E D&D (point buy; expectation of 26 in prime state at later levels)
4E D&D (dual stats for saving throws)

And:

Rolemaster (increase to 10; 1-100 scale; actual + potential)
WHFRP, WH40K (etc) (1-100; increased by +10 by experience purchases; narrow initial ranges; direct use for resolution)

I can't remember how Traveller did character attributes, and didn't play RQ or Vampire to know how those were done.

Out of all of this, I found that I rather miss the sense of the attributes distinguishing characters as having different raw attributes, with 18 Str fighters being rare (~1 in 200), and, for games up to about 10'th level, the attributes not changing hardly at all. That is, I rather am not liking the 3E way of using attributes, and 4E even less. I find that I don't like how the initial raw ability is overwhelmed by player abilities at later levels. At the least, I would prefer to limit initial abilities (so -2 to -4 on everything at the start), with reaching potential only at a higher level.

I found Rolemaster to be alright, although, there was somewhat too much variance.

I'm not sure how it plays, but the WH scheme seems to be interesting (I've read a lot of their rules, but haven't played it yet.)

TomB

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I also think it's worth considering different ability schemes, for example:

1E D&D (normal curve; more random)
3E D&D (point buy; expectation of 26 in prime state at later levels)
4E D&D (dual stats for saving throws)

I think that its worth pointing out that:

1) 1Ed and 2Ed introduced multiple alternative dice rolling methods

2) 3Ed did not use point buy as its default, but rather as its main alternative method of stat generation. The books start off assuming rolled dice.

 

[Ranes]

My perspective is that the creators of D&D sort of stumbled into ideas that weren't originally well thought out or well formed initially.

I think you are absolutely right.

The subsequent editions have done a good job of finding the core of those ideas.

An obvious example: they didn't work out the difference between a race and a class until AD&D. This is less a rules INVENTION in AD&D than taking something that was half-formed in Basic and better realizing it.

Again, I would agree.

I would be opposed to completely changing the central mechanics of Dungeons & Dragons, but I'm all for evolving them closer to their Platonic ideal, and I feel like we have a long way to go in that regard. To the extent that I am uncomfortable with some of the changes in 4e, it's that I feel like a lot of the changes that were made *weren't* refinements, but in fact were changing the style of play into something that was less true to the game's roots...

This resonates with me. I would never argue that the mechanics of D&D were currently or ever had been the best any game could be but they inform what the definition of the D&D game is, to me. If someone convinces me that this set of rules over here provides a more satisfying (however you want to define that) FRPG than anything D&D is doing or has done, that's great and I'm interested. But it won't be necessarily be D&D. That's not a bad thing. It's just a thing. And I may want to play D&D, even if it's the equivalent of driving a car with no power steering or adaptive breaking or any of the other advances in technology that come with other more recent advances in automotive technology.

When I go to see Shakespeare, I don't want someone rewriting the plot or dialogue because we've learned a lot (thanks to Bill) about what we can do with staged drama. I want the unadulterated original, even though they might be difficult to follow and even though there are more recent dramas that have built on the old dog's work and carved out new territory and new opportunities that I also want to experience from time to time.

What I'm getting at is why can't we have both? Why not preserve the original game for what it was? We can and do have other games we respect and enjoy that build upon and change the assumptions and mechanisms of D&D but what's wrong with preserving a game for posterity? If I can at least partly address my own question, I think some of the difficulty here is that D&D has never been, in any incarnation, something that one might consider entirely complete. Indeed the further you go back in time, the less complete the rules were and the more they extolled the notion that you should build upon and change what you were given. And that's what we've done, both as players and as game publishers.

The logical consequence of pursuing opportunities to refine and improve - however subjectively - what some of us consider to be important about the game is that we inevitably arrive at questions about changing something many players might consider fundamental to the identity of the game they love.

Why not then, for any future edition of D&D, start with a freely available (but still copyright) electronic edition of the original (or Basic c.1978), albeit re-edited for clarity and accessibility, and amended with a chapter on the game's historical evolution into different editions? You could give everyone a context for why the latest paid-for evolution and future experimentation and editions are inevitable. Current and future players might then be more understanding of and amenable to changes so profound that they transform whatever someone's currently accepted idea of the game is.

And we can all refer back to something we identify as a core game of D&D.

In the interests of full disclosure, apart from the obvious subjectively ideal wishful thinking I'm indulging in here, I am a known proponent of so-called 3E, for all its faults. The reason I now make the argument above is that I never want someone's default understanding of D&D to be so far away from what I used to call D&D thirty-odd years ago, that we really don't have much in common. If we both know and understand that D&D character generation rules were for a long time predicated upon a set of PC characteristics derived from six-sided dice rolls, for example, then we have a lot more in common when we explore a brave new game of something that doesn't use those rules. We have some common ground we can call D&D, regardless of any personal preferences about the popular mechanics of the day.

Also, I have been drinking.

 

[tomBitonti]

I think that its worth pointing out that:

1) 1Ed and 2Ed introduced multiple alternative dice rolling methods

2) 3Ed did not use point buy as its default, but rather as its main alternative method of stat generation. The books start off assuming rolled dice.

I dunno. The folks that I play with (3E) have always used point buy. Organized play does too.

I actually prefer point buy (and used it back in 1E, where it was available as an optional rule). Still, there is a missing excitement from the 1E roll 3d6, or even the 4d6 drop the lowest, rules. I miss even more the sense of values above 18 as being "beyond" human capabilities. Elves could have a 19 int, but no normal human could, even at the height of their power, without a magical boost. The 3E +1/4 levels and normal stat boosting spells and magic items ruins that.

TomB

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The folks that I play with (3E) have always used point buy. Organized play does too.

That doesn't make it the base default system, though.

The reason you'd use it in organized play is the same reason pre-3Ed organized play routinely used pregens: time. Using point buy in organized play saves a lot of time otherwise used hashing about how to arrange a bunch of 12s, a 10, a 7 and a lone shining...15 into a PC you'd care to play.

 

[Squire James]

Most of the RPG's I know I can identify with nothing more than a list of their main ability scores. I would say ability scores are a pretty intrinsic part of every RPG, not just D&D. In just about all of them, these scores matter just as much for character power than they do in D&D (and in some cases a lot more, especially in level-less games).

 

[am181d]

Why not then, for any future edition of D&D, start with a freely available (but still copyright) electronic edition of the original (or Basic c.1978), albeit re-edited for clarity and accessibility, and amended with a chapter on the game's historical evolution into different editions? You could give everyone a context for why the latest paid-for evolution and future experimentation and editions are inevitable. Current and future players might then be more understanding of and amenable to changes so profound that they transform whatever someone's currently accepted idea of the game is.

The question is: What does D&D's target audience look like? Is it targeted to a broad audience or is it chasing an increasingly small niche audience? Let me use Doctor Who as an example:

When the show came back in 2005 it was wildly popular (in the UK). Lots and lots of people were enjoying the show, but the diehard Doctor Who fans -- the folks going to conventions, buying a lot of the merchandising, gathering on message boards, etc. -- only made up a very small percentage of the total viewership.

When folks on GallifreyBase.com complain that Doctor Who should do X or Y or Z or that it's betraying it's roots, etc. it really doesn't matter. There may be good ideas in there along with the bad, but ultimately BBC's job isn't to target that small percentage of diehards. Their job is to keep Doctor Who popular and satisfying for the total audience.

That's pretty black and white because Doctor Who has been so popular. If D&D were a cultural phenomenon, I'd say "Ignore everything Enworld has to say." Since it's not, the question is really about sustainability. What does Wizards need to do to retain their current audience AND broaden the games appeal to a larger audience. I haven't seen sales figures, but I worry that we're reaching a dangerous point where those two goals are at odds. That the kinds of "broad appeal" initiatives are going to alienate customers at a time when we don't have customers we can afford losing.

"We're all grognards now." Or something like that.

 

[Mark CMG]

When the show came back in 2005 it was wildly popular (in the UK). Lots and lots of people were enjoying the show, but the diehard Doctor Who fans -- the folks going to conventions, buying a lot of the merchandising, gathering on message boards, etc. -- only made up a very small percentage of the total viewership.

Do you have some data to support this assertion? It was my understanding at the time that the fans of the previous show made up the largest portion of the audience (despite their grumbling over details) and that they built on that base, as much by that original fanbase bringing their own kids and friends on board as by gathering a new audience in addition to the expanding original base. I don't know that D&D has grown any differently, the majority of players being players of the previous edition supplemented as much (or more) by new players brought in through the old player base as through attracting new players beyond the regular fan base. I realize that WotC is making great efforts to attract new players from completely outside sources (such as with their new Facebook game and advertisements targetted at video game players) but I don't know how successful that has been thus far. Personally, I hope they attract lots of new players to the tabletop gaming hobby.

 

[prosfilaes]

I'm all for completely removing ability scores having anything to do with attack, damage, hit points, defenses, etc.

Then you can play a smart fighter whos not the strongest person in the world while having him stay totally effective at combat.

But that introduces a further disconnect between out of combat and in combat. If you've got a character who's tripping over his feet and can barely lift his sword and armor, he shouldn't be totally effective at combat.