D&D General Alternate "Ability Scores"

I think a lot of people here would do well to read up on GNS theory: GNS theory - Wikipedia
No one ever does well to read up on GNS theory. It's a swamp of ill-defined concepts that change to support whatever argument Ron Edwards is making at any given moment, plus sweeping and totally unsupported statements about how and why people play RPGs. There are one or two valuable insights at the bottom of it all ("system matters" being the main one), but the wise game designer will throw the rest on the trash heap.

Ron Edwards is the Sigmund Freud of role-playing game design.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

No one ever does well to read up on GNS theory. It's a swamp of ill-defined concepts that change to support whatever argument Ron Edwards is making at any given moment, plus sweeping and totally unsupported statements about how and why people play RPGs. There are one or two valuable insights at the bottom of it all ("system matters" being the main one), but the wise game designer will throw the rest on the trash heap.

Ron Edwards is the Sigmund Freud of role-playing game design.

But without the hot socialites on his sofa.
 

Ok, during the last couple hours while doing other stuff I've been thinking about this topic, partly in the context of @TwoSix's comment upthread about absurdity. The arguments I'm seeing appear so absurd to me that I must not be understanding something. And, at the same time, I'm probably not properly conveying my own position.

So let's talk about some specifics

1. Solving Puzzles
To use an example I used upthread (or maybe in the other thread on this topic), let's say the PCs find a word written somewhere, and if they realize it's an anagram for another word they can advance in the plot. One of the players figures it out. Should the character's Intelligence score play any role in this?

My take: not in terms of whether or not the player should provide the answer. If the player can think of a way to narrate providing the solution so that it's done in a way evocative for that character then I'm all for it, but that's not necessary.

The way I see it, if you want the players to have to use their ability scores, then make the puzzle abstract so that they HAVE to roll for it. An actual puzzle, with a real solution, is an invitation for the players to solve it with their own brains. To then ask them to solve that real puzzle using the attributes of their character would be like saying, "In order to break down the door in game, you are going to have to break down the actual door to my garage over there, which I locked. But you have to use the Strength score of your character, not your own."

And even then the analogy breaks down, because the connection between "Intelligence" and solving problems like this is not as direct as "how much can you life with a given strength score". It may very well be that the player who is perceived as the least intelligent solves these things before the player who is, by traditional metrics, the most intelligent. Thus the same thing can be true for characters.

2. Known Monster Weaknesses
This one has been hashed over a million times, and whether it's trolls and fire or werewolves and silver, it's the same thing. The player knows something about the game. Can they use that knowledge?

My Take: As I've expressed before, my basic position is that if something is a truth in the game world, then it's possible a character would know the answer, even a character with really low mental stats. In my mind it is better roleplaying...in the sense of building out your character...to justify why your character might know this fact, rather than to just say "I'm dumb, therefore I don't know."

Furthermore, where the DM feels it's important for the players to not know things...just change them. This is like the Puzzle example in that the way to prevent players from acting in ways you don't want it's simple enough to change the information to something they can't know. This applies to monster identification, too: if you don't want your players to know it's Entry XXX from the Monster Manual, just change the physical description. How hard is that? Why wouldn't the DM do that, if secrets are so important?

And when you the DM does do this, this scenario becomes an....

4. Unknown Monster Weakness
In this case the players (not their characters) are genuinely uncertain about monster capabilities. That might be because it's a new monster they've never seen, or because they are sure they remember correctly what it is and what it's abilities are, or because they know you (you sneaky devil you) sometimes change things.

My Take: This is an excellent opportunity to use your attribute. Declare an action in which you attempt to "recall lore" or otherwise glean information about your enemy. The character with the higher attribute will succeed more often.

5. Portraying a Character
Let me add that of course I roleplay a high Int, low Strength character differently then I roleplay a low Int, high Strength character. With the first character I will try solve problems through using Arcana or Investigation, or casting spells. With the latter character I will try to solve problems through Athletics, Intimidation (if the DM let's me roll that using Strength), or hitting it with a sharp object.

But that's different from how I portray them. Do I narrate them differently? I might, if "smart" or "dumb" (or "strong" or "weak") are important parts of the character's description. Let's say my concept is that my character wanted to be a Paladin, and really is a shining example of everything a (1e) paladin represents....brave, selfless, honest, etc....but he was never accepted to any of the good orders because (at least in his mind) of his facial deformities and speech impediments. So instead of a paladin he became a regular old fighter (maybe a Cavalier...that seems appropriate), and he's still bitter and angry about that.

So I'm going to put a lot of points into Str and Con because he's a fighter, and I'll probably not put a lot of points in Int. I might even leave that at 8. But no part of my character concept...the character I want to play...says "Strong!" or "Dumb!" I'm just assigning attributes to build an effective character.

In actual play, I'm going to look for opportunities to roleplay this character's personality: his sense of right and wrong, and desire to help others, but also his insecurities about his appearance, and his deep anger at the kind of people who rejected him. While I'm playing him I will probably build his character out in other directions, as situations suggest fun new twists and turns to his personality.

But his Strength and his Intelligence? Neither of those are notable or unique. He has 16 Strength just like everybody else with 16 Strength, and he has 8 Int just like everybody else with 8 Int.



Genuinely interested in reactions.
1. I once used a real life puzzle as a stand in for disarming the nuclear bomb in an RPG. The skill/intelligence check the player made before handing him the puzzle determined which puzzle (ranked in difficulty) I handed him. One a high success by the PC, the player got the easy puzzle.

2. I have been gaming too long to have this argument. If players who have been playing D&D for a few years know you need fire to kill a troll, then people who grew up in that world are going to know, too. It just isn't important enough to mess around with. And, If I really want to keep them on their toes I...

3. ... wait, there is no 3... I....

4. ...create a new monster. or grab one from a resource the players aren't likely to have. or reskin a monster. Whatever. I pick something that trips them up because it is meant to trip them up. it is a much better solution than telling them they don't know things they know.

5. How the players portray their characters is not my business. That's their responsibility. I don't care if players speak in first person with a funny accent, or treat their character like a chess piece. I certainly don't care whether they have their 8 Int barbarian speak with an erudite British accent. If something happens where that 8 Int comes into play, the dice are going to reflect it regardless. For myself as a player, if for some reason I want to play by 8 Int barbarian that way, I will probably misuse some big words as a hint to the other players that maybe I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed.

In general, though, I think the reason we should replace Ability Scores with more broadly defined "Aptitudes" or skills is that the game is already a Gamist approximation of a thing and it doesn't actually benefit from the legacy simulationist elements like Ability Scores. The purpose they serve is purely mechanical and should be separated from whatever personal narrative aspects the player wants to bring to their character.
 

No one ever does well to read up on GNS theory. It's a swamp of ill-defined concepts that change to support whatever argument Ron Edwards is making at any given moment, plus sweeping and totally unsupported statements about how and why people play RPGs. There are one or two valuable insights at the bottom of it all ("system matters" being the main one), but the wise game designer will throw the rest on the trash heap.

Ron Edwards is the Sigmund Freud of role-playing game design.
Besides, those valuable insights have already informed a whole new generation of games. GNS itself was valuable for creating a debate that ultimately led to the RPG landscape we see today. The theory itself is less important.
 


No one ever does well to read up on GNS theory. It's a swamp of ill-defined concepts that change to support whatever argument Ron Edwards is making at any given moment, plus sweeping and totally unsupported statements about how and why people play RPGs. There are one or two valuable insights at the bottom of it all ("system matters" being the main one), but the wise game designer will throw the rest on the trash heap.

Ron Edwards is the Sigmund Freud of role-playing game design.
Hadn't heard of Ron Edwards or the GNS theory until this thread, but at least the wikipedia entry, brief as it is, also includes the criticism of the hypothesis so that readers are informed of its pitfalls.
 

Ok, during the last couple hours while doing other stuff I've been thinking about this topic, partly in the context of @TwoSix's comment upthread about absurdity. The arguments I'm seeing appear so absurd to me that I must not be understanding something. And, at the same time, I'm probably not properly conveying my own position.

So let's talk about some specifics

1. Solving Puzzles
To use an example I used upthread (or maybe in the other thread on this topic), let's say the PCs find a word written somewhere, and if they realize it's an anagram for another word they can advance in the plot. One of the players figures it out. Should the character's Intelligence score play any role in this?

My take: not in terms of whether or not the player should provide the answer. If the player can think of a way to narrate providing the solution so that it's done in a way evocative for that character then I'm all for it, but that's not necessary.

The way I see it, if you want the players to have to use their ability scores, then make the puzzle abstract so that they HAVE to roll for it. An actual puzzle, with a real solution, is an invitation for the players to solve it with their own brains. To then ask them to solve that real puzzle using the attributes of their character would be like saying, "In order to break down the door in game, you are going to have to break down the actual door to my garage over there, which I locked. But you have to use the Strength score of your character, not your own."

And even then the analogy breaks down, because the connection between "Intelligence" and solving problems like this is not as direct as "how much can you life with a given strength score". It may very well be that the player who is perceived as the least intelligent solves these things before the player who is, by traditional metrics, the most intelligent. Thus the same thing can be true for characters.

2. Known Monster Weaknesses
This one has been hashed over a million times, and whether it's trolls and fire or werewolves and silver, it's the same thing. The player knows something about the game. Can they use that knowledge?

My Take: As I've expressed before, my basic position is that if something is a truth in the game world, then it's possible a character would know the answer, even a character with really low mental stats. In my mind it is better roleplaying...in the sense of building out your character...to justify why your character might know this fact, rather than to just say "I'm dumb, therefore I don't know."

Furthermore, where the DM feels it's important for the players to not know things...just change them. This is like the Puzzle example in that the way to prevent players from acting in ways you don't want it's simple enough to change the information to something they can't know. This applies to monster identification, too: if you don't want your players to know it's Entry XXX from the Monster Manual, just change the physical description. How hard is that? Why wouldn't the DM do that, if secrets are so important?

And when you the DM does do this, this scenario becomes an....

4. Unknown Monster Weakness
In this case the players (not their characters) are genuinely uncertain about monster capabilities. That might be because it's a new monster they've never seen, or because they are sure they remember correctly what it is and what it's abilities are, or because they know you (you sneaky devil you) sometimes change things.

My Take: This is an excellent opportunity to use your attribute. Declare an action in which you attempt to "recall lore" or otherwise glean information about your enemy. The character with the higher attribute will succeed more often.

5. Portraying a Character
Let me add that of course I roleplay a high Int, low Strength character differently then I roleplay a low Int, high Strength character. With the first character I will try solve problems through using Arcana or Investigation, or casting spells. With the latter character I will try to solve problems through Athletics, Intimidation (if the DM let's me roll that using Strength), or hitting it with a sharp object.

But that's different from how I portray them. Do I narrate them differently? I might, if "smart" or "dumb" (or "strong" or "weak") are important parts of the character's description. Let's say my concept is that my character wanted to be a Paladin, and really is a shining example of everything a (1e) paladin represents....brave, selfless, honest, etc....but he was never accepted to any of the good orders because (at least in his mind) of his facial deformities and speech impediments. So instead of a paladin he became a regular old fighter (maybe a Cavalier...that seems appropriate), and he's still bitter and angry about that.

So I'm going to put a lot of points into Str and Con because he's a fighter, and I'll probably not put a lot of points in Int. I might even leave that at 8. But no part of my character concept...the character I want to play...says "Strong!" or "Dumb!" I'm just assigning attributes to build an effective character.

In actual play, I'm going to look for opportunities to roleplay this character's personality: his sense of right and wrong, and desire to help others, but also his insecurities about his appearance, and his deep anger at the kind of people who rejected him. While I'm playing him I will probably build his character out in other directions, as situations suggest fun new twists and turns to his personality.

But his Strength and his Intelligence? Neither of those are notable or unique. He has 16 Strength just like everybody else with 16 Strength, and he has 8 Int just like everybody else with 8 Int.



Genuinely interested in reactions.
1. Assuming the characters can read, anyone probably could figure out it is an anagram. If no one does, the GM might give a hint or correct answer on an Int roll. Though this is really not an interesting puzzle. Ideally I would probably build puzzles so that it would require using both in-character knowledge and players' wits, and would be thematically connected to the setting. For example skill rolls would reveal elemental associations of local deities and puzzle would require players to figure out how to use the associated element on the statues of said deities.

2 and 4. It's really the same situation. Skills for knowing these things exist in the game for a reason. You roll them to know the correct answer, and if you fail you roleplay not knowing it. Now of course GM may declare that some things simply are common knowledge, and it might be good idea to coordinate that with player knowledge. But that's GMs call. And ultimately a more experienced player shouldn't have advantage over newbies on this matter. It simply is unfair if a newbie invest on knowledge skills and a veteran player just bypasses all that because they have memorised the Monster Manual. Now the GM may of course change things, but this should not be required.

5. If I put a low Int score on my character, I will definitely roleplay it in some manner, and consider doing so to be a part of the etiquette. Now Int 8 is not some drooling moron, they're just a bit below average, so this doesn't necessarily require much. But the players are free to assign their ability scores how they see fit, so if they don't want to RP that, then they shouldn't put the 8 in Int; simple as that.
 

Alternate ability scores seems like putting fresh paint on the issue. Whether called Intelligence, Intellect, Cunning, Smarts, or IQ, you’re going to have the same issues.

(Incidentally, I went to school with some genius kids and let’s just say nobody’s behavior was consistent).
 

I don't think D&D itself is ever going to change, nor do I really want it to (there are LOTS of other places to scratch other itches) but it's still an interesting discussion.

I used to have this attitude but if D&D is going to remain the dominant RPG, I think it almost has a duty to change. I mean, not quite, but almost. Because it's not dominant due to quality of rules, it's dominant due to brand recognition and the fact that so many people basically know how to play it unlike other TT RPGs. It's a very different situation to the mid-1990s, say. Maybe one day we'll see a situation where D&D is no longer so dominant but it'll be a while.

So I don't think it is going to change, but I think it probably should.
 

I think D&D's six ability scores have outlived their usefulness.
I think D&D six ability scores have been abused by RE-inventors and designers who have made them seem that way.
The easiest thing to do would be to eliminate them entirely and then pare down the skill list to reflect what people actually do while adventuring.
I think the best thing to do is to reverse the efforts made in turning D&D into a skills-based game. But that's just me.
 

Remove ads

Top