D&D General Alternate "Ability Scores"

[cbwjm]

They didn’t. They sure tried to. But it was an awful mess in its own right, full of internal contradictions and conflations. Not really adopted outside its own little corner, either. You’d think a theory on rpgs (particularly one aimed at being a grand / unifying theory) might be applicable to like an rpg video game, or even a conversation offline. But it wasn’t. Nobody with money on the table (or with anything interesting to say) bothered with this thing. It ended up being a forum-waffle generator and nothing more.

Oh totally, I read the Wikipedia article, had the critiques of it as well. I guess its more of a hypothesis than a theory since it was easily taken apart.

 

[Charlaquin]

@Elfcrusher et al. (in case no one pointed it out...)

From 1E MM1, MM2, Field Folio, and Deities & Demigods (might even be in other books...):
View attachment 132207
Unfortunately, this doesn't directly translate to the normal distribution of the 3d6 bell-curve so you can't simply compare it to the standard curve for I.Q.

Anyway, notice (most importantly IMO) is states "In monsters" first thing. You can use the same table for PCs, but with their higher average (10.5 with 3d6, higher with other methods) it isn't quite the same IMO.

Now, I know 5E doesn't make the following assumption, but I like it and treat it as such when it comes to ability scores in 5E.

Each +1 modifier does translate directly into a one standard deviation increase in ability or increase in relative ability.

Ex. INT 14 (with +2) would be the equal of I.Q. 130 (2 SD above the mean), which is pretty smart and frankly research has shown with this I.Q. you can learn/understand/handle just about any task.

EDIT: with this concept, the actual bonus should also be cumulative, i.e. +1 => +1, +2 => +3, +3 => +6, +4 => +10, and +5 => +15. This way in a contested check for someone with -2 vs. +5 the modifiers would be -3 vs. +15, so the +5 would be nearly guaranteed to win.

Ugh. IQ is such an unreliable metric to begin with, the idea of assigning IQs based on Intelligence score seems in very poor taste to me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Ugh. IQ is such an unreliable metric to begin with, the idea of assigning IQs based on Intelligence score seems in very poor taste to me.

And...again...none of that correlates to the actual mechanics, i.e. the attribute modifiers.

 

[Deset Gled]

Oh totally, I read the Wikipedia article, had the critiques of it as well. I guess its more of a hypothesis than a theory since it was easily taken apart.

I don't think of it as a formal theory, but an abstract model, like the OSI network model, or the Bohr model of the atom.

In this discussion, we've had some people claiming that ability scores should be purely descriptive, and/or that playing the role is the only thing that matters. We've had others matching ability scores to statistics, IQs, and bell curves. And we've had other's discussing the percentage chance difference caused in a roll based on ability score modifiers. The GNS model provides a very useful insight into how all of these POVs can exist within the same set of rules, and the value of each viewpoint. As a framework, it can help identify which of the more extreme viewpoints could be unified with mechanics (if desired) and which are unlikely to reach a common ground.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't think of it as a formal theory, but an abstract model, like the OSI network model, or the Bohr model of the atom.

Great example, since Bohr also was talking out of his @$$.

 

[Aldarc]

There's a fun little micro game called Warrior, Rogue, Mage where your 3 stats are literally Warrior, Rogue, Mage.

I'm familiar with this game, but I'm partial to the six roles from Jadepunk, which was the Fate game where I was exposed to such roles.

I used roles for a Cortex Prime hack I drafted called The Blighted Lands, which was meant to be something akin to a Zelda-Dark Crystal-Pirates of Dark Water mash-up focused on stopping the spread of a cancerous evil in the land. The roles in that game are Darkstalker, Earthshaper, Heartspeaker, Lorekeeper, Steeldancer, and Wayfinder. But behind those names were basically re-skins of the six aforementioned roles (i.e., Aristocrat, Engineer, Explorer, Fighter, Scholar, and Scoundrel), albeit meant to invoke the setting.

Back to the OP, I don't have a problem with the ability scores and I think they're such a core part of the system that it will never change.

Are they perfect? No. But they are "good enough", even if that isn't a very high bar.

I don't think that the point of the OP is to debate either roleplaying mental scores or to reaffirm the sanctity of D&D's attributes. This may reflect my own preference, but I would personally prefer to provide helpful, constructive suggestions that help advance the OP's goals. I think that the OP is smart enough to know that the ability scores in D&D will likely never change, but I don't think that is what they are hoping to achieve in the thread. Providing possible suggestions for how they could achieve their goal seems harmless enough.

 

[Reynard]

They didn’t. They sure tried to. But it was an awful mess in its own right, full of internal contradictions and conflations. Not really adopted outside its own little corner, either. You’d think a theory on rpgs (particularly one aimed at being a grand / unifying theory) might be applicable to like an rpg video game, or even a conversation offline. But it wasn’t. Nobody with money on the table (or with anything interesting to say) bothered with this thing. It ended up being a forum-waffle generator and nothing more.

Philosophical discussion are inherently messy. They are supposed to be. That's where the work is done and useful ideas emerge. And a lot of useful ideas emerged from GNS and The Forge -- ideas you see in Fate and Powered by the Apocalypse games and, yes, even 5E. GNS theory was a school of thought that informed a lot of the game designers putting out work today. Was there a lot of meaningless arguing and unintelligible grand standing -- sure. That's the nature of a discussion had in an open forum. But to dismiss it entirely is to display ones ignorance of how it actually shaped RPG design.

 

[Reynard]

I don't think that the point of the OP is to debate either roleplaying mental scores or to reaffirm the sanctity of D&D's attributes. This may reflect my own preference, but I would personally prefer to provide helpful, constructive suggestions that help advance the OP's goals. I think that the OP is smart enough to know that the ability scores in D&D will likely never change, but I don't think that is what they are hoping to achieve in the thread. Providing possible suggestions for how they could achieve their goal seems harmless enough.

Never say never?

I don't think there is much chance D&Ds six iconic ability scores will change in 6E or whatever comes next, for sure. But they should. They simultaneously say too much and not enough about the character. In 5E, with bounded accuracy, they are also far too important and have entirely too mech mechanical heft for too long.

 

[Umbran]

The knife cuts both ways:

Mod Note:
About that....

... you are not roleplaying. Rather you are abdicating your roleplaying to the dice. You are playing a board game.

And it's fine to play board games. It's just not roleplaying.

Wait...people still roll stats? How...quaint.

I am surprised it took so long to bring these things to moderator attention. I wish it had gotten caught sooner, because this is toxic stuff.

You are not an Arbiter of Roleplaying, to declare others to be Not Roleplaying. You are acting like a condescending jerk. As such you've earned yourself a trip out of this thread.

And, by the way, Bohr was taking steps toward genuine understanding. You might want to consider that bfore you lay about with your One True Way critiques in the future.

 

[Dausuul]

Philosophical discussion are inherently messy. They are supposed to be. That's where the work is done and useful ideas emerge. And a lot of useful ideas emerged from GNS and The Forge -- ideas you see in Fate and Powered by the Apocalypse games and, yes, even 5E. GNS theory was a school of thought that informed a lot of the game designers putting out work today. Was there a lot of meaningless arguing and unintelligible grand standing -- sure. That's the nature of a discussion had in an open forum. But to dismiss it entirely is to display ones ignorance of how it actually shaped RPG design.

That's the reason I compared Edwards to Freud. Freud started the conversation about psychology and brought in ideas like the unconscious mind--stuff going on in our brains that we are not ourselves aware of--and had a tremendous impact on the field. But the specifics of psychoanalysis were quackery of the first order, and psychology has mostly abandoned them.

So I was wrong to say as I did earlier that "no one ever does well to read up on GNS theory"--if you want to know about the history of RPG design, it's a key piece. But the theory itself is seductive nonsense.