No Attributes

[Reynard]

I have been playing a lot of Skyrim and one of the things that I find intriguing about the game is it's levelling system. Leaving aside the XP system, which deserves its own discussion, I very much like the "no attributes" approach. For those unfamiliar with the game, there are no "strength" or "intelligence" tulle stats. Instead, characters are defined by three core, I don't know, capacities? -- Magical (spell points), hit points and stamina ("martial" spell points). Everything else is skill ratings and feats, essentially.

could D&D or Pathfinder work under such a model? Without attributes, what do you lose? What do you gain? How would you go about using the games as published with this paradigm?

EDIT: DUD and Rangefinder? Really? Stupid tablet...

 

[ValhallaGH]

How would you go about using the games as published with this paradigm?

You (almost certainly) wouldn't. That's a heck of a lot of "on the fly" modifications to DCs and damage systems.

In all likelihood, you'd have to completely rewrite most d20-based games. Ability scores are too central a design mechanic in such systems (D&D of any version, Pathfinder, Spycraft, Star Wars, d20 Modern, Conan, Modern20, True 20, etc.).

 

[Reynard]

You (almost certainly) wouldn't. That's a heck of a lot of "on the fly" modifications to DCs and damage systems.

In all likelihood, you'd have to completely rewrite most d20-based games. Ability scores are too central a design mechanic in such systems (D&D of any version, Pathfinder, Spycraft, Star Wars, d20 Modern, Conan, Modern20, True 20, etc.).

I don't believe in "impossible."

If attribute bonuses are that essential then there has to be a metric by which to measure the impact of their exclusion. Then, it is just a matter of adjusting DCs in the module for skills. I think you can fold attribute modifiers on combat into skill levels and feats, as well.

 

[Voadam]

I have been playing a lot of Skyrim and one of the things that I find intriguing about the game is it's levelling system. Leaving aside the XP system, which deserves its own discussion, I very much like the "no attributes" approach. For those unfamiliar with the game, there are no "strength" or "intelligence" tulle stats. Instead, characters are defined by three core, I don't know, capacities? -- Magical (spell points), hit points and stamina ("martial" spell points). Everything else is skill ratings and feats, essentially.

could DUD or Rangefinder work under such a model? Without attributes, what do you lose? What do you gain? How would you go about using the games as published with this paradigm?

Consider 4e.

Everybody still has 1/2 level for attacks, defenses, and skills. Plus enhancement bonuses, etc.

Everybody generally has the same number in their class' primary stat. This gives you a general baseline of attack and damage bonus you can apply to everybody. There is a little variation but not generally beyond two or four which comes out to +1 or +2.

Variation between PCs's stats generally comes in things like secondary class stats, save bonuses, and skill modifiers. Some use int or dex for an AC bonus while others use heavy armor and can dump stat them more.

One way to get things like ability skill differences back in would be to use a Castles and Crusades type system where skills are based wholly on stats and levels and each character gets two strong abilities, one determined by class with the other chosen. This way you'd have the character who is classic rogue, charming and quick fingered, but who is not endurance tough or a benchpress master or lore knowledgeable.

 

[GSHamster]

I don't think it would be that big a deal mechanically. No attributes is the same as a zero attribute modifer, which is the same as a character with 10s in all her stats.

You might have to adjust all DCs down a couple points, but other than that, there's really no mechanical effect.

But thematically, atributes represent innate ability. "My character is stronger than normal, or faster than normal, or more beautiful than normal." No character attributes says that my characters native strength or beauty does not have an effect on game play, and a lot of the more-simulationists will be unhappy about that.

In Skyrim it works because there isn't anything else to compare your main character to. But in a tabletop game there are multiple characters. How does one PC say "my character is stronger than her character" without attributes?

You might be able to get around it with background feats or perks that you select at 1st level. I.e. No character attributes, but at 1st level you take, "A Born Diplomat: +2 to checks made to convince or sway people" or "Analytical Mind: +2 to checks involving intellectual tasks".

 

[Umbran]

could D&D or Pathfinder work under such a model?

Could you? With enough work, sure. But, as with most such questions, we are apt to become buried in how we could do it, and tend to ignore the question f whether it is a bright idea to do so.

Without attributes, what do you lose?

You lose the ability to modify a broad swath of skills at once. "I'd like to become better at *all* this dexterity stuff, so I'll raise my Dex." Without an attribute modifier (or some analogue) you can only modify skills individually.

What do you gain?

I think you gain... not much, really. I don't see as eliminating a factor adds much to the system.

How would you go about using the games as published with this paradigm?

Honestly, I wouldn't. Not because I don't like the idea of a game without attributes, but because I generally take a "right tool for the job" approach. Attribute modifiers are threaded throughout D&D, making it a poor candidate for such modification. It's like trying to pull out a well-rooted plant - very difficult.

 

[S'mon]

Attributes served a simulation purpose in 0e-2e, but yes I think 3e and especially 4e would be better off without them. They just clutter up the game, which is really about the d20 mods.

 

[S'mon]

In Skyrim it works because there isn't anything else to compare your main character to. But in a tabletop game there are multiple characters. How does one PC say "my character is stronger than her character" without attributes?

"I'm a Fighter" or "I'm a Barbarian" - in 4e your class basically determines which attribute is a '20' (possibly an '18'). All Fighters are stronger than all Wizards. There is really no simulation element that I can discern. In 0e you might roll 3d6 in order, get STR 14 INT 12, and play a magic-user. That just doesn't happen any more - really, hasn't happened since 'arrange as desired' became normal.

IMO it would save a lot of time simply to declare that eg Fighters got +5 on 'strength' skills, Clerics got +5 on 'wisdom' skills, Wizards on intelligence skills, etc.

But this would have to wait to a new edition.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Skyrim has attributes - it simply hides them behind what used to be secondary, derived, attributes - Stamina, Magica, and Health.

Personally, the way I would handle a no attribute game the same way I handle diceless* games - by leaving it on the shelf at the store. For that matter, TWERPS is not for me either - with too many challenges being handled with a single Stat.

This is not the same as dropping the 3-18 and just using the mods - the mods are the attributes in games such as True20.

The Auld Grump

*Dice or other means of randomization, cards count too.

 

[Water Bob]

Skyrim does have attributes. It has three: Magika, Health, and Stamina. Plus, it has many skils, with levels, and the character's level.

Could a D&D rule set be written following this paradigm? You bet. It would be a vast change from what we're used to, but an PnP RPG could certainly be written using the above.

It would basically be a skill driven game with the three attributes used as a bonus to, or a base for, each skill.

So, making an attack throw would be made using Stamina + Appropriate weapon skill.

You might want to use a points buy system. That would probably work best. But, a random roll system would work, too.

Your standard character may start at Level 1 with 1d6 in each Magika, Health, and Stamina. The character also gets 1d6 in each skill, gets to pick a certain number of skills in which to specialize, adding another 1d6. And there may be bonuses or penalties for race.

Under the Skyrim model, there wouldn't be any character clases, but there would be bonuses for characters who lean towards one of the three archetype professions: Mage, Thief, Fighter.

There's lots you could do with this.

I don't think I'd change D&D to this system, but like you, I certainly like what I'm seeing in Skyrim.

It's probably the best fantasy PC game ever created.