No Attributes

[the Jester]

You could indeed make D&D or PF work without attributes, but I think it would take a lot away from the game.

 

[Reynard]

You could indeed make D&D or PF work without attributes, but I think it would take a lot away from the game.

I'm trying to figure out exactly what you'd be losing that is hugely necessary. The biggest loss seems to be either in the mechanical benefits of attributes, which could easily be folded back in via traits or skills or whatever, or in the more nebulous character identity benefit -- which I agree with in part, particularly when talking about building characters around a random set of stat rolls.

Obviously you couldn't simply remove attributes and go on your merry way. Even if you don't care about the inherent modifiers to various rolls, there are tons of other game elements that are attribute dependent.

Perhaps it'd be easier to start with a simpler version of the game and go from there. How would B/x, frex, play without attributes?

 

[Squire James]

Trying to employ a Skyrim character system to tabletop play will resemble the Call of Cthulu system than it would D&D. Also, some things work well in a computer game and not so well in a tabletop game, and vice versa.

Determining what exactly the skill list is would be a bit of a pain, for instance.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I must admit I had a similar thought cross my mind recently. Not eliminating attributes, but just eliminating the mechanical bonus element of them. Let them become primarily roleplaying hooks, or at most prereqs for certain feats.

I think it could be interesting for a simplified game with a focus on roleplaying.

Cheers

 

[jmucchiello]

I must admit I had a similar thought cross my mind recently. Not eliminating attributes, but just eliminating the mechanical bonus element of them. Let them become primarily roleplaying hooks, or at most prereqs for certain feats.

I think it could be interesting for a simplified game with a focus on roleplaying.

This. There was a thread earlier this year I think with a similar idea. In a pure class system, class would have more effect on whether you were considered dextrous than some innate dexterity rating.

There are non-diceless games that are like this already. They are the games where your abilities are determined by descriptive elements. In RISUS they are called cliches. In FATE they are called Aspects. The point is these games exist and in them there is no way to determine if Fred's character is stronger/smarter/faster than Sue's character because there are no base attributes.

Since games like this already exist, I fail to see why a version of D&D could not be run/written using one of these systems or a similar system. I'm shocked that people here find the idea of a "no attribute" game so impossible. RPG rules are just veneer to good role-play.

 

[Umbran]

Since games like this already exist, I fail to see why a version of D&D could not be run/written using one of these systems or a similar system. I'm shocked that people here find the idea of a "no attribute" game so impossible.

I don't think anyone is saying that "a version" or a game, cannot be run without attributes. They are saying that the current rules (either 3e or 4e) would be difficult to modify to run without attributes. It's like electric cars - sure, you can build a car that runs on battery power. But modifying the car in your driveway to run on batteries might be more work than is reasonable, and might not get you suitable results.

RPG rules are just veneer to good role-play.

Completely separate point, but I think it is more accurate to say that rules are a framework upon which to hang your roleplay. The rules are an underlying scaffold that helps mold the play, not a film layered on after the fact.

 

[the Jester]

I'm trying to figure out exactly what you'd be losing that is hugely necessary.

"Hugely necessary," nothing. But you lose a lot of character. For example, what if my 4th level fighter and your 4th level fighter arm wrestle? Who wins, if we have no strength score to look at and if all "Strength-related" tasks give an equal bonus to both of us? What if one of us is a halfling and the other is a half-orc?

I must admit I had a similar thought cross my mind recently. Not eliminating attributes, but just eliminating the mechanical bonus element of them.

I've done this in my "D&D Jazz" system and I really like how it works, though they still have a mechanical impact in that skill checks are primarily ability checks.

 

[arscott]

The important part is that in a game without attributes, you usually have more skills, or broader skills, that would represent some of the things that used to be based on attributes.

So in 3e, if you want characters to arm wrestle, it'd be a strength check. In an attribute-free game, it might be an athletics check or a wrestling check or whatever, but there's probably going to be a skill you can default to for just about anything a character is expected to do.

 

[am181d]

Okay, so first off:

If every fighter has the exact same attributes, you're doing something wrong. That might mean 4e as a whole is doing something wrong. But I play 3.5, and we've got two human fighters in the party with completely different attributes, and they play completely differently.

Attributes are the best, quickest way to define characters. When used properly (and not as an optimization box-ticking exercise) they are an aid to role-play, not a detriment.

 

[ValhallaGH]

I don't believe in "impossible."

You must. You were the first (and only) one to mention it.
I just said it would be difficult - and enough work that the reward (... which doesn't actually seem to exist) is not worth the effort.


The real question that should be ask is not "what is lost". The question that should be asked is "what is gained by this change?"

"Why did you set your car on fire and drive it across the city? What did you gain by doing so?"
"Because it was awesome. I have the best scar stories of anyone I know."
"... Was it worth it?"
"... no."