D&D 5E The evolution of Charisma and Wisdom

[Ahnehnois]

But where do you stop? Space Opera, for example, broke the character down into Physique (physical size), Strength (pure physical power), Constitution physical toughness), Agility (balance and extended balance), Dexterity (fine motor skill), Empathy (ability to read and relate to another's emotions), Intelligence (mental agility and acuity), Psionics (what it says), Intuition (ability to come to a valid conclusion, devoid of real evidence), Bravery (again, what it says), Leadership (ability to have others do as you want), GTA (general technical ability), MechA (mechanical aptitude), and ElecA (electrical aptitude). There's a rationale for all of them and for the many stats that were derived from them. I can tell you that the complexity definitely impacted playability though.

While the sacred cows of the 6 attributes shouldn't necessarily be considered sacrosanct, I also don't see a pressing need to break them out into more. Playability is key and the more complexity that is added, the less playable the game becomes.

I'm inclined to agree.

So my point was this, *if* you're going to redo ability scores, start from scratch, don't just tweak Wis and Cha. And carefully consider the ripple effect of any such changes.

Personally, I'm okay with them as they are. (Though, like I said early on, optional subabilities were an interesting rule).

 

[triqui]

If I were to redo the system, with no care of legacy or backwards compatibility, I'd split Wisdom into Intuition and Spirit/willpower, and I'd add "fighting" as a stat too (like the F in Marvel Super Heroes FASERIP)
I'd like to point that D&D once had 12 abilities, in Skills and powers, were all stats were divided in two (dexterity was aim and balance, Constitution was health and fitness, Strength was muscle and stamina, Intelligence was Reason and Knowledge, wisdom was intuition and willpower and Charisma was Leadership and Appearence) I don't think that much is needed, although I can see a point dividing Dex into Aim and Balance, as it is a bit too powerful/broad now.

 

[Remathilis]

For What its Worth, Alternity (the Sci-fi D&D spinoff in the 90's) used Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Will, and Personality.

 

[Ryujin]

For What its Worth, Alternity (the Sci-fi D&D spinoff in the 90's) used Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Will, and Personality.

And a much, much different dice system that didn't seem to find a niche audience, though I ran a campaign for quite a while.

 

[Ratskinner]

That, and every item you add to such a list, which is supposed to affect the entire game (or else why even bother?), has consequences. Assuming we are going to have "ability scores" at all, then having only 1 is definitely too few, and there rapidly comes a point somewhere after 6-10 where it is definitely too many. The range in between is something to discuss.

But then the second question is nailing down what in the game "ability score" is meant to handle. Whether very abstract or very specific, that decision should be somewhat consistent. So to pick some ability scores is to reject others.

In games that I've found to work well in this regard, it works out that you usually end up with around 3-7 items in each such list--or if you have more, they are naturally categorized into subsets with about that many items in each subset. So I'm not inherently against having 8 ability scores in D&D, though I am against simply adding another couple willy-nilly. Such a change requires careful consideration of what ability scores do--and don't do. I think after such an exercise we keep the traditional six, because such careful consideration of a list of 7 or 8 will not keep the original six close enough to their original form.

Or in other words, I'm not impressed with the kneejerk simulationist instinct that thinks adding "perception" and "comeliness" to the standard six is both useful and not disruptive. Done well, it might be useful and highly disruptive. Done poorly, it might be not at all disruptive, but practically useless.

I agree with your reasoning, and add that I feel 6 is plenty, if not too many already. After that, the specificity starts to remind me more of "skill" rather than "attribute".

 

[Yora]

I think most RPGs I've seen have less than 6 ability score, as few as three or even just two. There are very few that have more than 6 and I never saw a point in having that many.

 

[Remathilis]

I think most RPGs I've seen have less than 6 ability score, as few as three or even just two. There are very few that have more than 6 and I never saw a point in having that many.

Palladium: Intelligence Quota, Mental Endurance, Mental Affinity, Physical Strength, Physical Prowess, Physical Endurance, Physical Beauty, and Speed. All rolled.

 

[Remathilis]

And a much, much different dice system that didn't seem to find a niche audience, though I ran a campaign for quite a while.

Oddly, it reminds me (vaguely) of Next's emphasis on combat/skill dice and advantage/disadvantage instead of flat bonuses.

 

[triqui]

I think most RPGs I've seen have less than 6 ability score, as few as three or even just two. There are very few that have more than 6 and I never saw a point in having that many.

There are many of them with more than six.

World of darkness have 9.
Runequest has 7. Marvel super heroes has 7. Rolemaster has a lot of them.