ability scores "meaning something"

[tetramorph]

I've just posted about this over on my blog.

In my campaign, Dun Kells, I've decided to use both ability checks and the B/X style modifier table. I've done this just exactly to make ability scores "mean something" for me and my players.

I do not intend for this to become like using feats or skills. I still want it to be "Old School." I intend to use ability checks (score or under on 3d6) when I need to add an "oracle" to interpret, as the referee, rather than make an arbitrary decision. Those probability curves make the world feel more "real" to me, like something separate from my own imaginings. And just exactly because it is "curvy," I can interpret them in creative ways. They don't have to mean a simple "on-off switch." They can indicate a continuum of possible degrees and "flavors" of success and failure.

Some complain that the modifiers add too much "crunch" to the game. And i respect that. But I think players and ref can find ways to smooth them out. I have my players roll "to hit" and tell me what AC they hit. If they want to, they can factor any ability modifiers and magic item bonuses into the schedule itself. That is only crunchy on the front-end, rather mindless thereafter.

And players can add and subtract. I just want the ability scores to "mean something."

Thoughts?

[The Semi-Retired Gamer]

I like it! The system feels like it fits into the rules because it is simple and to the point without adding unnecessary complications. Go for it!

[Necromancer]

I think it sounds good, tetramorph. I like ability scores to actually mean something, and become something you actually can use during play instead of just being some random numbers on a piece of paper!

[finarvyn]

I like the bell curve of the B/X modifier table. I'm a teacher and I find that students tend to fit that curve as well -- a few at the top and a few at the bottom and a large pile in the middle -- so I agree that such a distrobution feels pretty "natural" to me.

[Mr Darke]

I like the idea very well. Any chance we could see an example of how it works?

[Admin Pete]

I have the "I am sure you can do that", the "you have a chance to do that so tell me what you are doing, the roll 3d6 for your X stat" and the " that is a real long shot, tell me what you are doing then roll percentile dice, you need Y to succeed".

[tetramorph]

Admin Pete, that is really interesting. How do you use the percentile dice? How do you decide what percent you are trying to reach?

[tetramorph]

Feb 2, 2015 22:29:46 GMT -5 Mr Darke said:

I like the idea very well. Any chance we could see an example of how it works?

Sure, thanks for asking.

So, one key example, is that I go with the S&W style single base ST approach. But, in the end, PCs still have more than one ST, so to speak, b/c their ability modifiers will modify their ST for certain things associated with that ability score. So, if they wanted simply to factor that in on their character record, they would more than likely have more than one ST, as they are probably going to have two or three modifiers using the B/X modifier table.

Let me make it concrete. I apply STR mods to STs against "crushing," INT mods to STs against arcane magic, WIS mods to STs against clerical stuff, DEX mods to STs against surprises (like springing traps, etc.), CON mods to general STs, and CHA mods to STs against fay magic (elven, gnomish, dryads, nymphs, etc.).

Thus a PC's STs are determined by class, lvl and mods, if any and as applicable. Does that make sense?

Other key areas would be: STR mods affect melee "to hit" and damage; INT mods affect language/s / proficiency, WIS mods affect turning and exorcising, DEX mods affect range-fire "to hit" and what I call "stealth," which is a kind of single "thieving skill" that covers attempting to surprise people or machines or attempting to avoid surprise by other people or machines (I learned it from Talysman, I roll it as an opposing check, but I keep my referee roll hidden), CON affects HD rolls for HP and HP restoration, CHA affects quite a bit: retainers, vassals and even starting money.

Wow, writing all that out seems like a lot of "crunch." But it still feels fairly intuitive to me -- just what falls out when you start expecting the ability scores to affect other game mechanics. I am hoping my players will find it intuitive as well!

[waysoftheearth]

Positive energy is, IMHO, far and away the main ingredient for a good game, and your enthusiasm is evident tetramorph.

The rest is all relatively unimportant "details". But, while we are here discussing the unimportant "details", I'm gonna be a bad apple and throw a few curve balls into the mix for your consideration:


* Low ability scores occur equally frequently in OD&D as do high ability scores.

* Bear in mind that players don't earn their starting scores, they are allocated them by the ref. 

* Larger adjustments will tend to magnify the distinction between "good stats" and "poor stats". E.g., OD&D's range of modifiers (-1, 0, +1) accommodates low stats without undue duress while B/X's range of modifiers (-3 to +3) can mean nobody wants to play a character with low scores.

* Ability modifiers of +2/+3 will outshine most of OD&D's magical weaponry.

* Ability modifiers of +2/+3 and are as significant (or more so!) as the step between a normal man and a hero on Attack Matrix I.

* B/X style modifiers are a lot more likely to occur than are OD&D style modifiers: 98% of six throws of 3d6 will yield at least one B/X style adjustment. So it's all the more likely that players will be stacking their ability adjustments with the game's other modifiers.

* Having "smooth" universal modifiers that are generally applicable can be infectious. E.g., once players have a general "strength" modifier they naturally expect to be able to apply it wherever grunt is employed, so you'll naturally start bringing these modifiers into play more often (as you've already begun doing with saving throws, above). On the other hand, a more specific "damage adjustment" need never bother us otherwise.

* Skill/feat/deed-type checks connected to ability scores also emphasises the benefit of (arbitrarily assigned) high stats and the penalty of low stats. Such checks connected to class and/or level, on the other hand, reflect a player choice or player achievement.  (Note also that the ability checks on 3d6 mentioned above mean a player with an 18 can't fail, and a player with a 3 can't succeed).

* And (on a roll here) what of the important NPCs and leader-type monsters? They'll need similar scale adjustments to remain competitive with/against the players, so we'd need to consider give them similar stat adjustments too... or not!


I'm not saying any of that stuff is terribly important by itself, but I do think that the small details tend to "add up quietly" without you necessarily noticing what that means.

As I wrote in a short essay a while back, I do think ability scores mean something but not necessarily the same thing you're suggesting above. I believe the ability scores should be primarily descriptive; they're there to help make each PC unique, to help the player identify with the character and to make him/her memorable and fun!


All that aside, there seems to be a bit of an awkward juxtaposition posed above in which the left-brain wants to be "old school" (whatever that may be), but the right-brain wants to bolt on a bunch of relatively modern "isms". That's all fun and fine for what it is, but it seems you might almost risk cheating yourself out of the experience you're aiming for

[tetramorph]

waysoftheearth, I am so glad you are posting over here as we try to set up this campaign-focused forum!

As always, your knowledge -- both book and practical -- is so indispensable. It may well be a right side fighting with the left side of my brain. But I like to think that the creative and the analytic can come together. Like when an engineer makes something beautiful, or when an artist does something fractal, etc. We will see. If it turns out to be crunchy or inspiring min-maxing, then I will have learned my lesson. And I promise to report back to you that you were right!

That said, I don't see what I am doing as "modernisms." I see it as blending what I like from a later but still classic edition of D&D back into my OD&D campaign. In the end, in may not work. But I don't think it is "new school."

I love your short essay post. Can I copy and paste it and hand it to my players as we set up the campaign? (I will tell them I got it from you!)

Thanks for noting the positive energy. My hope is that as I set up the campaign and describe what I am going for, they will understand why I've put these particular mechanics together for them. I am playing with a bunch of other middle-aged adults whom I trust. I just don't see them going for min-max. I think they also "get" that poor scores and "penalties" add flavor. They like role-play and I anticipate them liking that aspect of it.

Okay, now I'll address some of your points, above:

*There is no difference between OD&D and the B/X system in terms of the relative frequency of high to low scores and modifiers. The only thing I have increased is a.) the likelihood of getting a mod and b.) the span of possible mods.

*I will have players roll straight ability scores, 6 in a row, as they roll them. If they don't like what they see they can chuck it and re-roll. But they eventually will have to pick a grouping of 6! I can use the one's they chuck for NPC ideas, retainers, or hold on to them for when their PC inevitably dies. Then I can say: remember this guy? and hand him the sheet!

*You may be right. I may discover that nobody wants to play a PC w/low scores. But I am not that worried. One is just as likely to roll a bonus as a penalty. For every penalty they should have a bonus. And I am, again, hoping that they will "get" and enjoy the way that low scores add flavor. It is true that someone may want to reject a character with -3. But then I will joyfully point out how astronomically significant it is that they actually rolled a "3" and encourage them to see if they can actually get this PC to lvl up. I will personally promise them a "high five" if they do.

*I have thought about that magic item thing. You are so right there and I admit I do worry that. Here is my current salvo: I will limit the number of static stacks to 4 and when including temporary wonders (spells, etc.) I will limit the number of stacks to 6. I can imagine within the game world that a Conan type (let's pretend he has STR 18) just starts to discover, after a time, that it is better for him to give his most amazing swords to his fellow adventurers who clearly seem to need them more. Someone who astronomically rolls an 18 should get some kind of lucky reward for that. It was "in the stars" for that character, perhaps the Great Conjunction gave him almost magical strength, making the character himself a kind of "magic item"! Just my in-world thoughts on this one so far.

*Okay, Ways, you are going to hate this, but here is the truth: I am using my own "to hit" schedules. Well, not my own, I'm borrowing them from austinjimm's Planet Eris house rules document (goggle around and you'll find it. it is worth having a copy. I think he has done a bang-up OS job on it). In my campaign setting knights (my FM) and scouts (my thieves) progress each lvl for melee and range respectively; knights, scouts, elves and clerics progress every other in general combat, and magi (my MU) and dwarves every third.

*Please understand that I am only going to be using ability checks when I, as the referee, desire something else to interpret than their description of what they are doing. In the main I will listen to what they are describing and rule what occurs. It is only when I am stumped that I ask for ability checks so that the "world" can appear as something independent of my brain and whims.

*If a PC has an 18 or a 3, I am going to assume that most of the time they can / cannot do that crazy thing / basic task. The 3 will rely upon the party for that kind of action. The 18 will have the party looking to him for that kind of action. Still, when I need a check, I can make it 4 or even 5d6, or I can roll on a d20 and give a penalty due to the cra-cra factor, etc. There are work-arounds!

*I also have benefits associated with class and lvl. The different aspects of the mechanics come together in a confluence to describe a character. I think that is neat.

*NPCs and leader monsters already have a better "to hit" schedule than FM. I sometimes add bonuses, assuming a magic weapon. When they try something I use a chart based on relative HD: on 2d6: 0-3HD = 9, 4-7HD = 8, 8-11HD = 7, 12-15HD = 6, 16+ = 5.

Thanks for getting me thinking deeply about my house rules!

[Admin Pete]

Feb 3, 2015 14:52:13 GMT -5 tetramorph said:

Admin Pete, that is really interesting. How do you use the percentile dice? How do you decide what percent you are trying to reach?

If I think it is something that is just "out there" but still has a small chance of success if the "prefect storm" happens, I start with a 3-5% chance and then adjust that up or down a bit based on the relevant ability stat. A 17 or 18 may get a 1-2% bonus and less than a 13 will get a 1-2% penalty to perform some extraordinary task.

[Admin Pete]

Feb 4, 2015 5:47:51 GMT -5 waysoftheearth said:

* Bear in mind that players don't earn their starting scores, they are allocated them by the ref. 

We did not do this bitd, we always rolled our own characters up, but for the last 5+ years I have been following this rule and it works just fine IME.

[waysoftheearth]

Feb 4, 2015 11:39:32 GMT -5 tetramorph said:

I love your short essay post. Can I copy and paste it and hand it to my players as we set up the campaign?

Of course; that's what it's for

Feb 4, 2015 11:39:32 GMT -5 tetramorph said:

*Okay, Ways, you are going to hate this, but here is the truth: I am using my own "to hit" schedules.

I don't hate it at all; I've tried many sorts of attack tables/progressions and they each have something going for them. I've just come to believe that, ultimately, utility trumps just about everything else

[Mr Darke]

Good stuff!  My method is usually split between either an ability check or an 'in-6' roll. For example, thieves abilities are handled as an X-in-6 chance of success with the base being 3 in six but adjusted on difficulty. If you are trying to sneak past an alert guard you get a flat 1 in 6 chance of success. If you are picking the pocket of a passed out drunk you will get a 5 in 6 chance of doing so. Using the old S&W bonuses (+1/-1) for ability scores doesn't modify things too much and makes higher scores mean something with this method. As for ability checks I usually modify the score rolled against for any bonuses/penalties and go from there. Balancing across a broken beam of 4" width would be a Dex Check at -3 to the score.   

This has kept the scores meaning something and keeps the game challenging at any level of play. Even the New School converts have liked this as they see they no longer have to keep track of multiple modifiers and stats.

[tetramorph]

Nice, Mr Darke. I learned from Talysman to approach "thief abilities" as an opposing d6 check. Like initiative.

That way the player feels like they are doing something. But they don't see my role behind the screen so they aren't sure till I describe what actually winds up happening.

I allow DEX modifiers. I give my "scouts" (my lawful "thieves") an additional bonus every 3 lvls starting from lvl 4.

[The Semi-Retired Gamer]

Feb 4, 2015 16:15:24 GMT -5 Mr Darke said:

Good stuff!  My method is usually split between either an ability check or an 'in-6' roll. For example, thieves abilities are handled as an X-in-6 chance of success with the base being 3 in six but adjusted on difficulty. If you are trying to sneak past an alert guard you get a flat 1 in 6 chance of success. If you are picking the pocket of a passed out drunk you will get a 5 in 6 chance of doing so. Using the old S&W bonuses (+1/-1) for ability scores doesn't modify things too much and makes higher scores mean something with this method. As for ability checks I usually modify the score rolled against for any bonuses/penalties and go from there. Balancing across a broken beam of 4" width would be a Dex Check at -3 to the score.   

This has kept the scores meaning something and keeps the game challenging at any level of play. Even the New School converts have liked this as they see they no longer have to keep track of multiple modifiers and stats.

Simple and elegant thief abilities - I think I am going to "borrow" this idea...

[Von]

I generally use the ability scores as indicators of where lieth a modifier, which in turn is applied to hit rolls or saving throws. It's very third edition (hawk, spit!) of me but I find that impressing an NPC with an attack roll using Charisma modifiers has appeal on grounds of consistency. I might also include things like a total score of X among characters being required to achieve a certain task - combined Strength of 50 needed to break down a locked door or combined Charisma of 65 being necessary to demand and get an audience with a reclusive wizard.

One thing on which I'm not too keen is the 'skill test' in which players have to roll low to succeed. I'm not keen on "sometimes you need to roll high, sometimes you need to roll low" in any game, let alone roleplaying ones. It's only recently that I came around to the idea of descending Armour Class and I would still like to keep the sanctity of high die rolls always being good for the longest possible time. That said, "20 - ability score = target to beat" is a fairly simple calculation to perform and not one with which my dyscalculic players need be bothered. As a result of that a Strength of 18 gives a 90% chance of success - so far, so Conan, who fails only through mysterious circumstances before a story begins.

@mr_Darke (how in Urizen's name do spaces work in this tagging system?) - I like your thief system infinitely more than ooooing around with rolling low on percentile dice.

[Mr Darke]

Thanks for the good comments on the thief system. When I get a chance I will start a thread on it.

[tetramorph]

Hey, waysoftheearth, I just wanted to raise dead on this thread and say:

I think in some fundamental ways you were right.

At least, you are right about half of what I want.

I think I am starting to realize that I don't want just one D&D style or experience.

Now that my "high fantasy" campaign is launched and being play-tested, that creative urge is (at least temporarily) satisfied.

But the way I have designed it, both in setting and rules and their match with one another is that the GONZO is gone.

I like a serious campaign. I am not complaining about my campaign or my house rules.

I just don't want them alone.

Some recent posts by scottanderson where he shared some of his reference sheets for players really got me thinking.

So, I decided if "Dun Kells" is my "rules-additional" 0e campaign, I would have to compliment it with an even "rules-liter" (if that is possible) approach as well.

I'll call it GONZOLAND 0e.

I'll throw up another post about it somewhere.

But I just wanted you to know that you were right (at least about what I want half the time).

Thanks!

[The Red Baron]

I also like d6 and d20 for resolving anything that is up to chance.

The d20 is great for rolling above/below your ability score to check for failure/success.

Its also very easy to "think in sixes". Assigning an x in 6 chance is a great way to determine anything not directly correlated to an ability.