|
|
Post by Beowuuf on May 29, 2008 8:15:35 GMT -5
With the current mention of abilities in Al's thread, I just wanted to bring up some observations and thoughts and see everyone else's observations and reactions
When I saw the newer d20 rules advised staggered rolling to promot above average scores, I thought that was quite interesting. It made in implicit that usually, a 'heroic' character must be better than average in the basic abilities, and that having bonuses is good, having negatives is bad. Also going so far as to reduce the range of '+0' ability scores.
Personally, I always thought that the 9 - 12 scores were always overlooked. They are supposed to be the average scores, by and large anyone you meet in your normal life would have scores equivalent to these, the odd ability reduced or increased (Exactly as happens when you roll 6 3d6s infact).
For example, charisma:
9 - anyone around the office / university who is ok to talk to, but can wind you up or seems to be annoying at times
10 - ok person, but if you are ina bad mood you tend to avoid them
11 - liekable person to talk to
12 - liked by the whole floor/class/department, good egg though no one could pin-point why really
'Low' wisdom at 9 would show people who are perhaps slightly absorbed in themselves (they don't notice what someone has said or haven't followed a flow of conversation, or don't seem to be clued into an enviuronment), 'low' intelligence of 9 are merely people who would need a conversational point explained once during a debate, or are the last to get a radio quiz answer. They are by no means stupid / self obsorbed, just in the aversage workplace they could be labelled as such. Similarly, 9 - 12 strength would denote those people who cannot open a jar by themselves versus those people you would ask to help lift heavy boxes.
Scores that lead to penalties / bonuses shoudl really stand out. That person should be noted for that quirk, or have worked hard or have some obvious reason for that quirk to stand them out - they should not be seen as 'merely dexterity 13, or only a constitution of 8 it's not that bad.
I also think that the basic ability scores are a) thought of in very specific terms (strength = how strong you are), and b) though of as the defining aspect of your character for everything. Ie - someone with a high charisma either has a fantastic personality or a fantastic personability. However, as discussed in Al's thread, abilities are not that specific. Strength is not just muscular strength, they are the range of muscular control too, and even a subtle measure of ones frame size say. And as to being the defining aspect of your character, well, just because someone has a charisma of 12 say does not mean that by and large they are a likeable person. They might be a self centred horrible person, just very attractive and hence it balances to 12 (sorry, just reminded me of a comic book character hence that example). And hence the GM might have the freedom to occasionally throw in higher initial reactions and lower long term reactions.
Skills are a good introduction to stop this, and create areassub-categories of the basic abilities. I know people don't like skills, but I think the concept is great, and what doesn't work and breaks it is their application and the element of ranks and ability bonues only combining and then being tested to a d20.
I think basic abilities should be the cornerstone of checks rolls in more situations, instead of the normal d20 rolls. If you have an intelligence of 10 or 11 it should have a subtle bearing on the task you perform. I think more DCs should be in relation to your ability and not just a check roll. Ranks artificially increase your basic ability in that particular field in most cases.
Do we really need to be dice rolling all the time? You have a charisma of 16, or you have a charisma of 12 but four ranks in diplomacy, shouldn't you just automatically succeed in a DC 15 situation? If the situation is so fluid chance can play a part, then roll 3d6 and compare to the ability (so having ranks in a sub-skill greatly affects or guaranteeds you will succeed) or even in a completely wild card situation use the normal d20 roll.
Sorry, typing at work and I'm not the most coherent person anyway. Need to stop having lunch - umm, yeah, if anyone can plow through that, thouhgts? Am i saying nothing people don't usually go with, or am i being naive about the balance of mechanics and the power of skills versus abilities?
|
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on May 29, 2008 10:03:51 GMT -5
Well, as has been said by a number of people (yourself included), most of what you talk about here comes down to GM discretion. How much and how often the dice might be rolled is a matter for what kind of game is being run. There are times where only an attribute check might be appropriate (particularly in cases where there is no skill or the situation is especially risky).
Rolling 3d6 and comparing it to an ability is a different die mechanic, and quite nearly to the point of being a different game entirely (there are games out there with mechanics similar to the one you describe, both with and without skills). There is nothing inherently "bad" about that, but you do need to recognize that, when you start to change the very basics of how a given situation is resolved with game mechanics, you are changing to a new game. One that, as most "new" game systems do, will have more flaws than advantages until you take, and have, the time to explore the system fully and address those flaws. A lot of times, this is what happens. You pick some existing system, pile house rule upon house rule to either fit new situations not addressed by the original system or perhaps fixing a portion of the system that was, or seemed, "broke". Do this enough times, and the result is a new RPG.
|
|
|
|
Post by eviltb on May 29, 2008 13:49:34 GMT -5
You pick some existing system, pile house rule upon house rule to either fit new situations not addressed by the original system or perhaps fixing a portion of the system that was, or seemed, "broke". Do this enough times, and the result is a new RPG. Maybe this is the reason Wizards decided to fast-track 4th Ed, as players took 3rd, and 3.5, dissected it to suit their game and actually ended up with something like 3.75! So Wizards think "nuts to this, no-ones playing DnD like they ought to be, lets just get a new system out!" Toys out the pram on their part, maybe. But then, thats developement for you. |
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on May 29, 2008 14:15:58 GMT -5
Perhaps
Sorry, I think I rambled from my point when going to far into the skills/rolling sections., although you make a coherent case highlighting the additional house rules syndrome people liek myself sometimes feel at systems like the 3.5 rules, when that complicates and creates further balance issues, etc instead of adhering to the subtle checks and balances of the tested system. Then again, with 3.5 everyone seems to think the ssystem breaks half way through level progression and doens't like skills!
My rambling was actually to provoke some responses to the following questions in my head:
1) How people actually saw the ability scores themselves (how they intepretted them as players/gamesmasters)
2) How they felt about the shift from 'rolling your ability' and every increment mattering to the shift for bonuses and DCs
3) If anyone liked the new skills system, but felt that rather than augmenting the ability scores of the past, that by marginalising ability scores as a basis, breakign them down to bonuses on par with ranks, that inherently one of the intuitive aspects of the original d&d dsystem had been broken, instead of augmented by a good RP idea of allowing for more diversity out of the six abilities.
Oh, and 4) If people tended to think outside of the box as a player/gamesmaster with respect to the ability scores. Had gamesmasters in the past sneakily given characters bonuses and penalties like the skills ranks to flavour the basic abilities, Had players gone outside the 'dictate' of their ability score in a way that made sense.
Sorry if the questions are rambling, i am expecting to be phoned back any second!
|
|
|
|
Post by Al on May 29, 2008 15:30:42 GMT -5
My take is founded upon the premise that no game is fully accurate, and you do what you can with the rules, and that the GMs decisions are final. DnD attributes are awful - but they are the best system I know of for summing up the infinite complexities of people in six basic categories. In doing this, they took a lot of shortcuts and made some pretty big assumptions about human nature, but they had to. With regard to the skills and skill points, I think that the system makes a lot of sense. You are given a certain amount of skill points, mediated by how intelligent you are, and you 'purchase' advancements up to a limit. This means that as your character advances, you build him up as you see fit (I think a good GM limits how freely you can spend these). I have no issues with that, I think it is much better than the Palladium system whereby all of your skills increase by a certain amount. Overall, there is no perfect system, but the d20 system is great for its simplicity, and while it is not realistic, niether is shooting lightening bolts out of your fingertips at hordes of skeletons  And as a final note, in your first post you make is seem like luck is not a key factor in life - I would argue the exact opposite, it is a huge factor. While people can make their own luck (Fortuna, as Machievlli calls it), they do so by doing the real life equivalent of buying skills, yet luck will always play a part. The best tennis player can have an off day and lose the match to an amateur, your rifle can jam at an inopportune time. You can step on a twig and give away your position. All of this is just chance. |
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on May 29, 2008 16:58:16 GMT -5
My rambling was actually to provoke some responses to the following questions in my head: 1) How people actually saw the ability scores themselves (how they intepretted them as players/gamesmasters) Actually, I think about the only way I can respond to this honestly for myself is "consistant with the application" (which was the context of my previous comments differentiating application of Strength versus application of Dexterity). I think it pretty fair to say that, if you ask four different people to explain Wisdom or Charisma, you are going to get four different answers...and equally you will find people out there that consider Dexterity the "god stat" and other people who consider it virtually worthless in a D&D game. 2) How they felt about the shift from 'rolling your ability' and every increment mattering to the shift for bonuses and DCs Not exactly certain what you might be saying here, but if I guess correctly, I have played games incorporating both points of view. Since the games worked as they were supposed to on both occasions, I guess I don't find much difference in them aside from strictly personal taste. I know there are game designers out there who would resent my saying this (there are fanatics on any topic, particularly when hubris is involved), but the only test of any game mechanic that matters is whether it works (and by that I mean people have fun while using it). 3) If anyone liked the new skills system, but felt that rather than augmenting the ability scores of the past, that by marginalising ability scores as a basis, breakign them down to bonuses on par with ranks, that inherently one of the intuitive aspects of the original d&d dsystem had been broken, instead of augmented by a good RP idea of allowing for more diversity out of the six abilities. Um. As with the previous one, I'm not certain how much this matters. There are always advantages and disadvantages where ever one decides to set the balance point between how much influence "basic attributes" have on a given outcome and how much influence "more focused skills/abilities" have. I am not certain I have ever encountered a true "optimum balance" that worked in a particularly universal fashion. Most times, "good enough" replaces "optimum" as a matter of practicality. Oh, and 4) If people tended to think outside of the box as a player/gamesmaster with respect to the ability scores. Had gamesmasters in the past sneakily given characters bonuses and penalties like the skills ranks to flavour the basic abilities, Had players gone outside the 'dictate' of their ability score in a way that made sense. I am going to end up offending someone if I am bluntly honest about answering that question. It probably suffices to say that "fundamentalism" is not the sole bastion of religion. Games would be a lot more fun (and flexible) if gamers remembered to not do what they condemn those hostile to gaming on religious grounds for doing. |
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on May 29, 2008 17:05:01 GMT -5
About the abilities - boiling down the attributes of a person to six scores is actually quite cool, as long as the player/GM admits the complexity this has simplified, and occasionally allows the complexity to surface again. As I said before, I always think of each score as an average of many sub-components. Skills are nice to then highlight this idea and show varying aspects of an ability, but I think basic abilities are still important and seem marginalised now.
About the luck aspect - I was talking for the gaming mechanic point of view, and not so much arguing against chance as arguing against how it was applied and the value compared to what the ability score is supposed to represent. A hit roll is a complex set of activities and situations boiled down to a chance, that is fine, basdic abilities should play a minor roll. Certain skills checks, especially ones that involve various external elements, also fine - your basic competencies would only affect it slightly, and specific learning and abilities should make more difference. All i was arguing was that under the current system, random chance plays a huge chance then gets removed, by your learned skills under a small period of time. Meanwhile, the basica abilities seem to be marginalised all the time. How many times a box has failed to be picked up by you that you can carry, or how many times you have managed to swim, or how often do you fail to engage a sympathetic passer by.
In those circumstances, random chance plays a part, but a tiny part. There is a minor chance of something happening. Similarly, guns might jam and skilled people might have bad days, but it happens a vastly less number of times than 1 in every 20 times. I just think that the old system where basic ability scores were tested provided a fair chance distribution, and that the current '1d20 roll resolves everything, and bonuses are all' seems to miss something fundamental in how numbers can represent and help guiide roleplaying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on May 29, 2008 17:09:50 GMT -5
Oh, more answers! Thanks Maerin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simey on May 29, 2008 19:27:36 GMT -5
Wow - interesting ponderings!
I can't pretend to have anything like as carefully-thought-out ideas to add as those above, but I do agree that the basic ability stats are very much neglected in 3rd Ed. D&D (I don't know earlier editions, so I have no idea how they worked differently).
Once you've got your stats from 3-18, that number goes on to have very little relevance, because the only thing that goes on to affect rolls is the modifier taken from it. Normally, a stat of 10 is no different to a stat of 11, a stat of 14 is no different to one of 15, and so on. The only times I can think of when the exact number is important is when the ability is being affected positively or negatively, because it then depends on where it starts and how much it goes up or down as to how much the modifier changes (for example, an ability drain of 5 affecting a starting stat of 15 would change the modifier from +2 to 0, whilst the same drain on a starting stat of 14 would take the modifier from +2 to -1). So I do like the idea of testing directly against your ability stat (as is always done in WHFRP, though abilities are there measured out of 100), though I agree with Maerin that therein lies a rather different game system.
Boiling down all human attributes into six stats is very simplistic - obviously - but is also quite cool and very helpful. I agree that it is necessary to introduce a lot of nuance outside the specific categorisation of the rules in order to take into account the wide variety of what each stat can mean. But that's what GM's and their discussions with players are for - I reckon if there ever was a set of rules that took everything into account and could provide a ruling on every possible situation then it would likely be unplayable or at least very, very boring. Far better to have relatively simple rules and use good sense and reason coupled with negotiation to decide on the details.
The good bit about the 3rd Ed. skills system is that it is very clear - my understanding of prebious editions is that they were quite vague (?). The not so good bit is that each skill is perhaps over-specific, and what you tend to end up with is a whole new set of discussions about which skill is appropriate to what you are trying to do because - just like the ability stats - the skill set doesn't take into account every possible situation and action. I'm getting quite fond of WHFRP where you always test against your basic stats, but with only half the chance of success if you don't posses a given skill. It's debateable whether that makes it any easier to apply skills accurately, but it does at least avoid having umpteen different skill values to add to your roll - the sheer number of different skill values a D&D Rogue can have to keep track of is ludicrous. In WHFRP you either have a skill or you don't and you roll against either your ability or half your ability accordingly - fairly nice and simple (ish).
Overall, the less specific the rules, I suppose the more is left to GM and player agreement, and the success of that will be down to the tastes and personalities of each group. The group I play with has one Rules-Fiend who wants most things adjudicated to the letter of the book, one Rules-Oracle who knows nearly everything but who is happy to do what seems most sensible when the rules don't provide all the answers, two Midway-Players who know the rules fairly well and will stand by them as far as is straightforward but are happy to go with a sensible compromise when things threaten to get complicated, and a couple of us who don't know the rules well enough nor care about them enough to worry all that much and simply seek a sensible ruling in each situation as it arises. Whilst I'm biased towards that last point of view, I wouldn't for a moment say that one way of doing things is better than any other, just different.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on May 30, 2008 1:33:31 GMT -5
I actually forget exactly what you tested against, but old D&D was exactly the 'test against the stat' and nothing else
"I want to jump this wided chasm!"
- "ok...roll against your dexterity then"
I forget what was in the book (I wonder if I can borrow the old book from who I sold it to), but personally a d20 played for a wide open situation, 3d6 played for a situation where luck should fall in line with the stat, and also sometimes you just played it by ear that the stat provoked an equivalent response.
As said, in this case the six abilities provoked a very simplistic champion if you didn't have a GM who flavoured the stats as an average indicator
As said by both you and especially maerin, each system is as playable and has advantages and disadvantages. It's just with D&D you actually have the ability to see a core system where not a significant amount has changed (debatealy) and so you can see the direct effect of implementing basic stats over a skills system.
I am interested in how people dealt with a lack of skills in the past, and how people dealt with basic abilities being marginalised in the present, since I'm sure there is a middle ground waiting to be discovered d(WHFRP sounds interesting!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Al on May 30, 2008 7:43:40 GMT -5
I actually forget exactly what you tested against, but old D&D was exactly the 'test against the stat' and nothing else "I want to jump this wided chasm!" - "ok...roll against your dexterity then" I forget what was in the book (I wonder if I can borrow the old book from who I sold it to), but personally a d20 played for a wide open situation, 3d6 played for a situation where luck should fall in line with the stat, and also sometimes you just played it by ear that the stat provoked an equivalent response. I am not sure I agree with your interpretaion - a 3d6 roll means that your average roll will be 11-12, and it will occur in the 9-12 range much more frequently (appearing as a bell curve, if you wanted to graph the rolls over time) A d20 roll would appear as a straight line, your average would still be 11, but over time it would appear as a straight line. In addition, the d20 gives you numbers which will always be below the minimum for a stat, and over the maximum. In your example, you would be required to roll under your stat, meaning that all bonuses to your roll would be a negative modifier. THACO That was the logic of hte old system, to hit AC 0, it meant that the lower your AC the better it was, and it made modifiers interesting. The d20 system means that all of your modifiers are positive and the overall system is simplified as you only have to roll one kind of die the majority of times, beating either an AC, saving throw or DC. With regard to skills, skills are designed to compliment stats. If you take two randomly characters each with a Dex of 15. Now, if you want to jump a 10 foot gap, say you need to roll under their dex. Now, lets say that one is a thief and the other a cleric. The thief has spent his life practicing agility skills, and in the course of his profession he will use them a lot. A cleric spends his life studying and contemplating, and while probably their is a great deal of physical aspect to it, jumping across chasms is most likely not a part of it. Accordingly, it makes no sense that they should have the same likelihood of success. This is where skills come in. At first level (meaning no experience) the difference would be in the amount of initial skill points placed in jumping. This represents the amount of training that they have had in it in the past. Each time they purchase a rank, it represents them getting better. If for the cleric it is a cross class skill, then it is harder for him to get better at it, as it is not part of his core competencies. This is how the d20 system takes into account people getting better at certain skill sets. While overall I have no issues with this, the only concern I would have is that a person with a dex 9 and 12 are going to have the same chance of success, yet if we put a reality hat on, the 12 would probably have a greater chance of success. In the end, though, that can be easily explained away by arguing that the numbers do not represent a simple linear progression, rather they represent a more gradual increase at the 'average' level until one breaks out of that range and starts to excell. I think overall the d20 system works. Like Simey said, if you try and rule for all situations, it would be unworkable. What is required is a good set of uncomplicated rules, a good GM, and players who want to have fun. |
|
|
|
Post by Aguila Saber on May 30, 2008 13:01:45 GMT -5
I am not sure I agree with your interpretaion - a 3d6 roll means that your average roll will be 11-12, and it will occur in the 9-12 range much more frequently (appearing as a bell curve, if you wanted to graph the rolls over time) No, it will be in the 10-11 range with an average value of 10.5. I believe halving the max value of a skill and double the importance of the stat would go a long way for a more accurate skill system, where stat has the proper weight when compared to skill. On the other hand, I've never been a fan of D&D as a system since it is a class based system, and class based system are based on the player making stereo typed characters. And I'm not particularly fond of playing stereo-typed one-dimensional character. |
|
|
|
Post by Al on May 30, 2008 13:07:51 GMT -5
No, it will be in the 10-11 range with an average value of 10.5. That is why I am a political scientist and not a mathematician! |
|
|
|
Post by Agrarvyn on May 30, 2008 14:30:10 GMT -5
In 2nd Edition and before, the 9-12 range was +0, yes. In 3rd Edition, 8-9 is -1, 10-11 is +0 and 12-13 is +1, so yes, a Dex 12 person has an effective +2 bonus over the Dex 9 person.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on May 31, 2008 8:23:26 GMT -5
Al, not sure exactly what I said, but my point was the 3d6 would give a bell curve. So someone who had rolled da high stat would be very unlikely not to succeed, someone with a low stat would rarely succeed, and the middle results would give a subtly middling result but still skewed so that although an average person, a 9 was still worse than a 12 while still falling into the likely range. 3d6 seems to me to be designed to give results you would expect for the persons stats while still allowing some small chance occurances. A high charism person, all things being equal, should be more likely to provoke a non-hostile or friendly reaction, but there is maybe a small chance something has niggled.
1d20 roll against a stat would allow a wider open result - as said, even 3 stat people have a chance to pass every 3 in 20 chance, similarly an 18 stated person has a 1 in 10 chance of failure. Also it is level. You'd use this for a much more open situation - character tests against charisma meeting a totally unknown village, the more scared element coudl easily override the less scared, the character could say the wrong thing or make a wrong gesture - but similarly alot of the things that maded a less sympathetic character worse off would not be noticed or might help (they seem pathetic, they arent' a threat!)
Anyway, distractions at work and no time at home meant I haven't explained myself well, and yes I confused myself over the old poitn of 9 -12 range and the new 10-11 only being middling.
Anyway, still more interested in how people interpret the abilities. Not really a game system discussion, but a personal discussion. You are a player, and have rolled your six stats. How do you read them when you create a character? Do you tweak them in your mind so you have your character possessing an character quirk that shoudl result in a high/low score, but ensure it is balanced to the ability score with other character quirks? Or do you simply look to the bonus points and bemoan if the stats aren't high when you wanted a character to have a specific attribute, but otherwise ignore ability score minutiae?
As a GM, do you care overmuch about ability scores and lettig them influence you, or do you not bother with this aspect since it is marginalised for skills in d20?
I'll write an example of a new and old LW RPG character I rolled and say how I thought about them in respects to scores later!
|
|
