Do We Need Ability Scores in D&D?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 січ 2025
- My thoughts
Bandit's Keep Merch: bit.ly/bandits...
Support the channel via Patreon:
/ banditskeep
Discord: / discord
Monsters and Treasure Podcast: podcasters.spo...
Thumbnail Image - Charles Atlas
Crown and Skull: www.runehammer...
Games Referenced:
Unchained Alpha Playtest:
/ unchained-alpha-90153791
Basic Set PDF (BX)
www.drivethrur...
Expert Set PDF (BX)
www.drivethrur...
AD&D
preview.drivet...
Swords & Wizardry
www.mythmerega...
Hyperborea 3e Referee’s Manual: www.drivethrur...
Dungeon Crawl Classics (PDF)
www.drivethrur...
DCC Rulebook Hardcover:
amzn.to/2Sl68HW
My Podcast (s)
Bandit's Keep: www.anchor.fm/d...
Monsters and Treasure: www.anchor.fm/m...
My Blog: banditskeep.wo...
My game in development: Alpha of Unchained: / unchained-alpha-901537...
Stuff I use and often refer to:
Sandbox Generator: www.drivethrur...
Random Sword and Sorcery Adventure: www.hyperborea...
The Hateful Place
PDF - www.drivethrur...
In Print - sovrn.co/ei4fvwc
Dungeons & Dragons 5e Player's Handbook
amzn.to/3zi717e
OSE Tome PDF
www.drivethrur...
Chainmail PDF
www.drivethrur...
Check out my other channel, BANDIT'S KEEP ACTUAL PLAY:
/ @banditskeepactualplay
Where I stream Various TTRPG systems.
Follow me on:
Twitter / banditskeep
Instagram /
My podcast can be found here: anchor.fm/dani...
Some links are affiliate links.
#inspiration #gmuary - Розваги
An easy system I have used for years is rolling under your attribute on a d20. The higher your attribute score, the easier it is to successfully accomplish that task. This has worked well when there is no other skill percentage roll to make. Positive or Negative modifiers can be added based on the situation. In this way a high attribute can have a real impact on a characters ability to succeed at a task.
I got rid of modifiers and turned them into an "action d6" for positive modifiers, and a "bad luck d6" for negative modifiers. Then add 2 action d6 for class stat, and we're ready to go.
I’ve done this too. Also did it using 3d6. Works like a charm as long as people remember that lower numbers are better.
Character attributes (STR, DEX, WIS, INT, CON, CHA etc.) is an interesting topic in game design. Attributes aren't necessary, you can cover everything with specific abilities or skills, BUT, character attributes have one huge advantage. They can make character creation really quick because having attributes like Strength, Dexterity and Intelligence can cover a whole range of actions instead of needing a pile of skills, especially if you just use a d20 roll under attribute system or something similar for actions not covered specifically in the rules. You can also cut the main attributes down to STR, DEX, INT or something similar as they do in the wonderful rpgs Cairn and Mausritter.
A potential problem with skills is it can lead to players narrowing down their choice of actions to the skills listed in the game instead of characters using their creativity to come up with unique actions and solutions to different problems.
There are other ways of handling actions that don't require skills of course and fast character creation doesn't necessarily have to be a goal for a game designer.
Also you can mke a game with just them really easly where as having only moves like in Pokemon... It's amassive undertaking and can go wrong very fast... Also atrabutes can be very few as low as 3 and cover everything with the amount and fuction being done to the the game design like feel and gameplay... Where as Moves tend to go wrong very fast and skills being just bad and pointless if your atrabute system is good... Like they tend to be sub atrabutes that can work if used as a way to balanmce the game which video games tend to normalyy do well even in non RPGs... But in TTRPG land it's nev3r done well and just add compleatiy and narrows the focus of the game while limiyting player freedom bmeaning they are normally best ignored... But yeah it's seemly only D&D that has an insanely bad artbute syetm in the ability socres system that is a net negative on gamplay and when ignored is a net positive.. so it's weird that ably scores is still a thing when it never has been good. As shwon by all D&D likes just haveing normal atrabute systems and abilities scores bneing just a D&D TT thing which is even ignored in the D&D video games it's that bad and isn't what D&D is known for....
@@GreenBlueWalkthrough I think Cairn used attributes well...d20 roll under and used for most actions, with only 3 attributes. The D&D Hack Microlite20 had just 3 attributes and 4 skills and was very practical and fun to play.
ST, DX and IQ .. thats all you have in The Fantasy Trip (steve jackson 1977) still a very good rpg and combat system :) eventually evolved into GURPs (which to my mind is unplayably over complex)
@@markhill3858 Yes I use something similar...STR, DEX, INT. People say what do you do for charisma type actions? That depends on what action a character takes. Intimidation is STR. Persuasion or clever banter is INT. Performance or deceit is DEX (DEX is both speed and the 'thieve's' attribute). I find that works better than having a Charisma attribute because it matches character types better.
When a player takes an action I also look at the character's background, type etc. first and ask what is the player good at, okay at and bad at? If the character clearly falls in one of those categories I'll use that instead of rolling under an attribute.
We both lean towards more rules light systems but I should also say that there are people who love more crunchy, rules heavy games and that's super cool too. There's plenty of room in the hobby for every kind of rule system to suit every player and every group.
@@EpicEmpires-pb7zv well I rekon super complex rules are best doe in crpgs. The PC does the heavy lifting. For tabletop, where players are armed only with the old Mk. I protein computers, simpler means faster so elegance in rules is key. For instance, in my dnd, the "opportunity attack" is gone. What happens is during movement, if a character becomes engaged (as in next to an enemy) .. then that ends thier movement that turn. They can move freely next turn unless they enter a new square where they are engaged. If you think about it, this has the exact same effect practically as having opportunity attacks .. but is way simpler to think about :)
Thank You Daniel for sharing those ideas.
Thanks for watching
A few years back I played in an experimental D&D game where the DM didn't have us roll ability scores. At first it seemed to work fine but the players definitely noticed that something was missing. All our characters seemed too similar, especially if they were of the same class and race. Since then, I have understood ability scores to be more like personality traits than a modifier to skill checks. In original D&D, rolling scores was like the dice telling you what your new character was like rather than a way to maximize your PCs effectiveness.
That is not wrong; the intersting question however remains if traits would not work better than ability scores. By making everyone more or less average at default and giving specialized traits to characters (like "strong" or "acadamic background" or "manipulative" or "swordmaster" to people, you probably get more nuanced characters.
@@bronsongorham What class were you?
In a level zero DCC funnel you all have the same class at start. None. But the idea is that you soon pick one up.
@@bronsongorham One of my mates did a memory loss game where we did not know most of our stats and abilities. We either rolled or revealed stats and skills etc as it went. We were all told "you look human".
@@xornxenophon3652 that's exactly it. And it would help fix the issue of PCs being too bland. I would also happily have players roll on a table for 2-3 positive traits and 2-3 negative traits. I guess I just like the randomness, especially if certain traits tend to be more desirable than others.
@@SusCalvin I was a human fighter, sort of a Greek Spartan. And I do like your idea of picking up unique qualities or discovering your scores during play. I've heard Frank Mentzer does this in his campaign.
Check out TSR's iteration of the Conan Rpg. It sort of has ability scores but in a really cool way. You basically have talent pools: prowess, fighting, endurance, knowledge, perception and insight. You buy specific skills which fall under the various talent pools. the talent pool score = 1/10th of the total of all the skills under it. If you don't have points in a particular skill then it defaults to the talent pool rating. And that can be at 0. Blocks for NPCs are really minimal because all you need to list are skills that have values over 0 and the talent pool values. Everything is a skill including the equivalent of hit points. This makes it pretty easy to run.
First! (J/K)
I really like having the 6 scores to get a snapshot of my character. Even if they have minimal impact, I would still like them for that.
Short Answer: Yes Long answer: Yes but not six like in 5E.
A number for how much stuff a character can carry, Strength score, A number for how fast a character can react. Dexterity.
Lastly a number for how smart a character is, and if they can figure out what the arcane runes on this glowing circle mean.
Wisdom, Constitution, and maybe even Charisma shouldn't be scores. Wisdom just merge is with Smarts, Give everyone the same amount of blood (realism), and encourage good roleplay/quest lining to gain trust rather than just a charisma number.
While not _exactly_ what you're talking about, Technoir has an interesting system where players add adjectives to their characters - say your character is lean, smart and perceptive, and you've got yourself a really good rogue-type. Adjectives can be either positive or negative, permanent or temporary, and so on. A player can call on their adjectives to push their roll and get a better chance at success.
I prefer ability scores because it not only sets a baseline on what a character is generally good or bad at but it also is another metric to measure damage. A certain foe might deal intelligence or strength draining damage and it's useful to know just how much intelligence or strength someone has before they succumb to the damage. Without ability scores, this isn't really possible.
Hell yeah, please keep working on Unchained Heroes! I’ve run it with two people from my group, and we had a great time. Outstanding for small parties.
For my game I also used stats. Since my game started out as a solo play world builder I didn't add them at first. But as play testers kept asking, "Can I negotiate with that merchant? Can I cut a deal with that Pirate?" I had to consider means as to how the player's NPCs could interact within the game.
So I settled on calling them Attributes. Physical, Mental, Fear, Social, etc. I figured that any thing physical, except combat, would fall under Physical Attribute (PATT) and so on. I also included a skill tree, and specialties.
I mean atrubutes are the most common elment of RPGs even in Video games... So while you can just use levels atrabutes are the easiest and best way to make an RPG... It's just D&D somehow thought having just atrabutes is to good so they added a ton of nonese they call ability scores... That seemly serves to just hurt the game in every way imaignable.... So yeah how to mess up a genre staple badly to yave people question if it's bad despite being a genre staple and the first thing people think about what makes D&D and D&D likes D&D is just a showcase of how bad ability scores are...
Man, I’ve been binging these videos and as soon as I finished the last one a new one came out. Perfect timing!
No abilities, scores and more abstract definitions for attributes are definitely found already in many games like fate and cortex prime among others. Those kind of games appeal to certain kind of players I don’t think they’re really for everyone. Some people like definition. I’m not talking about the strict definition of a game like Gurps. But there are other games out there that are a better middle ground than Dungeons & Dragons, for instance, savage worlds, or cipher. Personally, I don’t mind having a narrative description of the attribute, but I’m not ready to give up a value as well. I think there are a number of players who want to feel like their role means something, it’s not just to be adjudicated by the game, master.
Why would the role by adjudicated without ability scores - the role would be based on other defining things like skills and class.
I mean at the end of the day it comes down to what style of game you want to play.
If you enjoy the chance based nature of rolling dice, or you want things to be slightly more of a challenge with the potential of going wrong, you’re gonna want modifiers at minimum.
If you just wanna tell the story and do the thing you wanted to do… seems like you shouldn’t use modifiers or scores.
Me personally, I don’t run a table where people would find just speaking the actions they wish to take aloud a riveting bit of gameplay. They like the chaos, they like having some narrative control just as much as they enjoy the dice taking charge of the narrative.
And you know what I still don’t make them roll for everything, cause I’m the dm, forget removing scores from my system, I can just not call for a check, it’s fully my choice.
You call for checks when there’s an element of chance involved, I have no problem saying “you’ve been blacksmithing for 20 years, you make the sword no roll required” or “you’ve lived in these woods your entire life, why would I call for a survival roll to find food, you’ve done it for two decades”
Scrap Proficiency for 99% of tasks and make most roles based of Ability scores directly (The world of darkness systems do this with dice pools for all intents) or actively scrap Ability scores and focus on Proficiency fleshing it out (The burning wheel for all intents does this in contrast to the WoD system while still using dice pools)
Ability scores and Proficiency are two different implementations on the same idea in different eras. I am working on a fully Ability score focused game myself and it will totally depend on them for all rolls without any variant on Proficiency at all.
The 6 ability scores are a good way to understand the characters
But I feel like fewer like 3 in most Mark of the Odd games is also sufficient for this and they also make use of those number by making you roll under to save
Whitehack also includes armor in the rolls which makes it even more elegant to me
I think I also appreciate that in Borg-likes, they use the ability to find the modifier at character creation but then only keep the modifiers since it's always d20+modifier roll against DR
I playtested for the remake of the Dogs in the Vineyard RPG, D.O.G.s., and character creation for both PCs and NPCs involves the creation of traits - essentially descriptive phrases that nail down aspects of your character.
"Fleet of foot" is then assigned a die value based on how core to your character that may be, or how developed that skill is. This is also true for relationships.
"Doc, the ship's surgeon, who takes care of my prosthetics" might have a strong dice value to represent a strong relationship, or a weak one to represent a strained relationship.
These die values have a purpose, but outside of direct conflicts the die values don't come up except as a gauge for what the scope of a trait or relationship might be. I don't need to roll or use a value for situations with nothing at stake - my character just does them within the appropriate scope.
Even in conflict the die values are not direct modifiers, but rather ammo that you can bring to bear by declaring actions which invoke those traits. If my character is fleet of foot and I am running from the guards, I describe the speed of my footfalls as the gap between the guards in their more cumbersome armor and myself grows, and I can add those dice to my pool.
I think there is definitely something useful and appealing about concrete numbers with hard lines outlining what they can or can't accomplish, but how central those numbers are is totally up to the design of the system. While DOGs has these die values which can give shape to the noodly ideas we might have for a character, even that much structure isn't "necessary." Just necessary for what DOGs wants to model.
What do you want to model?
Mazes from 9th Level Games & Easy D6 by DM Scotty are a couple more games, with no Stats (or Modifiers).
I love all Bandit's Keep videos!
Thanks for sharing your experiences to help us all think about how to do things in the games we love.
Do you have your own world? If so, did you create it over years or is it something you made when school age but add on to it based on what your players are looking for?
Please make that video for next week about Ability Score Modifiers!
Done! Editing it now
I think that dnd has yet to make total and proper use of the ability scores. They seem like a core feature, yet designers are often unwilling to use them as a baseline for class features or other character qualities. I have my own ideas, but there are so many possibilities out there.
I think most RPGs include something that represents stats. I would think, that for a game that is based off of stats, it would be a serious challenge to change the system.
1:38 I'd have to be convinced that stats' in D&D don't do anything. Considering how many modifiers and adjustments are tied to them...
If we're merely talking 'system difference' than, if the system doesn't use them, then stats do little.
I'm still not convinced..
The original game from 1974 had very few rules compared to 5E today and ability scores did comparatively little.
@@jaytomioka3137 If we're talking the white editions, I'd agree. I'd have to go look at my Basic book to see for myself.
But I can't agree if we're looking at AD&D, which came out a few years later. 77'ish I think.
One thing I do know is, every thing we see that makes up a part of 'a system' are likely intertwined in ways even the creators don't see. I liken it to the domino effect. Every time I made even minor changes to my rules, I had to run down many unexpected rabbit holes making sure the game had both challenge and balance. It ain't easy.
Something I like about ability scores is that they give _nuanced_ information about your character. I really liked Amber Diceless where the only mechanic is writing down your character's traits. Then the GM just makes a decision based on the information those traits provide. But there's no dice rolling or randomization involved. The game uses an auction system to give all the PCs wildly different scores. So you can say that a Warfare 5 would lose almost automatically to a Warfare 70 character, but a 40 versus a 50 might be a bit different. In a stand up fight the 50 would always win but the numbers are close enough that we can imagine that extenuating circumstance might lead to a different result. An 40 that ambushes a 50 might win with that advantage, or a 50 might still lose if they don't take the 40 seriously while the 40 gives it their all. Scores allow that kind nuance in how the game is adjudicated.
So I think in that regard having scores, even without modifiers and the like, can be useful.
Thanks for the thought process and the discussion on Crown & Skull. I have recently run Crown & Skull over a few sessions and while I was excited to only have skill lists, the attrition for damage, and having a completely different approach to how a game is structured, it definitely didn't work well for my players and I, and overall think there is glaring concept that doesn't work in Crown & Skull:
I definitely thought only skills would be easy running as a GM, but what constantly happened is that players felt like they could ONLY use their skills. Chained to their character sheet. As a GM I kept wanting to ask for a roll during a situation that would have an interesting consequence (positive or narrative) - but with Crown & Skull if none of my players had a skill that they thought would fit....I either then wouldn't ask for a roll - or ask for a flat 6 roll (which was often either better than most skill rolls), or much much worse, assuring lots of failure - too much in my opinion).
So as a GM I felt stuck - while some of my players were REALLY creative in trying to use their skills, others found it challenging based on the limited number of skills they had. I understand the point is to REALLY drive home the narrative aspect of your character: you can't stealth if you don't have that skill! - and I think that was just growing pains for the players finding other options....but as a GM I found it incredible challenging to run.
I don't think the solution is just "ability scores are better" as I feel the idea of using skills only is a much more interesting approach and does fix you into playing your character more (as opposed to everyone can attempt everything) - but I feel something along the lines of "The One Ring RPG" - where you have 18 broad skills (Athletics, Song, Hunting, Craft, etc) and no ability scores, allows you to hone in and pick your skills and be creative with them....versus crown & skull felt more restrictive than anything. And as a GM having a list of 18 to help discuss with your players which one fits the skill roll is easier to navigate.
A bit of a long comment but happy to chat about it more!
Great explanation of your pain points, I feel I have similar issues, I do think it is growing pains and hope to get the game running mote smoothly if possible.
"Superhero" is the Arneson term you were thinking of
I'm currently playtesting my own minimalist system. It is skill-based, player-facing system that uses a trinary outcome mechanic and simple harm rules. Our table is finding it to be highly flexible and dynamic. BUT, social contract and trust is a big part of our gameplay.
Makes sense
Sounds a lot like a FKR style of play. I’ve been experimenting with something similar, but making use of a dice pool system
If someone is trying to do something that's not in their skill set, I usually default to an attribute roll. If you don't have attributes how would you handle that situation? Just use the closest skill? Or make up a number they need to hit on the spot?
I love ability scores as saves. 3 3d6 scores or 6 scores. Then d6 for HP. You can go from there in a lot of directions. Class or classless. I like both. Slots as 3d6 or equal to one of your previous stats. That sort of unification
When you look outside of the D&D-adjacent circle, the question is almost funny.
Like, Powered by the Apocalypse games operate on 3-5 modifiers and playbooks giving additional abilities. Forged in the Dark games usually have skills only. Belonging Outside Belinging engine doesn't even use dice, you have moves your character makes and tokens you use and grant. In Cypher system you have three attributes, but they also represent your health pool and you spend them to increase your chance of success, so your atteibutes go down and up throughout the session. In solo games based on The Wretched you introduce new situations by pulling cards from a deck, and resolve them by pulling a block from a Jenga tower. In FATE you have numerical skills and narrative aspects, but no attributes.
So - do we need attributes to play D&D? Maybe, but it could be just fine with modifiers only. Do we need attributes to play TTRPGs? Absolutely not.
@@dziooooo Apocalypse World uses a slightly different language, but it has four attributes. From -3 to +3 or so in each.
I liked the hard, direct action. It has combat a little like Into the Odd, characters automatically and simultaneously deal and receive damage. If you and Rolfball shoot eachother with shotguns on the street like fools you both get hurt and might go down. PCs have barely more health.
I started my own system previously and came to the same thought of if it's even necessary. It led me to look at crown and skull. I think that point buy skills is superior, but my issue was that it has a limited amount of options, and that means that the character you have in mind might not fit any of the options. That was my major issue with it which became a dealbreaker.
The crowning achievement of TTRPG's is that at all times there are an almost infinite number of options the players can take, with the only limits being their understanding of the simulation and the GM's fiat. By listing things they *can* do on a sheet, you imply that other players who don't have those options on their character sheets cannot do those things. In C&S, having "muscle" be a character option that allows that character to do strong things implies that only characters who take "muscle" can do those things. This limits player options, which goes against TTRPG's best feature.
Ability scores are generalized enough to allow a player to gauge their character's abilities amongst the party without explicitly or implicitly limiting their options. In OSE, the party may elect the strongest be the one who most frequently attempts strength-related actions, but that doesn't preclude someone else from trying.
The latter mentioned method is the one I like best when going for an OSR style game. Maybe as they progress they might become a master “blacksmith” or whatever.
I tend to be minimalist in my approach to things like attributes and skills. I favour trust at the table with people thinking like their character (or, sure, using their own skill) instead of looking at their character sheet. The balance for me is providing that freedom while also trying to give some suggested paths for development. Speaking of development, the thing I'm always seeking is the diagetic development in which people can seek out opportunities to grow. That's my challenge - ways for characters to grow in tangible ways while being as streamlined as possible.
I like ability scores and skills and feats, I think they can be streamlined. It makes characters unique. I put alot of effort into roling up characters with potential handicaps and what sign and house/clan were born into for different scores + or - 1.
Makes them come out the gate very one of a kind.
Cool
Fantastic video, it s a hard one to to really think over, I have gotten rid of skills in my game, i have attributes but i have after that pretty much just a characters "History" and referencing that and how useful it is for the task at hand determines the additional Dice type bonus they get from it. This also is for combat so if a character has a history with one tribe or culture of fighting and are setting up the encounter to play on those strengths they get a great bonus, but if they are fighting in a situation that greatly disfavours their combat style or training then they could even suffer for it. I do like the idea alot of removing attributes as well its a cool idea, however the only option i fear is then things devolve into a list system and back into the skill system which i dont like at all. However their could be something their for sure great video man!
well .. I use the aaron allston skill system (but not his exact skills at all) where you roll under an attribute to see if it works .. sooo .. before watching 1 second Im gonna say YES we sure do .. now on to the video for your take on it. :)
Tiny Dungeon/Tiny d6 games don’t use ability scores. They have a short list of skills/feats that cover the genre of whatever book it happens to be, easy to create more. There’s three target difficulties. Your skill could make it easier. It’s really simple in play, and still allows for unique characters.
I feel like the advancement of a system that works off narrative play and "phrases" in some way could end up being something like a storyline/title builder. For example, the character was "an energetic carnival acrobat" and in a certain town one full moon night, they were seen running elegantly across the rooftops, which stuck In people's minds. There are now stories of the character as "the Moonlit Flitting Phantom". Go ahead and add that to your storyline. It reminds me of the more solo games like A Thousand Year Vampire, but you can use your story collaboratively. Kinda cool.
Nice
thanks again daniel. looking forward to reading unchained heroes.
I mean, you can make the argument you don't "need" anything and that you can just sit around doing entirely free-form make believe. Rules exist to provide a certain type of structure and different rules systems create different structures. I think ability scores are fairly useful since they give you broad strokes fallback, and don't let sessions get bogged down in minutia of things like "well, as a farmer I would know how to repair a wagon axel, and this clockwork device uses similar turning, so I should be able to fix it" when you can just say "If you have a high enough intelligence you can do it."
That's not to say all systems need them, but the ubiquity of ability scores is well-earned I would say. If you are interested in a system that totally eschews them check out City of Mist. It manages to make a fairly light set of mechanics very engaging and have both narrative and mechanical weight.
I like the way it is/was handled in basic DnD: your ability scores determined which class you could pick (and a very high score might allow you to progress faster in that class), but after character creation, they weren't really used much (at least rules-as-written ^^). A level 5 fighter ("fighting-man") always had the same attack bonus for example, a PC with exceptional STR just might get to level 5 a little faster.
The treasure/magic items were really what the game was about and the most interesting way for PCs to have very different abilities. I don't think that approach is BETTER in any way, but my group has a lot of fun with it!
For sure, just a different way to have fun
Ability checks in OD&D are not like in BX, where your ability score sets the DC that you roll under in order to succeed on an ability check?
Great topic, Daniel. I’ll lead off with saying skill vs stats based is entirely dependent upon the style of game. I’ve played both and each presents pros and cons. As you’d indicated, though, your skills ultimately are stats stand ins.
That said, in my 1/2e campaign the scores themselves are important as ability checks (we do d20 + Stat score) are frequent. Especially, intuition / perception checks, diplomacy checks, and acrobatics / athletics. The stats themselves inform what penalties or bonuses the player applies to attacks, damage and saves.
I make wide use of Magic items whose potency is based on a players primary ability or abilities. I make the ability scores more meaningful in the campaign so that the players rely more on them than spells and magic item powers which are frequently limited.
I find that fleshing out a character based on which scores are high and low can lead to very creative results. Rolled an NPC with a low DEX but a high SENSE, so he could hear/sense an enemy coming but might trip and fall drawing his sword, which still alerts the party to the danger. I named him Nervous Ned
This is something I often think about when considering making a new game. How much of all those things we're familiar with is really necessary? What exactly do you need as a player to do what you want as a character? I really enjoy seeing games that come up with unique answers that lead to workable solutions and make for an enjoyable playing experience. I don't think there's one correct answer for all time. I think it's what the game intends that matters. D&D is great and everything, but it's not the only way to do things, and it shouldn't just be slavishly mimicked for lack of trying to imagine a different way. Keep at it. It's a worthy quest imo.
True!
Sounds like Fate Core.
If a game is just Attributes you can use less rules and more rulings as what rolls an action may require.
If you use Skills instead of Attributes you can still have too many of those creating a fluff.
I say it is very important and every attribute counts in a game where the system is a Roll Under system.
In most systems "just the modifier" is kind of lame and I don't see the point in it. Because every game may not game a modifier at the same interval, and even if a game gains a modifier at every interval of 2, there are still Spells and Abilities that could grant a +1 to a Stat taking the uneven Stat and giving you the next modifier up.
I guess "just the modifier" is good if you want an easy or rules lite game.
I played Prof. DM's Deathbringer RPG last year and it had no scores, you chose 3 or 4 modifiers and placed them where you want. It worked well but I was playing with a group that had never played a ttrpg. If a character says, "I do pirate things" does that mean it's automatic? Do they just do it or is there still a number to beat?
They would get a bonus if a roll was needed. Or just succeed if not.
Ability scores help out newer GM's versus "I'm an expert blacksmith" approach. The GM doesn't have to know how to incorporate the characters' backgrounds and skill sets into the game world, they can just prepare an adventure and use the available ability scores. When the GM is more experienced with TTRPG's I think that this approach could be more immersive and streamlined, and also encourage more roleplaying.
Also some people play games like D&D for the combat alone, and for those players Ability scores and min maxing their character sheet are essential part of the game.
Every single one video of yours convince me even more that you would enjoy that Dry World I sent you. Thanks for the contents, as always
😊
Daniel, have you played Gnave 2? If so, what are your thoughts on it being classless?
Home brew system I have been working on forever has no ability scores. It has a good amount of skills but then also has a set of traits that give specific bonus and abilities (strong, quick, charming, etc) both physical and mental/emotional ones
Nice
Honestly the sentences as skills/attributes sounds good. It reminds me of a [Tag] or [Keyword] system.
For sure
Do you remember which video you promoted a rpg grid mat that was soft and could be crumpled into a ball but then spread out again as a play mat? Sorry I hope that helped describe it. I was thinking about buying one
thanks!
Thanks for watching
When Abilities relied on Tables having a Score worked. When all abilities have standard modifiers then having a score doesn’t matter, as there’s no table or variance that needs to be reference.
The Black Hack and its many descendents, use player facing "roll under your ability" for everything. The RPG "Break!!" uses ascending AC and roll high to hit for combat but roll under abilities for everything else.
Cool
I've seen a number of games that basically remove the distinction between ability scores and skills. Warlock! is one, and Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate is another. It works very smoothly, to the point where it might make more sense than games that preserve the dichotomy. The only downside is that these games lend themselves to a static list of skills which are supposed to be very comprehensive.
I recently came across a homebrew 0e variant that disposed with ability scores, replacing them with modifiers that apply to many of the same situations where ability scores would normally apply. It works well enough, although it doesn't really address the relationship between +1 to damage and +1 to open doors.
Back in the day, I think we used the ability scores as much to help us with how to RP our characters as for the bonuses that might apply. A 13 INT may not have given a bonus to anything but that character was smarter than average and certainly smarter than a PC with an 8 INT. Im not sure how I would fare in a game system that was as loose as "my character is fleet of foot." I may be too crunchy for that -- though that is my personal limitation, not a reflection of the system.
You dont need abilities, can do just fine without... Just depends on the system and the stories you want to tell with it.
Sadly, your examples fall rather short of current TTRPG reality:
- Warhammer, both fantasy and 40k, has abilties and skills in its TTRPG versions.
- Yet the PbtA, FitD and similar modern indies dont need classic abilities. Oh, and they often do OSR stuff much better than what actually labels itself OSR.
- The freeform backgrounds-as-skills aint new, either. Modern d20 iterations/spin-offs, from 13th Age to Daggerheart, go that route.
I use ability scores as description in addition to mechanics. Maybe it’s just because I’m autistic, but I love 3.5 above all others because of it’s casual ability to describe the world. How strong is “very strong?” Well a strength score can give a clear answer to get everyone on the same page, so you don’t end up with a player expecting “very strong” to mean incredible Hulk levels of strength while the GM is thinking it means strongest man at the local gym.
But the way you play changes how useful that is. For some, consistency can be loose and vague without issue while others might easily notice and be bothered by inconsistency. Ability scores are more useful to the latter.
Of course, how and what you measure also matters. If you just assume average everything unless a skill or feature says otherwise, then scores won’t be needed.
I believe one doesn't need STR, DEX, CON etc. Player-characters have three ways of overcoming obstacles: 1) physical violence; 2) knowledge and magic; 3) stealth and trickery. These can be represented by three broad areas of accumulated experience -- Soldier, Scholar, Spy. All PCs have all of these, just in different amounts. Each includes ALL physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual abilities sensible and rational for each. So a PC with a high Soldier score benefits from positive modifiers for all purely physical feats, but also for suppressing emotion, knowing about weapons, armor, battles, heroes, etc, and even casting simple battle-magic spells like "Heal Minor Wound".
Interesting
well, in general i think attributes are vital for players to 'visualize' their character and also to give them advantages and disadvantages in general - sure you might reduce that to some feats or whatever like 'strong' 'smart' or the like - all depends on the system
True
The link to the draft of Unchained says "not found"
Ability scores are essentially skill trees, or perhaps less easily confused with feat unlocking system styles in what we expect from other skill trees: "skill families". The benefits from the skill families are applied to a wider array of capabilities and characteristics, and streamline the skills-based system behind all characteristics-based modifiers. Ultimately more flexible, as we'd expect from the better skills-based systems out there, but that granularity makes creating characters, including NPCs, way more time consuming.
Interesting results from DC 20, of all games. It hybridizes the approach of having no ability scores with trad Dnd... LESS ability scores, no not power, less categories applied more generally and a Prime ability score to be applied to suit any narrative reason for where a character gets their heroism or general potency from.
The Broken Empires ("Sim-Lite"?) is expected to be have the PDFs finished from its kickstarter around March this year. It's like Mythras/BRP in many ways but all the ability scores are just represented in the skills themselves (which are a bit more generally and widely applied themselves, I think). I'm very interested in how that plays out, and if other games could be adapted to use a similar approach. I hope that it means a bit less of the character sheet tropes generating character concepts and narratives and allowing the character concepts and narratives to instead generate character sheets... we'll see.
Hmm.. I was the 666th like for this video 🤔 and the creator of The Broken Empires is Trevor Devall (Tre Devall)...
Recently I have been loving games that use tags in place of stats and features. Legend In The Mist is my current favorite
In modern D&D it's often suggested that players use the standard array of stats instead of rolling for ability scores. That means that every fighter starts with a 16 Str, every cleric with a 16 Wis, etc. Ability scores go up when you level, which in theory could be any score but mostly means that the prime req gets pushed up until it's maxed. Every class pretty much uses its PR for attacks, which means that 18 Str level 5 fighter rolls the same as the 18 Int wizard shooting a firebolt. Given all of this similarity it's almost like there aren't ability scores at all - every one is just the same. Sure there are mechanics and modifiers behind these numbers but if everything ends up the same do they really matter?
I believe that is part of the quest for character balance - not sure it works for me, but for some it helps.
@@BanditsKeep Agreed that it's about balance. But that "balance" makes the game less interesting and isn't really needed in a collaborative game IMO.
What always bugged me is why use ability scores to give modifirs instead of relying on the base numbers in a roll under system? Roll under seems mechanically simpler, what do the modifiers add that makes them more popular?
Black hack uses roll under for most if not all checks. I will say it’s not my favorite way to use the scores but definitely a classic way.
A number of games combine them. Instead of six you might have three or even two. In Sword and Board you have two. Your offensive Sword and defensive Board. Its like shifting stance in a way.
Others expand them. BRP has SIZE. Every hero benefits from pure bulk.
Pits and perils distills the stats down to selecting a single one your character excels at.
I’ve seen some solo OSR games do that as well - neat idea
I think the question is more "What do you use abilty scores for?" rather than do we need them. I would argue that you can describe a character by a bunch of ability scores, add a few background describing phrases to specify some of the character special fields of expertise and roll with it without ANY skills list. I am also fine with viewing the ability scores as the character main traits, and a list of skills modifiers that refine those basic traits. High strength doesn't means you'll be good at any thing strength related, or more precisely knowledge of how to use your strength in a specific field is conveniently represented by adding skills to further refine the basic ability score. As other have said it gives a quick snapshot of a character. Moreover all experienced gamers are very much used to it, so there is certainly a bias, but it makes you feel at home quickly. I'm fine with the more narrative, or theater style approaches. But in my experience at teaching newcomers some basic numerical values and systems works as a kind of stabilizer for new players.
For sure. That makes sense
Another game without attributes is the Tiny D6 series of games. They all use the same mechanic of traits and tests. Each character has 3 or 4 traits and they are descriptive of something the character is good at. Then when you test and use a trait you get advantage for your roll. simple system and easy for someone who has never played an RPG to understand.
Sounds like Fate with its Aspects. It all just depends on what sort of game you want to play.
On the surface, but it’s much different, at least from the Fate I’ve played
I tried building a game replacing ability scores with descriptive traits similar to Vampire the Masquerade MET. Each character starts with a certain amount of trait points and places them into the traits, with multiple points in a single trait making it more potent. Then this sets the baseline for the characters abilities.
Unfortunately, its extremely crunchy. I first chose four traits to replace each ability score but after seeing how crunchy it was I reduced it down to two traits each and removed some of the bonuses to consolidate things.
In theory it sounded good but on paper it was a mess. If it could be automated, itd be great.
Very few vampire LARPs in Scandinavia used MET. I think it was too much like an RPG light for Scandinavian LARPers.
The point of giving Players points to buy skills that gives them abilities seems to be giving the Players the scores they want in the abilities they want. You can just let them arrange they're scores to taste.
I don't if the Players are new to my World, but I let my "Old Hands" arrange their stats to taste.
If you're going to give me a tool, I'm going to use it.
Cool
I couldn’t help but laugh.
DM- “You’re up next. What do you do?”
Player-
…
Player- “Pirate stuff!”
I’ve had players that would reply with that TBH 😂
Crown n Skull 😊
👑 💀
Depends on which system you are talking about? Because some form of measurement for each attribute help determine if you are stronger, more dexterous, of heartier constitution, more intelligent, wiser, or of surpassing charisma. So, unless you are in a system where your physical and mental abilities don't affect your chances of success, then no they don't. But, if they affect your chances of success at all, then it is imperative that they have some form of Measurement for Attributes that affect the game.
Can that form be level or skill?
I think of ability scores as more of the inherent attributes of the character that permeate through their life and career. I allow for training in my games where characters can spend serious gold and downtime over years to increase points in ability scores.
Cool
I've played chainmail based OD&D in the past for a long time. I would rather not have any Ability Scores. I only do it because that's what people expect of D&D. I really don't think they are necessary. If you check something like Platemail 27th ed, there's no ability scores but still ways to have definiting "traits" at character creations, great stuff. As far as skills vs ability scores goes, I really like Barbarian of Lemuria. Not always applicable in certain settings or with certain type of adventures, but overall it's my favorite way of doing anything remotely like skill/ability scores/etc.
Yes, I too like how BoL does the careers
I know there is a very small crowd of Free Kriegspiel people who use few formal rules. There might be a to hit roll and to wound roll borrowed from Classic Traveller. But a person is assumed to do what a person of their profession reasonably can do.
The finnish Stalker RPG, based directly on Roadside Picknick, seems to run this way. You want to know what happens if you are radiated? Look up a medical book.
The Ability Scores tell the history of the character, what they've been doing before they became Adventurers. They aren't what your character was born with to me, but rather the accumilation of where they've been applying themselves as they grew up. If you're a farmhand, you've been improving your Strength and Constitution as you were helping your family work the fields. If you were a librarian, you were working on your Intelligence to read, write, and such.
A farmhand trying to become a fighter starts out from a very different place from where a librarian would.
This is also why I like racial bonuses. They justify why in game elves feel dexterious, dwarves are naturally more hearty, etc.
I run a bx homebrew, the few rolls i use are 1 in 1d6 (listen, hiden doors etc) so to me Ability scores are optional. I only keep them bc I use them as hp.
How would for example Dex be hp? Into the Odd and a few others treat some sort of Body stat as hp.
I really like ability scores. I think that they help define your character. Not just the modifiers but the actual numbers. Like someone with a 18 strength is just a little stronger than someone with 17 strength but a lot stronger than someone with the 10 strengths. I have no issues with games that don't have ability scores, such as fate, where you just use a couple sentences to describe your character but I do enjoy ability scores. I don't really see the difference though between an ability score for strength and a skill for strength like in crown and skull. If you have to have a high strength skill then how is that different than a strength stat?
When I started making a rule system without scores, I quickly realized I needed them for easy to make non-human creatures, and I don't want two different sets of rules, so the attributes stayed.
There are a huge variety of ways for a gaming system to work, including without using any dice, spinner, or other random number generation.
But, I think the best systems have attributes/characteristics and skills/training, but with enough flexibility to not strangle game play.
So, some people, regardless of their training, can be stronger, more dexterous, more intelligent, more charismatic, or such.
People of any base attributes can train to increase those attributes and to gain skill which simply having a raw attribute is not the same as.
Combining both of these together to me gets us what we see in real life, which includes the fact that those who have good base attributes in something and train very hard are able to achieve things that someone with poor attributes could never achieve despite how much the train or someone with exceptionally good attributes but no training could ever hope to achieve without that training.
Then comes applying this using common sense. For example, for a physically fit person to climb over a low stone wall should not even require a roll, yet I have seen game masters who make players roll for every tiny moment to the point the characters are falling all over themselves and taking damage for doing things that even today in my old age barely able to walk because I need back surgery yet I could do those actions 100% of the time, though slowly... yet my 5th level fighter with an 18 str, 15 con, and 10 dex keeps falling down and taking small falling damage.
Alternatively, that same fighter comes to a safe door made of 4" steel and on a critical hit breaks through it using his mace. Sorry, but using a mace on a 4" steel door should just simply not be able to get through, though you might bend something and make it jam so that even if unlocked it would become hard to open.
A forgotten Attribute is comeliness, or actual "beauty" or attractiveness, something different than Charisma. I suppose for seduction--a part of Braunstein I believe--or other purposes could be useful. Attributes for me are the framework and I lean to a roll under usage with 18 the max (3d6) and Constitution now also Hit Points. If I were to use Skills I might start with a Background like DCC and then allow a new one or improve them per level--like Thieving or Fighting--and work them akin to Advantage rather than a d100 mechanic. I think they serve a purpose beyond mere modifiers as others also say, and I like them as some sort of grounding versus pure narrative. Used well they support both narrative and role-playing versus just being a raw roll or luck of the die.
I've played Crown and Skull for over 25 full sessions. I'd love to offer any insight on my experience with the system and the lack of Ability Scores.
Awesome
Do we need D&D? Do we need games?
I have been playing without ability scores for years and players say they are far more immersed this way. All modifiers are handled by L and class. Any Check can be done with Xin6 GM decides DC. Works like clockwork.
Nice!
Reach of the Roach God does this with its "stat blocks".
My group played a Crown and Skull campaign for about ten sessions. Not sure on the exact number. None of us have any connection to runehammer. If you’d like to talk let me know.
What did you think of it?
Crown and Skull is interesting and I want to hear more of your thoughts. I have read it and done some solo play to get a feel for the mechanics. The combat system is wonderful. Task resolution has puzzling math and inconsistent instructions. If skill rolls are only player-declared (per RAW), why ever declare a skill roll if there’s a chance of failure? Better to narrate you jump the chasm than roll to see whether you jump it. And why do I have to train my skills so high just to have a better chance than rolling a flat roll? Many mysteries with that system.
That's basically how I play in my campaing. Since I discovered about the FKR movement I switched to this style of play and have been running a game this way for about a year now.
We use just descriptions of the characters (sometimes tags are written on the character sheet, other times it's just agreed upon by the group) and go along arbitrating using common sense and the setting's logic.
We've come to a point where we no longer use even hitpoints, just describing what each character can do based on their descriptions, determine what are the individual risks and impacts of each action and roll opposed 2d6 to determine what happens.
I know it's not a style for everyone, but it has been working wonders for my table.
That sounds really fun!
My two cents: Attributes, like all things TTRPG, depends on the game you want to run. From a GM/system designer perspective, I am pro-attribute for mostly two reasons:
I desperately hunger for versimilitude in my games. The closer a system's mechanics cleave to their narrative fictional effects, the better. This also means I despise broad, overlapping mechanics. For example, Dexterity defining both a character's manual dexterity and bodily agility makes me grind my teeth. If you want to be good at lock picking or knitting in D&D, you also by nature must good at doing flips and stealthing through crowds.
Secondly, to continue versimilitude, attributes pair naturally as a counterweight to skills regarding innate capacity vs learned abilities. Versimilitude breaks if, for example, dwarven genetic heartiness is represented with the same mechanics as rope-climbing or knowledge of the arcane. It also limits mechanic design space as a designer when you represent attributes and skills with the same system.
Of course, at an old-school table and game where player skill takes forefront, these concerns are lessened and put on the back-burner.
My opinions, obviously, and subject to change and interpretation.
I allways liked "rules light," but now I'm playing "rules absent."
if the players want abilities scores as a tool to understand their character a little better, that's cool!
Cool
There is a game (or maybe just a funnel/adventure?) that I read about a few years back where the party was comprised of commoner hirelings that just witnessed the death of their adventurer bosses in a dungeon. Whatever their primary role was... defined what they could do. So, if you were playing the Torch Bearer, then anything you could think of that had to do with that job was what your character was good at. I wish I could remember the name, so that I could look it up, but so far my searches aren't turning up anything. The idea of a few sentences defining your character made me think of that, so something similar has been done for sure. I'm not sure if I would like it long term, but it isn't something that I am opposed to either.
I don't think you need abilities with experienced GMs and players. However, abilities make it much easier for new players. When I run D&D for kids, I only use ability modifiers. (Not the scores nor the skills).
Makes sense, though I will discuss just using modifiers next week 😊
All I can see with modifiers is GMs finding bs ways to take them away, or worse buffing the antagonists so your modifiers don’t count anyway. Also what is all this rolling anyway, roll to get out bed, roll to brush your teeth, roll to make your breakfast. Only roll if failure is interesting.
I definitely roll to get out of bed
@@carltonbauheimer😅
I used "traits and quirks" in the early 90's. So like "strong" and "toned" are two different levels or distinctions of the "strength" stat. If you don't have that trait/quirk you are "normal" in that regard. "Deftness" is manipulating objects and fetching gear out of your pack or belt and using it faster than others. Sharp vision/hearing and on and on it goes but you have a limit of 2 to 4 depending on how powerful the "specials" you select are. It's loose and no extra math and stuff is needed; it's largely on my side of the screen and in the player's head.
No, you don't need stats really.