Home » Role-Playing Games

RPG Stats: Doing More with Less

27 October 2009 12 Comments

582px-Wilhelm_Tell_Denkmal_Altdorf_um_1900_DetailI was never a fan of the way Original D&D handled it’s stats.

When I started RPGs with the Moldvay Basic edition of D&D the ability score modifiers ranged from -3 to +3 (-15% to +15%). This creates enough mechanical difference between the characters that it matters to players what numbers are on their character sheet and a definite sense for whether a character is good or “bad” based on the stats rolled in the first 5 minutes of the game.

Advanced D&D, Unearthed Arcana and the more recent version all allow for even greater bonuses from high ability scores. This furthers the desire for good stats and dissatisfaction with a “poor” character. Not surprisingly alternate ability generation methods (4d6 take the top 3) and point buy systems were introduced and proved popular with players.

Looking back at the earliest version of D&D, and in newer games like Swords & Wizardry, the most a character could gain to a dice roll from an exceptional ability score is +1 (5%).

When I first saw this system I thought it was much too simple:

3-8 -1
9-12 –
13-18 +1

With such small amounts affecting your chances for success it doesn’t matter terribly much statistically what stats you’ve rolled. I’d always more or less disregarded this approach as “too simplistic”.

Until I started thinking about what it was getting rid of and where that would let you move the focus. If most of a character’s ability scores are between 9 and 12 you don’t really need to be keeping track of that. You can just consider them an average person for anything you don’t make special note of. You only need to record abilities that are above or below average, and taking that a step further – you don’t really need to know the ability score at all, just whether it was a -1 or a +1. Finally instead of using any numbers at all you could just say “bad” or “good”… or perhaps something a bit more descriptive about how that character is bad or good in regards to that particular ability.

Instead of recording a character like this:

Strength: 15 (+1)
Intelligence: 10 (+0)
Wisdom: 8 (-1)
Dexterity: 12 (+0)
Constitution: 11 (+0)
Charisma: 16 (+1)

You could write down something like this instead:

* Strong
* Foolish
* Charming

It takes up much less room on your sheet of paper, and I think it does a better job of helping quickly give a sense for that character to everyone in the game. You could also use different descriptive words to make another character with the same attributes seem different:

* Wiry
* Obsessive
* Domineering

Both have the same stats, but immediately feel very different from one another. A lot of players won’t take the time to write (or read!) long back stories or even descriptions for their character, but a few words provided for any exceptional ability scores should be much easier to get people to buy into.

It also gives players a chance to take their negative ability scores and turn them into something more enjoyable. A player might not want the character he rolled a 4 Intelligence for to be “dumb”, but he could choose a term like “narrow minded” instead. Since the dice roll is just to determine whether an ability is exceptional or not, you don’t need to worry about a ‘4′ being a “very low” score.

As long as everyone is clear about which ability score your descriptive words represent I think this could be a great way to help people create more interesting characters – even though the mechanical differences between them might not be that much.

Bookmark and Share:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • TwitThis

Comments on Twitter

12 Comments »

  • Zzarchov said:

    Sounds good, but what happens if you have a completely average character?

  • Stuart (author) said:

    You wouldn’t need to keep track of any stat stuff for them. :)

    You could still add some description for them though — and if everyone else around the table is busy doing that I think you’d be inspired to do so.

  • MountZionRyan said:

    My name is Mountzionryan and I approve of this post. ;-)

    This idea moves very squarely in the direction I like to play.

  • Dave said:

    Check out http://www.faterpg.com; the idea of using Aspects might just plow you away. =)

  • Stuart (author) said:

    I found a quick description of FATE on McKnowledge (Wikipedia):

    While FATE uses FUDGE’s verbal scale and four three-sided dice, it breaks from practically every other role-playing game by doing away with mandatory traits such as Strength and Intelligence, and substantially reworking the “experience point” mechanic. It instead assumes that every character is “average” in all regards, unless stated otherwise. Exceptional abilities (the “otherwise”) are defined through the Aspect system. A player may choose, for example, to take an Aspect in Brawny (or Muscle Man or Wiry Strength) and choose to spend Aspects to gain a temporary bonus in a relevant situation. Aspects may also be taken in possessions, e.g. the character Indiana Jones for example, might have the Aspect “Whip and Fedora”. The fact that Aspects can be anything integral to the character allows for a degree of melding of mechanics and role-playing, that are difficult to achieve in most other gaming systems.

    Aspects are an important and original concept in FATE. They are not intrinsically good or bad; they are simply descriptive, up to the level of detail the player requires. In addition to the obvious direct character help in most cases, the FATE system also provides a mechanism to reward the characters when one of their Aspects has restricted their choices or landed them in some trouble.

    Sounds neat. :)

  • A Paladin In Citadel said:

    I likee. I prefer S&W’s simplified ability bonuses, because it discourages stat creep.

    And I always liked the idea of having text descriptions for stats.

    I seem to recall that Harn may have had something like that?

    Of course, it’s been a long time, and I may have simply dreamt it.

  • Playtest Update, Food for Thought, and a Story | Moebius Adventures said:

    [...] RPG Stats: Doing More with Less from Robertson Games ” Role-Playing Games (robertsongames.com) [...]

  • Calvino said:

    I’ve been tinkering with qualitative Attributes/Aptitudes/Aspects for a while. We seem to be a little on the same page. Making stats over-important undermines the descriptive elements in the game. What DM hasn’t heard players complain about their low stats only to answer with “The game isn’t about high stats; it’s about character development, telling a compelling narrative, and having fun!” and then feel a slight pang inside for the deception. If our answer were entirely true, then there wouldn’t be stats! And they wouldn’t decide every single outcome for the character by modifying die rolls.

    I like the idea of adding qualitative tags to stats. This isn’t just a way to hide a “simplistic” stat engine at all, but a way to show that no number exists without its quality and no qualities exist without some kind of measure. Anyway, thanks for the post.

  • Diceless Character Creation for Classic D&D | Robertson Games said:

    [...] creation method you can use for classic D&D or Swords & Wizardry. It builds on the idea of simplifying RPG attributes – that you only need to record whether an ability is exceptional (either good or bad) and [...]

  • Stuart (author) said:

    @A Paladin In Citadel: I’ve never taken a look at Harn. I don’t know much about it to be honest. :)

    @Calvino: There will be a couple of posts this week that expand on this one.

  • RPG Stats: Turning Disadvantages into Advantages | Robertson Games said:

    [...] Wizardry and how the lower bonuses and penalties to dice rolls can both streamline the game and encourage more character description. That was followed with a system to allow players to select a character’s [...]

  • Design A Dungeon Room and Weird West Updates | Robertson Games said:

    [...] the new rules we took for a test-drive I found that dropping the 3-18 for character stats in favor of descriptive text worked very, very well. Knowing that a character was “Emotionless” was much more [...]

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.