Everything you want from an RPG

[Jormengand]

The purpose of this thread is simple enough: I'm creating a big-ass roleplaying game and I want to know what you guys want it to be. It's pretty much a class-based pool-of-d6s system, designed primarily for a medieval fantasy setting vaguely similar to D&D's but also possibly with rules for other settings.

The point of this all is that I want people to say "I want to be able to do X, Y and Z" or "Make sure that A, B and C aren't issues in the game" or "Make it clear that the DM should be doing Alpha, Beta and Gamma", or whatever. Essentially, this game kinda evolved from trying to remove a lot of my pet peeves from D&D, but I feel it should really be trying to remove everyone's pet peeves from lots of different systems.

So, have at it.

[Arbane]

I think you'd be vastly better off making a game you and your friends would like to play, THEN exposing it to the harsh light of the Internet. Otherwise, you're going to get a self-contradictory mass of suggestions.

[TheIronGolem]

Agreed. One person's pet peeve is another's sacred cow. That's not to say you shouldn't be open to feedback; you absolutely should. But you can't be all things to all RPG players. Make a game that you would want to play, and consider any feedback you get in light of that.

[Terraoblivion]

To be well-designed based on a clear vision of what it should do mechanically and narratively and with a strong understanding of how the elements fit together. This includes a willingness to focus the system on doing what it's meant to do well, as opposed to trying to do everything at once. If it is that, I'd be interested pretty much whatever the elements were. Unless it was trying to make FATAL or Racial Holy War with a working system, of course.

[Mr. Mask]

....""Racial Holywar""? Dare I even ask?

[VoxRationis]

Internal consistency, I would think, is a fairly uncontroversial virtue. If you have a rule for something in the system, applying the rule to a setting should lead to a setting that fits what you've established or what you have in mind. If the rule doesn't get applied, why not?

[Terraoblivion]

....""Racial Holywar""? Dare I even ask?

Apart from being what it sounds like, it also has hilariously broken mechanics where combat is purely based on who is the scariest and that's in turn based almost entirely on numbers. So if you were to release all the hamsters in a pet store it can drive a swat team off.

But that's still a minor sin compared to being a skinhead RPG.

[Mr. Mask]

Wow... that didn't disappoint in being awful. I'll go think of a decent idea for a game, to wash it out.

[Silus]

For me, my idea system would be able to account, mechanically, for just about any idea the DM or the PCs come up with.

Player wants to use Electrokinesis to turn their arm into a railgun but there are no rules explicitly stating that you can do that or how to do that? Here, have some basic guidelines to work with.

[valadil]

I want a system that does one thing better than every other system. A general purpose game that excels at no particular theme is pointless IMO, because whenever I have a campaign with a theme in mind, the general purpose game will be worse than the game meant for that theme.

I want a system have tight integration with its setting.

My ideal system would have few enough rules that they don't get in the way, but enough varied rules that I could use the existing examples as a basis for anything the players think of. Good luck satisfying that one!

[Talakeal]

You wont get any help asking general questions of an internet forum. you will get mixed responses, with half the people saying yay and half saying yay, and a good portion of both groups will do it as vehemently and insultingly as possible.

Playtesters are much better at finding specific flaws than fixing them, and of almost no help at all in finding your games direction.

Now, if you want my personal oppinion about. How d&d fails, it is lack of customization for characters, too steep a power curve, lack of non combat options to flesh out characters, inconsistent game mechanics, and too many tacked on sub systems that dont flow together organically from either a fluff or crunch perspective. If you want we can discuss the matter further, but be warned that this is just my oppinion and you will not find a consnsus or, likely, even a group that can discuss it civilly.

[Sith_Happens]

I think you'd be vastly better off making a game you and your friends would like to play, THEN exposing it to the harsh light of the Internet. Otherwise, you're going to get a self-contradictory mass of suggestions.

This. For example, my preference is for a game in which I can do Awesome ThingsTM. If I play a caster I want to (eventually) be able to drown armies in fire and raise a castle from the ground. If I play a warrior I want to (eventually) be able to shatter boulders, split the ground with my sword, jump scores of feet, and throw giants at each other.

Other people want super-gritty games where you can never outgrow a lucky mook being able to stab you and where getting stabbed once means near-certain death, whether immediately or from the infection the next day.

[Jormengand]

The trouble is, once I've made the entire game, and then someone's like "Nuu, that mechanic is EVIL BAD WRONG mechanic, change it," I also have to change all of the class abilities which worked on that mechanic.

One thing I guess I would like feedback on is the magic system. Basically, we have the following:

All the skill rolls are (stat+skill)d6b(stat). Most 1st-level characters will have about 6 stat and 2 skill in all their casting skills (power, magic, focus), and most 20th-level characters will have 8 stat and at least 5 skill.
Roll a power roll at the start of every encounter. That's how many magic points you get.
You can spend a full-round action to cast a spell, which requires that you spend magic points, and make a magic roll. The magic roll is opposed for offensive spells and flat difficulty for other spells (but the latter are not amazingly difficult if you have dice in your casting ability score and your magic skill).
If you're running out of magic points, you can roll focus to get some back - rolling 12 gives you 1, then every 3 thereafter gives one more, so it's not very efficient, and it takes another full-round action.
You can cast spells all you like out of combat, though some (such as teleportation) have long cooldowns, and others (all the undead raising ones) long cast times.


Oh, and rolling to hit and dodge is also a skill roll after the same fashion, and so is initiative. And pretty much everything else, ever. Including saves. Is this a bad idea?

[Talakeal]

The trouble is, once I've made the entire game, and then someone's like "Nuu, that mechanic is EVIL BAD WRONG mechanic, change it," I also have to change all of the class abilities which worked on that mechanic.

One thing I guess I would like feedback on is the magic system. Basically, we have the following:

All the skill rolls are (stat+skill)d6b(stat). Most 1st-level characters will have about 6 stat and 2 skill in all their casting skills (power, magic, focus), and most 20th-level characters will have 8 stat and at least 5 skill.
Roll a power roll at the start of every encounter. That's how many magic points you get.
You can spend a full-round action to cast a spell, which requires that you spend magic points, and make a magic roll. The magic roll is opposed for offensive spells and flat difficulty for other spells (but the latter are not amazingly difficult if you have dice in your casting ability score and your magic skill).
If you're running out of magic points, you can roll focus to get some back - rolling 12 gives you 1, then every 3 thereafter gives one more, so it's not very efficient, and it takes another full-round action.
You can cast spells all you like out of combat, though some (such as teleportation) have long cooldowns, and others (all the undead raising ones) long cast times.


Oh, and rolling to hit and dodge is also a skill roll after the same fashion, and so is initiative. And pretty much everything else, ever. Including saves. Is this a bad idea?

As a fellow amateur RPG designer I feel obligated to share my experience with you. But remember, my opinions are just that, you need to keep this your game and not let other people dictate how it works.

First off, lot's of people are going to tell you your rules are terribad at every stage of the game. Lot's of people think that every RPG mechanic is terribad, even in successful published systems. People on the internet can point out broken math or similar flaws, but you will get a far better feel for actual bad rules by play-testing and judging whether or not people (including you) are having fun and whether or not the game feels like you intended.

Starting values seem a bit too, I think you want more progression than that, especially in a class based game. That is one of the big problems of a lot of point buy games, everyone starts off way too specialized and competent and there is no room for growth.

Opposed rolls are a terrible idea in a dice pool system. Rolling a dice pool in general is a lot of time and effort compared to single roll systems, and having opposed rolls on a regular basis is a terrible idea. Now, if you want magic to be a very rare and special Oh **** moment keep it, but that doesn't look like what you are describing.

Full round actions seem very D&D to me. Are you porting over that concept wholesale?

If spells have cool-downs I don't know why you need a magic pool, all that does it make it so that fights have to be a certain length and you occasionally run out and get annoyed. IMO magic is LEAST disruptive during combat, and if you keep the OP spells on a long cool down they shouldn't come up often enough to be a problem. I am not a fun of 4E style AEDU magic, but I would prefer it to a combination system with cool downs and resources.

Allowing infinite magic out of combat is ok if that is the tone you want. I personally prefer to keep magic rare and special, but that's just my opinion and not one that most of the D&D crowd shares. If you allow infinite out of combat magic there are a lot of spells that become serious problems. For example knock makes the rogues lock picking ability obsolete, so you either need to have it use up a limited resource or accept the fact that rogues are second class to wizards in what is traditionally their own area of expertise. Same with any spell that grants a resource such as summoning, conjuring items, or long term buffs, as well as spells that allow you to bypass encounters like fly or teleport.

[Honest Tiefling]

I want a system that does one thing better than every other system. A general purpose game that excels at no particular theme is pointless IMO, because whenever I have a campaign with a theme in mind, the general purpose game will be worse than the game meant for that theme.

I want a system have tight integration with its setting.

My ideal system would have few enough rules that they don't get in the way, but enough varied rules that I could use the existing examples as a basis for anything the players think of. Good luck satisfying that one!

Fully agreed here. Find a niche, and do it well. An interesting setting is also a good selling point. I might be in the minority, but I prefer settings that are varied, but usually stick to a single theme or mood. Mechanics that support the fluff are just gravy.

[Psyren]

As others have said, you're going to get a wide variety of responses here, because we have a wide variety of playstyles. Some will prefer the rules to be more broad/vague and depend on the DM to interpret them (5e approach), while some will prefer the rules to be more specific with a brief notation that the DM is the final word, even if those rules create silly/contradictory interactions with one another (3.5/PF approach.) Some people hate skills, some love them. Some people hate alignment completely, others like it as long as it is divorced from mechanics, and some want classes and spells that depend on it. Some like lots of magic items and body slots for customization, while others want a low-magic system where even a single magic sword is precious/priceless beyond measure. Some want magic to be reliable, while others want it to be extremely difficult or taxing, and some don't want it at all. Some want to be able to roll dice to resolve most conflicts, while others prefer quick thinking from the player and only rolling dice when absolutely necessary.

[Knaight]

As others have said, you're going to get a wide variety of responses here, because we have a wide variety of playstyles. Some will prefer the rules to be more broad/vague and depend on the DM to interpret them (5e approach), while some will prefer the rules to be more specific with a brief notation that the DM is the final word, even if those rules create silly/contradictory interactions with one another (3.5/PF approach.) Some people hate skills, some love them. Some people hate alignment completely, others like it as long as it is divorced from mechanics, and some want classes and spells that depend on it. Some like lots of magic items and body slots for customization, while others want a low-magic system where even a single magic sword is precious/priceless beyond measure. Some want magic to be reliable, while others want it to be extremely difficult or taxing, and some don't want it at all. Some want to be able to roll dice to resolve most conflicts, while others prefer quick thinking from the player and only rolling dice when absolutely necessary.

It's worth noting that this pretty much only encompasses D&D in total, with parts only really spanning out to the games most like them. Some games don't have a GM at all. Some games don't use dice. Heck, there's a game (Microscope) which has no GM, no dice, completely does away with the concept of the player character, and pretty much laughs in the face of chronological play. One RPG isn't going to work for everyone. An RPG perfectly made to one person might not even suit them all that well - for some of us (myself included) the idea of only playing 1 RPG makes about as much sense as only playing 1 board game, or only reading 1 book. Sure, there are people who do all three, but they aren't the entirety of the market.

[Arbane]

What game systems do you already know? There are so many "It's D&D, BUT...." games out there, that there's a specific term for them: "Fantasy Heartbreakers".

[Honest Tiefling]

Not to mention that the various types of DnD are so different that comparing them to see which is best is also silly.

[Ellye]

My suggestion, if you want your game to be played by other people: don't go for yet another typical medieval fantasy RPG that's clearly inspired by D&D. There are way, way too many of those already.
Also, don't try to build a generic rules system, there are enough of those.

Instead, create a setting. Make an interesting, different world. Don't be restricted by simply thinking of typical settings - go wild, create something truly new and unique (or find some historical or fantastical-archetype of setting that's really lacking representation among RPGs); and then build the system around the world.

In other worlds, make a game system that is strongly tied to its setting. It will make for a coherent and interesting world (at the cost of flexibility, but it's worth it - we already have all the flexible systems we need).

[Jormengand]

What game systems do you already know? There are so many "It's D&D, BUT...." games out there, that there's a specific term for them: "Fantasy Heartbreakers".

Don't worry - the game was based on the desire to have a game without a lot of the D&D game elements that I didn't like: magi are better than warriors or warriors are actually magi in disguise, pick one; there is a massive variance between a new player's power level and an experienced player's power level; investing in a skill can mean the difference between "Can't pass" and "Can't fail"; fighters can only fight because they're fighters and fighters fight; magic items don't enhance your ability to do such-and-such so much as make you competent in the first place, and then make you far more competent than anyone else; magic is a world-shattering power but everyone and his mother can do it; 20th-level characters were meant to be "Guy capable of taking a small army on his own" and were actually "About five levels past rulership of the universe"; periods of twenty-four hours and acts of resting have great cosmic significance; it takes weeks for the barbarian to recover from his wounds without using magic because the system is entirely reliant on magic to function; you get the idea.

The system itself and how it works is completely nothing to do with D&D. I mean, there are kinda move, standard and full-round actions (even if none of them is called that), you roll initiative, you have skills (but not in the same way) and levels (certainly not in the same way) and so forth, but most of these are things which show up in a similar way in quite a lot of role-playing game systems, so I'm not overly concerned about passing similarities.

[Honest Tiefling]

Okay, then as someone who refuses to play anything other then a spellcaster, I gotta ask, how do you intend to balance magic with mundanes? What system do you have in place for magic, given that it's uh, well, pretty dang common in tabletop games.

[Hiro Protagonest]

class-based pool-of-d6s

You've already displeased some people.

[Jormengand]

Okay, then as someone who refuses to play anything other then a spellcaster, I gotta ask, how do you intend to balance magic with mundanes? What system do you have in place for magic, given that it's uh, well, pretty dang common in tabletop games.

Don't have time for a long answer, but basically mundanes get more stat dice which helps them with all their skill rolls, and magic can't copy mundane stuff as well as it can in D&D. There's also the concievable possibility that you'll run out of spell points separately in each combat, because you don't have so many and your big spells can easily take over half of them (depending on which big spells you take - there are some that don't), and you can't do quite so ridiculously many things with magic.

Also, the options for being a generalist are quite limited - you pretty much have to specialise, and you have to specialise hard. For example, you can choose the Chronology discipline which has lots of speed-based buffs and nerfs, a few attack spells, a feather fall mimic, and so forth, but if you're throwing time stops around you're not also turning people invisible with the same character.

[Vitruviansquid]

In no particular order...

1. I want distinct, flavorful classes with mechanics that not only provide interesting choices in tactical combat, but are also set up such that each class has its unique feel or mentality.

2. I want a tactical battle system that is fun while you're in it. In particular, I don't want the way I set up my character to auto-win or auto-lose fights for me.

3. I want the game to be streamlined and simple to play. A lot should happen in a short space of realtime.

[Honest Tiefling]

Class should have a theme, but also be able to be adaptable into a variety of concepts. In my opinion, a sword and board and a two-handed fighter should probably have the same class, but have options to tweak things. Personally, I am the opinion of fewer, but more broad classes.

And everyone should have access to at least some skills.

[Jeff the Green]

I think you'd be vastly better off making a game you and your friends would like to play, THEN exposing it to the harsh light of the Internet. Otherwise, you're going to get a self-contradictory mass of suggestions.

My pet peeve is self-consistency.

[Terraoblivion]

Look, op, no matter what you do somebody will hate your system and think that some aspect of it is terrible. It is literally unavoidable, just like the only way to avoid making a system some people think are good but not for them is to make a system so terrible that nobody has anything good to say about it. Whatever you're making is not going to be the system that fixes everything. Even generic systems have things they're suited for and things they do pretty poorly by the standards of everyone except hardcore devotees of the system in question. Even then, the latter mostly tries to stretch them way beyond what they work for as proof that it's the one system to rule them all. It's not. No system is and no system can't be, too many things are mutually exclusive for it to be possible even with modularity. You're just not going to reproduce to reproduce the setting creation experience of Microscope or the introspection and emotion of Chuubo's Marvelous Wish-Granting using GURPS or Mutants or Masterminds without ditching the system and going freeform and then it'd probably still be a different experience. This is not a flaw of the latter two, it's simply a product of the fact that no system can do everything. Just like there is no tool that does everything or a scientific theory of literally everything or a novel touching on all themes from all angles possible. Defining something limits it along with giving it meaning. There's no way around this.

Several people have said this already in several different ways. But I don't think they go far enough. Designing by committee is bad enough as it is. When the committee is made up of random people online dropping whatever occurred to them, the result is going to be an incoherent mess that pleases nobody.

Instead, think deeply about what you're trying to achieve. In detail, not something like fixing everything that's wrong with D&D or having great action. If you want to fix everything that's wrong with D&D, define what exactly is wrong, for example that class based systems are inherently limiting or that the balance between magic and non-magic is awful, or what you mean with great action, should it capture the feel of watching a John Woo, just to make a random example, or the feel of being a character in one of his movies. Then once you done that, check if there are systems that address the specific issues that you set out to fix and whether they're any good and why or why not. Then after that read and play as many and as diverse systems as you can get your hands on. Check out Rolemaster. Check out Legends of the Wulin. Hell, check out Forsooth (http://spoiledflushgames.com/games/forsooth/) and Microscope. Don't be afraid to force yourself to read utterly terrible games, even FATAL, Wraethu, Racial Holy War and World of Synnibar can teach you something by showing what to absolutely not do and provoke thought about why that is...Although, given the material for some of those games, you'd probably do the world a favor if you did it without paying. Basically, do all the legwork to learn what you're trying to do, if your needs are already served and what gaming can be before creating a system. You're just setting yourself up for disappointment and heartbreak along with countless lost hours and potentially a lot of lost money otherwise.

Also, to not steal the words of others as my own, even if it is pretty obvious advice, I never really thought about it until hearing one of the writers of Legends of the Wulin, Arik ten Broeke, or Sage Genesis as he goes by online, point it out.

[Vitruviansquid]

I think the OP's trying to get a vague sense of what people feel is cool or possibly get a discussion going on some hot or not design topics, not slave over every one of our petty whims.

[Jay R]

The purpose of this thread is simple enough: I'm creating a big-ass roleplaying game and I want to know what you guys want it to be. It's pretty much a class-based pool-of-d6s system, designed primarily for a medieval fantasy setting vaguely similar to D&D's but also possibly with rules for other settings.

The point of this all is that I want people to say "I want to be able to do X, Y and Z" or "Make sure that A, B and C aren't issues in the game" or "Make it clear that the DM should be doing Alpha, Beta and Gamma", or whatever. Essentially, this game kinda evolved from trying to remove a lot of my pet peeves from D&D, but I feel it should really be trying to remove everyone's pet peeves from lots of different systems.

So, have at it.

That's the wrong question. Start by asking yourself why you want a new role-playing game. What is the problem you're trying to solve?

I know why I play D&D, Champions, Flashing Blades, TOON, Pendragon, etc. Tell us what the point of playing your game is, and we can offer advice on how to reach that goal.

But if you don't tell us what your goal is, how can we help you reach it?

[Arbane]

1. I want distinct, flavorful classes with mechanics that not only provide interesting choices in tactical combat, but are also set up such that each class has its unique feel or mentality.


Conversely, I dislike character classes, and want a game with free-form aspect-based or point-buy character generation.

(Nothing against you, VSquid - just pointing out the OP can't POSSIBLY please everyone.)

[Vitruviansquid]

I'm actually perfectly fine with point buy systems, but I believe Jormengand specified he wanted to make a class-based one.

[Jormengand]

I'm actually perfectly fine with point buy systems, but I believe Jormengand specified he wanted to make a class-based one.

Honestly, it's a bit of both - each class gives you very few locked-in abilities and instead gives you a ton of choices you can play around with, or more stat and skill dice, or a new spell, and so forth.

[Jay R]

Mostly, I want realism in the areas that can be realistic. Skills and combat moves should work more-or-less like those skills and combat moves work in the real world.

I prefer magic and monsters that more-or-less fit our legends. Dragons shouldn't breathe lightning or chlorine gas; wizards should not have the world-altering powers of high-level D&D spells.

This leaves a wide scope for inventiveness, however, because the legends are not in agreement.

I would like the ability to stay within a specific mythos. It a campaign is set in Greece, there should be minotaurs, harpies, pegasi, etc., but not trolls or dwarves. wizards might have polymorph spells, but not fireballs. (Yes, the GM can choose which monsters to use, but many players don't believe the GM can rightfully restrict the spells list.)

I am well aware that these are minority opinions, though.

[CantigThimble]

I like travelers system of character creation where every player has a lifetime of experience where their skills come from and they very rarely get new ones. I like D&Ds 1st level useless chump to epic sorcerer in 2 years. I like the d&d style rigid classes, and the point buy systems from shadowrun. I like the d20 for its randomness, 2d6 for consistency and the dice pool for its malleability. You can't possibly make a game system that would be my favorite because what I want changes. If you want to make a system find a way to make it special and thematic so that when I decide I want to play a game like (dungeon crawl/espionage/military campaign/space cowboys) I'll want to pull out that one instead of anything else.

[Talakeal]

Ok, let me give an anecdote:

A few months ago I was talking in a thread about how when I DM I always give the players the difficulty of a test before rolling because I find it makes for an easier play experiance. One of the reasons was because a lot of players will suspect you are cheating and playing schrodingers dice roll to make them succeed or fail regardless of what the dice say.

The response on this forum was overwhelmingly negative, saying that gaming should be a friendly environment and if people suspect you are cheating you shoudnt be playing with them.


Currently I have a thread about control freak DMs and their house rules. A lot of these rules are huge pains in the butt and waste a lot of time, but most people are supporting them because if you dont have similar rules in place there is nothing to prevent the players from cheating.


In both cases the forums oppinions are directly opposite, because it isnt the same group of people posting (or some of them may just be trolls who take the contrary view in every thread). This is the kind of reaction you will likely get to any proposed rules change you ask of the internet.

[Jay R]

I also like it when the rules fit the particular genre. The system of powers, advantages, and limitations in Champions, the variety of dueling styles in Flashing Blades, Falling Down in Toon, and the Passions in Pendragon, all fit the specific genre better than they would any other.

[Jeff the Green]

I prefer magic and monsters that more-or-less fit our legends. Dragons shouldn't breathe lightning or chlorine gas; wizards should not have the world-altering powers of high-level D&D spells.

Chlorine would actually be more true to the legends than the standard fire. "Fire breathing" was originally a metaphor for having poisonous breath. And I think "poisonous breath" was a metaphor for being venomous like a snake.

[Honest Tiefling]

This is what happens when your body of mythos is made by drunk people trying to pass the time. I agree that the feeling of a mythos should be retained, but uh...Feel free to edit some weirdness/creepy out. Especially out of the Greek mythos, but I cannot find a tasteful way of putting it why that one needs so much editing.

I think that the spells should reflect legends, but with a mind of only weaker powers. It has been a while, but I believe I remember people in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms doing some pretty powerful stuff, and I am sure that the Cambion Merlin has some crazy tricks as well. Themed powers is probably a good call to have made.

[Telwar]

I like being able to be consistent and having replicable results.

I also like being able to invest resources into making sure I succeed, or at least generating a very high likelihood of success.

[obryn]

The trouble is, once I've made the entire game, and then someone's like "Nuu, that mechanic is EVIL BAD WRONG mechanic, change it," I also have to change all of the class abilities which worked on that mechanic.
Ummm if you're looking at eventual publication, get used to it. And acknowledge that sometimes critics are right. :smallsmile:

[Morty]

To be well-designed based on a clear vision of what it should do mechanically and narratively and with a strong understanding of how the elements fit together. This includes a willingness to focus the system on doing what it's meant to do well, as opposed to trying to do everything at once. If it is that, I'd be interested pretty much whatever the elements were. Unless it was trying to make FATAL or Racial Holy War with a working system, of course.

That about sums it up. Know what you want and go for it. Trying to please everyone will get you the gaming equivalent of a lukewarm bowl of oatmeal. If you find that a mechanic doesn't work for the game you're trying to do, gut it. Function over form, not the other way around - the moment you find yourself preserving an element because it 'feels right' or 'has always been this way', you've lost.

Also, don't bother with the 'mundane vs. caster' arms race - instead try to examine it in terms of empowerment, versatility and ability to affect the narrative. If a character does the exact same thing over and over again with bigger numbers, it's no development at all. Numbers are only relevant in relation to other numbers. Characters advance by broadening their ability to make the narrative and the game's world bend to their wishes.

[Jay R]

Chlorine would actually be more true to the legends than the standard fire. "Fire breathing" was originally a metaphor for having poisonous breath. And I think "poisonous breath" was a metaphor for being venomous like a snake.

That's news to me. But it is very consistent with my other comment, "This leaves a wide scope for inventiveness, however, because the legends are not in agreement."

I know that vampires were originally flesh-eating, bloated corpses, that Nordic elves lived underground as smiths, and that dragons were roughly the size of a crocodile. But I would still (usually) make mine fit the most common currently-known legend.

[Exediron]

The most important thing for me is that the game mechanics should provide a framework for simulating reality that gives roughly the result I want. I don't want the mechanics mixing with the 'soft' aspects of the game; I'd prefer not to have classes, but rather to have a character be able to learn fighting or herbalism or spellslinging freely and interchangeably as fits the character. I don't want to look at the abilities of a character and suddenly realize that they're all mechanically the same just under the surface. I want the system to be punishing of failure and have lasting consequences.

Now look at any other poster, and you'll probably be able to find at least one of those core desires that they actively do not want to see in a game. For example, I want a basic simulation framework; someone else earlier said that a non-specialized system is pointless, whereas I feel that specialized systems are overly confining and restrict the variety of play available down preconceived avenues.

[Jay R]

1. I want distinct, flavorful classes with mechanics that not only provide interesting choices in tactical combat, but are also set up such that each class has its unique feel or mentality.
Conversely, I dislike character classes, and want a game with free-form aspect-based or point-buy character generation.

(Nothing against you, VSquid - just pointing out the OP can't POSSIBLY please everyone.)

You've had thesis and antithesis. I will try to provide synthesis.

I want specialization to work as well as it does in real life. Maybe the warrior can learn a spell or two, and the wizard can use a bow, but the most effective wizard should be one who has focused almost entirely on wizardry, and the most effective warrior should be drilling and practicing most of the time.

The league's greatest football player, the Nobel-prize-winning physicist, the Oscar-winning actress, and the most successful thief should be four different people.

Great power should come from years of dedicated focus, not from just picking something up for a few weeks.

[Talakeal]

The league's greatest football player, the Nobel-prize-winning physicist, the Oscar-winning actress, and the most successful thief should be four different people.


To be fair, thats not always the case.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P85Fj8m6v84

[Morty]

Great power should come from years of dedicated focus, not from just picking something up for a few weeks.

False dichotomy. Lack of classes does not equal the possibility to be gain competence in many areas easily.

[Jay R]

To be fair, thats not always the case.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P85Fj8m6v84

If you wish to make a point, please go ahead and make it. I'm not going to watch a ten minute video.

And to make the point against my quoted statement, all you have to do is name somebody who is simultaneously a football star, top-level scientist, Oscar-winning actress, and successful thief. Who is it?


False dichotomy. Lack of classes does not equal the possibility to be gain competence in many areas easily.

I never claimed or implied that lack of classes equals the possibility to gain competence in many areas easily.

And if fact, I was not proposing a dichotomy of any time. My first line was, "You've had thesis and antithesis. I will try to provide synthesis." That's a trichotomy, so it did not imply that anything not in one category was in a second one.

In fact, in that sentence I was arguing against the poor game design that lack of classes sometimes (not always) causes. I neitehr said nor implied that it always does.

If you read my whole post, instead of taking one line out of context, you'll see that I wasn't arguing for or against classes. In fact, my four favorite games include two with classes (D&D, Flashing Blades) and one without (Champions). Don't believe I'm simplistically choosing one side or another when I specifically said I was going a third way.

-----

I'll try again to communicate my idea. The biggest issue isn't whether to have classes or not, but to avoid the dangers of each - classes forcing characters into a very small number of possibilities, or lack of classes encouraging generalists who try to do everything?

I once considered designing a D&D-like game with a structure of classes but no defined classes to choose from. The player and DM would design a character-specific class based on what the player wanted. I still think it would work, but after graduating from that school, I've never again had a group composed entirely of highly intelligent, highly-focused players who would e3njoy doing that kind of work.

[Talakeal]

Personally my beef with class based systems is that the limits are more or less arbitrary. The game tells you what you can be good at, and in that area the sky is the limit. A D&D fighter can, for example, be the world's best swordsman , the world's best swimmer, the world's best archer, the world's best long jumper, the world's most intimidating man, and the world's best blacksmith, but he can never be the world's best musician.

I would much prefer a class base system if it didn't link you skills, combat role, defenses, and class features so heavily.



If you wish to make a point, please go ahead and make it. I'm not going to watch a ten minute video.

And to make the point against my quoted statement, all you have to do is name somebody who is simultaneously a football star, top-level scientist, Oscar-winning actress, and successful thief. Who is it?

.

All four criteria, no (although the thief one is kind of hard to prove).

But the video I linked lists several people who have won multiple top level accolades in wildly different disciplines. For example, George Berhnard Shaw has won both an Oscar and a Nobel Prize, Steve Tisch has won both an Oscar and a Superbowl championship, and Richard Rogers has won an Oscar, a Pullitzer, an Emmy, a Tony, and a Grammy, Niels Bohr has won both an Olympic medal and a Nobel prize in Physics. Hell, there are several WWF champions who are also New York Times bestselling authors, and you can't get much further apart than those two accolades.

[Morty]

I never claimed or implied that lack of classes equals the possibility to gain competence in many areas easily.

And if fact, I was not proposing a dichotomy of any time. My first line was, "You've had thesis and antithesis. I will try to provide synthesis." That's a trichotomy, so it did not imply that anything not in one category was in a second one.

In fact, in that sentence I was arguing against the poor game design that lack of classes sometimes (not always) causes. I neitehr said nor implied that it always does.

If you read my whole post, instead of taking one line out of context, you'll see that I wasn't arguing for or against classes. In fact, my four favorite games include two with classes (D&D, Flashing Blades) and one without (Champions). Don't believe I'm simplistically choosing one side or another when I specifically said I was going a third way.

-----

I'll try again to communicate my idea. The biggest issue isn't whether to have classes or not, but to avoid the dangers of each - classes forcing characters into a very small number of possibilities, or lack of classes encouraging generalists who try to do everything?

I once considered designing a D&D-like game with a structure of classes but no defined classes to choose from. The player and DM would design a character-specific class based on what the player wanted. I still think it would work, but after graduating from that school, I've never again had a group composed entirely of highly intelligent, highly-focused players who would e3njoy doing that kind of work.

I suppose I did misunderstand you, then. I stand corrected.

[Arbane]

The league's greatest football player, the Nobel-prize-winning physicist, the Oscar-winning actress, and the most successful thief should be four different people.


Would you settle for a Nobel Prize winner who was also an accomplished safecracker AND a barroom brawler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman)?

Oh, how about a guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin) who was was a research scientist, writer, businessman, inventor, revolutionary, diplomat, and seducer?

Oh! Here's someone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Francis_Burton) who was a geographer, explorer, translator, writer, soldier, orientalist, cartographer, ethnologist, spy, linguist, poet, fencer, Egyptologist and diplomat. What a munchkin!

New proposed rule: Any game that can't make a fantasy hero that's at least as competent as any of the above is already a failure.

[Honest Tiefling]

Unless one is going for gritty dark Fantasy, but I don't see much of that. Conversely, I believe that Fightery-Guy should probably be the best at fighting, and has a chance of wowing people with fighting at higher levels. However, other characters should have a chance of contributing positively in a variety of situations. A fighter who has no skills in my opinion, is bad design, because a lot of situations do not call for putting holes into people and appear in fairly standard play. Should he outshine Talky Guy at talking? In most cases, no. But a mix of letting people shine in their chosen role and teamwork would be very nice with mechanics to support it.

[Vitruviansquid]

If your class-based system ends up looking like a point-based system with arbitrary limitations added on, you've done something drastically wrong. Point-buy systems are strong because of their flexibility and customization while class-based systems are strong because of their ability to force players to enter a certain mindset intended by the developers.

Let's say you have a game and want to implement a rogue class and a warrior class in a game much like DnD. A sloppy way to implement this would be to give the rogue an attack based on his dexterity stat and the warrior an attack based on her strength stat. That would make both classes functionally the same - you walk up to dudes, roll strength or dexterity, and do the same amount of damage because you probably pumped your class's favored stat. A better way to implement this would be to give the rogue a number of "energy counters" that would be spent to enhance his attacks during a fight and do not replenish while the warrior generates "rage counters" to enhance her attacks for each round of combat. Now, you've created a difference between the classes' mindsets - the rogue player wants to alpha strike a battle and expend energy counters right away to eliminate or debilitate the enemy force off the bat while the warrior is fine with playing defensively until she has a lot of rage to overpower the enemy. Other classes can work on a lot of different levels - one might have mobility and then receive bonuses based on being positioned correctly, one might be able to execute powerful attacks with a high chance of failure or backfire, one might fight well against multiple enemies while another fights well against individuals, and so on.

For a great analogy to good class-based design, look at the Starcraft races. It would usually be considered the end of a game if a protoss player was to lose an entire army in the late game because the protoss "class" operates by using a modest amount of income to accrue an insanely powerful army and then steamrolling the enemy. On the other hand, zerg players can survive losing a huge army because their "class" operates by using a massive income to acquire massive armies multiple times over the course of a game and win by attrition. (Of course, starcraft games have a lot else going on, but this generally holds true in my experience of watching pro games)

In this context, it would be difficult to convert your class-based game into a point-buy game, because each class would be inherently incompatible with the abilities of another class. Here's a helpful rule: Different classes have different ways of doing things, not the same way of doing things under different names.

[Morty]

I would argue that if you utilize a class model similar to that of D&D, neither "rogue" nor "fighter" are good class concepts in the first place. They're so broad as to tell us practically nothing about who the character really is - so they're useless as classes.

[Vitruviansquid]

I would argue that those class concepts being broad or narrow is really up to the designer and what he/she chooses to define as a "warrior" or a "rogue."

... but that's not really the point of what I was trying to illustrate. I was just using those class concepts to fabricate an example of good class design and bad class design. You could write an example with two other class concepts of your choosing, if it suits you.

[D-naras]

Honestly, from my own experiences, I have found that the best way to make an RPG is by first being a sensible gamemaster then an experienced player and finally, create the game that you, as an experienced gamer would have fun playing with and as a sensible gamemaster enjoy running with as little fuss as possible. If all your games have a certain tone, then don't be afraid to inject that in your rules, but always make sure that each rule is absolutely required. If a rule is counter-intuitive, remove it. If a rule slows down play just so you can model a particular situation (opposed dice-pools tend to do that) maybe you should streamlined it or remove it.

Now as to what I enjoy in RPGs:
I like the existence of character creation minigames. What I mean is, if I am bored I want to be able to try and build a certain character concept using your system.
I always prefer customization options that reward, rather than punish. For example, if I want my character to be selfish, I should be rewarded when I play him as selfish, not be punished when I don't.
I like options that allow me to create an effective character in other arenas beyond combat while still being relevant during such conflicts (relevant, not dominant). Maybe I want to make a skilled social character that fights by proxies (bodyguards for instance) when he is forced into combat situations without having to make an agreement with my GM before hand. Or I want to be a master craftsman or scholar. Make ways for these characters to participate in all areas. For example the craftsman has better equipment, making him a competent fighter, while the scholar can exploit his opponent's weaknesses or use the terrain to his advantage.
If your game is rules heavy, make sure it's front loaded. What I mean is, I am okay with spending a weak reading the book and making a character, but when it comes to playing it, I shouldn't be forced to look at tables and flip through pages every five minutes.

Regarding class vs point-based character creation, I feel that classes are a better fit for specific settings while point-buy works more for generic games. Personally, I prefer a mix of both, similar to Legend of the 5 Rings or WoD games.

Good luck on your endeavors! Just remember to make a game with everything YOU want from an RPG.

[Morty]

I would argue that those class concepts being broad or narrow is really up to the designer and what he/she chooses to define as a "warrior" or a "rogue."

... but that's not really the point of what I was trying to illustrate. I was just using those class concepts to fabricate an example of good class design and bad class design. You could write an example with two other class concepts of your choosing, if it suits you.

I wasn't refuting any of your specific points, which I think are sound. I was making a general observation. Of course classes can be defined however one wants, but I think such generic names should be avoided. Presentation is important, and having an aggressive, mobile warrior class called "slayer" and a defensive, durable one called "dreadnought" is more clear-cut than if one of them was called "warrior", I think. I certainly agree that if one wants to introduce classes, rather than a softer model like WoD's "sub-splats" or Exalted Castes, a class should be defined by some big thing that defines its performance and behaviour in its area of focus.

[Jay R]

I suppose I did misunderstand you, then. I stand corrected.

No problem. That how the back-and forth works at its best. I failed to communicate it; you called me on it; I tried to fix it.


If your class-based system ends up looking like a point-based system with arbitrary limitations added on, you've done something drastically wrong. Point-buy systems are strong because of their flexibility and customization while class-based systems are strong because of their ability to force players to enter a certain mindset intended by the developers.

Oh, very well said.

[Silus]

I'll tell you what I DON'T want. I don't want a horribly brutal, "realistic" system where one misstep equates to possible death. I don't want to be forced to resort to sneaky ambushes against creatures equal to or lower than my power level just to have the slight chance of killing them. I don't want a complicated, convoluted, math heavy system with more books than is right to have. I don't want a system built like Dark Souls, and I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT ROLEMASTER. *Still ticked off about my first session playing the God-aweful system*

What I want is a streamlined, easy to learn, flexible system that, with a bit of work, can accommodate just about any setting you're looking for. I want a system where when you make your character, even if it's a level 1, you're already got a foot in "Big damn hero" territory. I want a system that rewards and accommodates creativity and cinematic choices and encourages character development.

[VoxRationis]

I'll tell you what I DON'T want. I don't want a horribly brutal, "realistic" system where one misstep equates to possible death. I don't want to be forced to resort to sneaky ambushes against creatures equal to or lower than my power level just to have the slight chance of killing them. I don't want a complicated, convoluted, math heavy system with more books than is right to have. I don't want a system built like Dark Souls, and I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT ROLEMASTER. *Still ticked off about my first session playing the God-aweful system*

What I want is a streamlined, easy to learn, flexible system that, with a bit of work, can accommodate just about any setting you're looking for. I want a system where when you make your character, even if it's a level 1, you're already got a foot in "Big damn hero" territory. I want a system that rewards and accommodates creativity and cinematic choices and encourages character development.

And, in an object lesson of the principle described on earlier pages, some, such as I, prefer the opposite. Poor decisions and recklessness should be punished; cleverness and lateral thinking should be rewarded. The game should be rules-heavy, with well-thought-out and logical rules for most situations which could reasonably come up in gameplay. Even powerful characters should be vulnerable to overconfidence or treachery. Ease of learning is secondary; "flexibility" usually equates to requiring ad hoc rules for everything because the writers didn't bother writing any; characters don't need to be escapees from 300 to be heroic or good at what they do. The same rules should apply for the players, their enemies, and the random civilians down the street, as it increases immersion.

[BrokenChord]

Internal consistency, I would think, is a fairly uncontroversial virtue. If you have a rule for something in the system, applying the rule to a setting should lead to a setting that fits what you've established or what you have in mind. If the rule doesn't get applied, why not?


For me, my idea system would be able to account, mechanically, for just about any idea the DM or the PCs come up with.

Player wants to use Electrokinesis to turn their arm into a railgun but there are no rules explicitly stating that you can do that or how to do that? Here, have some basic guidelines to work with.


I want a system that does one thing better than every other system. A general purpose game that excels at no particular theme is pointless IMO, because whenever I have a campaign with a theme in mind, the general purpose game will be worse than the game meant for that theme.

I want a system have tight integration with its setting.

My ideal system would have few enough rules that they don't get in the way, but enough varied rules that I could use the existing examples as a basis for anything the players think of. Good luck satisfying that one!


Fully agreed here. Find a niche, and do it well. An interesting setting is also a good selling point. I might be in the minority, but I prefer settings that are varied, but usually stick to a single theme or mood. Mechanics that support the fluff are just gravy.


Conversely, I dislike character classes, and want a game with free-form aspect-based or point-buy character generation.

(Nothing against you, VSquid - just pointing out the OP can't POSSIBLY please everyone.)


Mostly, I want realism in the areas that can be realistic. Skills and combat moves should work more-or-less like those skills and combat moves work in the real world.

I prefer magic and monsters that more-or-less fit our legends. Dragons shouldn't breathe lightning or chlorine gas; wizards should not have the world-altering powers of high-level D&D spells.

This leaves a wide scope for inventiveness, however, because the legends are not in agreement.

I would like the ability to stay within a specific mythos. It a campaign is set in Greece, there should be minotaurs, harpies, pegasi, etc., but not trolls or dwarves. wizards might have polymorph spells, but not fireballs. (Yes, the GM can choose which monsters to use, but many players don't believe the GM can rightfully restrict the spells list.)

I am well aware that these are minority opinions, though.


I like being able to be consistent and having replicable results.

I also like being able to invest resources into making sure I succeed, or at least generating a very high likelihood of success.


The most important thing for me is that the game mechanics should provide a framework for simulating reality that gives roughly the result I want. I don't want the mechanics mixing with the 'soft' aspects of the game; I'd prefer not to have classes, but rather to have a character be able to learn fighting or herbalism or spellslinging freely and interchangeably as fits the character. I don't want to look at the abilities of a character and suddenly realize that they're all mechanically the same just under the surface. I want the system to be punishing of failure and have lasting consequences.

Now look at any other poster, and you'll probably be able to find at least one of those core desires that they actively do not want to see in a game. For example, I want a basic simulation framework; someone else earlier said that a non-specialized system is pointless, whereas I feel that specialized systems are overly confining and restrict the variety of play available down preconceived avenues.


You've had thesis and antithesis. I will try to provide synthesis.

I want specialization to work as well as it does in real life. Maybe the warrior can learn a spell or two, and the wizard can use a bow, but the most effective wizard should be one who has focused almost entirely on wizardry, and the most effective warrior should be drilling and practicing most of the time.

The league's greatest football player, the Nobel-prize-winning physicist, the Oscar-winning actress, and the most successful thief should be four different people.

Great power should come from years of dedicated focus, not from just picking something up for a few weeks.

Tangential, but I'm curious if any of those I've quoted have tried Ars Magica, and if so, how well that matched up with your expectations.

Onto the topic at hand...

What I look for in a game is that the mechanics governing the world are conducive to telling stories. The players should be given vested and mechanical (though not necessarily numerical) interest in how the story goes and what effects their actions have on the world, and they should be rewarded for accomplishing personal character goals or undergoing character development. The story and characters should be primary, while the mechanics serve to make the world a sensible framework for the stories being told and encourage those stories panning out. Unlike in D&D, which seems to support painting black and white pictures as, at best, excuses to kill stuff and acquire loot, while leaving it entirely up to the people running it to provide narrative depth, which for that matter is actively discouraged from having an effect on the character's capabilities themselves.

On a more personal level, while I prefer narrativist games to combat-centric games, I prefer in combat-centric games that there be ways to get xp that are significantly slower than adventuring but still exist. Five weeks of adventuring might get me a level, but there should also be rules supporting characters who spend three years in study and laboratory work (this is major downtime in campaigns, but timeskips do happen) with the character having gained a level in the interim. Or really, any downtime without other productive things for doing should have some milk-able xp, imho.

I would also recommend checking out multi-character play as an option. Solves a whole host of disputes when it comes to the "my character wouldn't go on this adventure based on their morals or other priorities being more pressing!" argument, without requiring you to go out of character for the sake of fracturing the party, and allows differences in interests to not be a huge problem. Usually justifiable as having associates or, better yet, coworkers, if your party is actually part of an adventuring team or mercenary guild that would be doing multiple missions simultaneously for different plots.

For example, in a regular game:
Fighter player: The orcs are marching this way and using the nearby castle as a midway point! If we don't break into their castle and defeat their army, they'll come to the town and cause serious damage! Gear up, everyone!
Wizard player: But I'm in the middle of scribing a spell that may enable us to stop the less immediate but far more significant threat of the Mindflayer Psion who intends to open the portal for the astral army to reach the mortal plane! And I'm under oath with the orc kingdom to not harm their orcs, an oath my character would never break!
Fighter player: ... But we need a wizard... C'mon, man, your story restrictions are lame and we can beat the Mindflayer without your spell even if it'll be a lot harder.
Wizard player: I disagree on both counts, but if I don't go, I'll have to sit out the next session or more, and there may well be a TPK. Fine, give me a minute to fake a reason to go.
Fighter: Thanks man, and sorry about the spell, sure it would've been awesome.

In a game that encourages regularly switching out characters with factors like exhaustion or simply the not-very-mechanical factor of "being able to accomplish multiple things at once" then there can be a main party, as usual, but the conversation can go like this:
Fighter player: The orcs are marching this way and using the nearby castle as a midway point! If we don't break into their castle and defeat their army, they'll come to the town and cause serious damage! Gear up, everyone!
Wizard player: But I'm in the middle of scribing a spell that may enable us to stop the less immediate but far more significant threat of the Mindflayer Psion who intends to open the portal for the astral army to reach the mortal plane! And I'm under oath with the orc kingdom to not harm their orcs, an oath my character would never break!
Fighter player: ... But we need a wizard...
Wizard player: Very well. My current character seems highly inappropriate to the situation. However, knowing the necessity of this character's current actions and the fact that he's under an oath, might your fighter prefer to enlist the help of my other wizard, Tybalt. He's an extreme orc-hater, and he's much more skilled with spells that would be advantageous in infiltrating a castle than my main, who mainly does party buffs.
Fighter player: Good idea! Then we have a wizard and your character can stay in-character, and he'll be able to help us more in our other plot conflict! Anyway, you've played Tybalt before, he's a little racist but really cool and we haven't heard from him in a while. I go ask if he wants in.
Wizard: Wonderful! Now my character can pursue his goals, I don't have to make him act out of character, and I'm not sitting out of the game, while the party gets wizard help. Everybody wins!

The language I used isn't really table-talk, but I think it does illustrate my point pretty well, no?

[Exediron]

Tangential, but I'm curious if any of those I've quoted have tried Ars Magica, and if so, how well that matched up with your expectations.

I have not, although from what I know there are some elements I would like about it. However I prefer a system in which magic does not dominate (yes, I play v3 D&D - and yes, I have house rules to get around that problem), and it fairly clearly doesn't fit the bill so I haven't looked into it too deeply.

[Honest Tiefling]

Same here, some aspects seem cool, but while I heavily prefer casters, what I know of it is that it is basically about very powerful casters with few other archetypes. Doesn't help that those I play with often prefer mundanes.

As for swapping out members, maybe I am a huge DnD nerd, but I prefer a smaller, tightly knit group of heroes. I am open to trying out the idea, but I don't know how well it'll jell with me.

[Stubbazubba]

Surprised this has gone three pages without this being posted:


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7157/6678381155_9a55e4dfcc_z.jpg

And you can see that here. "A role-playing game" is simply too wide a brush. You've got to narrow it down significantly. Because the experience I want out of a high fantasy heroic game is different than the one I want out of a dark fantasy heist game, and those differences are often mutually exclusive. So even within the umbrella of "things that look like D&D," you need to get a bit clearer of a vision.

[Morty]

A conclusion I've come to recently is that if you're going to use classes, which you said you are, you should ditch ability scores. With there already being classes and, presumably, skill proficiencies, ability scores just add a needless layer of numbers.

[BrokenChord]

Same here, some aspects seem cool, but while I heavily prefer casters, what I know of it is that it is basically about very powerful casters with few other archetypes. Doesn't help that those I play with often prefer mundanes.

As for swapping out members, maybe I am a huge DnD nerd, but I prefer a smaller, tightly knit group of heroes. I am open to trying out the idea, but I don't know how well it'll jell with me.
You're right that the casters are quite powerful compared to non-casters, but the "few other archetypes" thing is very, very far from the truth. Purely mundane people aren't especially powerful in Ars Magica (intentionally, I might add, because purely mundane people in Ars Magica are pretty much exactly like purely mundane people in real life) but there are plenty of ways to boost a character doing mundane things with passive supernatural stuff (since my experience has been that a character with incredible strength granted by his god-blood still counts as mundane enough for most mundane character players).

Well, right. I do agree with a small, tightly-knit group of heroes; those are your "mains," the actual plot-central emotionally-connected people who get the major stuff done. The multi-character idea is so that somebody can have different priorities from the party every so often (needing to scribe a certain spell for an upcoming major battle, travelling to another area to get trained by somebody) without that person having to sit out of the sessions. Anyway, it's just a thought.

[Talakeal]

A conclusion I've come to recently is that if you're going to use classes, which you said you are, you should ditch ability scores. With there already being classes and, presumably, skill proficiencies, ability scores just add a needless layer of numbers.

I have to ask; what is your rationale behind this?

To me this takes a lot out of the ability to customize or RP your character. Class based systems already have a problem with making people be cookie cutters of one another, and I would think that dropping ability scores would only exacerbate this problem.

[Morty]

Because ability scores don't actually provide customization, flexibility or role-playing opportunities in a system that already has classes, proficiencies and maybe levels (although while classes have their virtues, levels are just bad). All they add is an illusion of choice, and an additional source of numbers. If you're playing a burglar who is skilled at breaking and entering, bypassing dangers and obstacles and, in a pinch, attacking unaware enemies, do you need an extra score on your sheet to tell you he's agile and quick? No. His proficiency in the skills outlined above, whether it's expressed in numbers or discrete abilities, and his belonging into a class like 'thief', 'rogue', 'burglar' or however we call it, both imply it. After all, if you do have ability scores, you're not going to play a thief archetype character who doesn't have high dexterity/agility/whatever - because they won't be good at it if you do. So why not cut out the middleman and just assume a high score? Customization should be left for features that shape the narrative and let characters affect the world around them, not piling up sources of fiddly numbers.

[Talakeal]

Because ability scores don't actually provide customization, flexibility or role-playing opportunities in a system that already has classes, proficiencies and maybe levels (although while classes have their virtues, levels are just bad). All they add is an illusion of choice, and an additional source of numbers. If you're playing a burglar who is skilled at breaking and entering, bypassing dangers and obstacles and, in a pinch, attacking unaware enemies, do you need an extra score on your sheet to tell you he's agile and quick? No. His proficiency in the skills outlined above, whether it's expressed in numbers or discrete abilities, and his belonging into a class like 'thief', 'rogue', 'burglar' or however we call it, both imply it. After all, if you do have ability scores, you're not going to play a thief archetype character who doesn't have high dexterity/agility/whatever - because they won't be good at it if you do. So why not cut out the middleman and just assume a high score? Customization should be left for features that shape the narrative and let characters affect the world around them, not piling up sources of fiddly numbers.

Ok, so let's run with the rogue example. Say you have a gang of thieves, all of them have the "rogue" class. One of them is "Ox," a big dumb wall of muscle who the gang uses as their enforcer. Another one is "The Brain" a spindly little man who serves as the mastermind behind the group and plans their heists. How would you differentiate between the two without ability scores? Would you leave it up to skills (which would mean in D&D that the Brain hits just as hard as Ox), or would you just leave it up in the air as a pure narrative thing with no mechanical effects?

[Morty]

Why should we assume they all have the same class? Throwing every possible kind of criminal into a single bag labelled 'rogue' was bad design on D&D's part, one we're under no obligation to repeat. If the "Ox" is a stupid wall of muscle who just hits people smarter gang members tell him to hit, maybe he should get a class that is good at, well, hitting people.

[Talakeal]

Why should we assume they all have the same class? Throwing every possible kind of criminal into a single bag labelled 'rogue' was bad design on D&D's part, one we're under no obligation to repeat. If the "Ox" is a stupid wall of muscle who just hits people smarter gang members tell him to hit, maybe he should get a class that is good at, well, hitting people.

How many classes would you propose we have then?

To use a RL example, one of the guys in my gaming group is near seven feet tall and four hundred pounds. He has never in his life trained in combat, nor does he have any experience in combat or an inclination to study it, however were he so inclined he could pick up several of the smaller guys in our group and dribble them like a basketball. How would you model someone like that in your proposed system?

I am not trying to pick a fight with you btw, I am just trying to wrap my head around how such a system would work.

[Grinner]

Ok, so let's run with the rogue example. Say you have a gang of thieves, all of them have the "rogue" class. One of them is "Ox," a big dumb wall of muscle who the gang uses as their enforcer. Another one is "The Brain" a spindly little man who serves as the mastermind behind the group and plans their heists. How would you differentiate between the two without ability scores? Would you leave it up to skills (which would mean in D&D that the Brain hits just as hard as Ox), or would you just leave it up in the air as a pure narrative thing with no mechanical effects?

First, rogue is a really poor choice for Ox. Admittedly, he could fit into rogue, depending on his specific skill-set, but the whole class-system idea is poor at acknowledging these sorts of things.

Regarding ability scores, I'm going to toss my hat in with Morty. They just don't do a whole lot in practice, and frequently, they're very inelegant descriptors. I've seen them done well, particularly in a game called Shadows of Esteren, but in most games, they don't really say a whole lot about the character as a person.

[Vitruviansquid]

There's a very simple way to determine whether Ox and Brain deserve their own classes, and that's to ask yourself: "do Ox and Brain operate differently enough in my head that they should feel different when you sit down to play them?"

You might notice that, in DnD 4e, most of the fighting classes can use each other's weapons, and if you go just by their job descriptions, you'll realize that Avengers and Paladins can sort of be the same class (dudes dedicated to fighting for their god/goddess with skills at melee weapons) while Fighters, Rangers, Warlords, and Rogues can really be sort of the same class (dudes who use training and athleticism to kill monsters or other dudes). And, in fact, many of the classes end up with rather severe overlaps in the equipment they use - warlords and fighters and paladins can end up looking the same to the untrained eye, or even the trained eye, since they're essentially wearing the same armor and carrying the same weapons. However, once you sit down and play them, there's probably nobody in the world who can mistake a fighter with a warlord or an avenger with a paladin. This isn't to say there aren't some poorly designed classes in DnD 4e, but in general, the classes in DnD 4e usually justify their existence by providing a different mentality for the player to get into than is offered by other classes.

In previous editions of DnD, you'll also find that three core archetypes are organized this way as well. Roguish classes (rogues, bards, etc.) have the spotlight during "skill roll" sections of the gameplay, and so attempt to put players into a mindset that emphasizes lateral thinking ("we can sneak past the orcs and pick the door out of here instead of fight them") the magic user classes attempt to put players into a mindset that emphasizes forethought by forcing them to prepare spells and then manage when to use them, the fighter classes... are poorly designed. 3.5 (in my own opinion that you're free to disagree with) gets into some silly incest between the classes by having a million of them, some that exist just to step on another's toes, and then having a million spells in each spell set, some of which seem to exist just to poach roles from other spell sets.

edit: As for using ability scores in class-based games... sure they're usable, just don't set them up stupidly like in DnD 4e and so many classes in DnD 3.5. I don't know about 5e, because I haven't read it yet. If you're not forcing people to roll randomly for ability scores, you want to use ability scores to allow players another layer of customization. Savage Worlds, despite not being a class-based system, has a fairly good analogue to ability scores. Sit down and try to make some characters with that game and you'll realize all the attributes are fairly important, but do different enough things to be meaningful.

[Stubbazubba]

I have to ask; what is your rationale behind this?

To me this takes a lot out of the ability to customize or RP your character. Class based systems already have a problem with making people be cookie cutters of one another, and I would think that dropping ability scores would only exacerbate this problem.

First, ability scores are an awful, awful place to put the idea of customization or RP. Ability scores are so important to the numbers of the game that you set up a horrible dichotomy between playing a competent character and playing a customized character. Role play vs. roll play is a conceptual fiction, the game shouldn't make it a reality by hard wiring it into the rules.

Even beyond that, though, if you have skills and classes and ability scores and levels you are absolutely wasting everyone's time. Ability scores in D&D serve 3 purposes: 1) to provide basic combat statistics, 2) to categorically adjust skills, and 3) to be a role-playing aid (but see above). In a class-and-levels-and-skills game, ability scores are the worst way to achieve those goals.

In a game with both classes and levels, there are plenty of places to get basic combat statistics from, namely, class and level. As a basic chassis, there is no need to make maxing out a relevant ability score yet another requirement to making a capable combatant. You're already fighting the monsters and gaining the XP to level up, your combat competency should be handled by the class-and-level framework, with minor tweaks and customizations from sub-classes or feats or similar things. Adding in a whole new parallel structure to take into consideration adds a huge chance that people will make really sub-optimal choices that bends the mathematical assumptions of the game. Even if it the math isn't "broken" by poor ability management, it's still sloppy design. Classes should just get boosts to combat stats: the Fighter has a +5 to all attacks, the Barbarian has a +3 to attacks which is doubled when wielding a two-handed weapon, the Wizard's spell DCs are set by spell (or spell slot) level and caster level, etc. Feats and sub-classes would flesh these out even more, so each character is relatively unique. There's no need for ability scores, and in fact, they are an unintuitive and clunky way to generate basic stats that creates yet another risk for the new player.

I don't personally believe there is much merit to the idea that skills need to be categorically affected by general competencies, but let's assume that's what you want (because that's what D&D does). First off, a lot of this can be handled just like the combat statistics; your class should just give you some skill bonuses and as you increase in level, so should your skills. That handles the basic math. Really, I think with some personalization through Background and options within class skill lists, you should get all the customization you need right there. But again, you want categorical adjustment. Ability scores are an arbitrary way to do this, and as a lot of arbitrary processes are, it kind of sucks. This one is at least intuitive (unlike the combat consequences), but what works even better are feats: Ability scores are needlessly precise, where a Feat like "Athlete" would just give you that categorical improvement without having to constantly account for it. Using ability scores to do a feat's job is just clunky.

As an RP guide, again, tying it all to important combat and skill modifiers is dangerous, but even beyond that, we are again using the wrong tool. How do you RP 15 Wisdom differently than 16? Would you play a Wizard with 18 Intelligence that much differently than one with 19 or even 20? I wouldn't. The precision of scores doesn't matter. And how do you role-play all the 10s, 11s, 12s, or even 13s? Those are just kind of default, don't you think? Really, we only care about the scores that stand out. As an RP aid, we care if you have abnormally low Charisma or abnormally high Charisma, but what's normal Charisma even supposed to indicate? We don't know, we don't care. Heck, does an 18 Charisma indicate someone who's really friendly and puts you at ease, or so menacing that just his image is intimidating? Those are pretty different, but the score isn't getting us there. So all we really care about are exceptional qualities, and not in a precise amount, just "low" or "high" usually suffices, maybe an extra "super high" category, but we want it to be more specific than vague categorizations. Again, this sounds like we're using ability scores poorly to do a feat's job. Better yet, just make a list of traits and have each character select 3 that apply to them, and RP accordingly. My rogue is "charming, aristocratic, but cowardly," or my Barbarian is "stubborn and intimidating, but not particularly sharp." Since this is just for RP purposes, and because ability scores don't give any more thought to that purpose, you don't even need mechanical incentives, just have three qualities written down on the char sheet to guide. That's both easier and more evocative than rolling up ability scores. If you want to give mechanical bite, make them feats that do give some categorical bonuses/penalties.

tl;dr - Ability scores are the wrong tool for the things they try to achieve. Not only are they unnecessary, but they are clunky and misleading compared to rules frameworks that already exist like class, levels, and feats.


Ok, so let's run with the rogue example. Say you have a gang of thieves, all of them have the "rogue" class. One of them is "Ox," a big dumb wall of muscle who the gang uses as their enforcer.

OK, but that's not a thief's description. He may be a "rogue" in the literary sense, but big dumb muscle = Fighter. Just because the gang goes around stealing things doesn't mean they're all rogues. The group you've described is diverse so as to cover a wide variety of bases in order to pull off a job. That's every adventuring party ever, there's no reason to believe that any gang of thieves is entirely made of Rogues, especially when the sentence after that you tell us that one is a Fighter. I think one disconnect here is our understanding of what a class is: Your class isn't your job, it's the bundle of tools you use to solve problems. If your character concept is "big dumb wall of muscle who the gang uses as their enforcer," you play a Fighter, not a Rogue, even if the gang is going to end up stealing stuff. Class is method, not result.


Another one is "The Brain" a spindly little man who serves as the mastermind behind the group and plans their heists.

OK, because Ox and the Brain use two different approaches to "stealing stuff," they're certainly different classes. But even assuming classes were based on result and not method, I can't see how ability scores would account for this difference.

Is there a "planning" skill? No? How do you intend to use ability scores to even make this character? D&D doesn't have rules for planning, but lets make some up: The ability to plan a heist would come from your ability to gather information, either through social interaction or by professional contacts, and to acquire resources in order to deal with the information you find, whether purchased or hired. Contacts and the ability to pay are probably functions of levels in some kind of "mob boss" sub-class of Rogue or by feat. Other than that it sounds like you use social more than you use smarts. But OK, maybe you actually have to come up with a novel approach to a problem you learn about, so there is some intelligence at work. If you wanted to represent figuring out the answer to a specific obstacle, you use a Knowledge check (or a Dungeoneering check or whatever the relevant Knowledge check happens to be) to see if the DM just gives you the answer. Either way, this just means the Brain has some high social and/or Knowledge skills. How he ends up with a high bonus to Intimidate or Diplomacy is totally immaterial, be it class (or sub-class), level, feat, point-buy, or ability score. But the ability score option is clunky and misleading (see above). How is this not better handled by skills, feats, and class?


How many classes would you propose we have then?

To use a RL example, one of the guys in my gaming group is near seven feet tall and four hundred pounds. He has never in his life trained in combat, nor does he have any experience in combat or an inclination to study it, however were he so inclined he could pick up several of the smaller guys in our group and dribble them like a basketball. How would you model someone like that in your proposed system?

Feat = Huge Stature or something. You get size bonuses to attacks and [these skills]. That's even more specific and evocative than just saying he has a high STR score, since the STR score might account for the abilities, but not the actual size you're trying to model.

[Talakeal]

First, ability scores are an awful, awful place to put the idea of customization or RP. Ability scores are so important to the numbers of the game that you set up a horrible dichotomy between playing a competent character and playing a customized character. Role play vs. roll play is a conceptual fiction, the game shouldn't make it a reality by hard wiring it into the rules.

Even beyond that, though, if you have skills and classes and ability scores and levels you are absolutely wasting everyone's time. Ability scores in D&D serve 3 purposes: 1) to provide basic combat statistics, 2) to categorically adjust skills, and 3) to be a role-playing aid (but see above). In a class-and-levels-and-skills game, ability scores are the worst way to achieve those goals.

In a game with both classes and levels, there are plenty of places to get basic combat statistics from, namely, class and level. As a basic chassis, there is no need to make maxing out a relevant ability score yet another requirement to making a capable combatant. You're already fighting the monsters and gaining the XP to level up, your combat competency should be handled by the class-and-level framework, with minor tweaks and customizations from sub-classes or feats or similar things. Adding in a whole new parallel structure to take into consideration adds a huge chance that people will make really sub-optimal choices that bends the mathematical assumptions of the game. Even if it the math isn't "broken" by poor ability management, it's still sloppy design. Classes should just get boosts to combat stats: the Fighter has a +5 to all attacks, the Barbarian has a +3 to attacks which is doubled when wielding a two-handed weapon, the Wizard's spell DCs are set by spell (or spell slot) level and caster level, etc. Feats and sub-classes would flesh these out even more, so each character is relatively unique. There's no need for ability scores, and in fact, they are an unintuitive and clunky way to generate basic stats that creates yet another risk for the new player.

I don't personally believe there is much merit to the idea that skills need to be categorically affected by general competencies, but let's assume that's what you want (because that's what D&D does). First off, a lot of this can be handled just like the combat statistics; your class should just give you some skill bonuses and as you increase in level, so should your skills. That handles the basic math. Really, I think with some personalization through Background and options within class skill lists, you should get all the customization you need right there. But again, you want categorical adjustment. Ability scores are an arbitrary way to do this, and as a lot of arbitrary processes are, it kind of sucks. This one is at least intuitive (unlike the combat consequences), but what works even better are feats: Ability scores are needlessly precise, where a Feat like "Athlete" would just give you that categorical improvement without having to constantly account for it. Using ability scores to do a feat's job is just clunky.

As an RP guide, again, tying it all to important combat and skill modifiers is dangerous, but even beyond that, we are again using the wrong tool. How do you RP 15 Wisdom differently than 16? Would you play a Wizard with 18 Intelligence that much differently than one with 19 or even 20? I wouldn't. The precision of scores doesn't matter. And how do you role-play all the 10s, 11s, 12s, or even 13s? Those are just kind of default, don't you think? Really, we only care about the scores that stand out. As an RP aid, we care if you have abnormally low Charisma or abnormally high Charisma, but what's normal Charisma even supposed to indicate? We don't know, we don't care. Heck, does an 18 Charisma indicate someone who's really friendly and puts you at ease, or so menacing that just his image is intimidating? Those are pretty different, but the score isn't getting us there. So all we really care about are exceptional qualities, and not in a precise amount, just "low" or "high" usually suffices, maybe an extra "super high" category, but we want it to be more specific than vague categorizations. Again, this sounds like we're using ability scores poorly to do a feat's job. Better yet, just make a list of traits and have each character select 3 that apply to them, and RP accordingly. My rogue is "charming, aristocratic, but cowardly," or my Barbarian is "stubborn and intimidating, but not particularly sharp." Since this is just for RP purposes, and because ability scores don't give any more thought to that purpose, you don't even need mechanical incentives, just have three qualities written down on the char sheet to guide. That's both easier and more evocative than rolling up ability scores. If you want to give mechanical bite, make them feats that do give some categorical bonuses/penalties.

tl;dr - Ability scores are the wrong tool for the things they try to achieve. Not only are they unnecessary, but they are clunky and misleading compared to rules frameworks that already exist like class, levels, and feats.



OK, but that's not a thief's description. He may be a "rogue" in the literary sense, but big dumb muscle = Fighter. Just because the gang goes around stealing things doesn't mean they're all rogues. The group you've described is diverse so as to cover a wide variety of bases in order to pull off a job. That's every adventuring party ever, there's no reason to believe that any gang of thieves is entirely made of Rogues, especially when the sentence after that you tell us that one is a Fighter. I think one disconnect here is our understanding of what a class is: Your class isn't your job, it's the bundle of tools you use to solve problems. If your character concept is "big dumb wall of muscle who the gang uses as their enforcer," you play a Fighter, not a Rogue, even if the gang is going to end up stealing stuff. Class is method, not result.



OK, because Ox and the Brain use two different approaches to "stealing stuff," they're certainly different classes. But even assuming classes were based on result and not method, I can't see how ability scores would account for this difference.

Is there a "planning" skill? No? How do you intend to use ability scores to even make this character? D&D doesn't have rules for planning, but lets make some up: The ability to plan a heist would come from your ability to gather information, either through social interaction or by professional contacts, and to acquire resources in order to deal with the information you find, whether purchased or hired. Contacts and the ability to pay are probably functions of levels in some kind of "mob boss" sub-class of Rogue or by feat. Other than that it sounds like you use social more than you use smarts. But OK, maybe you actually have to come up with a novel approach to a problem you learn about, so there is some intelligence at work. If you wanted to represent figuring out the answer to a specific obstacle, you use a Knowledge check (or a Dungeoneering check or whatever the relevant Knowledge check happens to be) to see if the DM just gives you the answer. Either way, this just means the Brain has some high social and/or Knowledge skills. How he ends up with a high bonus to Intimidate or Diplomacy is totally immaterial, be it class (or sub-class), level, feat, point-buy, or ability score. But the ability score option is clunky and misleading (see above). How is this not better handled by skills, feats, and class?



Feat = Huge Stature or something. You get size bonuses to attacks and [these skills]. That's even more specific and evocative than just saying he has a high STR score, since the STR score might account for the abilities, but not the actual size you're trying to model.

Wow, you put a lot of thought into this, good job.

I don't have time to reply in full right now, but a few quick points:

1: I agree 100% that D&D messed up the ability score system and forces you into cookie cutter builds were you have to put roll-playing and role-playing at cross purposes. I do not agree that this means that it is a useless concept.

2: In my example, Ox is not a fighter, or atleast not what I think of as a fighter. He is not formally trained in weapons or armor, he still sneaks around and goes on heists with the rest of the group, he picks pockets and disarms traps, and when he fights he does so as a coward and bully, preferring to intimidate, cheap shot, or gang up on enemies rather than engaging them in a fair fight. He just happens to be the biggest and strongest thief in the group.

3: Having to take special feats and abilities seems to me to be extremely inelegant and cumbersome. It also makes it a lot harder to tell the difference in degrees. If, for example, Strength is just a trait, how would you distinguish between your standard jock, mr universe, Hercules, and the Incredible Hulk?

4: No, I wouldn't RP a 16 wisdom any different than a 17 wisdom, unless I had two characters who were in a direct contest. But then again, I wouldn't RP a level 16 character any different than a level 17 character, or a character with a +16 diplomacy vs a +17 diplomacy. The problem with this argument is one of scale rather than conceptually, as I would certainly RP a character with a 16 wisdom differently than one with a 7.

[Morty]

edit: As for using ability scores in class-based games... sure they're usable, just don't set them up stupidly like in DnD 4e and so many classes in DnD 3.5. I don't know about 5e, because I haven't read it yet. If you're not forcing people to roll randomly for ability scores, you want to use ability scores to allow players another layer of customization. Savage Worlds, despite not being a class-based system, has a fairly good analogue to ability scores. Sit down and try to make some characters with that game and you'll realize all the attributes are fairly important, but do different enough things to be meaningful.

Certainly, ability scores are just like everything else in that they can be used well or poorly. What we're objecting to is treating them as just another source of numbers. And, of course, we're talking about a system that already has classes, because the author of this thread said their system uses them. In a classless system, it would be a completely different discussion. But even then, the same principle applies - needlessly multiplying sources of numbers is untidy.


How many classes would you propose we have then?

Are you trying to tell me that not treating a smart planner and stupid thug as members of the same class somehow leads to a proliferation of them?


To use a RL example, one of the guys in my gaming group is near seven feet tall and four hundred pounds. He has never in his life trained in combat, nor does he have any experience in combat or an inclination to study it, however were he so inclined he could pick up several of the smaller guys in our group and dribble them like a basketball. How would you model someone like that in your proposed system?

I'd give the non-combatant NPC somewhat better odds if a PC ended up in a contest of strength with him for some reason.


I am not trying to pick a fight with you btw, I am just trying to wrap my head around how such a system would work.

And you're not making it any easier on yourself by clinging to unnecessary assumptions, I'm afraid.



2: In my example, Ox is not a fighter, or atleast not what I think of as a fighter. He is not formally trained in weapons or armor, he still sneaks around and goes on heists with the rest of the group, he picks pockets and disarms traps, and when he fights he does so as a coward and bully, preferring to intimidate, cheap shot, or gang up on enemies rather than engaging them in a fair fight. He just happens to be the biggest and strongest thief in the group.

Well then, why didn't you say so in the first place? Anyway, I'm not sure if I'd give such low-profile thieves class levels, anyway. But it'd really depend on how a given system treats giving NPCs class levels. If I were to give class levels to them, then using my personal pet project as an example, I'd do one of the two things:

1) Give "Ox" a level in the "physical expert" class, as of yet unnamed, and "Brain" a level in the "intellectual expert" class, similarly unnamed.

2) Give them both a level in the same class, but have them pick different talents, feats and skill-tricks.

I say 'level', but I probably wouldn't use them. Still, not that important right now. I do, however, believe in front-loading choices rather than having people wait for several games until they can really customize their character.

Either way, ability scores are quite unnecessary. Now, think about it - if they're both level 1 rogues in 3e D&D, what does it really mean if one has 16 strength but 8 intelligence, and the other has it in reverse? All it does is shift some numbers, which can be received in other ways. If they both start off with identical basic numbers, and Ox takes a class talent related to hitting surprised or helpless people over the head, while Brain takes a talent that helps him plan and use his know-how... we end up with the exact same dynamic, but we remove a layer of complexity.


3: Having to take special feats and abilities seems to me to be extremely inelegant and cumbersome. It also makes it a lot harder to tell the difference in degrees. If, for example, Strength is just a trait, how would you distinguish between your standard jock, mr universe, Hercules, and the Incredible Hulk?

That's a good question. But ability scores aren't the way to do it. If your normal strong person has Strength 16-18 and Heracles has 22... what does it really mean? It means the brawny hero is going to be 3 or 2 points ahead of the strong mortal when rolling for things that involve it. Nothing more. No, a better way to represent epic might of heroes and monsters is to give them ways to inflict this strength on the world that people who aren't so powerful simply don't have.

As to your other point, how is that inelegant? If you want a character who is strong and athletic, you take a proficiency in athletics. Then some abilities that make them better at overpowering others, grappling, lifting, whatever. Again, discrete abilities rather than bean-counting.


4: No, I wouldn't RP a 16 wisdom any different than a 17 wisdom, unless I had two characters who were in a direct contest. But then again, I wouldn't RP a level 16 character any different than a level 17 character, or a character with a +16 diplomacy vs a +17 diplomacy. The problem with this argument is one of scale rather than conceptually, as I would certainly RP a character with a 16 wisdom differently than one with a 7.

Ah, but that's what we've been saying. Differences in natural aptitude are only worth keeping track of if they're notable.

[Zombimode]

A conclusion I've come to recently is that if you're going to use classes, which you said you are, you should ditch ability scores. With there already being classes and, presumably, skill proficiencies, ability scores just add a needless layer of numbers.

Ability scores do provide a tangible element that other rules and abilities can interact with. Ability scores are much closer connected to the reality of the gameworld then classes or levels are. This is beneficial in many cases. Lets say there is a potion that, by a description of what is actually happening in the game world, increases the strength of the drinker. Having that potion actually increase the number labeled "Strength" on your character sheet is both intuitive and elegant design.

Ability scores add a layer of complexity to the game, true. But in the case of D&D 3.5 I feels it is interesting an meaningful complexity. As a random example, there is a monster called Ripper (from Cityscape). It has an aura that imposes a -4 penalty on wisdom on a failed save. Since the creature has other attacks that target will saves, the most obvious use for this ability is to make the Rippers prey more susceptible to its attacks. For this use, the ability might as well just impose a -2 penalty to will saves.
But since its affects the Wis score, the ability is much more interesting and also more powerful. But it is subliminal powerful (reducing Spot and Listen checks, hindering spellcasting, and in some cases even shutting down entire feats or class features), which is the reason why I think it as interesting.

[obryn]

Because ability scores don't actually provide customization, flexibility or role-playing opportunities in a system that already has classes, proficiencies and maybe levels (although while classes have their virtues, levels are just bad). All they add is an illusion of choice, and an additional source of numbers.
My name is obryn, and I support this message.

[Knaight]

Ah, but that's what we've been saying. Differences in natural aptitude are only worth keeping track of if they're notable.

That's not an argument against ability scores, that's an argument against scales quantized such that they have tons of different levels. D&D, in practice, runs about 6-20 for starting characters, which is a 15 level scale. It gets to be more like a 30 level scale by high levels. As such, the differences are comparatively minor. Now take WoD - it has a 5 level scale. Suddenly, the difference between a 3 and a 4 is pretty relevant. Take Fudge, which has a 7 level scale (9, with expanded levels) of which 6 see much use at all. The difference between a 2 and a 1 (Great and Good) is suddenly relevant again.

With that said, I agree that a class-level-skill-feat-attribute-point* system is generally pretty clunky, and something can be trimmed. Rolling attributes into skills/feats is one good option.

*The economic system is basically a secondary point buy system for D&D 3.5

[Jay R]

A conclusion I've come to recently is that if you're going to use classes, which you said you are, you should ditch ability scores. With there already being classes and, presumably, skill proficiencies, ability scores just add a needless layer of numbers.

The scientific approach is observation of the actual universe. Every game with classes that I've ever enjoyed also had ability scores. They have been shown to work well, in popular games that people enjoy.

You're trying to convince us that the most successful role-playing game for all of the last 40 years cannot be successful. It's not working.


Because ability scores don't actually provide customization, flexibility or role-playing opportunities in a system that already has classes, proficiencies and maybe levels (although while classes have their virtues, levels are just bad).

Simply untrue. My thief with high STR and low INT makes a different set of choices, and has a different character, from my Thief with low STR and high INT. My high-DEX Fighter makes different choices from my high-CHA Fighter


All they add is an illusion of choice, and an additional source of numbers. If you're playing a burglar who is skilled at breaking and entering, bypassing dangers and obstacles and, in a pinch, attacking unaware enemies, do you need an extra score on your sheet to tell you he's agile and quick? No. His proficiency in the skills outlined above, whether it's expressed in numbers or discrete abilities, and his belonging into a class like 'thief', 'rogue', 'burglar' or however we call it, both imply it. After all, if you do have ability scores, you're not going to play a thief archetype character who doesn't have high dexterity/agility/whatever - because they won't be good at it if you do. So why not cut out the middleman and just assume a high score? Customization should be left for features that shape the narrative and let characters affect the world around them, not piling up sources of fiddly numbers.

All of this boils down to saying that you only think the prime characteristic matters.

I will agree with you that virtually all characters have a high roll in their prime characteristic. But in the 3.5E game I'm currently playing, my Fighter is very different from the other Fighter, and that difference starts with the ability scores we chose.

[Morty]

Ability scores do provide a tangible element that other rules and abilities can interact with. Ability scores are much closer connected to the reality of the gameworld then classes or levels are. This is beneficial in many cases. Lets say there is a potion that, by a description of what is actually happening in the game world, increases the strength of the drinker. Having that potion actually increase the number labeled "Strength" on your character sheet is both intuitive and elegant design.

Ability scores add a layer of complexity to the game, true. But in the case of D&D 3.5 I feels it is interesting an meaningful complexity. As a random example, there is a monster called Ripper (from Cityscape). It has an aura that imposes a -4 penalty on wisdom on a failed save. Since the creature has other attacks that target will saves, the most obvious use for this ability is to make the Rippers prey more susceptible to its attacks. For this use, the ability might as well just impose a -2 penalty to will saves.
But since its affects the Wis score, the ability is much more interesting and also more powerful. But it is subliminal powerful (reducing Spot and Listen checks, hindering spellcasting, and in some cases even shutting down entire feats or class features), which is the reason why I think it as interesting.

This is a fair point, I suppose. Ability scores do have an advantage of being a short-hand for many different effects. But this a double-edged sword, in that they encompass effects that aren't necessarily related.


That's not an argument against ability scores, that's an argument against scales quantized such that they have tons of different levels. D&D, in practice, runs about 6-20 for starting characters, which is a 15 level scale. It gets to be more like a 30 level scale by high levels. As such, the differences are comparatively minor. Now take WoD - it has a 5 level scale. Suddenly, the difference between a 3 and a 4 is pretty relevant. Take Fudge, which has a 7 level scale (9, with expanded levels) of which 6 see much use at all. The difference between a 2 and a 1 (Great and Good) is suddenly relevant again.

Good point. D&D's ability scores are a mess all around.


With that said, I agree that a class-level-skill-feat-attribute-point* system is generally pretty clunky, and something can be trimmed. Rolling attributes into skills/feats is one good option.

Exactly. It's not so much about ability scores specifically as trimming down unnecessary layers in general.



You're trying to convince us that the most successful role-playing game for all of the last 40 years cannot be successful. It's not working.

I'm doing no such thing. I'm putting forward an idea I realize is unorthodox. I was hoping to do it without attempts at appealing to popularity.


Simply untrue. My thief with high STR and low INT makes a different set of choices, and has a different character, from my Thief with low STR and high INT. My high-DEX Fighter makes different choices from my high-CHA Fighter.

Such as? The biggest impact I can see here are skill modifiers... which are numbers, ergo, it doesn't really matter where they come from. It would be exactly the same if you just picked their skill proficiencies, backgrounds or however we call them with different priorities in mind.


All of this boils down to saying that you only think the prime characteristic matters.

Once again, you're not addressing anything I've said.


I will agree with you that virtually all characters have a high roll in their prime characteristic. But in the 3.5E game I'm currently playing, my Fighter is very different from the other Fighter, and that difference starts with the ability scores we chose.

And ends there. A Fighter who favours Dexterity and one who favours Strength simply picks the source of their combat numbers. So what if we made those numbers consistent for all fighters and let them customize by picking actually different forms of combat?

[obryn]

And ends there. A Fighter who favours Dexterity and one who favours Strength simply picks the source of their combat numbers. So what if we made those numbers consistent for all fighters and let them customize by picking actually different forms of combat?
They will also be good at different kinds of skills (assuming you are using skills/backgrounds). If Diana knows Acrobatics while Eric knows Horsemanship (or whatever), the stats feeding into those are just an extra layer of cruft.

[Stubbazubba]

2: In my example, Ox is not a fighter, or atleast not what I think of as a fighter. He is not formally trained in weapons or armor, he still sneaks around and goes on heists with the rest of the group, he picks pockets and disarms traps, and when he fights he does so as a coward and bully, preferring to intimidate, cheap shot, or gang up on enemies rather than engaging them in a fair fight. He just happens to be the biggest and strongest thief in the group.

OK, that's a little more nuanced. However, simply having a high STR score doesn't give you this result, either: he should have actual abilities that allow him to intimidate, cheap shot, or gang up on enemies better than the other guys. A high STR score is only tangentially related to any of those, and is certainly not required. This concept is not satisfied by simply having a high STR, nor does it even need one (though it might help). The concept requires rules and abilities that leverage the character's strength in specific ways, and that comes from class and the combat rules; at no point is an independent STR score required or even sufficient to make this concept work. It sounds like a good idea for a sub-class of Rogue, and I'd say it's still far from evidencing any place for ability scores in the D&D paradigm.


3: Having to take special feats and abilities seems to me to be extremely inelegant and cumbersome. It also makes it a lot harder to tell the difference in degrees. If, for example, Strength is just a trait, how would you distinguish between your standard jock, mr universe, Hercules, and the Incredible Hulk?

Level and class, entirely. You've got some kind of "Strong Man" class here, and the jock is a low-level Strong Man who has access to few Feats of Strength, while the Incredible Hulk is level 16+ with dozens of Feats of Strength to choose from which all scale based on level, and literally endless Stamina to spam them at-will. The fact that level is the determinant here is obvious; can you imagine a high-level jock who gives the Lich a noogie and throws the Tarrasque in a locker, or a first-level Incredible Hulk who is legitimately challenged by a single Orc warrior or by crossing a 10-ft. chasm? Only by stretching those concepts pretty far. It makes more sense to have them be different power levels within the same class.

Note that there's nothing extra here, no feats to go seek out, just a well-designed class that actually fleshes out a given concept with class features. Consolidating such a straight forward concept as "Strong Man" into an actual class should not be above the ability of any designer I'm paying money to write rules for me. Now if I wanted to make a Pirate Strong Man or a thief Strong Man, that might be what feats or sub-classes are for.


4: No, I wouldn't RP a 16 wisdom any different than a 17 wisdom, unless I had two characters who were in a direct contest. But then again, I wouldn't RP a level 16 character any different than a level 17 character, or a character with a +16 diplomacy vs a +17 diplomacy. The problem with this argument is one of scale rather than conceptually, as I would certainly RP a character with a 16 wisdom differently than one with a 7.

Yeah, and huge disparities are still evident in a trait system. If one character is rather wise and one is exceptionally foolish, those would be traits to pick from. But there won't be "deity of foolishness," "dangerously foolish," "extremely foolish," "embarrassingly foolish," "rather foolish," "of below average wisdom," "of average wisdom," "of higher than average wisdom," "wiser than not," "rather wise," "wiser than many," "exceptionally wise," "wiser than most," "possessing great wisdom," "of supernal wisdom," "exceedingly wise," "wiser than all but a few," "wisdom made flesh," "wisdom itself." Sure, we can agree where most of these go on a spectrum in relation to each other, but that doesn't mean they are meaningful role-playing aids. What's the role-playing difference between exceptionally wise and wiser than most? Or between dangerously and extremely foolish? Do you really RP those two differently? Even if you can make up some one-in-a-million distinction, that level of granularity is simply unnecessary for a role-playing aid. It might be necessary for mechanical purposes, like the difference between a 16th level character and a 17th, or between +16 Diplomacy and +17, but the paragraph where I talk about ability scores as role-playing aids is purely focused on their function as role-playing aids, not as rules inputs. They also happen to be unnecessary and distracting rules inputs, but that was handled by other paragraphs.

Ability scores simply don't have any of the effects you seem to think they do. They're a completely unnecessary and misleading extra layer of math and optimization, while the benefits they bring are better handled by other, better rules constructs.

The exception would be if your base system doesn't have skills. Then ability scores simply function as skills, albeit very broad ones. But then they shouldn't be combat stats, unless your system's combat is really bare bones.


That's not an argument against ability scores, that's an argument against scales quantized such that they have tons of different levels. D&D, in practice, runs about 6-20 for starting characters, which is a 15 level scale. It gets to be more like a 30 level scale by high levels. As such, the differences are comparatively minor.

But it is an argument against ability scores (as implemented) as a useful role-playing aid, because of the issues of scale. This isn't a rebuttal, just pointing out how this conversation relates back to the ability score criticism.

[Anonymouswizard]

On the "ability scores are unnecessary" idea, what do they do that couldn't be replicated with the 3.5 skill system? (The skill system from 4e/5e is tied far more closely to the abilities, so I have less ideas as how to eliminate them there). Assuming we have the same six abilities as D&D, I see the following components to them:
STRENGTH
-Melee weapon accuracy, works as a skill (e.g. GURPS) or it's own characteristic (e.g. Dark Heresy)
-Melee damage, this should be it's own thing.
-Carrying capacity, if used this should be it's own thing.
DEXTERITY
-Ranged weapon accuracy/damage, see strength.
-Armour class, I don't see why this needs influence from an ability.
-Reflex save, which I don't see why this is separate from AC
CONSTITUTION
-Hit Points/level, works fine just with class based progression.
-Fortitude Save, which I don't see why it isn't a "second AC" or endurance skill.
INTELLIGENCE
-Skill points per level, see hit points.
WISDOM
-Will save, see fort and ref.
CHARISMA
-drawing a blank.

So, as a function of class we could have:
-Attack bonus (melee and ranged)
-Damage bonus (melee and ranged)
-Hit Points
-Skill Points
-Fortitude, Reflex and Will defences

You could then have feats which add to skills, increase HP/Fort/Ref/Will, improve attack and damage, and add other options. Give players multiple feats at 1st level for more personalisation.

e.g. if we have four players, who want to play a paladin, an avenger (strong but fragile fighter), a wizard and a bard, you could have them built as:

PALADIN
Warrior (8 HP/lvl, 4 SP/lvl, +4/+2 melee/ranged attack, Fort 14 Ref 14 Will 10, 10 weapon proficiencies)

Feats:
Tough (+2HP/lvl)
Lay on hands
Aura of Courage
Great Charisma (+1 diplomacy and bluff/level)

Flaws:
Code of honour (penalty: loss of powers)

AVENGER
Warrior (8 HP/lvl, 4 SP/lvl, +4/+2 melee/ranged attack, Fort 14 Ref 14 Will 10, 10 weapon proficiencies)

Feats:
Smite
Weapon Focus (+1 damage/lvl)
Freedom of movement
Hunters mark

Flaws:
Fragile (-2HP/lvl)

WIZARD
Spellcaster (4 HP/lvl, 4 SP/lvl, +2/+2 melee/ranged attack, Fort 10 Ref 12 Will 15, 4 weapon proficiencies, 6 spells)

Feats:
Scholar (+1/level to two knowledge skills)
Scribe scroll
Familiar
Sense magic

Flaws:
Socially unaware

BARD
Spellcaster (4 HP/lvl, 4 SP/lvl, +2/+2 melee/ranged attack, Fort 10 Ref 12 Will 15, 4 weapon proficiencies, 6 spells)

Feats:
Jack of all trades (roll untrained skills at -2)
Spontaneous casting
Weapon focus
Inspire

Flaws:
Enemy

Out of these the Paladin is very much a tank and face, the Avenger is mobile and deals high damage, the Wizard is a scholar, and the Bard acts as a buffer and skill monkey.

I really want to try building this system now, probably with classes also having "power" and "magic" stats.

[Exediron]

A conclusion I've come to recently is that if you're going to use classes, which you said you are, you should ditch ability scores. With there already being classes and, presumably, skill proficiencies, ability scores just add a needless layer of numbers.

I completely disagree. Ability scores represent the important distinction of what a character physically is, what they were born as and possibly have physically developed into; classes, feats, skills, etc. represent what they've learned and chosen. If one character is physically weaker than another, everything related to that will come harder; if they're not as smart, they won't learn as quickly, they won't be able to reason as well, etc. To say ability scores are redundant and can always be expressed by skills or feats (or the like) is in my opinion disingenuous and wrong. Maybe they have no effect on how you play a character, but they certainly have an effect on how I do.


Level and class, entirely. You've got some kind of "Strong Man" class here, and the jock is a low-level Strong Man who has access to few Feats of Strength, while the Incredible Hulk is level 16+ with dozens of Feats of Strength to choose from which all scale based on level, and literally endless Stamina to spam them at-will. The fact that level is the determinant here is obvious; can you imagine a high-level jock who gives the Lich a noogie and throws the Tarrasque in a locker, or a first-level Incredible Hulk who is legitimately challenged by a single Orc warrior or by crossing a 10-ft. chasm? Only by stretching those concepts pretty far. It makes more sense to have them be different power levels within the same class.

Note that there's nothing extra here, no feats to go seek out, just a well-designed class that actually fleshes out a given concept with class features. Consolidating such a straight forward concept as "Strong Man" into an actual class should not be above the ability of any designer I'm paying money to write rules for me. Now if I wanted to make a Pirate Strong Man or a thief Strong Man, that might be what feats or sub-classes are for.

So what if you, I don't know, just wanted to be able to distinguish between two wizards - neither of whom focuses on strength - where one of them just happens to be stronger? Force them to take a trait/class/feat just to be able to make a reasonable but not class-based distinction?

[Grinner]

So what if you, I don't know, just wanted to be able to distinguish between two wizards - neither of whom focuses on strength - where one of them just happens to be stronger? Force them to take a trait/class/feat just to be able to make a reasonable but not class-based distinction?

You're really better off not trying to fit the square peg into the round hole. This sort of scenario isn't something a class-based system handles well, period.

[Stubbazubba]

So what if you, I don't know, just wanted to be able to distinguish between two wizards - neither of whom focuses on strength - where one of them just happens to be stronger? Force them to take a trait/class/feat just to be able to make a reasonable but not class-based distinction?

First, why do we need to differentiate two characters based on a third-tier physical characteristic neither of them cares about? That's not a meaningful distinction even with ability scores. You'd distinguish them on their names or their familiars, their homelands, their motivations, their fashion sense, their favorite spells, long before you'd look at which one is slightly less out of shape. I don't distinguish different characters of the same class based on their dump stats, and I don't really think you do, either. At the point that they're so similar except the ordering of their 5th and 6th lowest scores, they just are essentially the same character, with or without ability scores to tell us that. In that case the ability scores don't even differentiate them in any actual way.

If they care enough about their Strength score to put one of their 3rd or 4th highest scores in it, they aren't focusing on it, but they're still putting some resources into it. Without ability scores, you could also do that. I never said all differentiation can be expressed by classes, feats, or traits alone. There's also skills. And that's where I'd handle this example: one has another point or two in Athletics. I do believe you should have some ability to choose which skills to train independent of class. If you wanted to make a rugged adventuring mage who can handle all the obstacle courses of adventuring to save his spells for really important situations, the skill system is already equipped to handle that. No need for redundancy. The other things Strength benefits in D&D - melee attack and damage - could be addressed by a sub-class or a feat. Since you said they're not focused on Strength, and relying on melee attacks and damage in combat would definitely indicate a focus on Strength, then this is a non-issue: if they're really not focused on Strength, they don't care about the melee bump even with ability scores. If they do want that melee bump, they must be at least somewhat focused on Strength, and for that there are subclasses and feats.

Even if all that weren't true, is the ability to differentiate two Wizards on a third-tier characteristic unlikely to ever come into play really worth creating an entire layer of complexity which brings with it so many potential pitfalls? Even if there weren't other existing places where you could differentiate a character that kind of cared about doing Strength-y things, I would still say that ability scores are not the way to go to address that issue. They bring with them way too much fiddliness which confuses and misleads, they increase the difficulty of locking down statistical estimates for the range of a bonus to a given roll, and they become a permanent fixture in optimization that must be planned around. I consider the primary aspects of designing and playing the game simply far more important than the ability to differentiate fairly similar characters. But again, that's just in the absence of all the ways you already can represent that differentiation without needing ability scores.

[Jay R]

I'm doing no such thing. I'm putting forward an idea I realize is unorthodox. I was hoping to do it without attempts at appealing to popularity

Of course you want to avoid appeals to popularity. But the popularity of D&D, Pathfinder and others is a fact. And it argues against your point.

Has anybody ever made a successful game with classes but no ability scores? Ever? Even a small niche game whose small coterie of players are extremely happy with it?


Such as? The biggest impact I can see here are skill modifiers... which are numbers, ergo, it doesn't really matter where they come from.

Speaking as somebody who has done simulation modeling professionally, I strongly disagree with this. If the model is supposed to represent something, realistic or fantastic, the numbers should come from someplace that successfully models the behavior you want to model.


It would be exactly the same if you just picked their skill proficiencies, backgrounds or however we call them with different priorities in mind.

But my experience is that there are clumsy people, who are not very good at any DEX-based skill, and deft people, who can be good at any fine manipulation skill they bother to learn. There are people who do not learn knowledge based skills easily, and people who can pick up any knowledge skill they bother to study. Basic similar skills on a number that represents the ability to learn that sort of skill makes sense.


And ends there. A Fighter who favours Dexterity and one who favours Strength simply picks the source of their combat numbers. So what if we made those numbers consistent for all fighters and let them customize by picking actually different forms of combat?

You misunderstood me. I'll try again. I'm assuming all fighters have a high STR as the source of their combat abilities. But when not fighting, a high-DEX fighter is sneaking or climbing while a high-CHA fighter is talking.

Also, a character who has already learned climbing and tumbling should be the sort of character who can learn tightrope walking easily. That is not as true of the sort of person who had focused on diplomacy, bluffing, and similar skills.

[Stubbazubba]

Of course you want to avoid appeals to popularity. But the popularity of D&D, Pathfinder and others is a fact. And it argues against your point.

Only if his point was "a game that has both classes and ability scores cannot be successful." Which it's not. So the popularity evidence doesn't prove or disprove the thesis that D&D would be better off without them.


If the model is supposed to represent something, realistic or fantastic, the numbers should come from someplace that successfully models the behavior you want to model.

How is having the numbers come from skill or class training a worse model than coming from ability scores, which are trained similarly to skills? It seems like we're just changing what we call the categories, not eliminating them.


But my experience is that there are clumsy people, who are not very good at any DEX-based skill, and deft people, who can be good at any fine manipulation skill they bother to learn. There are people who do not learn knowledge based skills easily, and people who can pick up any knowledge skill they bother to study. Basic similar skills on a number that represents the ability to learn that sort of skill makes sense.

Of course, that is not what ability scores actually do. Only INT changes the rate at which you learn anything. And while people have different inherent aptitudes, we're talking about the development of professional-level skills, where time spent practicing is far more important than talent in the vast majority of cases. Sure there's some simulationist ideal to be sought, but 1) that's not really the kind of game D&D is or is trying to be, and 2) actually implementing ability scores that affected how quickly you could improve proficiencies would be just as much an optimization problem as ability scores as they are. That just adds more layers of bookkeeping which both turns off and potentially misdirects the new player. Even if it is a good simulation of real life (which I'm not convinced it is), it doesn't follow the tropes of fictional characters very well. D&D is much more about stories of adventure than a simulation of any real life experience. The latter is only used to facilitate the former so long as it's convenient.


You misunderstood me. I'll try again. I'm assuming all fighters have a high STR as the source of their combat abilities. But when not fighting, a high-DEX fighter is sneaking or climbing while a high-CHA fighter is talking.

So if you erase the ability scores and make class training the source of your combat abilities, and independent skill training the source of sneaking/climbing or talking, what has really changed?


Also, a character who has already learned climbing and tumbling should be the sort of character who can learn tightrope walking easily. That is not as true of the sort of person who had focused on diplomacy, bluffing, and similar skills.

Sure, but ability scores don't do this, anyway. If my DEX remains +0, my ranks in Climb and Tumble don't help my Acrobatics. It's entirely possible and in fact is frequently the case that a character good at Bluff and Diplomacy suddenly dumps a bunch of skill points into Acrobatics. What you're arguing for is skill synergies, not ability scores.

[Vitruviansquid]

Certainly, ability scores are just like everything else in that they can be used well or poorly. What we're objecting to is treating them as just another source of numbers. And, of course, we're talking about a system that already has classes, because the author of this thread said their system uses them. In a classless system, it would be a completely different discussion. But even then, the same principle applies - needlessly multiplying sources of numbers is untidy.


I can't even conceive of a system, real or hypothetical, that uses ability scores but without treating them "as another source of numbers." Is there an existing example of such a game you can point me toward, or like a hypothetical system you can use as an example?

[Jormengand]

Well, now I know that the central premise of my level/class system (The Ranks (levels) and Associations (classes) are what actually determine how many stat and skill points you get - warriors get more than magi, for example) is something that people object to. See, I did get useful feedback! :smalltongue:

[Morty]

Stubbazubba keeps making my points for me, but I'll throw something in from myself.


I completely disagree. Ability scores represent the important distinction of what a character physically is, what they were born as and possibly have physically developed into; classes, feats, skills, etc. represent what they've learned and chosen. If one character is physically weaker than another, everything related to that will come harder; if they're not as smart, they won't learn as quickly, they won't be able to reason as well, etc. To say ability scores are redundant and can always be expressed by skills or feats (or the like) is in my opinion disingenuous and wrong. Maybe they have no effect on how you play a character, but they certainly have an effect on how I do.

The distinction between an in-born capability and an acquired talent is blurry at best in real life. I don't think any game should concern itself with it overmuch if there's no benefit to the game's quality from doing so.


So what if you, I don't know, just wanted to be able to distinguish between two wizards - neither of whom focuses on strength - where one of them just happens to be stronger? Force them to take a trait/class/feat just to be able to make a reasonable but not class-based distinction?

As has been said multiple times in the discussion, that's what skill proficiencies are for. That is, if the difference in physical strength is important enough to be mechanically represented.


Of course you want to avoid appeals to popularity. But the popularity of D&D, Pathfinder and others is a fact. And it argues against your point.

Has anybody ever made a successful game with classes but no ability scores? Ever? Even a small niche game whose small coterie of players are extremely happy with it?

So an idea needs to have been tried before in order to be eligible for discussion? A curious notion.


But my experience is that there are clumsy people, who are not very good at any DEX-based skill, and deft people, who can be good at any fine manipulation skill they bother to learn. There are people who do not learn knowledge based skills easily, and people who can pick up any knowledge skill they bother to study. Basic similar skills on a number that represents the ability to learn that sort of skill makes sense.

See above for why I don't think the distinction between natural aptitude and acquired skill is one worth enshrining in the rules. If you're good at something, you're good at something - it's up to the player how much of the character's mechanical proficiency in a given task comes from talent and how much from training.


You misunderstood me. I'll try again. I'm assuming all fighters have a high STR as the source of their combat abilities. But when not fighting, a high-DEX fighter is sneaking or climbing while a high-CHA fighter is talking.

In other words, they have different non-combat proficiencies that don't suddenly disappear when we remove ability scores. Maybe they pick different class talents that give them bonuses and advantages to different skills.


Also, a character who has already learned climbing and tumbling should be the sort of character who can learn tightrope walking easily. That is not as true of the sort of person who had focused on diplomacy, bluffing, and similar skills.

That's an argument for broad skill proficiencies and skill synergies - which exist in many systems, not just D&D, also in the form of "skill defaults" like in GURPS. In any edition of D&D that has skills, your ability score isn't going to help you that much if you don't invest in that skill.


I can't even conceive of a system, real or hypothetical, that uses ability scores but without treating them "as another source of numbers." Is there an existing example of such a game you can point me toward, or like a hypothetical system you can use as an example?

GURPS uses its four ability scores as the basis for the target numbers when using skills. The Warhammer RPGs do something similar. They are numerical values, but they're not just another part in a long list of modifiers. In a way, old-school D&D counts as well, since ability scores were used as pre-requisites, or target numbers for ad-hoc rolls - modifiers were an addition.

But I guess I did kind of hijack the thread with this idea, so sorry about that.

[Honest Tiefling]

Well, now I know that the central premise of my level/class system (The Ranks (levels) and Associations (classes) are what actually determine how many stat and skill points you get - warriors get more than magi, for example) is something that people object to. See, I did get useful feedback! :smalltongue:

I'd post it first. Maybe you got a real gem or something that appeals to those willing to use classes. You never know until you show it off! It could also have interesting ideas that can be used with a classless version.

[Jormengand]

I'd post it first. Maybe you got a real gem or something that appeals to those willing to use classes. You never know until you show it off! It could also have interesting ideas that can be used with a classless version.

I don't really want to show it off, partly because I might actually publish it properly rather than just posting it on a forum where about four people will look at it and being done with it.

[Honest Tiefling]

Understandable, actually. Might I ask how you intend to publish it? If you intend to go the blog route, maybe build up a blog for us to take a gander at. I feel that while there are plenty of very good arguments against classes, it is best to actually test the system before scrapping it. I would hate to see an idea never get used without it being considered.

[Vitruviansquid]

GURPS uses its four ability scores as the basis for the target numbers when using skills. The Warhammer RPGs do something similar. They are numerical values, but they're not just another part in a long list of modifiers. In a way, old-school D&D counts as well, since ability scores were used as pre-requisites, or target numbers for ad-hoc rolls - modifiers were an addition.


I feel pretty deflated after reading this, because I thought we were talking about something radical and exciting, like getting rid of ability scores, or turning them into something non-numerical. :smallfrown:

... can't we just say we don't want a game where you bumble over huge lists of modifiers? Isn't that basically the same thing?

[Rfkannen]

Rules for playing an aquatic Crab person.


No but seriusly, some form of race mechanics and aquatic play rules.

[Arbane]

I don't really want to show it off, partly because I might actually publish it properly rather than just posting it on a forum where about four people will look at it and being done with it.

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If they're any good, you'll have cram your ideas down their throats."

[Stubbazubba]

I feel pretty deflated after reading this, because I thought we were talking about something radical and exciting, like getting rid of ability scores, or turning them into something non-numerical. :smallfrown:

I prefer getting rid of ability scores and abilities entirely, myself.


... can't we just say we don't want a game where you bumble over huge lists of modifiers? Isn't that basically the same thing?

Something that no edition of D&D really does well; you must tightly control the number of modifiers that can be applied to a roll. Allowing an ability mod, a skill/BAB mod, as many feat mods as you want, a racial mod, as many equipment mods as you want, as many positional and/or situational mods as you want, as many aid another mods as you want, and as many magical mods as you want creates two huge problems: 1) as a designer, you simply can't predict what sort of baseline numbers are on the party's side for a given power level. 2) as a player, you want to max out whatever it is you're focusing on, and since the sky is pretty much the limit, you will never stop focusing on that one thing for one of several reasons (either you don't know the game well enough to know when you're at "good enough," you know the game well enough to be paranoid about the broken monsters that you'll need insane numbers for, or you're just obsessed with your narrow concept). It creates the Magic Item Christmas Tree effect regardless of how big each mod actually is. That's right, the secret to preventing the MICT is not limiting how powerful each magic item can be, it's limiting how many modifier slots you have to play with in the first place.

This is another thing that getting rid of ability scores helps with; if you put ability mods into skill, class, feat, etc., that's less modifier clutter to worry about.

[Knaight]

But it is an argument against ability scores (as implemented) as a useful role-playing aid, because of the issues of scale. This isn't a rebuttal, just pointing out how this conversation relates back to the ability score criticism.

It's an argument against ability scores as implemented in D&D, sure. Given the numerous other implementations that neatly avoid that issue, the obvious conclusion would be that ability scores aren't the issue, and that it instead is the granularity of the ranking system. This holds true when you look at that granularity elsewhere - do you ever really consider there to be much of a difference between someone with a 65% combat skill in a percentile game and someone with a 67% combat skill? Probably not, as a model with 100 discrete levels (which probably see 60 in common use) is often kind of excessive.

[Dienekes]

This might have been said awhile ago, but if it was I missed it.

If you're doing a medieval fantasy game, I will be most interested if you make your swordsman class or classes actually feel like swordsman.

This is something D&D specifically failed to do in 3.5 and 5e, and I do not have the playtime in 4e to say if it does or doesn't.

But essentially if you find your character saying some version of "I power attack it" every turn then the system has pretty much failed. Combat needs to be fast, fun, deadly, and above all not repetitive. Different types of attacks, and movements, and ways to engage the enemy should understood from the start and only built upon as you level up.

[Rfkannen]

This might have been said awhile ago, but if it was I missed it.

If you're doing a medieval fantasy game, I will be most interested if you make your swordsman class or classes actually feel like swordsman.

This is something D&D specifically failed to do in 3.5 and 5e, and I do not have the playtime in 4e to say if it does or doesn't.

But essentially if you find your character saying some version of "I power attack it" every turn then the system has pretty much failed. Combat needs to be fast, fun, deadly, and above all not repetitive. Different types of attacks, and movements, and ways to engage the enemy should understood from the start and only built upon as you level up.


I completly agree with this being a problem in 3.5 But I don't realy get what your saying with 4 and 5e. I mean the 5e has the battlemaster which can do this fairly well, but I could see your point. However in 4e you had a ton of options, if I member right a fighter pretty much never did a basic attack. I am not saying they did it well but they most certainly did fix your problem.

[Terraoblivion]

This might have been said awhile ago, but if it was I missed it.

If you're doing a medieval fantasy game, I will be most interested if you make your swordsman class or classes actually feel like swordsman.

This is something D&D specifically failed to do in 3.5 and 5e, and I do not have the playtime in 4e to say if it does or doesn't.

But essentially if you find your character saying some version of "I power attack it" every turn then the system has pretty much failed. Combat needs to be fast, fun, deadly, and above all not repetitive. Different types of attacks, and movements, and ways to engage the enemy should understood from the start and only built upon as you level up.

Or you need the narrative flexibility to describe those things. Actually having all those details in the rules would make the system more complex and that's not necessarily what you want. And, of course, even dense, tactically complex systems might not make a major mechanical distinction between throwing somebody's aim off with a clever feint, doing it by intimidating them for a second so they flinch or hitting them really hard so they go numb and can't move as precisely.

[Dienekes]

I completly agree with this being a problem in 3.5 But I don't realy get what your saying with 4 and 5e. I mean the 5e has the battlemaster which can do this fairly well, but I could see your point. However in 4e you had a ton of options, if I member right a fighter pretty much never did a basic attack. I am not saying they did it well but they most certainly did fix your problem.

Unless I read it wrong, 5e gets it's first cool ability at level 3 or something, and gets only a handful from a very small list, many of which aren't particularly good, and they only get about 5 uses per rest which may be passed out like candy or never happen depending on a GM. If they do rarely happen, you are guaranteed to get exactly 1 each combat at high levels. That's not what I'm talking about.

And even if I was, that is 1 subclass of 1 class that is supposed to fight. The rogue, barbarian, even the ranger are pretty limited in how they can engage an enemy. Or if they do give some cool benefits, they are given by granting the classes magic abilities. Which again, is not what I am looking for.

Saying "I attack" at all is pretty dull. Where and how and why is interesting. Don't put silly limits on when you can and can't do a cool thing, or if you do, make the limits easy to beat.

My point with 4e was, I've never played it and it has been years since I even looked at the rules. I don't have the know how to talk about it all that much.


Or you need the narrative flexibility to describe those things. Actually having all those details in the rules would make the system more complex and that's not necessarily what you want. And, of course, even dense, tactically complex systems might not make a major mechanical distinction between throwing somebody's aim off with a clever feint, doing it by intimidating them for a second so they flinch or hitting them really hard so they go numb and can't move as precisely.

Ehh, Riddle of Steel managed to handle it fairly well and not all that complex.

Ok, a lot more complex than D&D fighters, but not nearly as much as D&D spell casters that's for certain.

Personally, I like a crunchy system with the rules laid out for you. With wiggle room, of course, but on a whole it should lay out what your foundation of gameplay is.

That said, having the option:
Distraction: Roll against the target's Will Save to see if they are distracted giving them a disadvantage on their next d20 roll made before the end of their next turn. Normally this is done through the Intimidate, or Bluff skill, or an attack roll that deals no damage. There are other possibilities for distraction, allowed on a case by case basis by the GM so long as it makes sense.

Right out of the bat would be fine by me. Though personally, I start by looking for: parries, feints, lunges, sidesteps, attacking specific parts of the body, pinning weapons, and so on. Not that a game needs to have all of that, but it certainly helps.

[Vitruviansquid]

IMO most ordinary "combat maneuvers" like feinting, parrying, throwing dust in the other guy's eyes, and such don't need to be modeled explicitly in an RPG system. They all fall under the normal stats/attributes/skills/whatevers that govern combat in most games.

That said, "whack him repeatedly and see how much hp you take off each round" isn't usually a terrific way to model melee combat unless you want to just have one melee class who dominates that mechanic.

BTW, Dienekes, 4e does a spectacular job of making martial classes feel like you're playing an actual heroic swordsman if you were curious.

[Grinner]

Or you need the narrative flexibility to describe those things. Actually having all those details in the rules would make the system more complex and that's not necessarily what you want. And, of course, even dense, tactically complex systems might not make a major mechanical distinction between throwing somebody's aim off with a clever feint, doing it by intimidating them for a second so they flinch or hitting them really hard so they go numb and can't move as precisely.

You should talk to Galloglaich (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?47487-Galloglaich&tab=aboutme#aboutme) about his Codex Martialis sourcebook, sometime. It's really clever.

[Dienekes]

IMO most ordinary "combat maneuvers" like feinting, parrying, throwing dust in the other guy's eyes, and such don't need to be modeled explicitly in an RPG system. They all fall under the normal stats/attributes/skills/whatevers that govern combat in most games.

That said, "whack him repeatedly and see how much hp you take off each round" isn't usually a terrific way to model melee combat unless you want to just have one melee class who dominates that mechanic.

BTW, Dienekes, 4e does a spectacular job of making martial classes feel like you're playing an actual heroic swordsman if you were curious.

You see, I think that making all of those maneuvers modeled just by the base numbers is what leads to the whack repeatedly model of combat. That stuff is the meat of things, that's what makes a swordsman feel like a swordsman. Sure, some wizard could get smacked about, but a warrior has a chance to completely parry the attack, or feint the opponent to get an easier attack, and throwing dust in your opponents eyes is a great method of distraction otherwise completely unmodeled.

If you force that part into the base numbers, what exactly is there left except whack them until they fall down?

[Vitruviansquid]

Whoops. I wrote that rather poorly.

What I mean is, there is a threshold at which a maneuver should be considered too pedestrian to be made a special combat action. For example, parrying. My understanding of combat with hand to hand weapons is that parrying is going to happen. Everybody does it (or tries to), and you would actually be more surprised to find a trained swordsman who doesn't parry than one who does. However, when you turn parrying into an action you declare instead of assuming occurs naturally, you're actually saying that parrying does not happen unless someone declares it, and it could get quite silly if parrying is not really a viable choice in most rounds. For a great example of how silly this gets, you can look at Savage Worlds. In that game, when you attack from melee or range, you can make a "called shot" at the head, legs, or arms of an opponent for an additional effect at the cost of some accuracy. If a called shot is not made, it is assumed you hit the torso. Therefore, since called shots are not always needed and are usually not the best option, you end up with entire campaigns where the only hits that are ever made are made on the torso. Silly, isn't that?

Now, there is a *threshold* for the uniqueness of the maneuver. If you have something like a secret punch passed down through generations of monks at your kung fu temple, that perhaps shouldn't be folded into normal combat stats.

edit: let me nip this one in the bud. I don't mean the monks are getting pregnant and producing their own generations. I mean the temple's been around for a long time.

[Grinner]

What I mean is, there is a threshold at which a maneuver should be considered too pedestrian to be made a special combat action. For example, parrying. My understanding of combat with hand to hand weapons is that parrying is going to happen. Everybody does it (or tries to), and you would actually be more surprised to find a trained swordsman who doesn't parry than one who does. However, when you turn parrying into an action you declare instead of assuming occurs naturally, you're actually saying that parrying does not happen unless someone declares it, and it could get quite silly if parrying is not really a viable choice in most rounds. For a great example of how silly this gets, you can look at Savage Worlds. In that game, when you attack from melee or range, you can make a "called shot" at the head, legs, or arms of an opponent for an additional effect at the cost of some accuracy. If a called shot is not made, it is assumed you hit the torso. Therefore, since called shots are not always needed and are usually not the best option, you end up with entire campaigns where the only hits that are ever made are made on the torso. Silly, isn't that?

"I think it's important to find a way to drive home the tactical complexity and decision-making of a swordfight while minimizing any boring or fiddly parts in the resolution mechanic. Also, every option should have some kind of practical tactical utility."

[Vitruviansquid]

Um... Did you have some kind of problem with the way I worded those thoughts? e_e

[Grinner]

Um... Did you have some kind of problem with the way I worded those thoughts? e_e

No, I just thought it was a little verbose. :smallsmile:

[Vitruviansquid]

Well thanks for making it vague?

[Morty]

I feel pretty deflated after reading this, because I thought we were talking about something radical and exciting, like getting rid of ability scores, or turning them into something non-numerical. :smallfrown:

... can't we just say we don't want a game where you bumble over huge lists of modifiers? Isn't that basically the same thing?

We are talking about it. I'm fully in favour of completely getting rid of them, if possible. The thing here is, we're not talking about removing ability scores for its own sake - we're talking about removing them where they're redundant. In GURPS or Warhammer RPGs, they're not redundant, because they serve as the basis for your character's rolls.


I completly agree with this being a problem in 3.5 But I don't realy get what your saying with 4 and 5e. I mean the 5e has the battlemaster which can do this fairly well, but I could see your point. However in 4e you had a ton of options, if I member right a fighter pretty much never did a basic attack. I am not saying they did it well but they most certainly did fix your problem.

5e warriors are as hilariously inept as they always have been. Battlemasters have a bone thrown to them in the form of a hacked-up version of the promising expertise dice mechanic. But in general, it's still about rolling to hit and damage until someone falls over. It boils down to the fact that characters which primarily interact with the awful HP/AC model simply can't be anything but dull. 4e... makes some strides to change that, but it's still tied to some of the same unfortunate albatrosses - it still takes way too long to kill serious opponents and you run out of dailies and encounter powers quickly.

[Grinner]

Well thanks for making it vague?

Actually, I thought it was an extremely salient point, both to subject at hand and, when abstracted, game design as a whole. However, a perhaps overly long post in a thread already brimming with overly long posts stands to be lost in the crowd, regardless of however relevant it may be.

If you disagree, well, there's not a lot that can be said there, but I hope that you would still understand the intention of drawing attention to your post via summarization.

[Dienekes]

Whoops. I wrote that rather poorly.

What I mean is, there is a threshold at which a maneuver should be considered too pedestrian to be made a special combat action. For example, parrying. My understanding of combat with hand to hand weapons is that parrying is going to happen. Everybody does it (or tries to), and you would actually be more surprised to find a trained swordsman who doesn't parry than one who does. However, when you turn parrying into an action you declare instead of assuming occurs naturally, you're actually saying that parrying does not happen unless someone declares it, and it could get quite silly if parrying is not really a viable choice in most rounds. For a great example of how silly this gets, you can look at Savage Worlds. In that game, when you attack from melee or range, you can make a "called shot" at the head, legs, or arms of an opponent for an additional effect at the cost of some accuracy. If a called shot is not made, it is assumed you hit the torso. Therefore, since called shots are not always needed and are usually not the best option, you end up with entire campaigns where the only hits that are ever made are made on the torso. Silly, isn't that?

Now, there is a *threshold* for the uniqueness of the maneuver. If you have something like a secret punch passed down through generations of monks at your kung fu temple, that perhaps shouldn't be folded into normal combat stats.

edit: let me nip this one in the bud. I don't mean the monks are getting pregnant and producing their own generations. I mean the temple's been around for a long time.

And I wholeheartedly disagree. Complexity is where the fun is, though there are admittedly diminishing returns. And if I want to play a swordsman I want to feel like a swordsman. Not just one who knows super secret technique number 7. And just because one system did it bad doesn't mean te concept is terrible. I would again point to Riddle of Steel, there aren't any super secret techniques and the combat is fun and fast. To a lesser extent, FantasyCraft pulls this off as well. Where different tricks help create an interesting dynamic mostly of things you can reasonably do in combat without any need of secret teachings.

Honestly, when I think of this level of abstraction I just think. What would players who enjoy mages react if for most levels they had only this ability:

Cast spell: target takes 2d6+int damage.

[Vitruviansquid]

And I wholeheartedly disagree. Complexity is where the fun is, though there are admittedly diminishing returns. And if I want to play a swordsman I want to feel like a swordsman. Not just one who knows super secret technique number 7. And just because one system did it bad doesn't mean te concept is terrible. I would again point to Riddle of Steel, there aren't any super secret techniques and the combat is fun and fast. To a lesser extent, FantasyCraft pulls this off as well. Where different tricks help create an interesting dynamic mostly of things you can reasonably do in combat without any need of secret teachings.

Honestly, when I think of this level of abstraction I just think. What would players who enjoy mages react if for most levels they had only this ability:

Cast spell: target takes 2d6+int damage.

I just read the maneuvers in Riddle of Steel, and I feel like we actually agree, we're just stating it in different ways. It looks like the maneuvers are largely used based on the situation, and there's actually no such thing as a "melee basic attack," so you don't get that silly situation of nobody ever executing a parry in a fight. It also looks like you'd want to avoid using maneuvers you weren't specialized in, so you end up having a suite of maneuvers that's not good for everyone. If those the case, that system's pretty solid.

Can't find anything on FantasyCraft, though.

[Jay R]

I agree with your approach to modeling. We disagree about certain aspects of how people fight, and that leads to different conclusions.


What I mean is, there is a threshold at which a maneuver should be considered too pedestrian to be made a special combat action. For example, parrying. My understanding of combat with hand to hand weapons is that parrying is going to happen. Everybody does it (or tries to), and you would actually be more surprised to find a trained swordsman who doesn't parry than one who does.

That's true, but there is still a huge tactical difference between attacking first (while parrying any return shot), and standing ready to parry-riposte. (A riposte is a return shot immediately after a parry.)

In short, you are correct that actions that aren't choices (such as automatic parries) shouldn't be modeled as choices. But deciding to wait for your opponent's attack with a focused parry is an actual choice fencers make, so it should be modeled as a choice.

Flashing Blades had an excellent system for this. You could declare a Parry as an action, and if you succeeded, it gave you a free action. If you hadn't declared it, you still had a reaction parry at -6. In either case, if you succeeded in the parry, you got an immediate Counter. My FB character would often start the fight with the combo Parry / Counter. But if both fighters do this, for the first round, nothing happens. (This also correctly models how some fights go.)


However, when you turn parrying into an action you declare instead of assuming occurs naturally, you're actually saying that parrying does not happen unless someone declares it, and it could get quite silly if parrying is not really a viable choice in most rounds.

Not quite. You are making the distinction between an automatic parry and choosing to focus on it. The distinction is real, and all fencers know it.


For a great example of how silly this gets, you can look at Savage Worlds. In that game, when you attack from melee or range, you can make a "called shot" at the head, legs, or arms of an opponent for an additional effect at the cost of some accuracy. If a called shot is not made, it is assumed you hit the torso. Therefore, since called shots are not always needed and are usually not the best option, you end up with entire campaigns where the only hits that are ever made are made on the torso. Silly, isn't that?

Yes, but the silly part is that a shot that wasn't called always hits the same place. Sometimes I'm actually aiming for his hand, or his foot. That's a called shot. Other times, I have no set plan, and if the hand, or foot, or head, or chest, looks open, I take it instantly. They are different approaches, and both occur in fencing bouts.


Now, there is a *threshold* for the uniqueness of the maneuver. If you have something like a secret punch passed down through generations of monks at your kung fu temple, that perhaps shouldn't be folded into normal combat stats.

The determining factor is whether it is a meaningful tactical decision. It has nothing to do with whether 50 monks or 50 million soldiers know the maneuver; if modeling the choice of that maneuver adds to the accuracy and/or interest of the tactical simulation, then the choice should be modeled as a choice.

[Talakeal]

I'd give the non-combatant NPC somewhat better odds if a PC ended up in a contest of strength with him for some reason.


Why do you assume that because someone isn't a trained combatant that they will never be in combat, cannot be a PC, and would have only a marginal advantage if any in a physical contest against someone who is literally half their size?

[D-naras]

Why do you assume that because someone isn't a trained combatant that they will never be in combat, cannot be a PC, and would have only a marginal advantage if any in a physical contest against someone who is literally half their size?

Because RPGs are games which have a certain atmosphere, goal and purpose. Making every average Joe a bundle of stats makes it harder for the GM to run it without offering much in return.

[Morty]

Why do you assume that because someone isn't a trained combatant that they will never be in combat, cannot be a PC, and would have only a marginal advantage if any in a physical contest against someone who is literally half their size?

I don't? :smallconfused:

[Talakeal]

Because RPGs are games which have a certain atmosphere, goal and purpose. Making every average Joe a bundle of stats makes it harder for the GM to run it without offering much in return.

Again, I am talking about PCs here. Why should it be impossible to run a game where the players are a group of Average Joes" or all members of the same class without having identical capabilities?

Although, for NPCs wouldnt it be a lot easier for the Dm to use attribute scores than needing to take all sorts of feats and specialized classes to achieve the same effect?


I don't? :smallconfused:

I must have misunderstood you then. I was describing real people who were twice the size of other real people despite being members of the same "class" and asking how you would represent the difference without attributes, to which I thought you replied by saying you would make them non combat NPCs.