Words from a grognard

Tag: #attributes

More about characteristics

As mentioned previously, I’m working on decreasing the prevalence of bonuses from characteristics accruing to actions across the board–I don’t want a bonus for dexterity, for example, to apply to everything that involves movement of any sort. I want discrete bonuses that apply in specific situations. A character that is notably stronger than most will thus have a variety of discrete bonuses instead of simply adding +3 to everything involving strength.

What does that look like? At this point, it involves lists of abilities–likely to be called feats–that are attached to each of the characteristics. A list of strength feats, a list of dex feats, and so on. During chargen, when rolling for characteristics, a “high” roll would then result in the character being capable of more feats associated with that characteristic. A strong PC would have list of activities with which they have a bonus, say, lifting portculli, hanging from ledges, pushing boulders, forcing doors, and carrying capacity.

This removes a high roll from wandering into superhero territory due to the granularity of the system mechanics, while providing a sense of superior ability in general. A strong character isn’t going to be extraordinary with every measure/usage of strength, yet will be more capable in general terms when using strength. This all ties back into the notion that player skill is important and bonuses on the character sheet shouldn’t outweigh it.

The question I’m wrangling now is how exactly to structure this. Obviously, a simple 3d6 roll isn’t going to provide much detail in way of how many feats are warranted, except in a very crude way. I’d like a bit more nuance, I guess, so am looking at using a different approach to rolling in chargen. A 2d6x6 grid might provide enough options to handle it. I plan on using 2D6^2 grids in the system, already, so might end up with one of those, instead–that should certainly provide enough nuance!

That wouldn’t bother me, certainly. I already planned to use a smaller scale range for characteristics, dropping the worst ratings as unbefitting competent heroes who have the confidence to venture into the dangers of the wilds. I planned a range of 6 -16 in 3d6 terms, with modifiers of -1 to +3. (Players could garner a bonus point to assign to one characteristic, meaning the top end would be a rating of 17, with a +3.) If I use a table allowing for more grades of capability, then PCs could end up with bonuses on a handful of discrete abilities, say one to six or seven such. The bonus for each ability could then be +1 to +3 or equivalent. I may put up a sample of such a table when I get one sketched out that I think is worth playtesting.

I’ll also have to decide whether what feats accrue is based on RNG or player choice. I’m leaning toward player choice, just to allow customization at a low level. There’s not much choice in character development by level, so providing a bit of choice at the outset can help establish a sense of how the character will play.

A bit more on attributes

I’m still conflicted on attribute bonuses and effects.

On the one hand, I want a reasonable simulation wherein higher attributes gain bonuses and the PC can mechanically do something extra or something extra well. This makes having attributes useful and differentiating character abilities, which makes the tools players have available via characters different in one more regard.

On the other hand, I want players to not get bonuses on a whole slew of abilities/actions in play. I can think of systems where I’d find that just peachy; the flavors I’m going for with the current projects are not where that would be fine.

The question then remains “How do attribute modifiers appear in the rules?”

I’m now looking at all the ways attributes affect mechanics. Saving throws, damage bonuses, defensive bonuses, accuracy bonuses, reaction modifiers, yadayadayada. I think that allowing the attribute bonuses to affect some of the possible mechanics–player choice?–and not all of the mechanics and abilities tied to the attributes may be the way to go.

So, a PC with a high strength isn’t going to get a bonus for opening doors AND bending bars AND inflicting weapon damage AND carrying copious amounts of treasure AND a bonus to a saving throw AND…you get the point. That notable strength bonus might only apply to part of the list.

Another thought is to use the bonus in discrete units; eg., a +3 bonus can appear as a +1 on one thing and a +2 on another. I find this line of thought really interesting, as I could expand the range of bonus ratings available and still have no single bonus outlandishly powerful. A player could roll a character with a +5 Strength, for instance, and that would appear as bonuses to three different abilities associated with strength. I find that quite an attractive option, though I’ve not played with it in my head long enough to be fully confident in its desirability.

I’m trying to keep my balance on the line of designing in enough customization of a PC to be helpful in differentiating characters via more than just loadout and characterization (for those folks who enjoy that sort of thing) and keeping power bloat under control from the outset of play. There’s a small range of bonus ratings that clearly fit what I want to see, so finding a nice way to expand that range without moving into superheroics is tricky.

Classes, templates, & packages–oh, my!

I see a component of classic games involving supporting the simulation aspect of play–that characters are part of a setting and their capabilities correspond to those reasonably found in the setting. The setting has people trained to fight, for instance, because such roles are essential in some fashion. Furthermore, as most of the roles to be assumed in the setting involve a good deal of training to fulfill, there’s not a lot of crossover training to be had. (Medieval fantasy settings lack community colleges, ya know, so bopping on down to the school to get a semester of classes for a different role doesn’t happen.) Thus, it’s reasonable, in most instances, to not have super-sneaky, magic-wielding, fighting superstars as characters. (Sorry, munchkin.)

The structures of classes address that issue. (And then the idea of multi-classing dumps it on its head.) Templates, which are guides for beginning characters that allow for freer development later, do the same sort of work. Even the use of skill packages help establish PC capabilities with clear boundaries at the outset, then allowing for freer development after.

The approach I’m taking with my hack of D&D is that of having a base of shared skills & abilities for characters of each type, then building sub-classes by adding different abilities. All the fighters, for example, share a core group of abilities, then are differentiated into sub-classes by added abilities. Some are mounted warriors, others skirmishers, and so on. Thievish characters can be burglars or tomb robbers or thugs. This approach ends up mimicking the original rules, though with slightly different outcomes; a fighter subclass that has a lot of non-fighting abilities won’t be as capable at fighting as a subclass that focuses on fighting, in contrast to the paladin, for example.

I know of games that don’t use classes, per se, and yet still provide a measure of specialization through the use of skill packages; Powers & Perils comes to mind. A package is simply a group of skills that would be typically possessed by somebody in the setting who works as a(n) “xxx.” A jeweler would have a group skills that are common to jewelers and take the jeweler package. A soldier would have the package of skills that are common to soldiers. In this fashion, the roles of PCs are set out despite character creation being a point-buy system and nominally free-form. The packages usually offer a discounted point cost to encourage coherent character creation.

Hacking away: Thoughts on attributes

I’ve been thinking of a hack for a long while, now, due in large part to mental health issues. I’ve written thoughts down elsewhere that I’m now posting here to bring everything together. Hacking involves evaluating each part of a system and adjusting it to a new vision, so I’ll be posting bits and pieces as I get to them.

The original rules version specified a few uses for each of the characteristics and then the ratings were used only for roleplaying guides and fictional choices beyond those specific uses. The B/X system uses this same sort of approach. The primary benefit of extraordinary ratings isn’t so much to affect mechanisms in play, rather to provide extra experience toward character development. That’s to show that the more talented PCs have an easier time advancing–the strongest fighters have it easier than those of average strength, the better-coordinated advance as thieves easier than average prospects, and so forth. The approach means that the players have much to do with deciding which fighter PC is more effective when levels are equal, while the character traits define how easy it is to level up.

AD&D is the edition where more differentiation in play begins to be supported. (Some would say this edition is when the power creep that leads to superhero fantasy actually began; HD sizes also got boosted for most PCs.) The +3 maximum bonus for a characteristic rating found in ODD was replaced, with greater bonuses possible (+4 in most regards and a +6 damage bonus for the highest STR rating). The system also provides bonus xp for high ratings, so the PCs with those ratings progress more quickly up the ranks, in addition to getting bonuses for activities in play situations. This is, in effect, a doubling of benefits for high ratings.

So, do I want extraordinary ratings to provide a single type of bonus or two kinds of bonus? If only one type, do I want that to be in long-term development or in situational play?

I think the key to answering such a question requires that I look to the experience of play that I want the system to support. How much support do I want to offer to character differentiation via mechanics as opposed to player choices in play? Do I want better characteristics to provide more benefit in play or player choice to offer more benefit–the latter looking to player skill to provide the difference?

I tend to prefer player skill/choices to make for memorable PCs. I also think a baseline of simulation is necessary for a good game experience, so stronger characters should prove stronger in play mechanically and that long-term development alone based on high STR as a fighter doesn’t really meet that preference. I then have to look at how to use high stats mechanically to provide suitable simulation while still maintaining support of player skill in playing. As the full measure of a character isn’t confined to a primary characteristic, then I can rely on other factors to help in supporting differences in player skill.

Well, how much of a bonus should be possible, then mechanically speaking? As I’m looking to nip in the bud the power creep that starts in AD&D and builds in later editions, I certainly don’t want to be too generous; I’d rather error in way of too little than too much. Playtesting can determine if added benefit should accrue.

At this point, a maximum bonus of +3 for an extraordinary rating is what I figure will be appropriate. I might convince myself that a +4 will work better, though I’m leery of that, as of now.

© 2025 OSRPGtalk

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑