Sometimes, I like to post on this blog in a fashion that is more along the lines of thinking-out-loud than having a coherent message or purpose. This is one of those occasions.
You may recall that long ago, when dinosaurs ruled the earth, The Simpsons was funny, and nobody had yet heard of Baby Shark, there was a thing called d20 Modern. It was not, I think, a great success - I played in a few games of it, but the marriage of D&D mechanics and modern/cyberpunk/superhero aesthetic didn't quite work. Hit points, which are ok in the context of a fantasy game, feel odd in a setting with guns, and I thought the way it handled wealth was plainly and simply loathsome badwrongfun. It certainly felt like a step backwards from, say, Cyberpunk 2020, which itself at that point was already very old and outmoded.
But there was something that was interesting in the system, which was the idea of character class deriving directly from attributes. Those who played the game more extensively than me may remember this better, but the system was predicated on the existence not of fighters, thieves, or what have you, but Strong heroes, Intelligent heroes, Wise heroes, Charismatic heroes, and so on. The idea here I think was that it was less hide-bound. Instead of being tied to particular roles (a hit man, a scientist, a burglar, or whatever) you had freer rein: in a game set in the modern developed world, as an Intelligent hero you could be a scientist, or a computer programmer, or a businessperson, or even a hit-man for that matter depending on how you shaped the character; as a Tough hero you could be an MMA fighter, an endurance runner, or a scuba diver; etc. By defining roles very broadly, you gave the players room to get creative.
I am not sure if this would have any usefulness being directly translated into old school D&D. 'Fighter', 'Magic-User', 'Cleric', etc., are already loose enough concepts; D&D players have no problem with the idea that a 'Cleric' could look like a Knight Templar, Van Helsing, a Tengri shaman or a Zulu witch doctor and still be mechanically the same, or that a 'Fighter' could be a viking, samurai, conquistador or Sioux warrior or something else entirely. However, there is something interesting about making attributes more salient and more choice-bearing than simply being prime requisites that define what class you are.
Consider: imagine that instead of just picking a class (Fighter, Magic-User, Cleric, Dwarf, etc.) players also picked a prime requisite that had a mechanical consequence. So instead of just being a Fighter, you would be a Strong Fighter, an Intelligent Fighter, a Quick Fighter, and so on; instead of just being a Dwarf, you would be a Charismatic Dwarf, a Wise Dwarf, a Tough Dwarf; instead of just being a Magic-User you would be a Quick one or a Tough one; you get the drift.
This would have an aesthetic impact, obviously, and would help add flavour to a character, even setting aside mechanical considerations. What does a Quick Dwarf look like? What about a Wise Fighter, or a Tough Elf? But the option to assign a highest score to a suboptimal attribute exists already, and most players already tend to visualise their PCs in accordance with whatever their stats are. The question is whether it coul be made to have an impact on the actual game itself without doing too much violence to the way old school D&D is played.
One way of doing this might just be to free up prime requisites and separate them from class, so that any class could be given any prime requisite. Consider: you roll up a character, Simon the Sorcerer, and you parcel out his attributes as follows:
STR 9, INT 13, WIS 8, DEX 11, CHA 6, CON 16
You want him to be a Magic-User, but his highest stat is CON, so you make him a Tough Magic-User with CON as his prime requisite. Because his prime requisite is 16, he gets the 5% XP bonus (or whatever it is for the ruleset you are using). He also gets the relevant bonus to his hit points each time he levels up. Now, would this affect how he is played? Would you, consciously or subconsciously, steer him towards situations in which having a higher CON mattered? At the margins, it might make you less risk-averse than you would be playing a 'regular' Magic-User?
Consider: you roll up a different character. Pippy Longstockings, and you parcel out her attributes as:
STR 10, INT 9, WIS 17, DEX 12, CHA 10, CON 7
You decide she is going to be a Wise Thief. She, again, gets the XP bonus from a high attribute, and also perhaps magical resistance and better saving throws depending on the ruleset. Whether this would affect how she is played I am not sure - it probably would change how you would evisage her during play, which may itself have a certain impact on things.
I'm not sure whether this tweak would make a huge amount of difference to the price of tea in China. You may have your own views. But it certainly would at least add some variety. I did warn you I was thinking out loud. What did you want, coherence?
Isn't Pippi Longstocking's characteristic trait that she's unreasonably strong, not just for a little girl but for a human being?
ReplyDeleteStop asking awkward questions! ;)
DeleteYou better believe it! https://www.reddit.com/r/3d6/comments/157k6o5/how_would_you_build_a_character_inspired_by_pippi/
DeleteNot quite the same, but perhaps close to parallel: in the Whitehack rules I use, a PC's contours are determined by their class (restricted, mechanical) and their vocation (open-ended). A class describes how one engages with the world, and the vocation describes their skills and knowledge. Combining them can produce unusual combinations that change how they work in play.
ReplyDeleteQuick example: soldier as vocation. The default is the Strong class (combat-focused mechanics), essentially a standard Fighter. But you could also imagine them with the Deft class (broad skills focus), being less effective as infantry but capable in logistics, planning, repairs, etc. And it's not too much of a stretch to imagine a Wise class (magic-user), whose brilliance is not in swordplay but as a tactician and leader, whose magic bolsters and protects the others under their command.
Or to pull an example from the rules, a wizard. A Wise wizard is obvious: magic-user, no twist. But what about a Deft wizard? No ability to cast spells alone, but trained and skilled with scrolls, magic items, and the knowledge to handle the endless magical dangers of the dungeon.
When rolling 3d6 in order, it allows the players to adapt any set of attributes into a playable character. Does benefit those willing to bring a dash of creativity to playing the Charismatic Dwarf they just rolled up.
Nice way to do it and yes, close to parallel.
DeleteFor 5e and related systems, like Shadowdark, where you have a stat modifier that figures in all kinds of things, I started giving everyone a "Mastery" stat that was used for all your core class stuff (casting for wizards, hitting for fighters) to free up people to have more varied stats without worrying about their core competency. It was inspired by B/X and similar, where your attack, casting, etc advancement was almost entirely class-based.
ReplyDeleteGood idea. I'm interested in initiatives to make 5e more OSRish.
DeleteI completely disregard Prime Req stats in my games, but now I’m thinking about how to put them back in. I had tinkered with a BX hack that makes each stat useful in some way for anyone (along the lines of Knave), without pushing the average power up too much (à la ADnD). For example, I had INT bonus modify the search roll. This means that very Smart fighter, while not as deadly as a Strong one, has a niche for taking the lead and not blundering into traps (as often). And, sure, you can have the extra languages as well.
ReplyDeleteI’m also curious about the diegetic implications of the order in which players choose/roll class, race, stats. 3d6 DTL then choose class suggests that stats are innate, but people have the freedom to choose their class/profession and consequently tend to choose classes that they will excel at, which is a very modern perspective. On the other hand there is first choosing the class that you (the player) want to play, then roll stats and arrange to fit. This gives a heroic, Chosen One vibe—of course you’re special and destined to save the day!
Which made me consider the case where players chose their class first, then roll stats DTL and don’t rearrange. This suggests a more medieval world where your role in society is determined by your (social) class and you don’t get much say about it, thank you very much. Born into a wizarding family? Well, you’re a wizard. If you want to wave a pointy stick around in your free time, that’s fine, except you don’t have any. I feel like this can work in BX where the stat bonus cap at +3, but there still may be some complaining of unplayable characters.
In any case, I like where you’re going with this.
Thanks! I think your point about the diagetic implications of the order in which you roll/choose class is a really interesting one and worth its own post.
DeleteExtending the “chose class first, then DTL stats” you can link one stat to each class (i.e. prime req), and roll that stat as 4d6-drop-low while the rest are 3d6. This gives a slight boost to the mean, and much reduces the chance of a very low stat in the area that would make a character “unplayable”. Diagetically, the single 4d6 stat represents the nature+nurture of growing up in a tradition/ancestry of your PC class. If “Thief” is member of a closed, heritable guild, then we might expect thieves on average to slightly more dexterous than the average bear, because their parents were Thieves and slow Thieves tend not to survive to the age of child rearing.
DeleteExtending this to Charismatic Dwarves for example, as a matter of world building, there could be a clan of Charismatic Dwarves who perhaps also fill a specific social function (either in dwarven society, or the larger cosmopolitan milieu). Sure, most dwarves are Tough Dwarves, but to lead an expedition you always need one Dwarf Charming to rally a big crew of retainers.
I kind of see mix and match Prime Stats as a way to have the two-dimensional variety of race+class while keeping the simplicity of race-as-class.
That does make sense, although I have to confess that 4d6-drop-the-lowest has always given me the heebie-jeebies. I like to stick with 3d6 if possible.
DeleteThis is why I prefer ability scores to be rolled in order. I dislike the 5E approach in which it's more or less assumed that you'll arrange your (largely redundant) ability scores in a specific way that's optimal for your class. Much better to happen to result in clumsy wizards, burly thieves, etc.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't think the prime requisite XP boost has any significant impact on play. If you're using something like a simple roll-under D20 check or other bolt-on system, ability scores can affect out-of-combat play a lot. In combat though I don't think that high Constitution magic-user is playing any differently.
If I did want to blur the lines between classes like this, or to add another dimension to them, I'd go the whole hog and draw up a separate list of traits for the players to pick from. So if you want to be a wizard who fights with a sword like Gandalf you pick "magic-user" + "cool sword-guy" for the appropriate modifiers. The magic-user is still not a warrior, and a cool sword-guy fighter gets the same bonuses on top of their existing fighter prowess. The more specific it is the bigger the mechanical impact it can have on play without completely upsetting niche separation.
That begins to look almost like feats if you squint at it? Except available to all classes.
Delete