Over the past year I have been playing RPGs much more than I have been running them, but I recently returned to some adventure writing and it had me reflecting on how I like to use PC attribute scores in my games.
I rarely if ever call for attribute checks. While I see their uses, I find that once you start using them, any player who has spent significant time with d20 system derivatives will start framing what they can and can't attempt around their attribute scores. "Oh, I'm strong but not that strong, you have a 5% better chance of success - why don't you try?" That kind of analysis immediately pulls me out of the fiction.
That doesn't mean that attribute scores have no bearing on my games. I treat attribute scores like gates: either you're strong enough to do it without risk, or you're going to need something else to succeed (tools, help, etc.). Take this example from Necrotic Gnome's The Incandescent Grottoes (p. 12):
"Lifting the door: Requires a combined 25 STR."
What is this saying? Of course there are multiple permutations, but at a glance I read "a combined 25 STR" to mean 3 normal characters (STR 10) or 2 strong characters (STR 13+). So, what do I need to know? I need to know if the characters attempting it are strong or not.
For my purposes, being strong is usually true or false. It rarely matters in my games if you have STR 13 or 14. It also more closely aligns with how we perceive strength in the moment. Sure, in some sports recruiting publication you might measure one strong guy as an A+ and another as an A-, but when you're trying to lift a heavy rock either one of them would do!
Here is another example of how the Old-School Essentials Advanced Fantasy Referee's Tome (p. 192) uses an attribute score:
"Spade of Mighty Digging [...] Minimum STR: Only a character of STR 18 or greater can use the spade."
What is this telling me? You have to be very strong to use this item. And, for my purposes, I don't even need to be that granular. It's enough to say "only strong characters can use this." STR 18 is so rare in a normal OSE character that even if a party found this treasure it's unlikely anyone could wield it!
Both of these examples care if the characters are strong enough or not. If they are, they can succeed without any check. If they aren't, they need help and no amount of attribute checks will change that.
 |
| A magic-user trying to prove that he is "Strong" |
Does this mean we can jettison the scores altogether?
Look at a character sheet. If we have a PC with fairly standard scores aside from a high DEX, what do we lose if we give them the "Quick" attribute and ignore the scores? What if we note that the PC with high CHA is "Suave" and call it a day? Can attribute scores simply be attributes?
You could easily expand this with antonyms in the case of low scores:
ATTRIBUTE -- SCORE < 8 -- SCORE > 12
STR -- Weak -- Strong
DEX -- Slow -- Quick
CON -- Frail -- Tough
INT -- Dense -- Clever
WIS -- Naive -- Wise
CHA -- Awkward -- Suave
There is something about stripping away the numbers and leaning into the adjectives that brings me closer to the character as well. You could also branch out into various synonyms to give characters a slightly different flavor (e.g., using Graceful instead of Quick for a character with high DEX).
When I first thought about this, I was also reminded of Numenera's "I am an adjective noun who verbs" approach to creating your character. Now, in that system the various words also come with a lot of fiddly baggage, but I obviously find the basic concept intriguing.
Now, I do see some holes in an OSE game where you bypassed attribute scores altogether. How do you handle reaction roll bonuses? Retainer maximums? Open stuck doors rolls? But, those seem fairly easy to solve with quick rulings (ok, so your Awkward character has a -1 malus to a reaction roll with a cocky bandit ...). When I take this adventure I'm writing for a test run, I might give this little modification a whirl as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment