Don't Keep Score: Attributes as Adjectives

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.

Slot-Based Encumbrance

Last night, my broke players stumbled on a windfall: thousands of gold and silver pieces. Despite actually taking a minute to look up the exact encumbrance rules of 5th Edition, we quickly came to an unspoken agreement communicated through a moment of silence.

An encumbered man

No one had the desire to start tracking the weight of their stuff even though we all knew that the fiction of this moment demanded a choice: drop something important or leave most the money.

So, after a few seconds, I declared they could all grab 250 coins with a hand wave. In future dungeon delves, I hope to test out a slot-based encumbrance system like this:

• Every player character has 2 hand slots, 4 body slots, and pack slots equal to their STR score

• Items take up inventory slots equal to the number of hands it takes to hold them (1 slot for a book, 2 slots for a bedroll, and anything that takes 3 hands you can't carry alone)

• You can bundle small items together equal to the number you can hold in a single hand (3 glass vials per slot, a pouch of 100 coins per slot, something like that)

• Armor takes up slots and must occupy body slots to contribute to your AC

• You can grab any item stored in a body slot as a free action

• Store your pack items in order and include a dice roll to retrieve them or lose your action trying (Troika! has a great simple 2d6 mechanic for this)

• Once you fill all of your slots, you can't carry any more; no rules for being encumbered or any nonsense like that

If you keep the rules for encumbrance simple, your players are more likely to follow them. Once you implement this system, you can expand on it later by adding injuries or conditions as items that fill up your slots (as used in Mausritter).

A system that players actually use is a system that leads to interesting decisions during the game. I can't wait to try it out.