[RPG Theory] Class & Abilities ... Redundant?

[stevekenson]

It occurs to me that ability scores in D&D are largely redundant, and have been almost since the beginning of the game.

In OD&D, abilities served something of a purpose: they were a sort of “natural selection” in that you rolled them randomly (much like an accident of birth) and they helped to shape the choices you made about your character. A high-Strength, low-Intelligence character was clearly destined for a career as a Fighter, not a Magic-User, for example. This made ability score requirements (as opposed to mere bonuses for high Prime Requisites) more significant: if being a Paladin required you to randomly roll a 17 Charisma, along with the Paladin’s other requirements, or being a Ranger required a broad number of above-average abilities, then those characters would be correspondingly rare in the game; playing one was a bit like winning a lottery.

In the evolution of D&D, player choice has displaced random determination of abilities, starting with being able to arrange rolled scores in any order (so you can put your high score in the ability important to your desired class), then variants like 4d6 and drop the lowest die, multiple sets, and various other mulligans designed to ensure nobody is stuck with a character they don’t want to play. D&D 4e has eliminated the final vestiges of randomness in character generation, going with a point-buy system for ability scores and even standardized hit point progression.

This approach renders abilities largely moot: after all, does the system really need support for weak fighters, dumb wizards, clumsy rogues, and foolish clerics? Sure, such characters might exist in the world as NPC plot devices , but it’s fair to say the vast majority of player characters follow a certain mold when it comes to what Castles & Crusades calls the “Prime” of their chosen class. “Strong” and “Fighter” are virtually synonymous, as are “Smart” and “Wizard” and “Nimble” and “Thief” (sorry, “Rogue”). Indeed, C&C almost goes far enough in recognizing this fact, but not quite: they still retain ability scores and modifiers, even with their clever system of Primes.

“But what about character individuality?” some cry. A system wherein all fighters are strong and all wizards are smart means everybody is the same. Personally, I think this is more of an issue of perception than anything else, but I think it can be addressed with a combination of secondary and tiertiary traits alongside descriptors, like the “Aspects” in FATE or specialties in the forthcoming A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying (SIFRP). Sure, fighters are all strong, but in what way? Big? Brawny? Savage? Forceful? Apply some modifiers encouraging players to play up their characters’ unique strengths and you get a wide range of differentiation with very little in the way of added mechanical complexity.

Comments

[athanasios.livejournal.com]

Very good points. There is something about the old AD&D rules that made the fun, yet not too complicated. I remember switching to Palladium RPG back in 84 or 85 and really enjoying it. I never really played 2nd Edition AD&D and only played 3rd Edition once. I'm thinking of picking up the 4th edition, but still have fond memories of Palladium.

[nvdaydreamer.livejournal.com]

I agree in general, and especially with your comment about perception and "character individuality." Such protestors seem to forget that there is (one hopes) an imaginative human being holding onto that character sheet (or using it as a coaster for his can of Dr. Pepper). And since no two players are alike, no two characters will ever be that alike.

I am now possessed of the urge to try a convention game where all the character sheets are given different names and backgrounds ... but the mechanical bits are identical. Just to see what happens.

[gamescribe.livejournal.com]

I would agree if there was no such thing as multiclassing. As long as multiclassing remains viable and all classes remain tied to ability scores (or just one or two, as the case may be), there's still some relevance to ability scores. You're right, you may not want to support the dumb wizard or the weak fighter, but you might want some mechanism in there to keep the wizard from also being the fighter. Or not, you know. I think you're pretty much right as far as primary ability scores goes, but where they make more sense is secondary ability scores. Sure, my fighter is probably going to be brawny, but is he also smart? Or is he charismatic? That's going to affect skill choice, for one thing, which is pretty relevant.

[xomec.livejournal.com]

Well, putting aside the question of whether or not there should be multiclassing (that's another discussion), this is where the idea of Primes and the like comes in: you get your character differentiation by what your character's secondary (and perhaps tiertiary) abilities are. That is, if you're a Fighter, you're assumed to be Strong (Strength Prime) but perhaps you choose two secondary abilities and three tiertiary (for example). What are they? Alternately, what if your fighter chooses the Aspect "Cunning" as opposed to "Charismatic" (or, for that matter, "Arcane Dabbler") with your chosen aspecting givine you a pre-defined bonus/modifier.

Funny thing is, D&D 4e multiclassing seems aimed in this direction: preserving class roles a bit more rigidly, with just "a touch" of capability from another class rather than something closer to a 50/50 blending of classes.

[athanasios.livejournal.com]

Do you recommend getting D&D 4e?

[xomec.livejournal.com]

Can't say, as I don't have (and haven't fully read) the books yet. All I know is what I've read online and heard from friends (and reading the Fast-Play rules in Keep on the Shadowfell). I'll probably get them, if only for professional curiosity and reference, but I don't know if I can honestly recommend the game to anyone as yet.

d20 Modern

[77im.livejournal.com]

For an even weirder setup, consider the base classes of d20 Modern. It's possible to have, for example, a "Strong Hero" who is actually not very strong.

[doccross.livejournal.com]

Good points on ability scores in D&D. The random rolls in OD&D were indeed fun...most of the time. Nowadays I doubt most folks would bother playing a character with 2 or more weak abilities.

[jkusters]

Well, in D&D3.0, it was relatively easy to multiclass. So you might take a slightly lower STR and slightly higher INT than your average Fighter if you at some point planned to take a level or two of Sorcerer. And this is very much how it works out in True20. My players, to some degree or another, looked ahead to their character progression and chose attribute scores that reflected their intended directions. So, I'd argue that they're still relevant in systems that allow this kind of role flexibility.

It might also work if you went with your Aspect-driven design, though. As long as the fighter-type character picked up "Touch of Magic" at character creation, they could at a later date experiment with wizard-type abilities.

JOhn.

[balthial.livejournal.com]

Its all an aesthetic choice, ultimately, and I think the ability scores have a strong appeal to a lot of people.

And they were a bit more important before you had a system of ranked skills.