7 thoughts on “Ability scores in fantasy role-playing games up to 1983”

1. Pingback: Ability scores in fantasy role-playing games up to 1983 | Critical Grumble

2. Don Holt March 27, 2014 at 8:35 am

   It would be interesting to see which of these are derived values rather than primary values. For instance, charisma, personal combat factor, and command level in C&S are derived values. Or something like fatigue, which is no longer an ability, but a point value. Fatigue must be spent to fight or perform spells, which means that it has much more importance in the game than just making a save. Or other mechanics, such as the blows system, which not only helped determine initiative, but quickness as well. In this case, selection of weapon type influences the “quickness”. The example being that characters stabbing with a dagger tend to strike faster than characters wielding large heavy hammers.

   And though bardic voice can be used for your Feudal Idol competition, it also effects your ability to command and shout orders, which is important in a game where characters can represent command leadership in a miniatures game.

   As for the point buy system, in general, I think it solves one problem but causes a worse problem. The point buy systems lets players play a character they want to play. That’s the good part.

   Though min-max’ing play is bad, the biggest problem which the point buy system has is that there are not things that a character is extremely bad at. Most point buy system leave the character without any bonuses, meaning they are at least average in doing things they do not excel in. Good stories need these flaws. My players love to have a 4 wisdom character notice something that the rest of the party missed. So yes there are systems that allow/demand players to design flaws for their characters, but it is not the same.

   A better way for players to get the character they want to play, is to let them select one trait that is 18 or over(2D10) and one trait that is better than average(15-17) and then take the first random character that matches that criteria. This way you get a character with the general abilities you need to play a certain type of character, but may have some warts the player needs to work around. Of course if there is more background information, like horoscope, then players can choose to be positively aspected or a certain sign, rather than selecting a primary trait.

   I much prefer a selective random character over the point buy system because it hampers the min-max style of play and introduces good story elements.

   Reply ↓
   1. DM David Post authorMarch 29, 2014 at 2:56 pm

      Hi Don,
      I tried to steer away from including derived values in my table, but this project had already gone much farther than I imagined. Thanks for adding details on C&S.

      I completely agree with you on the role-playing advantages of random characters over point buy, or even over random characters with stats arranged by the player. (Obviously, for some players, the fun comes from constructing optimal characters.) I like your method of randomly generating characters until one has key scores high enough to match the player’s chosen type.

      Reply ↓
3. Don Holt April 2, 2014 at 8:59 am

   I just had a chance to read your January 3 about the return of random characters in D&D Next and your championing of that move. I should have known I was preaching to choir.

   The thing I would like to emphasize is the body/fatigue breakout. In this case it is not an ability but a mechanic of the game. If you’ve never tried an RPG with this mechanic, you should. It will change your perspective.

   Critical hits and hit locations really mean something, especially if body damage can not be miraculously cured (meaning clerics can act to restore fatigue or serve as a physicians, but the body has to heal slowly on its own.) Players become more cautious in the actions they will have their characters’ take, relying on the story to help them decide if this fight is really worth the ultimate sacrifice. “Keeping it real”, was never about the feudal setting, it was about the play style.

   Now I think there is place for at least two styles of play, each has their merits. I wrote the following in the OSR (Old School RPG osrgaming.org) about in answer to a question about “excessive” rules (encumbered, lighting, terrain, etc.):

   The key concept here is do your players enjoy working around real constraints or do they want to be swashbuckling heros. 99% of players choose the latter option. But when I think about really good writing(both fiction and biographical), it’s about overcoming obstacles we all face. So if you objective is story development in a fantasy world, you’d be crazy not to include physical constraints. If you are running prepackaged or predetermined scenarios and out for a few laughs, you’d be crazy to include it.

   Reply ↓
   1. DM David Post authorApril 5, 2014 at 3:27 pm

      Hi Don,
      I always admired body/fatigue systems. I think DragonQuest had such a system. If so, that’s the one game I’ve played that used the concept.

      I remember while second edition was in design, I played a D&D game at Gen Con with a guy who said that he proposed such a body/fatigue system for the upcoming edition. He called it Blood and Wind. For all I know, he worked for TSR, but more likely he was just some guy with a suggestion.

      Some folks don’t want to be challenged, or want to solve the game when they create their character. Sometime, I plan to write a post on that. For my part, real challenges create *lasting* fun in the game.

      Reply ↓
4. catacomb librarian April 28, 2014 at 2:06 am

   Wonderful chart.
   I am actually dungeon mastering P&P,you can find several articles about it on my blog.
   Cheers
   CL

   Reply ↓
   1. DM David Post authorMay 17, 2014 at 9:51 am

      Hi CL,
      Thanks for calling out your blog. I love the old RPG curiosities that you reveal.
      —
      Dave

      Reply ↓