Attribute (Statistic) Idea: I hate dump stats

Over on dragonsfoot.org someone suggested an alternative to the traditional 6 attributes (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma) to 4 attributes, each split in two (Strength/Endurance, Dexterity/Agility, Intelligence/Perception, Will/Charisma). 

Interesting notion. Somebody pointed the discussion to MEGS (Mayfair Exponential Game System)** which is cool: each attribute increase DOUBLES - hence the name - the ability so if a Strength 1 can lift 50 pounds, Strength 2 can lift 100 pounds, Strength 3 can lift 200 pounds, Strength 4 can lift 400 pounds, then 800, 1600, 3200, etc...

Neat idea and works for superheroes rather elegantly.

I'm more interested in their breakdown of abilities, however:

Dexterity, Strength, Body

Intelligence, Will, Mind

Influence, Aura, Spirit

What I like is the kind of holistic approach to body mind and spirit. 

Here's a half-baked, untested, early morning attribute idea to consider:

Body: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution (or Strength, Agility, Health)

Mind: Intelligence, Wisdom or Perception, Sanity

Spirit: Influence or Leadership, Piety, Luck (Not completely sold on piety or luck, tbh)

Rolling Attributes: for each CATEGORY (Body, Mind, Spirit) roll 10d6 and arrange to taste (yes, you will have one bonus die to figure out what to do with). All must fall between 3 and 18.

OR 

roll 3d6 for each attribute and roll one bonus die for each category, adding the whole die to one attribute. All must fall between 3 and 18. 

OR

roll 3d6 (or 4d6 drop lowest) for each attribute in order or arrange to taste.

OR

maybe you roll differently for different archetypes with one (or maybe even TWO) bonus die in a single category: Mages might roll 3d6 straight for Body and Spirit but 3d6 plus one bonus die for mind. Clerics might get their bonus die in Spirit, Fighters in Body, Thieves could choose which one category they get a bonus die in (before they roll).

I'd use a universal bonus/penalty chart for the attributes because it's easier for me to remember, and I like patterns (again, easier to remember) so I'd use:

3        -3

4-5    -2

6-8    -1

9-12    +/-0

13-15    +1

16-17    +2

18        +3

(19-20 [+4]; 21-23 [+5]; 24-27 [+6]; 28-30 [+7]; etc. - not that I expect anyone to get that high, just more mental exercise)

WHY?

Now... there's no real reason to do this, I recognize that... unless mechanics are built out from here: you have broad categories and some granularity. 

This could be useful for skills or ability checks or maybe saving throws. 

Skills: a check against any of the sub-categories would be useful for general skill checks. Want to jump on the back of an untamed horse (or an elk or a rhino)? Give me a Dexterity check. So that's nothing new. 

Saving Throws: The Category (Body, Mind, Spirit) checks would be against the AVERAGE of the scores in the category, round DOWN (say St 17, Dex 15, Con16 - BODY would be 16, whereas St 17, Dex 13, Con 10 BODY would be 13) or the bonus/penalty for Saves could be determined by the category (in the second example the person's strength would somewhat mitigate their lack of constitution and give them a BETTER bonus toward something like poison or paralysis, perhaps). System shock (jumping into freezing water, for example) would be a CATEGORY (Body) check, for good or ill...

But, again, there's no NEED for this. It's just a idea that I'm toying with. 

I like the idea of all attributes being important in a game (I HATE the idea of a "dump stat") and the meaningful choices that come from making those decisions at the beginning of the game and then living with them (sometimes regretfully...). So I like systems where attributes/stats matter. Anyone can wear any armor they STRONG enough to wear (something like plate being reserved for ST 18, perhaps, while even leather armor might require a ST of at least 9). So the granularity comes into play in details like this. 

** Yeah, crummy Wikipedia entry - but you get the gist of the system. One cool thing in the DC Heroes rules is that the rules are summarized in what they call "Eight Ideas": There are eight simple ideas behind the rules for the DC HEROES Role-Playing Game. In order to play the game, Players must be completely familiar with these eight ideas. (DC Heroes Third Edition page 82). I like the ability to summarize the system in X ideas or steps or whatever. 

Monday Magazine Classics

 Lair of the Demon Queen

Don Turnbull

White Dwarf #7

June/July 1978

 

“A difficult but rewarding section of the Greenlands Dungeon.”

 

This is what we might call a “drop in” encounter area today. Maybe. I don’t know. Maybe it’s just Don Turnbull teasing us with what his clearly-inspired-by Greyhawk and Blackmoor dungeon was all about.

Sprinkled in with the requisite room and creature information are tidbits of design advice and Turnbull uses a conversational tone that makes this a little hard to use. You’ll need a highlighter at the very least to use this. I think I’d do a quick one-page summary.

 “These rooms may be inhabited by guardians of the Queen’s lair – say evil elves which fire arrows at an intruding party. My choice of occupant, however, was the Disenchanter (one in each room). This is one of Roger Musson’s creations...” Summary: Disenchanter (each room) replaced after killed

 So much of the prose here is of the commentary variety “So, to return to the poem...” “As an added incentive, of course, some treasure can be put in...” “Let’s hope they realise the meaning of...”

 There is a long poem (spoken by a magic mouth, of course!) that the PLAYERS have to work out the meaning of to be able to “beat” this room. This whole set piece feels very look how clever the DM can be to me. That’s how we used to play, so I don’t have a problem with it. The content is interesting enough – a little “funhouse dungeon” for me, but it seems to be pretty true to the source material (I hate hate hate disenchanters – they are just magic killers and really would have little place in any true ecology... like rust monsters and luck eaters and... but I digress – Source Material being Castle Greyhawk and Castle Blackmoor).

 As a player this would be fun and memorable. As a DM this would be a nightmare to run as is. I get accused of using too many words when I write adventures – but there’s just so much commentary that it really gets in the way of trying to work out the details.

 And then there’s the dearth of details... “The tombs, marked D, can be designed to suit the taste of the DM. Each will contain a member of the Undead class and some treasure. In my case the Undead were pretty powerful but the treasure in the tombs was excellent and contained a number of useful magical items. In particular, I left a few scrolls around with Cure Serious Wounds spells - the least I could do in the circumstances.” Wait... what? This thing is just over two pages long, with only five areas detailed... and this is the “detail” for one of those five areas...

 The titular Demon Queen does get a full three paragraph treatment, most of which is good role-playable detail. Until we get to treasure... which is rather abstracted, “The treasure (in a box under the bed) was of course very rich. In my room there were coins, gems and jewellery worth a total of 8,300 GP and two very powerful magical items – a Ring of Three Wishes (full, untarnished wishes, of course) and a Rod of Rulership. When added to the treasure elsewhere in this area, the total GP value was 13,700 and there were three scrolls, a Potion of Heroism, a good book and a dozen other pretty good magical items (plus a crocked sword just to add spice).”

 As a glimpse into the history of adventure design and the early days of the big dungeons, this is invaluable. Turnbull give us lots of commentary on what and why – all to the detriment of usability... As an encounter area, it’s okay. Like I said above, I’d make a one-page summary and maybe a handout with the poem (I know the players are supposed to listen carefully and take notes and whatever... yeah, not how I roll.)

 

 Other reviews:

I’m sure there are more, but all I could dig up was this brief comment:

https://www.enworld.org/threads/white-dwarf-the-first-100-issues-a-read-through-and-review.325009/

 

And this:

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/in-which-i-read-white-dwarf-from-issue-1.405199/page-4

 

 

 

Free Map Friday

 I'm always looking for new maps so I started drawing some. They're pretty rough - but they're free!

Available for use in any way, including commercially, with attribution:

Map by WR Beatty

If you want a larger image or a different format or just to tell me you used the map:

daenralworld AT gmail

Monday Magazine Classics

A Place in the Wilderness

Lewis Pulsipher

White Dwarf #6

April/May 1978

 

Pulsipher names this one-page description based on Jack Vance’s The Dragon Masters a “set-up” which “may be incorporated into your wilderness.” That’s a pretty apt description. I’m not sure it qualifies as an adventure (or “scenario” as WD was likely to call them), but it’s got the elements: setting, conflict, hook...

 This very much reminds me of The Wilderlands of High Fantasy from Judges Guild, those paragraph long hex descriptions. Take one of those paragraphs and expand the information to maybe 2/3rds of a page and you get this “set-up.” Bare-bones stats are given for Tracker, Heavy Trooper, Weaponer and Giant, none of whom appear in the previous paragraphs... (I assume “Weaponer” is the “50 rabble at arms,” but that’s just my guess).

 So, we’ve got a human settlement which breeds and trains dragons. There’s maybe a little north of 300 people here: “50 rabble at arms, 10 various specialists..., 8 heavy armoured horsemen..., one sixth level fighter chieftain, 80 women, and 160 children and old people.”

 Treasure is abstracted: “The primary treasure is dragon females... There is also a cache of precious metal and stones as the referee thinks appropriate.” Sigh...

 A paragraph is given to the Dragons, clearly the focus of this “set-up,” with bare-bones stats appearing for each type of new dragon (HD 1+1 to HD 5) with one glaring omission.

 Spider: substitute for a horse

Termagants: smaller than men, intelligent

Blue Horrors: larger, quick, intelligent

Murderers: not intelligent, heavy and low to the ground

Fiends: strong and low to the ground (“low enough to run underneath”)

Juggers: “ponderous and huge” [no stats given, though one assumes bigger than Fiends, so maybe HD 6 or 7?]

 Typical of the era, this is a page of inspiration, not a “complete adventure” as we’ve come to know and accept the idea (and, maybe, abuse the idea). That’s not to say it’s bad or incomplete. It is clearly a product of its time and it is adequate for what it sets out to do. This is certainly something that I could riff off of at the table in a hexcrawl, for example, or throw out as a rumor to the party and develop it further if it was something they wanted to pursue.

 

Other reviews:

I’m sure there are more, but all I could dig up was this brief comment:

https://www.enworld.org/threads/white-dwarf-the-first-100-issues-a-read-through-and-review.325009/

 

And this:

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/in-which-i-read-white-dwarf-from-issue-1.405199/page-4

Free Map Friday

 I'm always looking for new maps so I started drawing some. They're pretty rough - but they're free!

Available for use in any way, including commercially, with attribution:

Map by WR Beatty

If you want a larger image or a different format or just to tell me you used the map:

daenralworld AT gmail

Skills

Every time we game - and we've drifted through mashups of all kinds of D&Desque rules sets - from Black Hack and S&W, D&D B/X and AD&D 1st and 2nd ed, we've dabbled in fifth ed - as well as dropping in all kinds of house rules and other games' rules - critical hit/failure, DCC's magic system, the STUNT tables from Fantasy Age (using 3d6 for combat rolls no less...) and a million others.

For so many reasons, I want to go back to a fairly flexible, mostly rules-light system. I usually default to S&W with a bunch of house rules and that's okay. Most of what I been writing for publication has been in a houseruled S&W campaign world. 

So here's an idea for skills that keeps the idea of "rulings not rules" without getting too bogged down...maybe

On the character sheet are four columns with headings:

Very good at     Good at      Bad at     Very bad at

Maybe at the beginning of character creation could add one or two actions/skills in the good and the bad columns.  Like Good at swimming, running, bad at horseback riding, being quiet.

Good at skills come out at the player's discretion, bad at skills come out at the DM's discretion. 

When a roll is a critical success (Nat 20), the skill moves one column to the left, when a roll is a critical failure (Nat 1), it moves one column to the right. 

Being good or bad at something might make a +/-1 adjustment to the roll. Being VERY good or bad at something could use the advantage/disadvantage system. 

The DM might have a list of appropriate skills mapped out ahead of time or they could simply be the skills that come up during play. 

Say a character attempts to leap over a low wall and fails a dexterity check. No big deal, that's what we use the check for. BUT, suppose the player rolled a 1 on the check... then Bad at acrobatics or something could be added to the list (the player/DM would agree on the "skill" in question). Undaunted, the player tries the skill several more times (with a -1 penalty) and succeeds and fails a few times but eventually rolls a 20. He moves the skill over to "Good at". If he rolls another 20 he can become very good at the skill which gives him advantage and won't ever be reduced unless a double failure happens (two 1s) which move his skill back to the right (good at), etc. If you are very bad at something and you roll 2 20s, you shift it to the left, bad at...

Probably too complicated for a system that I want to be simple... 

But it'll be fun to playtest.