/tg/ - Traditional Games

>>413780

>Ability scores seem inherently pointless. Change my mind.

Outside of calculating the modifier I agree with you. There are some systems that actually use a roll under method which makes the bigger Ability score useful but for any system that doesn't do that there's no point in having it. Nowadays I just use modifier alone, makes things cleaner for me.

>>413780

If you actually consult OD&D: Ability scores are used to determine class performance. Stronger Fighters advance in level quicker than weaker ones, as an example, while you get minor bonuses for DEX and CON. CHA is ironically the only important one, since it deals with how many Henchmen you can recruit, and how loyal they are.

You don't roll ability checks. The scores only come up when the situation demands. A beautiful witch comes across the party - she'll kill anyone with low CH, take the ones with high CH. A door is barred - it might require not a ST check, but a score at a certain level or higher. Of course, most just have the same flat chance regardless of strength, because it's an abstraction - the actual "difficulty" of a lock, door, etc. is not set before by a DC, it's set after by the die check.

B/X and AD&D began to introduce the cancer of ability modifiers as a major factor to the character, rather than a tool meant principally for flavoring. The cancerous character building of 3E and onward reduced them to nothing more than vessels for plus modifiers, to the point 5E even gives the modifier more precedent on the character sheet. It's all trash for inferior, trash systems.

>the d20 System is the only system out there

There are much better systems with flat probability dices out there. Cyberpunk 2020, for example or at least if you tweak the stupid perennial flat 10% failure chances

Directly relevant to OP.

Ability scores have always been one of my biggest gripes with the d20 system. Though, I'm not sure how much most of my complaints apply outside of certain versions.

That only every-other point actually applies to the modifier is annoying. It means increasing that ability will only make a quantifiable difference every other point, this made all the worse by only getting one point to spend every 4 levels. This means it takes 8 levels to move a single ability up a full 1-modifier cycle. That's almost halfway to epic level, in a system with six different scores. Now sure you can assign odd number scores to the abilities you want to increase more quickly, but that merely delays the annoyance rather than eliminating it.

5e seems to have tried to help by making it so you can choose between a feat or an ability score every 2 levels, but ultimately this feels less like an option and more like an ultimatum. In a sense this allows you to get either more frequently than in 3e, but only at the cost of either slowing down relative feat progress or retaining the old problem with ability scores. If you stagger both, you get ability scores at the same old slow rate and feats at a slower rate to match.

I'd normally get into what I think they should do differently, but honestly there's so many different approaches they COULD take that would be an improvement. Normally when I DM'd, I house-ruled a few things to make odd-number increases a little more useful. But that was just a bare-minimum alteration to keep things close-to-home. I'd expect more from an actual in-house change, were they ever to actually fix the system.

It's really a bit of a relic from old Basic D&D and AD&D. You used to have ability checks that were a roll-under mechanic, so a higher ability score was better. The modifier was a bonus. Now it's backwards, where you put more points into an ability pretty much strictly for the modifier.

>>413783

I'll expand on this and say that an easy way to make ability scores feel useful - for the players, as a DM - is to actually fucking use the numbers. I saw another anon here talk about what he does with his group, and I suggest you talk with your DM about implementing something similar in your game: instead of rolling for everything automatically, first check if your base ability score is higher than the DC of the action. To use your example,

>What is the point of having 18 strength if I try to break a door and roll a 1?

If I were DM, I would arbitrarily decide that the DC to break the door was 15. Your 18 STR puts you over that threshold without any modifiers, so you break the door down. If you want to do something fancier, that may require a roll.

>other options

You don't necessarily need to use the ability score versus DC method and instead opt to somewhat arbitrarily decide whether or not the player succeeds. This will work better for some DMs than others, and will sit better with some players than others. I think the key with using this kind of method is talking with your group about it.

>What is the point of having 18 strength if, I try to break a door, and roll a 1?

Sounds more like you have a problem with the rules system you are using than with Ability Scores. What about the system says that a 1 fails? What does that roll represent?

>Or why bother having 20 charisma if I'm just gonna have to roll whenever I use it, and depending on what the dice lands on, I succeed or fail?

I don't even understand this one. Do you think being charming is a form of mind control?

>>413810

Climbing a wall is probably the worst example he could have used to illustrate that idea. Failing a climbing roll is one place where most games have explicit consequences for failing, and those consequences tend to not be retroactively not trying.

>>413780

>>413782

They exist only to make modifiers, like this anon said. They are a useless layer of added math that has been adopted into games as normal despite being fucking retarded - remove them, keep modifiers, or remove modifiers and keep stats because as-is having both is useless at best.

>>413846

I'm not even going to watch that CoC-PCs video. He puts way too much headcanon in all his stuff so it's usually a waste of time.

The biggest question is... should you cheat the dice?

As a vain attempt to save the thread, i vaguely remember something about some conversion rules to play d20 systems as 3d6. Dont remember if it was supposed to replace all dice with d6s or just the d20. If anyone could find that, it might help alleviate the flat change complaints. As for having the stats all together, i think >>413838 has a good idea with the threshold bypass.

>>413873

When necessary to keep the game moving and enjoyable for the players, yes. The dice are simply tools to aid in simulation, there is no reason to enslave yourself to the results they give. That said, generally the outcome should be respected. Just don't make it obvious to your players and don't do it often.

>>413880

I've been experimenting with it a little bit using B/X. Ability scores are already 3d6 so no change there. Ability checks are simply 3d6 roll under. 3 is always a success and 18 is always a failure (except where success or failure are completely impossible). Rolls to hit are also 3d6. All weapons deal 1d6 damage except for two-handed weapons which deal 2d6 take the highest. Saving throws are 2d6 or 3d6 roll under, I can't remember which I went with. Thief skills, if you choose to use them, are 1d6 roll under or equal. Thieves start with 1 in every skill and can choose to raise a skill by one every level. At level one they can do this twice. I've only play-tested it once and I'm still not sure on how I like the changes it makes to combat. 3d6 has a noticeable bell curve which means having good AC can make it very difficult for weak enemies to hit. Of course this goes for the players as well.

>>413880

I'm pretty certain you can just remove all 1d20 rolls and replace them with 3d6 with 1 and 18 as respective crit or fumble thresholds and adjust crit ranges accordingly...and that should be it. Since the change is universal across all player characters and NPCs thats really it.

>>413833

>That only every-other point actually applies to the modifier is annoying.

Mechanically, the in-between attribute levels were meant to be for class and feat prereqs. Problem was that feats have been a bunch of garbage for several editions and pushing multi-attribute dependency never worked out for the better. Everything else about the attribute system is just dragging along a sacred cow mechanic for the sake of maintaining the D&D brand.

>>413879

I'm about 99% certain that OP fucked off minutes after making this thread and getting no replies.

So do people just not realize that taking 10 is a thing?

>>413918

Modern casual players don't take ten because the 5% chance of hilarious and crippling failure is a big part of the draw for a lot of them, in my experience. It's zany and random and keeps them from getting too immersed. Taking games seriously is what incels do, after all.

>>413933

>taking games seriously is what incels do, after all.

I fucking hate normalfags, anon. I hate them because they want to be part of the things that I want to be part of but without any of the investment. They want to sit around on their phones and ruin my fucking games. I just wanted to play tabletop, I just wanted to immerse myself in a story, I just wanted to roleplay. Tell me there's hope for that, anon.

>>413934

If you GM, kill their characters each time they fuck about. Whoops you were stupid, you die. Didn't pay attention to what I said? There was a critical element that could've saved you. Too bad.

Alternatively, pull a knife on normalfags players.

>>413935

>Didn't pay attention to what I said? There was a critical element that could've saved you. Too bad.

This reminds me of a time of where the players needlessly killed every grass type pokemon and destroyed an ecosystem because they were all talking over me when i was describing a meal already being made in the village we never actually got to a point where they could see the damage they did in that game because i became a wage slave not too long after that

>gming ptu

>players include a couple people you could mistake for fa/tg/uys, and three cryptofurries (found this out in normal uneventful conversation later, so no stories on that)

>players began the game shipwrecked on an island after a storm capsized their ship

>they scavenge around the beach for food and manage to find their belongings miraculously washed up not that far away read: they were sent their by the stories villians so reasons

>after fucking about a bit, they go to where they see smoke raising into the air

>it's a village and eveyone seems to be wearing primative clothing

>they als

<players start talking over me at this point

>let it happen cause im mildly sadistic

>go asking the villagers around about what's going on

>find out they dont have currency, pokeballs, pokemon centers, or any other modern conviences, but somehow knew their language

>hear that they are getting ready to bring their mareep back from the fields before the feral lillipups eat them

>didnt actually give them a quest to do it, but the players rush off to get them anyways, atleast my group was proactive

>just as the enter the field, they realoze they didnt actually get much foraging the beach

>one of the not!fa/tg/uys decide to kill the grass pokemon to make a salad for the group while the rest of them took care of the lillipups and mareep

>find that each pokemon gave almost nothing in actual food scraps, just goes rampaging on all of them

>meanwhile, the other not!fa/tg/uy spends all his pokeballs catching these first area mons, including one of the mareep, figures he can slaughter them later for food

>after gathering the rest of the mareep, and one of the furries acting lawful stupid good and turning the guy who stole a mareep into the village, a massive fight between players (all level 1s) and the village (average level 5)

>while the riders and commanders (fluffed as ranchers and shepards) fought the players the rest of the village flees taking whatever pokemon they can lead with them

>after a grueling battle where one character nearly lost his skin beig dragged by a taurus, they tie up the npcs they managed to beat and take another look around the village

>at this point i make note of the huge cauldron of stew the village was making when they first got there

>emphasizing that they were too busy talking to the village and each other to notice the first time

>they started to shut up everytime i started talking for the next few sessions, before i started the job

>>413918

One guy that occassionally gms for us doesnt allow taking 10/20 because of this >> 413933 reason, but he's one of the only ones with enough time to consistantly make campaigns, the other in my circles being a furry. pls help, im surrounded by furries

>>413944

>Playing a Pokémon roleplaying game

>Not expecting to be playing with curries

Anon, they say you can tell a man by the company he keeps.

>>413954

>curries

Indians like Pokemon?

>>413954

>curries

Furries. Fuck, killing myself now.

>>413780

As a DM, when it comes to certain checks I just ask for your ability score and look at the DC and make a yay or nay call based on what I see. A good example is opening a jammed door. If the book says it's a DC 12 and you have a 16 STR, you're getting the door open without a roll. (I'll describe the effort necessary to do it though and that may affect other actions.) After all, if you can lift a given weight, you can always lift it unless you are hurt or exhausted.

I really only call for rolls outside combat when the probability of success depends on a factor of luck outside of the stat or skill of the PC. How well is the PC able to forage enough for dinner is only partially dependent on the skill and partly to do with what the local wildlife hasn't already eaten. In some cases, it's how long it takes the PC to accomplish something.

Sometimes when I think it's too close for the player to be satisfied with a hard call, I'll have a roll made and use that as the final arbiter.

>>413935

Gygax used to set up a file cabinet and pull the drawers over so he couldn't be seen while DMing. He'd narrate things - once. Just once. If the players missed because they weren't paying attention, they missed it. In his games, that could be very lethal. It was, apparently, extremely immersive.

When in doubt, be the voice behind the file cabinet.

Congratulations OP, you've reached the point of realizing d20 systems suck. Rolling a single die with the same opportunity for a character to do terrible, average, or great is simply stupid, and will be replaced by any decent GM with an XdY system. As the regular Powered By The Apocalypse shill, let me advocate a system without the stupidity of separating Ability Points and Ability Modifiers. In D&D, having half-steps between real upgrades in ability only means you're looking for something to bump you up that extra stat point, which, for a DM, can be the difference between giving your players the Mystic Knife of Khoul'hnam which cuts portals between the Physical and Dream realms, and the Enchanted Robe of Elves, which gives the user +1 Wisdom when worn. Stat bonuses are fucking boring, and magic items should be magical.

Instead, let's assume characters have the simple 6 statistics. I tell my players that all dice rolls will be 2d6±stat±modifier, and, because I want our campaign to be a relativity high level one, their stat blocks are +2,, +1 +1, -1. Maybe I give them the option of a 2nd +2 instead of a +1 for taking a -2 in addition to the -1. Rolls of 2d6±stat±modifier less than 6 are fails, 7-9s are partial successes, and 10+s are successes.

With players creating characters that they and I both know are highly capable (+2) or capable (+1) in certain areas, I can narrate past some actions that a less experiences DM would require a roll for, that would give even the best designed characters a 5+% chance to fail simple tasks, and instead save spend my storytelling time on making players feel like their characters are interesting, and make dice rolling feel exciting because it's for something they legitimately only have a chance of pulling off.

>>414084

Sure, wacky shit happening on 1s and 20s is a meme, but it's a really fucking widespread one. 4/5 D&D groups I've played with have taken it as gospel, and it's been that way for at least a decade and a half, because casuals love it. It guts any actual emotional investment in the game and that's exactly what people want.

>>414094

You're supposed to create your chance to win and plan against losing (or at least plan an escape route). While chance is important to keeping the game from simply becoming talking to each other about what happens, there is no need for botches and crits. If you want to pull off the miraculous victory against impossible odds, do it.

>>414091

That's a problem with the players, not the system, though.

>>414094

Action dice mechanics handle such things far better than hoping for dumb luck to make things exciting. It's a roleplaying game, not gambling in Vegas.

>>414094

Sauce?

>>414094

>which is the heart of any RPG

False. The heart of any RPG is war-gaming.

>>414094

>>414094

>can't fail abysmally and in a le epic way is the same as can't lose

You are not very bright, I take it.

>>414091

But anon, isn't it FUN when someone rolls a 20, screams NAT TWUNNY and grows rubicund with excitement? Don't you just enjoy being completely pulled from the game by manchildren screaming and shouting as the die falls on a 1, and the DM describes your character tripping and falling onto his sword, dying instantly, despite your character doing nothing even tangentially related to walking or using a sword? Isn't that what RPGs are all about?!

>>414178

It just sounds like you're bitter about other people having fun.

>>414183

Don't forget where you are.

Some people's fun is shit, bad, and wrong, and you know it is. Don't try to hide behind the pitiful excuse of "opinions".

>>414199

>Don't forget where you are.

OR ELSE

Don't forget this is /tg/, faggot. You need social skills to play these games.

All the complaints here, the 40k "failing up" shit in another thread, and the natural fails/successes thread all stem from poor GMing. You shouldn't need to have rules in a book explaining why you shouldn't kill a party everytime they fail a basic check, just like how a character shouldn't magically die whenever they roll a 1, or how the world should bow to a 20.

"Crack a book, nigger"™

>>414183

I'm bitter that they're taking what is fun for me and shitting all over it with their normalfaggotry. If this shit didn't happen in my games I wouldn't say anything because fags having their faggy fun away from me is no big deal.

Why do any of you even care about the garbage casual faggotry from the normalfag audience that is now WoTC's primary consumerbase? You have nothing left there so if it rots away and retards assist it in doing so because its their pot to piss in, why argue about it with random anonymous spergs? It isn't our fucking game anymore and god riddance, it was never good.

>>413838

>instead of rolling for everything automatically, first check if your base ability score is higher than the DC of the action.

I like this, but I'd still make them roll. In this case however (18 str beating a DC of 15) a roll failure would always result in a broken door but would also come with some kind of fuck up.

Idea being, because the str is enough to break the door down, the door will always break, so the roll only checks against how cleanly he broke the door down.

<failed check = door isn't broken all the way so party has to squeeze through the gap one by one

<failed check = the pc breaks the door down, but falls flat on his face into a room full of goblins and spends a round standing up, losing the element of surprise.

Another example. High agility character has to leap across two building roof tops, Agi 18 to DC 15. Theyll make the jump, but their landing is determined by their die roll.

<Pass, they stick the landing perfectly.

<Fail, they stumble a little and drop the rope they were carrying across the gap for the party.

It really depends on the situation. These types of things are challenges for the players, in the same way that traps and puzzles are challenges. A heavy door, a river, an ogre bouncer who won't let you in the tavern are all challenges for the players to overcome. Unless it is completely unimportant to the campaign, anything you put in front of your players should be have a die roll of some kind.

It's similar to Chekhov's gun. If it doesn't matter enough that you can just let the players pass the challenge without making them roll a die, then why give them the challenge in the first place?

>>414471

This is a great way to expand on the idea and I wish I'd thought of it myself. It preserves player agency and still doesn't have stupid shit like "fuckhuge Barbarian can't break a wooden door."

>>413780

>Seriously. What is the point of having 18 strength if, I try to break a door, and roll a 1?

>Or why bother having 20 charisma if I'm just gonna have to roll whenever I use it, and depending on what the dice lands on, I succeed or fail?

Sounds like you have a shit GM. Any decent GM should know when to call for a roll and when not to. If your character has 18 strength then breaking down a wooden door should pose no issue. A barricaded door more likely.

Roll under > The mathematic fuckery of dnd and other roleplaying games.

>>414726

Rolling under is too unsatisfying for me. I feel like I'm playing a brainlet game.

>>414738

>I feel like I'm playing a brainlet game

Go back to where ever you came from.

>>414756

Back to the catalog it is!

Honestly, it'd be better if the score actually had a rank/description of feats achievable through the score. All 18 STR tells me is that I'm of the requirement to make it so that my enemies EXPLODE INTO GORE if I kill them by chance.

Ability scores don't really cover things like my build, muscle tone, if it affects my attractiveness, or if I can open the Jar of pickles. CHA is great as a determination of me being NOT the introvert- but I'm pretty sure the Necromancer afflicted with Taint, Vile Darkness, and 2e Necromancer Flaws Does not command a compelling personality to give him benefits as an undead or command them- the commands are mental and vary per undead in complexity- and It doesn't seem to cover, say if the necromancer is an introvert or otherwise hates verbal communication- or is a Dread Necromancer in the Forgotten realms who is an Ex-Wizard who traded in his/her Wizard levels through a ritual that changes them to the class- they'd still have their wizard ability scores, and the only thing they'd do is recalculate- so it really seems slightly off.

In the instance of being a mute in D&D- you can't actually cast anything with somantic components unless they're modified with silent spell metamagic, but there are some non speech creatures that have aracane spells prepared, though some have non-verbal means of communication.

Then there's abject results of ability drain not doing what they always do- where some effects may cause different results than default if they're reduced to 0.