If an attribute is in the average range, why bother even recording it?

I've often thought that a player should choose a handful of attributes from a longer list than the standard 6. Those are either above or below average, conferring appropriate bonuses, and nothing else matters. May be more flavourful for a character to have bonuses/penalties in strength, dexterity, courage, moral fortitude and leadership?

From an OSR perspective it shouldn't be too hard to implement?

Quote from: Fighterboy on February 15, 2022, 03:33:56 PMFrom an OSR perspective it shouldn't be too hard to implement?

I've been playing this way for about a decade now. Not only is there an advantage that you mention, but it also makes it easy to add something like "Str +2" to a monster description to easily create a special boss monsters. I works so well, I'm surprised more people don't do it

I think the best reason to record an average attribute has to do with game systems where you can enhance your attribute as the campaign continues. In other words if 9-12 is "average" (as in OD&D, for example) it makes a difference if you have a 9 or a 12 if you gain +1 to a stat. 9+1 is still average, but 12+1 is above average.

Depends what you're doing. If you're playing actual old school, the exact score can matter. 9-12 may be average, but 9 and 10 have different Bend Bars/Lift Gates probabilities in 1E, and the difference between 11 and 12 is +100 cn weight allowance. I mean, yeah, you can simplify that if you're more or less just battle bonus harvesting. But then I'd ask, why even stop there? Like why not ditch the standard attributes entirely and just have advantages/disadvantages that give bonuses or penalties in one or two areas? It seems to me the weirdest all ways to handle it is to have a standardized set of scores to be left blank when they're average.

I like real scores for the same reason I like +/- grades.  Maybe a B is 80-89, but there's quite a bit of difference between 80 & 89 and I like that reflected.  Drives me nuts that my own university doesn't use this system.  It actually penalizes the students in multiple ways.

In d4-d4, I used that concept. In fact I used it for skills, attributes, dis/advantages and so on.

Strength? Unless it's written down as "poor", "good" or whatever, it's "ordinary". Lockpicking? Unless it's written down as something else, it's "ordinary". How good-looking is your character? Well, unless their appearance is written down as good, poor or whatever, it's ordinary.

This made for shorter character sheets.

As for what is ordinary, anyway? that's up to the GM. If the campaign is set in the North American frontier up to 1900 or so, the ordinary person can run, shoot, build a house, start a fire with a couple of sticks and no firestarter, skin an animal and so on. If it's set in central Seattle in 2022, maybe not. On the other hand, think of reading and writing, driving a car or computer use...

I used descriptors, but you can use numbers, of course.

QuoteIf an attribute is in the average range, why bother even recording it?

Because the vast majority of people (at least AFAIK) use printed or digital character sheets that include spaces for every single attribute, whether you have an "average/0" value in it or not.

Now, if we're talking about you writing down your character or NPCs/Creatures into some sort of "shorthand" format, then yes. Noting down "average" attribute values, assuming that average values = 0, makes NO sense. And noting down ONLY the attributes you have positive or negative values on makes more sense.

I use it sometimes as a shorthand for NPCs, and I agree it would work well with monsters. In B/X, the most common stat array is +1, 0, 0, 0, 0, -1, so I usually give NPCs a +1 at something, and a -1 at something.

Quote from: Fighterboy on February 15, 2022, 03:33:56 PM
If an attribute is in the average range, why bother even recording it?

I've often thought that a player should choose a handful of attributes from a longer list than the standard 6. Those are either above or below average, conferring appropriate bonuses, and nothing else matters. May be more flavourful for a character to have bonuses/penalties in strength, dexterity, courage, moral fortitude and leadership?

From an OSR perspective it shouldn't be too hard to implement?

I just record bonuses on char-sheets. Not the actual attributes anymore.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll on February 15, 2022, 08:38:32 PM

Quote from: Fighterboy on February 15, 2022, 03:33:56 PM
If an attribute is in the average range, why bother even recording it?

I've often thought that a player should choose a handful of attributes from a longer list than the standard 6. Those are either above or below average, conferring appropriate bonuses, and nothing else matters. May be more flavourful for a character to have bonuses/penalties in strength, dexterity, courage, moral fortitude and leadership?

From an OSR perspective it shouldn't be too hard to implement?

I just record bonuses on char-sheets. Not the actual attributes anymore.

That's how True20 did it. I don't get why it didn't catch on since it makes so much more sense

Honestly I'd be unable to play if I forcibly simplified the game like this. The addiction to complexity is just something I've come to expect. It'd be like walking into a room you frequent after all the furniture was re-arranged.

I think this is one of those places where an idea -- namely, standardized attribute bonuses -- so totally took over that it obscured what came before it.

In old-school D&D systems, anything and everything is game for making situational rules and rulings.

Does the NPC buy the PC's lies? There's no bluff check so... well, the PC's Charisma is 14, so sure.

Does the PC manage to hold the gate open while the others escape? Let them try to roll under their Strength on a d20.

Arm wresting match between PC with 9 Str and NPC will 12? That's a difference of 3, so let's give the PC a (50 - 3*5)% = 35% chance on a d100 to win.

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 15, 2022, 10:10:21 PM
I think this is one of those places where an idea -- namely, standardized attribute bonuses -- so totally took over that it obscured what came before it.

In old-school D&D systems, anything and everything is game for making situational rules and rulings.

Does the NPC buy the PC's lies? There's no bluff check so... well, the PC's Charisma is 14, so sure.

Does the PC manage to hold the gate open while the others escape? Let them try to roll under their Strength on a d20.

Arm wresting match between PC with 9 Str and NPC will 12? That's a difference of 3, so let's give the PC a (50 - 3*5)% = 35% chance on a d100 to win.

Arguably, a system of a.) only recording exceptional attributes and b.) having a rather small range of numbers makes that approach easier rather than harder to implement, especially when it comes to making judgment calls on where to draw the line. To use one of your examples:

Does the NPC buy the PCs' lies? Well, Alfin's, sure, he's got Cha 14. But Berta's too? She's got Cha 12, still pretty good, but I don't know.
- Does the NPC buy the PCs' lies? Alfin's got a Cha bonus, so yeah. Berta does not, so no.

So I don't think "rulings, not rules" is any more tied to the standard attribute range than "roll a D20 and add something in all situations" is tied to the bonuses.

Quote from: Wulfhelm on February 16, 2022, 02:01:54 AM
Arguably, a system of a.) only recording exceptional attributes and b.) having a rather small range of numbers makes that approach easier rather than harder to implement, especially when it comes to making judgment calls on where to draw the line. To use one of your examples:

Does the NPC buy the PCs' lies? Well, Alfin's, sure, he's got Cha 14. But Berta's too? She's got Cha 12, still pretty good, but I don't know.
- Does the NPC buy the PCs' lies? Alfin's got a Cha bonus, so yeah. Berta does not, so no.

Sure, but note that your approach makes it binary. Berta's Cha 12 could also mean "He's suspicious, but something about Berta makes him want to trust her. He hasn't passed judgment yet." So she has a chance, but she'll have to sell it harder, taking longer.

Now, with the modern (Stat - 10)/2 approach and unified task system, then no, whether you have an odd or even score probably isn't worth keeping track of. On the other end of the spectrum, 0e and 1e have no task system and their ability scores have large "dead zones" with no or minimal differences in mechanical effects, so keeping track of exact values for use in situational rulings is almost required.

B/X can go either way, with minimal revision, so it's down to taste there.

EDIT: Hit "quote" when I meant to hit "modify" and posted another comment.