Troll Lord Games

So I have noticed over the years that people brand new to tabletop rpg's who learn C&C as their first ever game have the same questions over attributes and modifiers. Specifically, after generating the classic 3-18 attribute, they are confused by the modifier. Example- a 17 strength grants a +2 modifier, right? Well the question is always "when do i use the 17?" My answer is" Well you dont, just the modifier"; to this they ask "Never?" and I invariably say "umm, no, you don't" They then ask "why not just use the modifier number thingy as my Strength score?" and to this I say "Umm, yeah. We could, but we don't" and to this they say "Well why not?" and I say "It's just a head nod to old D&D" and to this new gamers stare blankly at me and go "ooooh". lol.

In reality, the old 3-18 numbers served a purpose, because you could roll a d20 under the attribute for a check, but now in C&C, the Seige Engine replaces that type of check, so those old 3-18 numbers are actually pretty meaningless and just confuse new people. Games like Dragon Age figured that out and use the modifiers as your attribute. A strength of zero is normal and a strength of 3 is very strong. That way, you can just tell the player to add their strength to the roll or so on, and it is just easier to convey. I was just thinking that games like Harvesters could be rewritten with this concept or even a C&C Basic game could be presented this way.

What do you think? Blasphemous perhaps? Or practical?

True20 does it that way. Seems to work fine, from what I understand. I guess the only issue would be generating stats. You could still have them roll 3d6, using the result to determine the modifier, but not recording the result itself; or you could just do some kind of point buy system.
Oh, you'd also have to modify spells, magic items, etc., that grant attribute bonuses.

Never ran into that. I've played since AD&D was released which used the same paradigm as C&C.

Ah, the good ole days of attribute checks- where every point of your attribute score meant something. I miss those days at times.

But fundamentally i think we keep those scores because all gamers can relate to them. Everyone knows that 18 strength is immensely strong, and a strength of 11 is Joe Average. It doesn't matter what the exact modifiers are, we know what the raw values represent.

-Fizz

Also, keep in mind that there are magic items, etc, which might cause a character to gain attribute points but not necessarily modifier points because it typically takes more than one point in an attribute to cause a gain in modifier.

But fundamentally i think we keep those scores because all gamers can relate to them. Everyone knows that 18 strength is immensely strong, and a strength of 11 is Joe Average. It doesn't matter what the exact modifiers are, we know what the raw values represent.

Fizz, I would have to agree that all gamers who have been around the hobby for a long time do relate to the 3-18 scale, but the truth is adults (and kids) who are brand spanking new to the idea of a tabletop rpg really don't relate to it initially. Other games I found difficult to explain to beginners are d100 systems like BRP/CoC, where you add the 3-18 scale attributes to create a base percentage. Intelligent adults who are sitting down for the first time ever in their life to a tabletop rpg are trying to process the information in a logical manner...which rpg rules systems don't always do. For d100 games, I was asked why the heck there are attributes at all if every skill assumes the necessary attributes to use the skill. And of course on and on it goes.

Newer games have come out on the market that really do streamline game mechanics with brand new people in mind. I think Dragon Age does this well, though I would probably classify it as rules medium by the time you get to set 2.

Me? Yeah, I dig the 3-18 in my C&C, because that was how it was when I first learned how to play D&D when I was a but a lad. I just don't think it's as intuitive as we would like to believe it is for a brand new gamer.

All the 3 to 18 does is represent the "human standard" on a bell curve. There is a write up of this in the 1E DMG. So 9 to 12 is the "average", and at the top area of the curve, with the other scores taking us to either end of the extremes. There is no reason you cannot do this with just the modifier, but you'd have to either keep using 3 to 18 behind the scenes or use a D100 to determine where along this bell curve your character is, with 90+% being an 18/+3 and below 10% being the other extreme. You'll also need for this system to reflect the racial modifiers, even though in C&C none of the core races can take you above a +3.

Yeah, you make a point.... hmmm.
I too, look back fondly on the "roll under attribute" attribute check making each point count. but whatever.

I think keeping the 3d6 (or 3-18 at least) to bell curve the modifiers is a must, then you can do character sheets with just the modifiers.
For spells and items that modify the attributes, though, I'm still in favor of keeping them as is, rather than changing all those spells (because they'll have to all be scaled back a lot, or made higher level, or something).
I guess i'm on the fence, LOL.

Like most I like when the rolled 3 to 18 meant something. The way I view it now is there is possibilities for your attribute number can go up. These numbers then become important for character attribute modifiers.

Say you have a attribute score 13 which gives you a +1. Now say your attribute gets boosted to 14. Your modifier is still +1. It goes up again to 15 and your modifier is still +1. But, if it gets boosted again to 16 your modifier becomes +2.

It's not a big thing, as opportunities are rare, but even if your attribute is magically modified, at least until the magic wears off you still get that modifier. You have a strength attribute score of 15 which normally gives you a modifier +1 but, through some kind of magical spell your strength gets a bonus of +4 to the attribute for the duration. For that duration you'll be at 19 for your strength attribute which temporarily gives you a modifier of +3.

It's kind of like XP and levels.

I've began seeing the same things as Piperdog a while back. My solution was to go back to the roll under idea with the ability mods only affecting things like HP,AC and combat modifiers. The stats go back to meaning something and the mods can still be used.

Piperdog wrote: but the truth is adults (and kids) who are brand spanking new to the idea of a tabletop rpg really don't relate to it initially. Other games I found difficult to explain to beginners are d100 systems like BRP/CoC, where you add the 3-18 scale attributes to create a base percentage. Intelligent adults who are sitting down for the first time ever in their life to a tabletop rpg are trying to process the information in a logical manner...which rpg rules systems don't always do.

It's like a quirky rule in a sport. Little kids don't understand the balk rule in baseball, or offsides in hockey, etc etc, lots of examples. They'll ask why is it that way and be confused about it for awhile. But they learn, then they get it, and then it becomes second nature. Then they end up teaching their own kids. And the tradition continues... heh.

-Fizz

The score can also be used to break ties. So even though two characters both have a +2 bonus with Strength checks, one is very slightly stronger (16 vs 15, say), and so if they ever compete the stronger guy will win.

-Fizz

Oh I like that, Fizz!

The strength score in particular is also a measure of force. The amount of weight you can lift in a military press, deadlift, etc. as function of the raw attribute multiplied by some factor. So although your modifiers might be the same if you have a strength of 9-12, your raw power is different.

As for the other ability scores, yeah there's not exactly a quantity inherent there, but it's a nice way to differentiate characteristics and make things a little more intuitive than saying I have a +1 strength score and a -2 charisma score.

There are numerous effects one can use based solely on raw attribute, such as how many times a shadow can swallow your soul, the number of times a character can be raised from the dead, whether that barbarian can break free of a giant constrictor snake, or how many rounds a PC can hold their breath. Of course, several of these are situational and may not be used on a regular basis, but there is much more to what an attribute means than the bonus/penalty it provides...

if one is using attribute as TN for a check, how does one reflect training? i would hate for a fighter to perform tracking skills better than a ranger soley because the fighter has a higher wisdom. i was thinking if you want to perform a task in which you are clearly untrained (such as a barbarian trying to decipher a magic scroll) the PC would roll 2D20 and chose the worst result. where as one who is trained rolls as normal. this could work in the opposite direction as well, if you have a particular bonus you could roll 2x and keep the best result. i'm referring to the roll under method by the way.

jdizzy001 wrote:if one is using attribute as TN for a check, how does one reflect training? i would hate for a fighter to perform tracking skills better than a ranger soley because the fighter has a higher wisdom.

Per the PHB, the default is that the fighter can't even try to track.

Arduin wrote:

jdizzy001 wrote:if one is using attribute as TN for a check, how does one reflect training? i would hate for a fighter to perform tracking skills better than a ranger soley because the fighter has a higher wisdom.

Per the PHB, the default is that the fighter can't even try to track.

…. No. (no offense, that just seemed funny in my head) .

If the party is lost in the wilderness I don't care what classes are represented as a CK I could never say "Well shoot, no rangers? I guess you all sit down and die. Who wants to make new characters?" I know the ranger or barbarian are the key classes for using tracking or scaling skills and such, but to say someone cant even attempt a roll because they are the "wrong class" is just poor CK'ing (I know, I've been that poor CK before). Each class has their strengths and I'm not saying that I want fighters with skills, but in my experience when you tell a PC they can't even attempt a roll because they are the wrong class it results in a PPE (Poor Playing Experience). I'd rather allow them to try and fail miserably due to penalties than tell them, "You cant, you're not a wizard Harry ."

I guess a better question would be, what do you all do in a situation where you need to represent trained skill rolls vs untrained skill rolls in a roll under situation(Just to clarify, I am referring strictly to skills, not combat)?

From my house rules:

"Characters may not attempt actions that fall under another class’ abilities. However, characters may attempt simple, non-professional, qualitatively inferior analogs to some class abilities when common sense (and the CK’s discretion) so dictate. For example, a fighter cannot pick pockets or disarm traps; such actions require professional knowledge and skill (i.e., class ability). However, the fighter could attempt to sneak up on a guard, despite the fact that such actions fall under the rogue’s and assassin’s Move Silently class ability; common sense dictates that anyone can simply try to be quiet. The difference is that the rogue and assassin make literally no sound, whereas the fighter moves relatively quietly, but still makes some noise, and so might be heard by a creature with enhanced hearing or an alert guard that makes a WIS check."

So too for tracking. Anyone can try to find his way out of a forest, or look for a trail. The ranger, though, can tell you that the trail was made by 5 orcs wearing steel boots and carrying hobbits on their backs.

jdizzy001 wrote:

Arduin wrote: Per the PHB, the default is that the fighter can't even try to track.

…. No. (no offense, that just seemed funny in my head) .

Yep, 'fraid so Kemosabe. PHB pg. 125 "In general, it is recommended that a Castle Keeper should disallow a character a chance of success in attempting a non-class ability."

It's always a good idea to thoroughly go through the main sections of a PHB, understand the RAW, before running games. ALL good CK's do so. Poor ones don't. I know, I was once in that boat too.

Personally, i don't like to flat-out disallow anything. I will always allow a character to attempt anything. But i find in most cases cases the only way for a character to succeed on non-class skills would be to roll a natural 20. A sufficient CL usually takes care of all this by itself.

For example, should a fighter be able to track muddy giant footprints? Of course. Should he be able to track a pixie that is actively hiding its trail across a rocky river? No. But somewhere in between those two extremes would be a case that is debatable- a case that might be simple for a ranger, but difficult for anyone else.


-Fizz

Fizz wrote:Personally, i don't like to flat-out disallow anything. I will always allow a character to attempt anything. But i find in most cases cases the only way for a character to succeed on non-class skills would be to roll a natural 20. A sufficient CL usually takes care of all this by itself.

For example, should a fighter be able to track muddy giant footprints? Of course. Should he be able to track a pixie that is actively hiding its trail across a rocky river? No. But somewhere in between those two extremes would be a case that is debatable- a case that might be simple for a ranger, but difficult for anyone else.


-Fizz

I agree completely and I think most people here would too, even a blind squirrel winds up with an acorn on ocassion.

It's also this that keeps me with C&C instead of wandering off to find new games or just walking away completely.

In general I don't like to tell them it is impossible either, but sometimes it simply is.

Treebore wrote:In general I don't like to tell them it is impossible either, but sometimes it simply is.

Oh, I NEVER tell someone that they can't try something. Players tell me what they are doing and I just tell them the outcome...

Arduin wrote:

Treebore wrote:In general I don't like to tell them it is impossible either, but sometimes it simply is.

Oh, I NEVER tell someone that they can't try something. Players tell me what they are doing and I just tell them the outcome...

My thoughts exactly.

jdizzy001 wrote:

Arduin wrote:

Treebore wrote:In general I don't like to tell them it is impossible either, but sometimes it simply is.

Oh, I NEVER tell someone that they can't try something. Players tell me what they are doing and I just tell them the outcome...

My thoughts exactly.

My gnome jumps off the cliff trying to land ontop of the black adult dragon's snout

Dracyian wrote:

jdizzy001 wrote:

Arduin wrote:

Treebore wrote:In general I don't like to tell them it is impossible either, but sometimes it simply is.

Oh, I NEVER tell someone that they can't try something. Players tell me what they are doing and I just tell them the outcome...

My thoughts exactly.

My gnome jumps off the cliff trying to land ontop of the black adult dragon's snout

Those are the best ones! Roll a 20 and I take 1 off of each of the 6 dice of falling damage rolled.