A few recent OSR games, such as Swords & Wizardry White Box, Delving Deeper, and Bloody Basic, have adopted OD&D's attribute modifiers for rolls. Those are: 8 or less: -1; 9 to 12: 0; 13 or more.
On the positive side, I like the fact that this divides up abilities into "high-middle-low". You don't get the effect from later versions, where many players seem to feel that unless their primary attribute for their class is quite high, they're "hopeless". On the negative, though, the modifiers feel too small. These games use variants on the d20 System, so a +1 is only a 5% change in the chance of success. It's such a small bonus as to be rarely useful.
+1 OD&D intended those modifiers to be used with a 2d6 system, not a 1d20 one. A -1 or +1 is much more significant on 2d6 than with 1d20. So, I'm suggesting that if people want to use this style, but also want to use the 1d20 resolution mechanic instead of the original 2d6, they use -2/0/+2 as the modifiers instead. I'm suggesting doubling the numbers to give a statistical impact closer to what those modifiers had in the original system.
Original D&D was meant to use the Chainmail combat system... which used 2d6. In the context of a 2d6 system, a +1 is much more significant. If you normally need a 12 to succeed, it makes you 1/18, or 5.55...%, more likely to succeed. In the best-case scenario, if you needed an 8 before the modifier, it makes you 1/6, or 16.66...% more likely to succeed. Thus, a +1 in original D&D is more akin to a +2 when you're using 1d20.
Gygax quickly changed the modifiers, doing so in Greyhawk, the first major revision to OD&D. My guess is that he did so upon realizing that since D&D was far outselling Chainmail, most players were using the 1d20-based "alternative combat system" rather than the originally intended system. The upshot is - if you're contemplating making a system with an OD&D-style flat modifier, but are using a d20-based system, I'd suggest making the modifier be -2/+2, instead of -1/+1. That will keep things closer to the original intended effect of the modifiers.
...I'm not talking 'double all steps, so you go +2, +4, etc". I'm talking about three tiers, period: -2, 0, +2. Nobody would have a +8 from a stat, unless you're dealing with a girdle of giant strength or the like, in which case it's really a magic item bonus...
...The really nice thing about not gradating it like that, is that it then doesn't cause a drive toward higher stats. On 3d6, the chance of a 13 or better is 26%. Thus, with six stats, the majority of characters (about 5 out of 6) will have at least one...
Alexander Staniforth
I think there'd be something to be said for a little more nuance. -2/-1/0/+1/+2. That way ridiculously high stats DO matter more, as do ridiculously low stats while at the same time it's still a relatively simple gradation.
Paul Goldstone
Bigger bonuses skew balance, especially at higher "levels". Lower bonuses also allow other "magic item bonuses" to have relevance. A +1 magic sword is irrelevant if a 18 stat gives +8 to a roll. I think the issue here is on a (3-18) system fundamentally they have made top end and low end stats irrelevant, there seems to be no (game mechanic) difference between 13 and 18. Perhaps a "roleplay aspect", but game mechanic wise irrelevant.
No comments:
Post a Comment