D&D Beyond article about changing ability scores

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
And yet, none of the games that ditched these things have ever toppled D&D. The only one that came close was a clone of D&D. That’s a very strong argument for keeping the outdated sacred cows.
 
Last edited:
I actually like using raw ability scores for tests: roll under STR to bend the bars, etc. But then I have always preferred B/X to AD&D, and that's a game in which the modifiers aren't all-powerful.
 
And yet, none of the games that ditched these things have ever toppled D&D. The only one that can’t close was a clone of D&D. That’s a very strong argument for keeping the outdated sacred cows.

I have a lot of theories on this, but the biggest one to me is that D&D has always had probably the lowest barrier for getting to the table. Even the more complex versions like 3.x, it was easy to get to the table.

What I mean by that, is that if you want to GM it, you have a huge book of monsters. You have tons of premade adventures. The class/race system makes it easier to make a character than something freeform. Just pick those two, and a few small choices and away you go. Level systems make it easier for GMs to judge how dangerous something would be for the players

The fact that D&D has always had tons of premade stuff and GM guidelines has been in my opinion its biggest strengths.

Now, how much of it is well made? CR is a nightmare, a lot of the adventures are meh, the character creation in some editions isn't as simple as it appears, etc.

But that barrier to just feeling like you can get it to the table and do something with it easily? That is very much part of D&D.
 
base ability score increases off of classes and backgrounds
That is, basically, exactly how Modiphious Conan works. You have a base stat line then the stages of character development give you defined / choice based stat increases.
The fact that D&D has always had tons of premade stuff and GM guidelines has been in my opinion its biggest strengths.
First mover advantage + low barrier to entry = network effect, to be sure
 
And yet, none of the games that ditched these things have ever toppled D&D. The only one that came close was a clone of D&D. That’s a very strong argument for keeping the outdated sacred cows.

I think D&D should remain D&D, and I say that as someone who really dislikes D&D. (moreso at the moment that I'm playing in a 5th edition campaign) Gamers who want something different will always have tons of options.
 
Last month, I made a Twitter thread about racial ability score bonuses. I don’t like the way that races in D&D get numerical bonuses to their ability scores. I think it’s unnecessarily limiting. There are over 1,000 unique race/class combinations in fifth edition D&D, but only a small handful of them are worth playing from a character optimization standpoint.

So, the article lost me here. "Character optimization" culture is just not my idea of fun. I have no problem with it being anyone else's idea of fun, but the minute a person says "from a character optimization standpoint", I know that I am not the target audience. They can houserule however they like. I wouldn't want their ideas to become standardized though, we've already seen an edition that attempted to cater exclusively to this crowd, and I think it's safe to say that it was bad for the hobby overall.

I will say though, I think the author's "solutions" are needlessly over-complicated. Why not just have the player set their primary stat at 18, two other stats at 16, two others at 12, and one at 10. Ba-da-bing, ba-da-boom. Optimized character in a few seconds.
 
we've already seen an edition that attempted to cater exclusively to this crowd
Which one are you thinking of? I could fit two different editions into that view, maybe three at a push.
 
So, the article lost me here. "Character optimization" culture is just not my idea of fun. I have no problem with it being anyone else's idea of fun, but the minute a person says "from a character optimization standpoint", I know that I am not the target audience. They can houserule however they like. I wouldn't want their ideas to become standardized though, we've already seen an edition that attempted to cater exclusively to this crowd, and I think it's safe to say that it was bad for the hobby overall.

I think there is a lot of middle ground here where like yes, the crazy charoppers are bizarre to me (if they are making for actual play, I find the theorycrafters that are just doing it for jokes, like the one who made a 3.x character who turned into a psychic sandwich, kind of funny), I can also see not liking thinking of a fun combo (like a half-orc bard) and realizing that it is going to be forever kind of weak compared to other characters. I mean the dividing line is how much "weak" is too weak, but that is a different question.

I think that moves like this keep people like you who don't care at all about charop, and people who want to make weird characters without feeling like they would have been better off doing something else in the same game.

It's only the crazy charoppers who I really don't want in my game. I find a lot of those middle ground people are quite fun to play with (and hell, I probably sit in that group myself. I've voluntarily made characters I knew were weak, but I don't like trying to make a competent odd character and feeling like the system is fighting me).
 
Which one are you thinking of? I could fit two different editions into that view, maybe three at a push.

I was thinking 4th, though I could see the argument for 3rd.
 
I was thinking 4th, though I could see the argument for 3rd.
Thought so, just checking. The late-2e Options books could also be thought of in that vein too, perhaps.

I don’t personally think 4e did damage to the hobby. Sure, the maths was a little wonky, and the Skill Challenge rules needed a bit of refinement, but other than that it was a fun game. The great miscarriage of justice is that it was clearly designed to be easily adaptable to cRPGs and that never happened. A guy in our group kept all his 4e stuff and occasionally brings it out for one-off games more akin to Mordheim or the like.

Out of interest, what do you see as it’s negative legacy?
 
I think there is a lot of middle ground here where like yes, the crazy charoppers are bizarre to me (if they are making for actual play, I find the theorycrafters that are just doing it for jokes, like the one who made a 3.x character who turned into a psychic sandwich, kind of funny), I can also see not liking thinking of a fun combo (like a half-orc bard) and realizing that it is going to be forever kind of weak compared to other characters. I mean the dividing line is how much "weak" is too weak, but that is a different question.

I think that moves like this keep people like you who don't care at all about charop, and people who want to make weird characters without feeling like they would have been better off doing something else in the same game.

It's only the crazy charoppers who I really don't want in my game. I find a lot of those middle ground people are quite fun to play with (and hell, I probably sit in that group myself. I've voluntarily made characters I knew were weak, but I don't like trying to make a competent odd character and feeling like the system is fighting me).

Yeah, that's fair, though likewise I'd say "not optimized" isn't congruent with "useless". Being weaker than another character doesn't really read to me in a game where players are working together as part of a group. I think there's also a medium ground between everyone being the same vvs one player being the group's Aquaman.
 
In all seriousness the culture around PF is so bad charop wise. I'm really liking PF2e cause I feel like it gives a lot of choice, and I do like a bit of crunchiness, but any of the PF specific boards its like looking at math homework, and I did my time with math homework. I mean, I got a degree in Electronics, I like math, but the expected dpr calculations and stuff are ridiculously over the top. If there was a discrepancy large enough to matter in play in DPR (and even then it would have to be two characters types where DPR is their main combat contribution), it would be immediately apparent, you wouldn't need to bust out statistics to show it.
 
Out of interest, what do you see as it’s negative legacy?

I'm not sure about legacy, but it was an edition that ostracized both old players and new ones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbm
That is, basically, exactly how Modiphious Conan works. You have a base stat line then the stages of character development give you defined / choice based stat increases.

Except Conan doesn't actually have defined classes, certainly not in the sense that D&D does. I've muddled through their chargen before. It's just a Lifepath system, which other games have done as well.
 
Last edited:
And Vampire at one point.

Not a clone of D&D.

Fair enough. I literally only personally know one person who *ever* actually wanted to run Vampire: The Masquerade (and dragged us along into one terrible session), or any World of Darkness game, so its impact is completely lost on me. Even at its height, in my neck of the woods, it was a non-factor buried among other non-D&D games, so if it ever actually took over the market (temporarily) like Pathfinder did, that was lost on me.
 
I think D&D should remain D&D, and I say that as someone who really dislikes D&D. (moreso at the moment that I'm playing in a 5th edition campaign) Gamers who want something different will always have tons of options.

Yeah, when I wanna play D&D, I'll bust out D&D (and I do sometimes want to. At least 5e). When I wanna play literally anything else, I'll go to literally hundreds of other options.
 
Fair enough. I literally only personally know one person who *ever* actually wanted to run Vampire: The Masquerade (and dragged us along into one terrible session), or any World of Darkness game, so its impact is completely lost on me. Even at its height, in my neck of the woods, it was a non-factor buried among other non-D&D games, so if it ever actually took over the market (temporarily) like Pathfinder did, that was lost on me.
Amusingly, I know* way more people that would run V:tM than people who would run D&D. So anecdotal evidence changes with the different people:smile:.

*IRL, online might be different:wink:.
 
Amusingly, I know* way more people that would run V:tM than people who would run D&D. So anecdotal evidence changes with the different people:smile:.

*IRL, online might be different:wink:.

Online, you can find SOMEONE who is running MOST games. Even my Vampire loving friend went off to college and hung out with a bunch of wanna-blessed-bes and what did they play? A bunch of D&D.
 
Online, you can find SOMEONE who is running MOST games. Even my Vampire loving friend went off to college and hung out with a bunch of wanna-blessed-bes and what did they play? A bunch of D&D.
What time frames are we talking about? I remember a time in the 90s when it seemed like everybody wanted to play either Vampire: The Masquerade, Werewolf: The Apocalypse, or Mage: The Ascension. There were a lot of people who would only play the Storyteller System. I'll admit this the Atlanta, GA area and it might have been different elsewhere.
 
What time frames are we talking about? I remember a time in the 90s when it seemed like everybody wanted to play either Vampire: The Masquerade, Werewolf: The Apocalypse, or Mage: The Ascension. There were a lot of people who would only play the Storyteller System. I'll admit this the Atlanta, GA area and it might have been different elsewhere.

Most of the 90s? That's when I got into gaming (around '94, if memory serves), and it was just never a big deal anywhere around here. The only game stores that carried a decent selection of Vampire stuff were game stores that carried *everything* (and there were a couple of those) from D&D to really obscure shit.

I'm not saying Vampire wasn't a big deal, I get that it was, but I'm surprised at the notion that it was ever Pathfinder big (as in, becoming the top RPG on the market, albeit temporarily). Because there's always been a #2, clone of D&D or not.
 
Most of the 90s? That's when I got into gaming (around '94, if memory serves), and it was just never a big deal anywhere around here.
You could almost think that the popularity of games might vary in different regions...:grin:
 
You could almost think that the popularity of games might vary in different regions...:grin:

No kidding, and I acknowledged right away that my experience was anecdotal. But the tangent was about the larger market and whether Vampire was ever a Pathfinder-like usurper to D&D, or if it was just a really big #2.
 
No kidding, and I acknowledged right away that my experience was anecdotal. But the tangent was about the larger market and whether Vampire was ever a Pathfinder-like usurper to D&D, or if it was just a really big #2.
I don't think anyone has good enough data. I think it was bigger than D&D at some point, and a very close #2 at other points, so yeah, kinda PF-like:smile:.
But I sure as hell can't produce the data that lead me to such conclusions, it was several hard drives ago. And frankly, I doubt it matters:wink:.
In the end, what does matter is what happens in your area, or if you're a publisher, what your fans want!
I mean, there's GURPS which has its fans. Even if the D&D mechanics have so much more fans, do you think GURPS would gain more fans by switching to a D&D-like mechanical structure?
Or is it more likely to lose fans:shade:?
 
For what it's worth, an informal thread on Facebook among my gamer friends (none of whom I gamed with in real life and who are from various parts of the country) is that it was more *visible* than D&D, but never outsold D&D. Inquest magazine apparently repeatedly reported it as the #2 selling RPG behind D&D (I used to read Inquest, but damned if my memory is that good).


I don't think anyone has good enough data. I think it was bigger than D&D at some point, and a very close #2 at other points, so yeah, kinda PF-like:smile:.
But I sure as hell can't produce the data that lead me to such conclusions, it was several hard drives ago. And frankly, I doubt it matters:wink:.
In the end, what does matter is what happens in your area, or if you're a publisher, what your fans want!
I mean, there's GURPS which has its fans. Even if the D&D mechanics have so much more fans, do you think GURPS would gain more fans by switching to a D&D-like mechanical structure?
Or is it more likely to lose fans:shade:?

I couldn't begin to speak on the mindset of the GURPS fanbase, but I would guess that most games pivoting to be more D&D-like, unless they have something that uniquely separates them from it still, would just lead most gamers going "then why wouldn't I just play D&D", unless they had a die-hard loyaty to a company or a brand name.

(If Pinnacle had announced that Adventure Edition was just going to be an overhaul making it D&D, but with, say, a Wild Die and bennies, I would have politely passed on their Kickstarter and just alternated between running Deluxe Edition and 5e, and I've *worked* for Pinnacle.)
 
According to ICv2, Pathfinder was #1 starting in the second quarter of 2011 and I believe until 5e was released. D&D has been at the top since.
 
Incidentally, the top five RPGs in sales according to ICv2 for Spring, 2019 are:

1. Dungeons & Dragons
2. Starfinder
3. Star Wars
4. Vampire
5. Pathfinder
 
What time frames are we talking about? I remember a time in the 90s when it seemed like everybody wanted to play either Vampire: The Masquerade, Werewolf: The Apocalypse, or Mage: The Ascension. There were a lot of people who would only play the Storyteller System. I'll admit this the Atlanta, GA area and it might have been different elsewhere.

Around the same time just an hour or two out (Athens, GA), and yeah, tons of White Wolf games. I'd say in my area it was like WW=D&D>everything else.

We did have a hugely disproportionate L5R audience in the late 90s though. (The guy who owns the longest running games shop in town ended up writing some for some of the later editions, and regularly ran the games for AEG at GenCon)
 
Incidentally, the top five RPGs in sales according to ICv2 for Spring, 2019 are:

1. Dungeons & Dragons
2. Starfinder
3. Star Wars
4. Vampire
5. Pathfinder
The autumn numbers might be more interesting.
 
I expect a huge boost for Pathfinder, hitting 1 or 2. As they had a major release and according to Paizo it is selling much faster than they were expecting. Will it overtake 5e even with that? Who knows, but yeah.
 
This thread brings up some interesting ideas. While this kind of a life path light, I like the direction things are going. While I'm not completely sold on a halfling or gnome having the same level of Strength as someone with double their mass. However, I could accept something like giving them Disadvantage for "feats of Strength" bending bars, lifting gates, etc. But keeping they attack and Damage untouched. Of course they would need some small bump to off set that.
 
It not D&Dish. But certainty something useful to put in as an appendix to the DMG.

Mechanically no. Setting-wise? Certainly (by this I mean the changes could easily be implemented into a "standard" D&D setting). This again, is part of the issue. You *can* do D&D5e, and therefore any other edition of D&D this way, and it will still play exactly the same in its core task resolution. The primary difference is the "established boxes" of "classes" becomes muted and allows players to customize their characters according to the needs established by the setting through the GM.

I do this with the Forgotten Realms using Savage Worlds. It works great. Again, not crapping on classes, or even D&D. I'm just pointing out that the ways to skin the cat don't drift too far away from the some (not all) of the core conceits of the mechanics of D&D.

The question is where does one draw that line where you say "this isn't D&D." That's the real question. (and you might be saying this here - but I wouldn't agree in TSL's 5e case. It's still pretty much D&D 5e with a few important tweaks).
 
Last edited:
Mechanically no. Setting-wise? Certainly (by this I mean the changes could easily be implemented into a "standard" D&D setting). This again, is part of the issue. You *can* do D&D5e, and therefore any other edition of D&D this way, and it will still play exactly the same in its core task resolution. The primary difference is the "established boxes" of "classes" becomes muted and allows players to customize their characters according to the needs established by the setting through the GM.

I do this with the Forgotten Realms using Savage Worlds. It works great. Again, not crapping on classes, or even D&D. I'm just pointing out that the ways to skin the cat don't drift too far away from the some (not all) of the core conceits of the mechanics of D&D.

Sure, a clever designer, such as yourself, can absolutely make a RPG that works with the same math behind an edition of D&D in such a way that the material made for either is compatible to a very high degree.

But..

The question is where does one draw that line where you say "this isn't D&D." That's the real question. (and you might be saying this here - but I wouldn't agree in TSL's 5e case. It's still pretty much D&D 5e with a few important tweaks).

What isn't D&D? Or rather I would like to what isn't D&Dish. I opt for the second terms because the issue is about intangible feelings beyond the text or the math. If you look at all the great franchises like Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, there are the films and the text that originally gave it life. But there also a "feel" that future works will be judged by. It is nebulous and maddinging to deal with but it exists.

For example Castles & Crusades versus Osric, Ascending AC versus Descending AC+ Charts verus THACO.

Castles & Crusades
Castle & Crusades was cleverly designed so that AD&D 1st edition adventures and setting were compatible. That if you drop in the C&C equivalent the material worked 'as is'. Yet there was a heated debate over the fact that C&C as a set of rules wasn't a clone of AD&D 1st edition. Ultimately that discontent led to OSRIC. Which along with Basic Fantasy ignited the OSR as we know it.

Why? Because despite its compatibility C&C with the Siege Engine mechanics and a dozen other details didn't have the same feel as AD&D 1st edition in the judgment of many. Doesn't mean it wasn't fun or that it didn't met it goal of compatibility but it was judged lacking enough to fuel another effort at making a clone.

Ascending AC
Swords & Wizardry supports both ascending AC and descending AC. The adoption of ascending AC is found throughout other retro-clones as well but it is not universally adopted. Ascending AC is an example of a change or addition that on the cusp of feeling D&Dish in regards to classic editions. Except for the case of AD&D 1st and it use of repeated 20 in its chart, Ascending AC is mathematically exactly the same as the chart method, just having a completely different procedure. Yet despite its perfect compatibility, it only been generally accepted.

What this all means?
My opinion is that trying to figure out any of this can only be accomplished by observation. Finding out what is D&Dish for a particular edition is a trial and error process. I don't know why people choose the aesthetics they do. I am sure there some social science that can provide insight. But since I am publishing in the time I have for a hobby, I don't have the time or interest to do amount of work to generate a meaningful answer.

What I have learned through trial and error, that a path that works is to accept the convention of the target audience, and treat it with respect. That you can present a divergent vision as long as you present it as your take and have reasonable answer for doing what you are doing.

For example my ability system and my rogue classes exist because characters that are better at things other than fighting and spellcasting are an important element of my Majestic Wilderland campaign. I acknowledge that for other referee, having those types of character isn't important to their campaign. I don't argue whether that is a good choice or not. I do have my opinion but I largely keep it myself and respect their. As a result I felt I have achieved a level of acceptance for the Majestic Wilderlands along with the corresponding sales/downloads.

What does this mean for you
If you have an idea for classless version of classic D&D. Go for it. But if you want to make it appealing to that audience then you will have to compromise in someway with what is classic D&Dish. A good example of this is Castle & Crusade. However more divergent you are then the more likely you will be facing the same road as the author of a completely original RPG faces. You will have to grow your audience from scratch.

If it was me, what i would do after designing such a system presenting front and center the original four classes (plus any of the others that interest you) built using the classless system. This will have several benefit. It will demonstrate that it is truly compatible with classic D&D. It will provide a entry point for players that are not interested in mucking around but part of a group using the system. It provide a worked out example of something that is familiar to classic D&D hobbyists.

That is just one off of the top of my head.

Hope this helps.
 
What time frames are we talking about? I remember a time in the 90s when it seemed like everybody wanted to play either Vampire: The Masquerade, Werewolf: The Apocalypse, or Mage: The Ascension. There were a lot of people who would only play the Storyteller System. I'll admit this the Atlanta, GA area and it might have been different elsewhere.

Yep thats how I remember the 1990s rpg scene as well.

TSR's lines of AD&D 2E, D&D RC, and the Basic D&D black box were always in stock, however they were generally found sitting on the shelves amongst the assorted titles in the miscellenous other rpg sections, almost as an afterthought. I think GURPs and Warhammer Fantasy had a fair bit of titles in those sections, often much more than D&D.

Whereas WoD books often had prime real estate shelf space, with generally half of the titles that many game shops had in stock, taking up much of the shelf space previously set aside for D&D.

That was pretty much my experience in Brisbane and Melbourne, and my cousin said Sydney was similar. I just assumed that was replicating what was happening in the States.

That all pretty much changed when WotC released D&D 3E in 2000
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TJS
I looked for sales numbers online the last few days and found nothing. My experience in the 90s was that White Wolf games were omnipresent, but AD&D was as well.

The thing I wonder is - it's well known that core rulebooks sell better than supplements, and up until Skills & Powers in the late 90s 2e had the same core rulebooks since 89, whereas White Wolf pumped out a new core rulebook seemingly every few months
 
Yeah but D&D did reprint those same core books up in different covers, much like they did with AD&D in the '80s. Not that it fooled anyone, I think the covers were too similar for people to repurchase them purely for that.

White Wolf did print core books out at a very fast rate, and also flooded the shelves with splat books as well. So much so that the whole WoD seemed to be tripping over itself at times, especially by 1999/2000 when they were wrapping things up.
 
Last edited:
Those 90s reprints is the D&D corebooks were atrocious.
 
Yeah but D& D did reprint those same core books up in different covers, much like they did with AD&D in the '80s. Not that it fooled anyone, I think the covers were too similar for people to repurchase them purely for that.
It wasn't just the covers that were changed. All of the artwork was changed. More and brighter text colors were added. The layout was changed from three columns to 2 columns. The redesign looked like someone saw all the "cool" new options the 90s Desktop Publishing applications were adding and wanted to use them. If I'm remembering correctly it also through off all the page numbers too so I had to revise the information packet I gave new players to account for it.
 
Yep thats how I remember the 1990s rpg scene as well.

TSR's lines of AD&D 2E, D&D RC, and the Basic D&D black box were always in stock, however they were generally found sitting on the shelves amongst the assorted titles in the miscellenous other rpg sections, almost as an afterthought. I think GURPs and Warhammer Fantasy had a fair bit of titles in those sections, often much more than D&D.

Whereas WoD books often had prime real estate shelf space, with generally half of the titles that many game shops had in stock, taking up much of the shelf space previously set aside for D&D.

That was pretty much my experience in Brisbane and Melbourne, and my cousin said Sydney was similar. I just assumed that was replicating what was happening in the States.

That all pretty much changed when WotC released D&D 3E in 2000
When I joined the university RPG club in Melbourne in 96, half the games were White Wolf games. The other common games were Cyberpunk and Call of Cthulhu.

There were no games of AD&D.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top