Quote from: Kiero;1070774Stats don't matter when PCs are little more than interchangeable avatars of their players, competing in the beauty parade for who can impress the GM the most.

The rules are defined by the setting. The rulebook is just a tool to make running the campaign easier. Like it is easier to give attributes a quantifiable number of 15 than to say your character has a high strength. Likewise a character with 6 wisdom is likely to be more than a bit foolish or not very forward thinking.

Quote from: kythri;1070790That's pretty much what I'm suggesting.  A character's wits are based on their stats, not based on the player's wits.  If you've got a low INT/low WIS character, than that character doesn't have much in the way of wits about them.

Yes but with OD&D it part of the roleplaying rather than in other RPGs and later editions where it primary effect is a modifier for codified subsystem.

The player wits and creativity are still a part of the game. In this particular case oriented towards how to roleplay this obviously foolish character who doesn't plan ahead much (or any other cool interpretation of a 6 wisdom).

For example I have a Cleric with a 9 charisma. Anytime I have to preach, convince, I try to fuck it up a little. Not as bad as the bishop in the Princess Bride but bad enough to make it obvious public speaking and persuasion isn't his thing. The general approach that he is curt, a little bit rude, and tends to be inconsiderate in listening to what other are saying.

He has good traits like making sure his adherents and hireling are well equipped and well taken care of. But overall people agree he is a bit of a dick about it.

Quote from: estar;1070794Yes but with OD&D it part of the roleplaying rather than in other RPGs and later editions where it primary effect is a modifier for codified subsystem. The player wits and creativity are still a part of the game only in this particular case oriented towards how to roleplay this obvious foolish character who doesn't plan ahead much (or any other cool interpretation of a 6 wisdom).

How does that negate what I'm saying?

Low INT/Low WIS should be roleplayed accordingly.

Quote from: kythri;1070795How does that negate what I'm saying?

Low INT/Low WIS should be roleplayed accordingly.

The devil is in the details hence I gave some of the details I thought were important.

Quote from: kythri;1070795How does that negate what I'm saying?

Low INT/Low WIS should be roleplayed accordingly.

He's saying that it's still all what the player is doing, there's no "charisma roll."

The character sheet for the cleric I was talking about. Forgot he had a 8 charisma not a 9. So yeah definitely comes across as a bit of a dick. A bit clumsy and has frail health.

Also he survived is now 4th level. Hirelings and Henchmen got to love them. Plus he has a little cred now because he is the only one that managed to keep more of his crew alive. I lost a goblin henchmen while everybody else lose their crews.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3117[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3118[/ATTACH]

And, I suppose, that's the part I taking umbrage with.

If you're an excellent roleplayer, and can tone down your natural eloquence to roleplay a low CHA character, cool.  If you're a fledgling player, or, in real life, not very charismatic, and you want to play a high CHA character, it seems the general attitude is, you're fucked, because you (the player) can't dazzle the DM with your natural charm.

Quote from: kythri;1070800And, I suppose, that's the part I taking umbrage with.

If you're an excellent roleplayer, and can tone down your natural eloquence to roleplay a low CHA character, cool.  If you're a fledgling player, or, in real life, not very charismatic, and you want to play a high CHA character, it seems the general attitude is, you're fucked, because you (the player) can't dazzle the DM with your natural charm.

Does anyone play that way though? I am pretty sure that most people, the DM included, add a layer of "suspension of disbelief" and look at someone's attempt at charisma through rose-tinted glasses. You might not be able to sound like an orator, but usually we can get the gist of where you're going with it, and interpret it charitably.

If not being able to have "high charisma" means just being an obnoxious boor, then that's not about charisma but just about making mistakes.

Quote from: estar;1070786It open content, do you what you think best and don't worry about other people think.

However the changes you are making are not going to be liked by broad subgroups within the OSR. Don't be daft and think there is some ideal that doesn't exist.

You done what necessary you stated clearly why you want the changes you want. Just I do when people challenge me on including "skills" in my take.

As for the OP you are overthinking it. Just pick a starting point that "feels" right and run some campaigns with it. That will tell you whether it works for what you want to do.

What you need to do write down all the effects resulting from ability scores from in your chosen edition or retro-clones. Then see how you like various combinations.

For example if you make 13 the high score of the array while using the B/X rules then every player cleric will probably have at a 13 wisdom with +5% to earned XP and +1 to their magic saving throws.

If you are cool with that then great. If not you need to consider alternative or just living with the random system.

If the changes you are making keep piling up then you need to ask yourself what are you getting out of using an edition of D&D? From personal experience from writing and publishing my own rules the problem with extensive house rules is then using other classic D&D supplements and products are reduced in utility. With the enough changes they are no better (or worse) than say Pathfinder, Fate, GURPS, or Fantasy Age.

Don't worry, if I cared that much about what other people think, I'd never have made public any of the myriad hacks of all sorts of systems to fit whatever particular game I was attempting at the time. I've dealt with much opprobrium from this community over the years, it doesn't phase me. As an aside, I like my "skills" in D&D too, and my hack has them.

However, I don't agree with simply going with what "feels right"; there was an underlying basis for the much-used elite array that appears in every edition from 3.0 onwards, and that rationale includes the modifier effect. Given that ACKS, which is my starting point, has a set of unified modifiers just like later editions, it makes even more sense to use that approach when determining both an elite and standard array against those values.

I already know what I get out of using an old edition of D&D: a fast, relatively simple set of mechanics that are easily modified. In the specific case of ACKS, I get the Proficiency system and easy compatibility with the excellent Domains@War supplement, which covers mass combat, military campaigns, sieges and so on. Other systems will come with their own baggage and in the examples you mentioned there, most of them are much more complex at their core than B/X is. Meaning a lot more work to adjust to suit.

Quote from: estar;1070786Finally some changes seem innocous but require a lot of work to implement even though the result is still largely compatible. For example in my Majestic Wilderlands allow certain magic user classes to have a focused art based on the metaphysics of how magic works. The mechanics of this is that a spell has a boost in effective when cast by somebody who is focused in the art of the spell.

For example a magic user who is focused in the Art of the Flame will be able to cast fireball with the following bonus;

Initially I tried just a small rule change of +1 caster level. But if one goes through a list of classic D&D spells not many of them have effects dependent on caster levels. Something that was quickly found out during the first campaign.

The flavor of the Arts of Magic is part of how magic works in the Majestic Wilderland so I bit the bullet and when through each spell and not only added what art is belongs too but also a focused art section and tailored the bonus effect for each spell.

For example

Light: Art of the Eagle: Light will radiate out to 30 feet and dim light and shadows extend to 90 feet. (instead of 20 feet and 60 feet)

Find Traps: Art of the Lantern: The range is now 40 feet, and the duration is one hour (instead of 30 feet and 20 minutes).

Both the original +1 caster level and the bonus effect came after discarding alternatives, most of which altered the core system to much.

I don't use magic, so many of these issues of spiralling complexity don't arise. When everything is mundane, the game is a great deal simpler. And if we get back to the topic of the thread, there's nothing innocuous or unknown about non-random chargen. This isn't a complex matter we're dealing with, it isn't as though there aren't lots of systems (and later editions of D&D) which have done it many times.

Quote from: estar;1070786As for what you are doing, what will happen is that most PCs will automatically get a small boost above and beyond their class descriptions.

Also you have to consider that unlike later edition the attribute scores are the primary mechanic as to how to roleplay a particular character. While not expresses in terms of mechanical bonus, a player should roleplay the differences in the various scores. A character with a 6 dexterity versus a 13 dexterity, or more obvious a 6 charisma versus as 13 charisma. It is the player side of the whole 'rulings not rules' ethos of OD&D.

Again, ACKS doesn't use the OD&D modifiers, so the scores matter a lot more. They're not mere guides, they impact play on a regular basis, affecting attack rolls, saving throws and/or Proficiency rolls. So in this case it's much more like later editions, than OD&D. It's still an OSR game, though, even if not as faithfully close to the original material as some others.

Quote from: kythri;1070800you want to play a high CHA character, it seems the general attitude is, you're fucked, because you (the player) can't dazzle the DM with your natural charm.

It no different than dealing with high physical attributes (strength, constitutions, charisma). You look at what the player trying to do and rule accordingly using their attribute as one of the elements of your ruling.

Of course like I said earlier the devil is in the details.

I had a young player who had an issue with stuttering. He rolled a character with a decent charisma a 14. He knew by reputation that players in my campaign are expected to speak first person. So was nervous about this.

While this was the first time I dealt with somebody with a verbal disability, I have dealt with players who were extremely shy and introverted. So I tried the same thing I do with them.

If you feel eloquent by all means roleplay it but otherwise I am looking for your plan of actions. What are you trying to do when talking with the NPC? I am aware of your shuttering but in the campaign your character has a charisma of 14. So that the baseline I am making a ruling on. So don't sweat it and I got your back on this.

If what (not how) you say is nonsense then you are not going to persuasive. Conversely if what you say makes sense then you will be persuasive. Over everything where things are uncertain or there is a serious consequence for failure, you will be rolling a dice modified by your character's charisma. Which of these three will happen? That depends on what you do as a player roleplaying your character.

What about high intelligence and high wisdom. Both require support from the referee to roleplay properly. In the absence of modifiers for codified subsystem, the referee has their superior knowledge of the campaign and what going on behind the since.

The players with a character with high intelligence or wisdom get more information than other players with lower score. The type of information depends on the score involved and the circumstance of the campaign. In general I handle it by passing specific notes to the character that supplies additional details available only to them.

Finally to be clear I do not think minimalist rule system are any better or worse than everything but the kitchen sink rule systems. My preference is for something I consider to be well designed whether it's GURPS with all the options, OD&D, or something in between like Fantasy Age or D&D 5th edition.

I find that overall players like some mechanics as opposed to a nearly pure ruling approach. Hence in my take on classic D&D I have attribute modifiers of up to +3 and ability rolls which function much like skills except any character has a similar chance of success. And this includes intelligence, wisdom and charisma rolls. You can read a basic summary here.

http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Majestic%20Fantasy%20Basic%20RPG%20Rev%2008.pdf

However I ran OD&D several RAW and have no problem with making it work despite the minimalist rules by using the guidelines I outlined above. Which also applies to GURPS, Fantasy Age, Harnmaster, and any other system I run.

You have a far more lenient and agreeable approach to the situation than some I've seen 'round these parts.

Quote from: S'mon;1070711Found it - the humans use 17 16 14 11 9 8. The demi-humans use 16 14 11 9 9 7.

That seems way way too high for a 3d6 array. Thats higher even that the playtest 5e's r4h3. Which was 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8

You don't need anyone's permission to modify D&D.  Your game belongs to you.  Have fun.

Quote from: Omega;1070824That seems way way too high for a 3d6 array. Thats higher even that the playtest 5e's r4h3. Which was 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8

As we established back in post #4, that's the elite array, rather than standard. We've got (at least) two arrays in play:
Elite: 16, 15, 14, 13, 11, 8
Standard: 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, 7

Late to the party, but last AD&D game I ran I let everyone do 5D6x2 (drop two), 4D6x2 (drop one), 3D6x2, assign as desired. Then any prime requisites could be raised to 18 (similar to Rolemaster), so usually this meant someone playing a fighter would assign a low roll (7 or something) to Strength and still have an 18.

You know what happened? Nothing. The game was pretty much the same as every other AD&D game I've ran: the retards died horribly, the smart players survived. I don't think stats are all that relevant, to be perfectly honest.