Dumping the Stats – Do We Need Ability Scores in RPGs?

Taking a closer look at the Chainmail game has led me to place some long-standing features of D&D under the microscope. Chainmail as it was used in medieval wargames, prior to its shift into fantasy, has a concern with the physicality of the game world which appeals to me. It feels like some of this materialist essence was lost at the point wargames transitioned into RPGs. But was this outcome unavoidable?

I’ve decided to take a harder look at some of the staple features of D&D that have endured from the Original D&D onwards, to the extent of becoming ingrained in RPG culture. My angle is whether these contribute to a materialist role playing experience (you can see what I mean here), or instead distract from this by placing the character at the centre of the universe.

First on the chopping block, are the classic D&D character ability scores. To be clear, I don’t just mean replacing 3-18 scores with an ability modifier that instead represents a character’s strength etc. I mean ditching ability stats altogether. Dreaming Dragonslayer suggested this in a comment from a previous post I made on materialist RPGs. I then discovered that Chainmail never tracked personal ability scores, which kind of makes sense as it often deals with whole units of troops at a time. 


The Rationale

Daniel Norton in the Bandit’s Keep podcast talks about a Sword and Sorcery campaign he is running without ability scores. The reasoning behind this is wanting to run an epic fantasy campaign where all the characters have the status of heroes. This premise precludes characters with low stat scores, because they would be unable to operate at the requisite level. And if bad stats have to be discounted, there’s little point in rolling them at all. 

This reasoning appeals to me, but in the context of a different type of campaign. I want to run a game where characters are more at the mercy of the world, rather than shaping the world as a product of their virtues or flaws. This means none of the characters should be exceptionally powerful, to the point major outcomes in the world become a reflection of their character traits.

I want the players to go into the campaign with the idea of being average joes. This is not to think of them being identical in terms of mental and physical attributes. But that these qualities are going to have far less bearing on outcomes than having sturdy armour and a reliable horse. Simply leaving ability scores off the character sheet seems a step towards changing this emphasis, but what are the consequences for the gaming experience?

Combat Without Ability Scores

Removing ability scores as a factor in combat does not seem particularly problematic. My touch stone game for materialism, Into the Odd (ItO), already gets rid of ability score modifiers. Instead, it is primarily weapons and armour that influence damage rolls.

The ItO approach seems better at encouraging player engagement with the game world. In D&D, a player’s decisions around ability scores are made in abstract, prior to the character’s existence is the game world. This is basically whether to min/max a character into a certain build, where players are allowed to swap scores around. Once the game starts, it becomes a dead issue, having defined their combat role henceforth.

A benefit of instead having physical objects determine combat effectiveness is in making such decision relevant “in game”. Players face meaningful decisions over whether to use a bulky weapon, at the expense of carrying less treasure. And obtaining better weapons and armour becomes a greater motivating factor. In games like Cairn, you can continue to define your role in combat “in game”, be it wizard or warrior, by switching around your equipment.

Chainmail seems to offer a variation on this approach. There is a Bandits Keep actual play video which sticks with me, which tests Chainmail rules in dungeon crawling. Your character just rolls combat dice in line with how they are geared up e.g. light foot or heavy foot. The resolution is very simple; no armour class, rolling to hit, damage modifiers. Someone with better armour and weapons just has a better chance of killing or hurting their opponent.

If characters are to be equal in terms of their attributes, it makes sense to apply this principle to their hit points. ItO makes a distinction between health damage, which affects your strength score, and hit protection which represents your capacity to avoid harm. In the spirit of a materialist game, I might instead make health a uniform number, and hit protection vary depending on how you are kitted out.

Ability Checks and Saving Throws

It seems realistic for someone athletic to be better at avoiding a pit trap or climbing a wall than someone weak or cumbersome. A “roll under” mechanic for such checks makes your ability score a very big determining factor in these scenarios. The chances of rolling under a dexterity score of 8 on a d20 is obviously far less than rolling under a score of 18.



How would this work without ability scores? Another way to think about it is that someone with heavy armour and weighed down with treasure would have a far harder time climbing a wall than someone unburdened. Equally, someone in heavy armour would likely fare better against rocks falling on their head. How you are equipped is also therefore a determining factor in such scenarios that often seems downplayed in RPGs.

For mentally based checks, material conditions can also be a far bigger factor than is normally accounted for. My ability to make a wisely perceive a situation is probably far lower after crawling around dark caves for half a day than in a moment of zen meditation. Having a static wisdom score to roll against probably makes us less attentive to such considerations and just think of a character as wise in all circumstances.

My preference is to treat the characters as average people, all starting with an equal chance of climbing a wall etc by rolling against a flat target score. This would then have a simple modifier depending on whether they are heavy foot etc, being an advantage in some situations and a negative in others.

Summary

The Bandit’s Keep podcast does defend the use of ability scores in types of campaign which are not heroic fantasy. It’s argued that these are a helpful to tool for individualising the characters in the player’s minds, helping them decide how they should be to role played. There is also the chance of rolling exceptional scores, be they high or low, which serves to create memorable characters.

I can’t disagree with any of the above. But I also like the challenge this poses to players in changing the focus of the game. A player might object to not being able to role play their character on the basis of a strength score, especially if they have become used to this approach. But it could also turn their attention to other dustier sections of their character sheet, like their equipment and background. And player attention is a finite resource.

Individualising characters on the basis of equipment or a failed career feels more interesting to me, because it immerses them in the game world right from the get-go. The point of a materialist game is to take emphasis away from exceptional personal qualities as determining outcomes in the world. Ditching ability scores seems a step towards changing this mindset with the players.