D&D-type Attributes

 In the course of doing something entirely different, I ended up mucking about with D&D's attribute system. It could be argued - and I would somewhat agree - that original D&D started out with a 'not bad at all' attribute system, although they didn't end up doing that much with it mechanically, at least to start with. 3d6 gives a nice distribution that should covers about 99% of a population very simply.

 

But there are a couple of issues I have with it. Firstly, the attributes they picked find it hard to distinguish between different types of physically competent characters. And secondly, the attributes aren't correlated but they aren't in reality entirely orthogonal to each other (I ended up here because I was looking at orthogonality and overlap in a different context).

 

The system I grew up with was MERP (so based on the Rolemaster system). In principle, this worked okay if you considered that the percentage-based attribute was the percentile of performance. Mechanically it didn't quite seem to work like that though, plus it was possible to get scores of over 100 in certain conditions (which would imply literally super-human performance; or that like D&Ds 18/51 or whatever, they would be differentiations in the top percentile. Given that all attributes had an independent racial modifier, it implied (in principle) that there was another undefined measure of performance. How to explain? A normal human has no modifier to any attribute except Strength, where they have +5. An Elf has a modifier of 0. So in some senses a human with '100' strength is stronger than an Elf with the same. But that 'percentile+bonus' was never defined, except that the percentile itself had a bonus, so in this case the Human would be '+30' and the Elf '+25'. But then in practice most characters will have strength of +5 or 0 without further differentiation, so what was the point of expressing it in percentile terms to begin with? However, in principle it could have worked great, if there were a key to what those levels would imply in terms of performance. They tended to mainly just get used as modifiers to skills though. Still, I might revisit the system one day, it does have some promise.

 

The next system I really learned was WFRP. And much as I love it, the attribute system was just worse than both D&D and MERP.  It was a percentage based system, but not a percentile - it is the percentage chance of passing a relevant attribute test i.e. a character with Strength 6 succeeds in an average Strength test about 60% of the time, a character with Strength 3 succeeds about  30% of the time. The percentage chance of succeeding in an attribute check just doesn't reflect how things  like this really work, nor was it easy to derive real-world outputs from the numbers. The only good things  about it were that it was more dynamic and tended to improve over time, and it was mechanically very easy in play. Very weirdly to me, some tables in D&D tend to replicate the badness, using the D&D attributes in a WFRP way and using them as the base number for a probability check.  

 

In any case, back to my D&D modifications. What I came up with was:

 

Latent Factors: 

P = Power (2d6) p1 + p2

F = Finesse (1d6) f1

L = Logic (1d6) l1

I = Intellect (1d6) i1

A = Affect (2d6) a1 + a2

W = Will (1d6) w1 

 

Visible Attributes:

Strength = P+1d6

Constitution = P+1d6

Agility = F+p1+1d6

Dexterity = F+2d6

Reasoning = L+I+1d6

Memory = I+W+1d6

Awareness = L+2d6

Intuition = 3d6 

Charisma = A+1d6

Empathy = A+W

Willpower = W+2d6 

 

This gives strong correlations between Strength and Constitution, and Charisma and Empathy; and mild correlations between Agility and Strength/Constitution; Agility and Dexterity; Reasoning and Memory. Clearly this still doesn't catch all the real world trade-offs, particularly at the very high and low levels, but it gives much more balance than in the original set. Without any great increase in complexity, it allows a wider range of characters to be described.

 

We might think of attributes as having 3 possible implementations - an absolute value, a probability and a modifier. The absolute value is good in physical tests, so strong people can lift stuff, fast people can just run fast etc. The Shadowrun CRPG works on this basis outside of combat, and I liked it. It was mercifully quick but more importantly characters are competent, they can do what they can do. In principle any system can work this way, as long as the outputs are worked out in advance (what can a Strength 20 character actually do). 

 

It worked okay in social tests too but it didn't seem to describe intelligence and memory tests as well as other systems. They genuinely seem to work better as the target for a random chek, the reason being that there are ~infinite things to know, so a character with Intelligence '9' doesn't automatically know everything that a character with Intelligence '4' does, they just have more chance of knowing any random thing.  Now, I am not saying that you couldn't use these in an absolute value system, but I think you would have to have a somewhat more detailed character record system (e.g. if a character has INT => x, and History skill >= y OR Heraldry skill >=z, then the character knows the thing, otherwise not. And in effect, if you have to improvise at the table, then the GM is just deciding whether the character knows it or not (since the test is fully deterministic, deciding the conditions on the fly is just the same as deciding the end result, assuming the GM knows what is on the player's character sheet).

 

In combat sequences (and other skill-in-adversity environments) I think attributes work best as skill modifiers - a stronger might deal more damage than a weaker one, all other things being equal - but if the weaker character is the more skillful fighter, then their quicker and more accurate blow will trump the raw strength of the other, to some degree. The point of the above then is to argue that attributes become more useful if they are in a form where they can be used for all 3 implementations.

 

 

 

WFRP 1e: Min-Max/Narrow Path Optimization

Recently I was looking at narrow-optimization paths* in WFRP 1e, i.e. if you wanted your character to be very good at one thing, then which career should you choose. Some of them are relatively obvious, some a little less so. Here they are:

 

Weapon Skill: Giant Slayer or Judicial Champion, enter from Pit Fighter, Troll Slayer, Protagonist or Watchman. (Troll Slayer is a no-brainer for a combat-focused Dwarf, I like Protagonist best of the others) (400XP)

 

Ballistic Skill: Targeteer, enter from Bounty Hunter, Gamekeeper or Outlaw (all of these are good; Gamekeeper is strictly the best, since all Gamekeepers get Marksmanship, whereas the other two only might get it, and thus may need to expend another 100XP if they don't) (400XP)

 

Strength: Giant Slayer entered from Pit Fighter; if a non-Dwarf, either Free Lance from Noble or Squire; or Slaver entered from Jailer. If the character gets Very Strong as a starting skill, then Troll Slayer works fine as a Dwarf, and Free Lance is definitely the way to go as anything else. (3-400XP)

 

Toughness: Giant Slayer, again entered from Pit Fighter. If not a Dwarf, Outlaw Chief entered from Pit Fighter. If the character gets Very Resilient as a starting skill, Dwarves can go from Troll Slayer to Giant Slayer, others can go from Bodyguard, Mercenary or Outlaw to Outlaw Chief (3-400XP)

 

Initiative: Highwayman entered from Coachman, Footpad,Outlaw, Outrider, Roadwarden or Toll-Keeper (400XP). I don't think any career grants you the chance of Lightning Reactions, but ideally you would want that as an initial skill too.

 

Attacks: Assassin, entered from Bounty Hunter is the most straightforward way. (400XP), but there are actually lots of other routes for careers which allow taking the free advance in attacks (which Bounty Hunter does not), e.g. Soldier, free advance, 100XP to Bounty Hunter, 100XP to Assassin, 200XP to get Attacks 3 then Attacks 4, so basically: Bodyguard, Marine, Protagonist, Soldier, Watchman (via Bounty Hunter); Noble (via Duellist), Outlaw (via Targeteer). In fact, very strictly speaking, these non-Bounty Hunter routes are better, as you will get the second attack from the beginning.

 

Dexterity: Forger, entered from Scribe OR Thief or Tomb Robber - why the choice? Well, in the main entry, I think that the only way of getting to Forger is from Scribe or Artisan. But the Appendix offers a bunch of different career paths into it, but not including Scribe or Artisan! So, if you go with the logic of the main entries, then Scribe is the way to go; if what is written in the Appendix, Thief or Tombr Robber are better, because you can take the free advance in Dexterity, which Scribe's don't get. (400XP)

 

Leadership: Mercenary Captain, entered from Squire (n.b. the Appendix specifies that a Squire can jump straight to Captain, but this is implied rather than stated in the main text). (400XP)

 

Intelligence: Lawyer, from Exciseman, Scribe or Student. (400XP)

 

Cool: Spy, via Charlatan, which can be entered from Physician's Student, Raconteur or Seer (500XP)

 

Willpower: Witch-hunter via Assassin or Judicial Champion (I have already covered the entries for those; none of the relevant basic careers allow the free advance in WP, I think) (600XP).

 

Fellowship: Demagogue, from Agitator, Entertainer or Raconteur (Raconteur is the best of this bunch) (500XP). 

 

Movement: the Movement system is lame and there is no way to optimize on it really.You can't do much better than be a Thief or, if a Dwarf, a Runner. 

 

So if you played and survived The Oldenhaller Contract and Mistaken Identity, then you could potentially have a Toughness 8 or an Attacks 4 character before you even enter Bogenhafen. Of course, you might want a more balanced character and there is nothing wrong with that, but if you want to, and as ever, subject to GM agreement, then you can have a character who is genuinely top-of-class at one thing. 

 

*I wasn't actually looking at these directly, I was working out what the humanoid minima and maxima to look at WFRP 1e attribute distributions in the population, but this sort of fell out of it...

 

Prices and the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (First Edition) World - Part One

I have recently been exploring some of the prices/costs in the WFRP 1e rulebook and trying to tease out some of the implications for what the world is like. A price, after all, contains lots of information in the real world, and it does in a fantasy world no less.  For example, it influences how the players, including the GM, think about food, travel, loot and enemies.  Valuable things should be objects of envy which are fought over and sought after, whereas some things are too common to steal. The points below are not intended to be exhaustive, but just some things for GMs to consider in their games:

 

1.  Chicken and ale is cheap: A chicken costs 1/-; a simple meal at a tavern is 3/-. An Imperial peasant or labourer must love chicken pie and stew and sandwiches, washed down with beer. And as a further implication, starvation must be somewhat rarer in the Empire than it was in our own world.

 

2. Beef and wine are definitely luxury, status goods. Even more so than today, a dinner of beef and red wine marks out status and success.

 

3. Illumination is somewhat expensive - a dozen tallow candles are nearly a labourer's daily wage - although heating is not, and so life at night is concentrated on rich houses and institutions; and taverns really are bustling places in the winter: basic food is relatively cheap, so taking advantage of the lit-tavern is a real thing in the winter months. Even more than in our own world, they are centres of entertainment, gossip, business and gambling. 

 

4. Armour is rarer than you might imagine. The basic fighter in the Empire is a shield and spear armed militiaman with a helmet, who might or might not have some light armour. Mail armour marks out real, professional fighters, and plate is quite rare, for elites only.  The armour costs and types are indicative of a real world equivalent of about 1350-1400, rather than 1500. The implication is that other marginal societies (e.g. goblinoids) are much the same but more so - the average Orc has a shield and spear, but no armour.

 

5. Cavalry are somewhat rarer than in real life, and true Heavy Cavalry is much rarer: Mounted Sergeants are not riding warhorses, they ride riding horses. Firearms are very expensive (and there is no way that taveern landlords like Gustav have them, or tavern hustlers like Descartes; coachmen might though, because coaches are very expensive too). 

 

6. Guilds are much more powerful than is perhaps indicated, specifically artisanal guilds. Most of the surplus value in the economy is not based on raw materials or cheap goods, it is based on finished goods, and most of that surplus is extracted by guilds or similar organizational heads, rather than the Artisans themselves (a sword costs 28 days of an artisan's wages, for example). Guild discipline must be extremely strictly enforced through a combination of ordinances and implicit or explicit threats of violence.   Conversely, the conflict between Emperor, nobility, merchants and guilds must be very, very real.

 

7.    Peasant music resembles that of the Dwarves in The Hobbit (film version): it is based on recorders and drums and so on, mixed with singing. String and brass music is largely a professional endeavour, and keyboard music is a noble pastime (or through noble patronage).

 

8.    Basic members of society thrive by living at home and sharing costs, eventually saving a dowry for their own house and family.  The dinner scene at Farmer Maggot's in the Lord of the Rings (book) is a reasonable indicator, with maybe 10-12 people sharing a table (although the dish in the Empire would be more likely to chicken and mushrooms: Maggot would be showing his successful farmer status by using bacon). Itinerants on the other hand survive on a very narrow margin. Adventurers are basically in it for quite big scores, and their everyday costs are significantly higher, and anything that involves 3-4 career characters should be in the 'many hundreds of gold pieces' range as a basic minimum. But adventuring can reasonably be pretty dangerous.

 

9.     Basic resources are so cheap that most bandits don't even bother: the ones that do are more like violent beggars. Real bandits are looking to steal armour, prestige weapons, horses and other animals, expensive clothes, wine, books etc. So they are somewhat more popular than in the real late medieval world, since they are mostly more like Robin Hood. Class conflict is real, and the labourers and peasants are more on the side of the bandits.

 

10.    Moving goods by river is the lifeblood of the Empire, particularly for bulk items, as it is about x12 cheaper. Road transport is for small, high-value goods and people. Bandits therefore target coaches, not boats or farms, typically.  Taking a coach is a big decision and wouldn't be done lightly. This is important for Mistaken Identity.  It might be better if coach exterior travel is very cheap, and encouraged (extra protection against bandits).

 

11. Starting with any or all of metal armour, firearms or a horse is a really big deal, as is obtaining or losing one. For a more gritty campaign, it might be better to give the characters who have them, with the exception of nobles and squires perhaps, 20% of the value of the item instead.