The Gaming Den

On a different note, is there any benefit in a stat being able to change the number of hitpoints you have? I can't think of a single one.

Obvious is obvious, but It lets you buy higher combat endurance at character generation at the expense of something else, independently of your other choices. The costs of such a choice are tricky to balance, but that doesn't mean you give up on it.

It's like having the option to take more or less healing magic in your Cleric. 4e says you just get X healing and you can go fuck your hippy healbot concept or selfish murdergod cleric idea. Because they gave up on balancing that choice and took it away.


OTOH, there's probably not a point in having a stat that makes Fighters a better Fighter, or Wizards a better Wizard. Classically it used to limit the multiclassers by MAD, but it's a bit boring when everyone just maxes out their prime stat regardless.

tussock wrote: I think that's bullshit. For reals, no troll. 3e sold well in large part because it got the people who basically liked the idea of D&D but were fed up with the clunky mechanics and seriously bad attitude the 2nd edition DMG fostered in people.

The same could be said of a new Fantasy RPG piece, people tired of the failings of 3rd edition, wishing for a cleaner ruleset, updated to Fantasy not stuck in some form of tolkien/80's fantasy. True, classic names for things can easily grab a notion in people's mind, but will have to change if those things are copyrighted, and say, D&D ran into the ground, with Hasbro just sitting on the IP. So now you've little choice but to change up some words anyway, while not letting legacy get in the way while you're at it.

including "every D&D player ever" in your potential market is a thing you cannot blithely ignore. It's just plain easier for your customers to read and understand, and in turn advertise to their friends, if you stick to the classic naming conventions.

If something core to the game isn't working, you fix it, you don't throw it out.

Now that stats have decades of legacy power-ups stuck in them, they could use a clean-up, but you don't have to throw them out. The core principle, that Fighters are Strong and can throw more weight around, that Wizards are learned and can understand strange things, that all still has value.

While true, the wider the audience, the better you'll have people buying your product, it's quite unlikely you're going to attract the Paizils/4rries/Grognards, least in the short term (till they realize they can make fantasy PC's they've been dying to do since they first got into D&D).

Depends how truly "core" to the game it actually is, how replaceable it is, and how much an improvement the supposed replacement(s) would be. You do throw out something, if it is; its irreparable, little/no satisfying conclusion of a solution or otherwise getting in the way of superior design in making a Fantasy RPG where you tell Heroic Fantasy stories of levels 1-20.

Sounds like that last bit, could as easily just go into class abilities as ye mentioned below. If all Fighters are truly strong and do such, then can simply enough have versatile "super strength", Wizards some kind of Archivist Lore/Loremaster ability or what have you.

Aryxbez wrote:Also, define to me what makes something D&D

"Feel." I believe, but cannot prove at all, that a lot of why 4e felt wrong was that the classic labels were applied to new things. Yes, it's a dull grind, but it lost a lot of people before they could even get that far into it.

Part of fixing them would be to further differentiate the two. Same for Int and Wis.

Though I have noticed that most people who hated 4th edition had a feeling for it feeling off, but couldn't place any actual reasons for it (saving nitpicks like the art,ink,orcs having no Darkvision), I think you can see why that answer isn't exactly satisfactory. I'd imagine in more Den fashion, you'd get tossed insults for saying "feelings" to my question, instead, I'm just going to mention such personal notions do not define parameters useful for discussion. So, I would hope ye would have more defined reasons to what makes D&D, other than what is basically "whatever I say it is", as that a one-sided discussion it does make.

As for fixing attribute differentiation, though I suppose it possible for Int vs. Wis, I'd imagine not so for Con. Constitution itself has been described as a "survival tax" an attribute everyone kinda has to take, and creates odd scenarios where ye have super strong guys, who aren't super tough (despite how much they go in hand). Constitution conceptually seems like a rather shallow stat, that its link to other things and skills, are too far and between to warrant being an attribute itself. Hell, even in Shadowrun, been said that the conceptual difference between BODY and STR are pretty much minimal.

Aryxbez wrote:

tussock wrote: including "every D&D player ever" in your potential market is a thing you cannot blithely ignore. It's just plain easier for your customers to read and understand, and in turn advertise to their friends, if you stick to the classic naming conventions.

If something core to the game isn't working, you fix it, you don't throw it out.

Now that stats have decades of legacy power-ups stuck in them, they could use a clean-up, but you don't have to throw them out. The core principle, that Fighters are Strong and can throw more weight around, that Wizards are learned and can understand strange things, that all still has value.

While true, the wider the audience, the better you'll have people buying your product, it's quite unlikely you're going to attract the Paizils/4rries/Grognards, least in the short term (till they realize they can make fantasy PC's they've been dying to do since they first got into D&D).

Depends how truly "core" to the game it actually is, how replaceable it is, and how much an improvement the supposed replacement(s) would be. You do throw out something, if it is; its irreparable, little/no satisfying conclusion of a solution or otherwise getting in the way of superior design in making a Fantasy RPG where you tell Heroic Fantasy stories of levels 1-20.

Sounds like that last bit, could as easily just go into class abilities as ye mentioned below. If all Fighters are truly strong and do such, then can simply enough have versatile "super strength", Wizards some kind of Archivist Lore/Loremaster ability or what have you.

Why call it D&D if it is not D&D? how much can you remove before it is no longer what the name implies? take away the wheels/tires, and is a car still a car?

if you have to scrap everything and start anew then you to can change the name. this is the problem 4th had with people who didnt see it as D&D, while others just accept the label given to it, and oft times today many people are labeling things too much without understanding the label.

the staying power can be as simple as a concept that has always been, and constant change could mean the staying power is lost when you try to gain larger audience and lose the thing you wanted to begin with, and the consumer in that larger audience isnt interested in sticking with your product because the name has no value. be that name STRENGTH, D&D, Beholder, BAB, Powers, whatever. the interest is lost in trying to keep up and consumer will go with something more comfortable that they dont have to constantly learn all the new changes to.

an old saying seemingly forgotten these days, "if it aint broke, dont fix it", with goes hand in hand with "necessity is the mother of invention".

I'm actually fine with the DnD franchise dying and all of it's legacy mechanics becoming some kind of nerd-code inside jokes.

It's certainly preferable to trying to make games with all of those terrible legacy mechanics like mandatory stat-lines for certain characters.

shadzar wrote: Why call it D&D if it is not D&D? how much can you remove before it is no longer what the name implies? take away the wheels/tires, and is a car still a car?

Yes Shadzar, Pathfinder is also an example of simply terrible houseruled set of rules from 3rd edition D&D. This is proof that people are willing to buy the same game, even if it's under a different name, and they'll even believe in your false promises.

Also consider, we're not just talking "D&D" but a Fantasy game in general, that can deliver the D&D experience, just with none of the limiting baggage that apparently comes with it.

Lastly, what K said above, I'm certainly in support, most of the D&D references are inaccurate, or otherwise similar to something from likely older editions anyway. Though, does sound like a good discussion is at hand here, in regards to "mandatory stat-lines", that would throw support of getting rid of attributes all together. Would you be able to provide further elaboration into that K?

yes but you commented on "including every D&D ever" and that was what i am responding to. People have a right to like pathfinder, even though it was based on a crappy D&D knock-off. (3rd edition being Mearl/Monte/Tweet's terrible houserules for 2nd edition AD&D)

the point still remains and i have said before in this thread, just dont try to emulate D&D. EQ has 6 stats, but dex is replaced with Agility, etc.

if you want to figure out what stats to use for a fantasy heartbreaker, then you jsut need to decide what you will be doing with it, what is the goal of the game, and what functions are needed to reach that goal.

stop thinking in terms of D&D if you want a "generic fantasy roleplaying game", and just focus on the roleplaying aspects.

so far we have seen stats in the range of 2 to 12 as possible and useful.

again, why do most people compare to D&D? it has been around longest, is still here and it works. once someone breaks form that and accepts they dont have to be D&D then some good can come from that thought.

look at anime like Naruto, and others that have some sort of "power" rating shown in the form of a pentagon, having only 5 stats. what are those, why did they choose those and why are they used so frequently?

The argument for stats are to:
(1) make characters feel different, and
(2) have different abilities.

The problem is that this doesn't actually happen. People put as much Int into their DnD Wizard as they can because their character would suck otherwise and the choice is whether to put the 16 or the 18 into it, not whether to put a 10 or a 18. This is not a choice at all. It's the same in Shadowrun where the Street Sam has a good Body and in Vampire where the guy who wants to have good Dominate is going to have good Manipulation and Wits.

Different characters already feel different in every game made or revised in the 21st century, so worrying about stats not making two Fighters not look different is no longer a problem. One can just be the Archer with his selectable character options and the other can be Sword and Board and no one is going to worry about feeling the same as someone (though in a game like Shadowrun that is still stuck in 80s thinking, two Street Sammies look almost the same since both are rocking a crapload of Initiative boosters and using guns).

Sometimes, people say that stats are meant to figure out which character is better at arm-wrestling. For the record, 3.X Dungeon Magazine has exactly one arm-wrestling encounter (issue # 95) in it's entire 3.X run, and it is an opposed STR check so the STR 6 Sorcerer might just beat the STR 18 Ranger because d20s are swingy. Raw checks of stat vs stat or even just pure stat checks are not even interesting for people and they just don't want it.

The only advantage to stats is that they give the illusion of a working subsystem. People feel good about Stat + Skill and raw stats affecting other stats even when the actual results of checks are MTP. Having Dex make you better at Stealth and have a higher AC feels like a system even when four Rogues all have identical Dex scores, skill totals, and final ACs.

Stats also offer a chance at unbalance and people like that. People fundamentally like knowing that their Rogue is better than other people's Rogue because they did something to get two more points of Dex than the other guy and say to other people, "well, I should make that check because I have two more points of DEX." MMOs are based on the fallacy that the tiniest and most inconsequential difference makes you better and everyone else "second rate."

K wrote:The argument for stats are to:
(1) make characters feel different, and
(2) have different abilities.

The problem is that this doesn't actually happen. People put as much Int into their DnD Wizard as they can because their character would suck otherwise and the choice is whether to put the 16 or the 18 into it, not whether to put a 10 or a 18. This is not a choice at all. It's the same in Shadowrun where the Street Sam has a good Body and in Vampire where the guy who wants to have good Dominate is going to have good Manipulation and Wits.

You seem to be glancing over secondary attribute selection here. Does selecting which secondary stats to pursue not help differentiate you from others in your class, or would that be wrapped up in ability selection?

TarkisFlux wrote:

K wrote:The argument for stats are to:
(1) make characters feel different, and
(2) have different abilities.

The problem is that this doesn't actually happen. People put as much Int into their DnD Wizard as they can because their character would suck otherwise and the choice is whether to put the 16 or the 18 into it, not whether to put a 10 or a 18. This is not a choice at all. It's the same in Shadowrun where the Street Sam has a good Body and in Vampire where the guy who wants to have good Dominate is going to have good Manipulation and Wits.

You seem to be glancing over secondary attribute selection here. Does selecting which secondary stats to pursue not help differentiate you from others in your class, or would that be wrapped up in ability selection?

Define or give examples of "secondary attribute selection."

virgil wrote:Screw that, new set of stats:
Mohs Hardness
# Siblings that have reached child-bearing age
Pac-Man High Score
Favorite episode of Star Wars

5 (based on tooth enamel because I'm a powergamer)
3
Does Ms. Pac-Man count?
5

Wait why would Jedi give me a better bonus than Empire? Your stat system sucks.

K wrote:

TarkisFlux wrote:

K wrote:The argument for stats are to:
(1) make characters feel different, and
(2) have different abilities.

The problem is that this doesn't actually happen. People put as much Int into their DnD Wizard as they can because their character would suck otherwise and the choice is whether to put the 16 or the 18 into it, not whether to put a 10 or a 18. This is not a choice at all. It's the same in Shadowrun where the Street Sam has a good Body and in Vampire where the guy who wants to have good Dominate is going to have good Manipulation and Wits.

You seem to be glancing over secondary attribute selection here. Does selecting which secondary stats to pursue not help differentiate you from others in your class, or would that be wrapped up in ability selection?

Define or give examples of "secondary attribute selection."

Any stat assignment after the important one(s). A strong wizard instead of a charismatic or wise one. A cavern chested mage instead of a healthy one. Do those assignments matter for making characters feel different?

K wrote:The argument for stats are to:
(1) make characters feel different, and
(2) have different abilities.

I would add:
(3) to provide convenient "bundles" of related abilities (e.g. instead of investing in Climb, Jump, Lift and Punch individually, you can invest in a catch-all category called Strength).

This is particularly noticeable in point buy games like Mutants & Masterminds or Champions/HERO.

well stats arent always needed in a classed based game. i have always wondered where they come from and can only think of the miniature wargames to be the source, though my number of those played is limited.

DDM: no, stats, but each monster was basically its own class.

wh40k: weapons have stats and the pieces have a few relative stats like weapon skill and ballistic skill along with HP and such.

classed games CAN work without stats, aka ability scores. the thief in D&D provides stats arent needed if a class is built around something. I dont recall HeroQuest having stats on the character cards really.

the do really serve to make fighter A different than fighter B because of player need to compete i guess. oddly Legolas and Gimli competed quite well and we have no idea of their stats.

like the D&D thief, you can remove stats and making class abilities unique to the class, then the problem will be crossing classes, and you would need some sort of generic skill set. things not associated with classes at all, but everyone can do.

this would be a way to remove stats and have unique classes:
fighter: high HP and decent damage
ranger: tracking and more damage (speed of bow)

the problem then lies in someone not wanting the forced class abilities and wants to be able to track outside of being a ranger. D&D having always been so open, it is one reason people cant accept the "for the game" type things like that, a ranger only being able to track, AC going down in ranks is better, thief only being able to open locks, or whatever hangups people get when they look at the game.

but it doesnt make stats useless in a class based game, if people dont view them as fighter A is better than fighter B because of +1 in STR.

TarkisFlux wrote:

Define or give examples of "secondary attribute selection."

Any stat assignment after the important one(s). A strong wizard instead of a charismatic or wise one. A cavern chested mage instead of a healthy one. Do those assignments matter for making characters feel different?

You think that they would or should, but they don't.

Mostly it's because no system is just stats. Even game that defaults certain skills to stats generally tell you to get the "Diplomacy" or "Etiquette" skill before you are allowed to be good at that. Most games use a stat + skill system, but in games like DnD that doesn't even matter.... the sorcerer can just have a CHA of 26 because the Rogue has had more than a +8 to his Bluff check since 5th level and the problem gets even worse if the Rogue took some feats that let him roll twice on social checks or something. He can just have an CHA 8 and be the party face because that CHA of 26 means nothing.

Secondly, the variation is always quite low. Stat systems are always a resource allocation mini-game, so anyone who wants to be good at their chosen role in the game, which is everyone in most cases, dumps the main chunk of their stat points into the things that they need to be the best Wizard or Fighter that they can be, and then whatever is left is for the dump stats. Only a system where you roll dice for stats might have a strong Wizard because good dice-rolling lets you assign a good number to some of your dump stats, but even then you are stuck with the issue where a strong Wizard is pretty pointless when he is supposed to be lifting things with telekinesis.

The only way to make meaningful secondary stats is to disconnect all stats from character concept. Then you could just be a charming Street Sam because you weren't worried about keeping your Body high, but also because the Summoner wasn't automatically going to be the best face ever.

The problem with that is that you create two games in one: one game where your stats are important and another where your class/skills/feats/whatever is important.

Wait, what? That training can overcome initial predisposition in some cases seems more like a feature of a level based system rather than a bug of attribute differences. Isn't that the whole point - that you can invest in something to get better at it and eventually surpassing those who didn't? So what if you can't surpass someone who is naturally better than you and also investing in it? That just suggests you're investing non-optimally or really concerned about redundancy.

Pointless mechanically does not equal pointless for characterization. It might be a trap option of sorts because you can't ever be sufficiently effective in the thing (and not worth retaining as a result), but that doesn't mean it fails at differentiating characters of the same class.

TarkisFlux wrote:Wait, what? That training can overcome initial predisposition

This doesn't happen. If Party Member A is 4 points behind Party Member B or Antagonist Alpha, they are always going to be 4 points behind no matter how many leveled bonuses you add as long as everyone is leveling up at the same time. You never manage to overcome that initial disadvantage because everything you add to your character is something that the other guy is adding to his too. And so are the enemies, possibly way faster than you are since they're not required to be balanced rounded out characters.

Quoting without context is bullshit Grek. You should have finished reading it. Then you would have seen this:

Tarkisflux, where you quoted but couldn't be assed to finish reading apparently, wrote:So what if you can't surpass someone who is naturally better than you and also investing in it?

and not bothered telling me that it happens since I already granted it. I understand your point, and don't care in the context. It's an issue with advancement (mandatory and equal pacing advancement in your case), and has nothing to do with whether or not secondary attributes work for characterization and differentiation. That they can make some options relative traps and might need to be removed for those reasons is an argument that K isn't making.

TarkisFlux wrote:Wait, what? That training can overcome initial predisposition in some cases seems more like a feature of a level based system rather than a bug of attribute differences. Isn't that the whole point - that you can invest in something to get better at it and eventually surpassing those who didn't?

Only sometimes.

Mostly, it begs the question, "why even fuck with the stat in the first place?" Just give people a Diplomacy score and flavor people with high scores as the most charismatic, and then people who started with low scores can eventually get high scores.

The problem is that stat also usually just serves as a limiter to max skill or as some kind of minigame component for resource allocation. The DnD 3.x Bard is the master of diplomacy because he has the good chance for a good CHA and the good suite for being good at Diplomacy (but not best in either, those being Sorcerer and Rogue respectively), and with those things he has the highest potential stat + skill score and no one else is going to ever beat it.

With a lower max, it means that you shouldn't be the guy who makes a diplomacy roll for the party. It also means that being the Charismatic Wizard is never going to mean much even if you find a way to get Diplomacy on your list.

Stat + skill systems just flatly discourage secondary schticks even when you have enough points to spread around because stats are always fully or mostly static and skill is assumed to rise with levels/XP/etc (and games like DnD or Shadowrun never have enough points to spread around because your character is a resource allocation mini-game).

It's not bullshit. It's the important part. There are basically no cases where you're going to somehow come out ahead of someone who put more points into a stat than you did. If they put more points than you into something, it means they want to do it and they wanted to do it more than you did.

Secondary shticks are the same thing as not having one at all when your secondary shtick is someone else's primary

Secondary shticks are the same thing as not having one at all when your secondary shtick is someone else's primary.

Bullshit.

If you have a system where +8 skill beats +6 skill 100% of the time, that's true, but you don't have any such system. In 3e D&D what happens even with the take-20 set is that both win all of the time, and once you roll some dice it's just not that important, because d20+8 vs d20+6 is only a 10% advantage.

Every character needs a primary skill of course, you can't be made up of secondaries like a Bard because you never get any spotlight time, you're always backup to the real characters, a henchman. But once you have a core competency, secondary functions are fine. Because you help.

Unless you don't help, which is an issue with task resolution rather than stat+skill.

ah the good old days where people rolled 3d6 in order and played with what they got, instead of petty squabbling over a single point in STR. back when people had to work together as the game instructs rather than competing within the party to be the MVP.

i really wonder if this was caused by the idea of the RPGA and tournament play at cons?

Grek, are you able to play ANY version of D&D, without knowing your stats?

is anyone here able to play any version of D&D without knowing their stats, or do they really have so little faith in the DM? or is competing with the other players so important that you need to know you have a higher stat?

has ANYONE here played with players in a group and had the following: caller, mapper,accountant/treasure divider?

the fact people sweat over a single +1 in a stat,either to compete with other players, to optimize with the stats, or to "defeat the game" with stats, just shows how stats are problematic and easily useless; especially to those people.

there is on good thing about whoever on this forum had that narrow character concept about needing the DM to provide magic rapiers in treasure...they viewed their character as a character, not a collection of stats, ability score or other. though they were to narrowly focused on their character hangups with a weapon, many people are too narrowly focused on the math. Im sure my sig has something about getting hung up on the math in it somewhere... "Play the game, not the rules."

18 STR for an elf fighter that only uses a dagger
16 STR for an elf fighter that only uses a long sword

which comes out ahead the 18 or 16 STR, Grek?

shadzar wrote:which comes out ahead the 18 or 16 STR, Grek?

Neither. Both are retarded for playing "I will only use weapon X" as a defining character trait. That's a retarded motivation and they should feel bad for picking it. That's the sort of weaksauce roleplay that's only used by people who aren't creative enough to think of something more interesting.

Grek, are you able to play ANY version of D&D, without knowing your stats?

No. D&D is not D&D if you're not using the rules for whatever edition you're using. And in order to use the rules, you need to know what dice to be rolling and how much to add to them. Even basic operations like moving, attacking, opening locks and answering "does an 11 hit?" when the DM asks require that you know what your stats are. If you don't know any of that, you aren't playing D&D, you're describing a story to the GM who then interprets your results on the fly into D&D terms. A game like that could be fun, but it isn't D&D. And even if it were close enough for you, I'd still need to know at least some of the stats:

At a bare minimum, I'd have to know what I look like, how far I can move, how far I can reach and what kind of magical non-obvious abilities I have, if any. Knowing how many HP I have, how good my attacks/spells/whatever is and what my skills are would be nice, but I could do without them if the GM will at least tell me "You are feeling healthy, you're a trained swordsman and you've studied classic elven poetry." before the game starts. It would be super annoying to have the GM roll everything, but it could be done.

But, again. That isn't D&D. That's some other thing you're playing with the GM while he runs a D&D game. And you'd probably be better off just putting up the D&D stuff at that point and playing whatever game you're playing with the GM.

I know that you're a grognard and think that stats are a bad word, but come on. The rules are there to describe the world, and if you're not allowed to know the rules, you're not allowed to know about the world.

Grek wrote:

Grek, are you able to play ANY version of D&D, without knowing your stats?

No. D&D is not D&D if you're not using the rules for whatever edition you're using. And in order to use the rules, you need to know what dice to be rolling and how much to add to them. Even basic operations like moving, attacking, opening locks and answering "does an 11 hit?" when the DM asks require that you know what your stats are. If you don't know any of that, you aren't playing D&D, you're describing a story to the GM who then interprets your results on the fly into D&D terms. A game like that could be fun, but it isn't D&D. And even if it were close enough for you, I'd still need to know at least some of the stats:

At a bare minimum, I'd have to know what I look like, how far I can move, how far I can reach and what kind of magical non-obvious abilities I have, if any. Knowing how many HP I have, how good my attacks/spells/whatever is and what my skills are would be nice, but I could do without them if the GM will at least tell me "You are feeling healthy, you're a trained swordsman and you've studied classic elven poetry." before the game starts. It would be super annoying to have the GM roll everything, but it could be done.

But, again. That isn't D&D. That's some other thing you're playing with the GM while he runs a D&D game. And you'd probably be better off just putting up the D&D stuff at that point and playing whatever game you're playing with the GM.

I know that you're a grognard and think that stats are a bad word, but come on. The rules are there to describe the world, and if you're not allowed to know the rules, you're not allowed to know about the world.

no, the stats aren't there to describe the world, and you're an idiot. the stats quantify things that are incomprehensible as anything but a measure.

you highlight a major problem with players evolved from 3rd edition. i ahve said it i have no idea how many times, but people are worrying too much about the rules and not trusting the DM to paly.

So again I offer the challenge. get pencil, paper and dice, and just play the game with the DM running it. if you cannot do that, then you dont understand D&D. you aren't playing the game, but the rules.

one important thing, and can be proven with the fights caused by not having use of the stats in some sort of skill challenge system, is that the game contains only what YOU bring to it. so take away the stats and you have no rollplaying and the argument roleplaying vs rollplaying, but people bitch and moan about MTP, DM fiat, and shit, because they really dont trust the DM, so must not be enjoying the game. and if you dont enjoy the game WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU PLAYING IT?

D&D has been lost in editions anyway, as to what it is. though each edition still tells what it is through TSR, and keeps telling people that the rules are only guidelines. yet they do NOT listen. they get stuck on the paradox of something like "we have rules, but we dont have to use them", or worse "how do we know if the DM is being fair?"

you have forgotten why you are playing int he first place when you ask either of those questions, or you are palying for the wrong reasons and against the purpose of D&D. remember as stated in EVERY edition, except maybe Fantasy Encounter Battle Simulation Game (aka 4th edition):

THE GOAL: to have fun.

if you are having fun trying to screw with the numebrs, then so be it, but you arent playing the game, you are playing with it.

so ignore the numbers, including stats, and try to play it and see what the game is about.

t6he funny thing you didnt mention in what you need, and the thing this thread is about, is your stats/ability scores. you didnt say you needed to pick them, or have control over them.

at least you understand that much and have taken a step in the right direction to understand and learn more. there is NO Brady Games guide to help you get to the end of D&D. re-read the intros and explanations of what D&D is from the books from the 80s and 70s to see what the game is about, not the Rev Wyatt and his bullshit and ignorance of "its about killing things and taking their stuff, not traipsing through faerie rings and talking to the little people". learn the game better than he has.

Stats are really a leftover from miniature wargmes as i previously noted. they really played little part in the original D&D except told you a few things that they interacted with, and gave you the chance to do anything you wanted to with what was an ability check with common sense driving which stat to use.

class and level determined most everything you did, stats can be removed, and i wouldnt mind playing a version of D&D that had classes only, no "races" and no stats, and it really wouldnt change much about being able to have fun, but give a hell of a lot less to have to deal with and peoiple to argue over without them. like screwing with lsits of feats or skills or powers or whatever nonsense over-complications WotC has added, when they should have been trimming it down.

3rd based of 2nd+PO was the wrong way to go, they should have taken RC and the basic sets and made them the best they could be, and that is NOT what 4th edition is with its over-complications.

so as i said, you want something for stats, 3 is about as small as you could go, or you can remove them completely, and the upper limit to the stats like STR/DEX/CON/INT/WIS/CHA/COM is limitless depending on the level of complexity you want to add to the game, and how much you want to slow play down.

Shadzar, you are fucking retarded. Despite what it says in the book, the rules are not guidelines. That's just there to appeal to people like you who hate rules. The truth is that the rules in the book are actual fucking rules that you and your gaming group have agreed to play by, and by not playing by them you are cheating at the game and screwing your group out of a good time. Telling people to roleplay not rollplay is literally just as bad as telling a bunch of football players to ignore the rule and roll the ball around instead. Or deciding in the middle of a football game that you should be able to pick up the ball and throw it into the net. If you don't want to play by the rules, say so up front and get your group to play Munchausen or catch instead.