One of the reasons I avoided playing Swords & Wizardry for the longest time as the lack of a ability score modifier of higher than a +1 (at 15), and this modifier only applies to specific things for specific classes. For instance, the fighter is the ONLY class that gets a +1 to-hit and damage in melee with a strength score of 15 or higher.
Contrast this with the majority of B/X, which is based off of books later than the original "Chainmail" and white box style rules which did not have the 13-15 is +1, the 16-17 is +2, and the 18 is +3 modifiers (and the similarly decreasing negative ones). I grew up with these modifiers, so I thought if a game did not have these, it wasn't really good enough for me.
This is another reason I did not play Stars Without Number and the Worlds Without Number games, as I felt the +1 and +2 modifiers of these games did not feel up to my "standard" of needing that +3 at an 18.
Looking Back
I can see why the original games never had these generous ability score modifiers. They apply to every class, and scale to three times the original +1 modifier. When you have these modifiers, you are putting a huge upwards pressure on ability score inflation, and to get these "cool bonuses" the 4d6 drop lowest ability score generation method was likely created.
And with strength, you factor in a +1 essentially raises your weapon damage by one die, given the averages. A 1d4 dagger with a +1 STR mod is equal to a 1d6 weapon, since they have the same average roll (3.5). A 1d4 dagger with a +3 modifier is like a 1d10 weapon. Note I am NOT taking into account the +5% extra to-hit bonus per +1, which would make a 1d4+1 dagger with a +1 to-hit superior to a 1d6 short sword with a +0 to-hit (3.675 vs 3.5 average damage).
That d4+3 to-hit and damage? A 6.325 average damage versus the d10/+0 weapon's 5.5, almost a full point of damage more on average (factoring the to-hit bonus on repeated attacks), with a minimum nearly the average of the 1d10 weapon's at a full 4 points.
Those B/X modifiers are VERY generous, especially when combined with magic items. Get a +3 STR mod with a +2 weapon and you are doing serious damage with high averages.
Back to white box Swords & Wizardry. Basically, no real special modifiers unless you are a fighter with STR 15 or higher. That class gets it because that is why you play a fighter. Magic weapons? All classes benefit from to-hit and damage bonuses, and those modifiers become VERY valuable. As a consequence, magic items become highly desirable.
Also, the game feels better balanced because at low levels, ability score bonuses are not guaranteeing one hit kills versus many weaker monsters (especially 1d4 hp ones). Also, there isn't this great push to pump those ability scores up, and a 3d6 generation method feels fine here.
+2 at 18?
A few white box style games feel like they are making a compromise with a +2 at the highest scores (Stars Without Number, Worlds Without Number, and another one is White Space). Original Swords & Wizardry sticks to the +1 all the way up. I can see this as a special nod to the need to have some difference there to make the upper range compelling, but it doesn't really bother me that much. Now that I understand the why, the exceptions can be a lot better rationalized.
It's What I Grew Up With
So I had this bias based on the games I grew up with, and that was coloring how I saw these games. Because Swords & Wizardry did not have the +3 bonus, it felt like less of a OSR game to me. And I will admit, I was wrong. There are times I feel those generous B/X ability score bonuses are too much, they put too much pressure on players to roll high, and they make the low level game with high scores more of a blowout than something with a predictable balance and less-spiky damage rolls.
I see why the "white box" lineage is popular, and this is one of those key differences. This is also one of the huge differences between B/X and the Stars/Worlds Without Number games, since they also pull down those modifiers and flatten that modifier curve.
I still like my +3 at 18, but I can see how that puts a lot of pressure on ability score inflation and makes low-level/high-modifier games easier. There is less "ability score swing" with games, and when you design a class you get to say what that 15+ score +1 goes to. Saving throws? Attack and damage? Reaction rolls? There is a model here that is followed and a standard practice.
So this is more of how I came to understand the "why" of white box style games' modifier system, and how those games don't feel like they have a problem to me anymore. They exist in a flatter design curve, and given how more games are moving towards that model (such as D&D5's bounded accuracy model, and also the excellent Stars/Worlds Without Number), the original white box rules we all started with feels more like the ultimate design goal rather than a system without that +3 modifier ideal.
It is honestly making me wonder what the "true" OSR style game is to me and that tighter balance curve. Is it B/X with the higher range of modifiers and stacking bonuses? Or is it more of a Swords and Wizardry style game with less of a focus on ability scores and more on play style, strategy, and tactics?
What is the idea OSR balance level, especially with low-level play?
Once you make a point that ability score modifiers are very generous in B/X (and create that ability score inflation), are very powerful at low levels, and compare that with a flatter model game like white box, you wonder where the game plays and feels the best.
I am really wondering now if the white box model has the best feeling versus the B/X games I grew up with. It may not matter at all, but I can clearly see the white box fans' view now on how less is more.
No comments:
Post a Comment