Dungeons & Dragons White Box 07

Prior to the character selection by players it is necessary for the referee to roll three six-sided dice in order to rate each as to various abilities, and thus aid them in selecting a role. Categories of ability are: Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Constitution, Dexterity and Charisma. Each player notes his appropriate scores, obtains a similar roll of three dice to determine the number of Gold Pieces (Dice score x 10) he starts with, and then opts for a role. A sample of the record of a character appears like this:

Here's a fun fact: note the order of ability stats. I can't help pointing out that while the order of these keep changing (4th & 5th edition lists them as Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha), I continue to use the order above. Because that's the order that I learned them, and habitually that's the order in which I automatically list them off. I did play a lot of characters during my formative years, and it's stuck. Any other order just feels wrong.

That first sentence is written just as badly as a sentence can be. Count them, it's eight prepositional phrases, one after another. In 36 words. Impressive. Not in accurate. Roll three 6-sided dice six times and then label them (the six stats). These aid in assigning the character. It isn't actually done "prior," since the die rolling is in fact starts the character selection (so it doesn't have to be stated at all), while "role" really isn't relevant here, it ought to be "class" which is used right after but oddly not here. In any case, the rolls are here to define the "role," but actually just to define the actual abilities. The abilities, later, define the role. But, meh, I'm nitpicking. Just saying, an English student among their number might have been a boon.

One more, please, I'm sorry. "Category of abilities"?  Why not just "Abilities"? Yeah... a-all right, fine, yes... I'm done. We can move on.

The character layout is unlike any I ever saw when I started; it's too tight, too cluttered looking; back then, there were so few details to stuff up a page that it was easy to lay it out with lots of white space. I honestly don't remember a game I ever played using 3d6, because it produced stats like these. My first game, which remember happened before AD&D, I rolled 4d6 and tossed the lowest. Never played any D&D where that wasn't the standard. But that is precisely what the White Box books argued for: that there were no "pure methods" or rules that were universally followed. We must remember that changes took place for personal, organic reasons. The rules weren't as written, except that it was written into the rules that they shouldn't be as written.

But, yes, they're compressing it for the space here, it stands fine, it's what we all recognise as D&D, right? No errors here. You can see that hp, AC, height, weight, age, race, gender are all cut out, but that's likely because its a starting example.

This supposed player would have progressed faster as a Cleric, but because of a personal preference for magic opted for that class. With a strength of only 6 there was no real chance for him to become a fighter. His constitutional score indicates good health and the ability to take punishment of most forms. A dexterity of 9 (low average) means that he will not be particularly fast nor accurate. He is below average in charisma, but not hopelessly so.

Whatever commentary I might make to this is bound to reflect my personal feelings about stats, or at least what I've heard from players over the years. JB recently made an argument that a 17 strength only offers a 5% improvement to hit over a strength of 12. Which is true for one roll. But characters don't make ONE roll, they make hundreds of rolls. And that +5% operates like compound interest. The more often you can use it, the better the chance you'll live to roll again. Over ten rolls, your hitting power with a 17 is actually 62.9% greater than it would be if you had a 12 strength. This applies to every situation where you have to make a roll against a stat. A dexterity of 9 does not mean merely that the character won't be particularly accurate. It means that if the character has to grab at a ledge ten times over the course of a campaign, it means that a character with a dexterity of 12 has a 404% greater chance of being alive after those ten tries. That is a HUGE difference. Those who insist on seeing the numbers in terms of one roll or one try are really forgetting how perturbations build up over time.

That math is not considered in this text. What's said isn't wrong... but it does supply a ready argument for a DM who wishes to downplay the player's complaint about their 8 charisma. Which is, incidently, the purpose JB puts the argument to on his post. We need to understand that player complaints about low ability stats are not perception. They're real. It doesn't mean that the players deserve better stats, far from it. But pretending they're not what they are is counterfactual and condescending.

Explanation of Abilities:

The first three categories are the prime requisites for each of the three classes: Fighting-Men, Magic-Users, and Clerics. (See the Bonuses and Penalties to Advancement due to Abilities table which appears hereafter.) (sic)

The prime requisites listed here also provide a counterargument to the link from JB. The fighter with a 17 strength earns 10% more experience than the character whose strength is 12. That's one less fight in getting to be 2nd level, and one less again getting to be third, once more a sort of compounded interest that improves the character's chance of survival. All other things being equal, the player's being able to play any character well, it's easier to win a 100 yard dash if you start 10 yards closer to your opponents.

This means a player would be crazy to play any character without a 15 as a prime requisite (by White Box rules; the threshold is later raised to 16; the rule for this is on page 11, while we're presently on page 12), especially if others had this benefit. That one player would thus be repeatedly left further and further behind by his or her peers, without any real chance of catching up, all players being equal. We can argue that they're not, that a better player can overcome the percentage... but why accept that flaw for the sake of a continuity that actually counts for nothing? Why not just let players re-roll characters until they reach a certain minimum, one that is better able to sustain overall play for everyone? Especially since the rules themselves give licence to make this the case?

Granted, in a wargame, uneven setups are expected — the point is to test tactical ingenuity under constraint. But that wasn't what the game became, is it? Once players were put in a situation where they advanced side by side, not against each other but against "non-player characters," then it ceased to be governed by that wargame assumption. The White Box clearly doesn't recognise that this is what's going to happen; it's working on adjudicating battles, not building a social structure.

Strength is the prime requisite for fighters. Clerics can use strength on a 3 for 1 basis in their prime requisite area (wisdom), for purposes of gaining experience only. Strength will also aid in opening traps and so on.

What's striking is how much Men & Magic is written as though the reader already knows what all of this means. Just imagine it was 1974, you'd never heard of the game and you read this passage. Try to inhabit that moment honestly. You're told you need to read this to understand the content of the third book, but this doesn't actually tell you anything. I've been playing for 46 years and the words "3 for 1" basis" don't mean anything to me. Does it mean if I have a 12 strength and an 11 wisdom, I can divide the strength by 3 and add 4 to my wisdom, giving me a 10% experience bonus? I'm not sure. And if so, that is a strange rule. How does strength as a cleric increase the speed with which I learn spells?

Intelligence is the prime requisite for magical types. Both fighters and Clerics can use it in their prime requisite areas (strength and wisdom respectively) on a 2 for 1 basis. Intelligence will also affect referees’ decisions as to whether or not certain action would be taken, and it allows additional languages to be spoken.

How does intelligence affect the referee's decisions about what actions can be taken? What actions? Do you mean that if, as a player, I want to use some Aristotelian logic, and my intelligence is somewhere between 8 and 11, I might or might not be allowed to do so? Based on the DM's arbitrary feelings in that moment? Do I have to check with the DM first before my 7 intelligence character can have a plan? What's clear here is that there's a premise that the player can be separated from the character by the latter's stats, which are squidgy at best and very seriously not rigidly defined. This is like if chess had a rule that read, "A player with a high recorded I.Q. may attempt moves beyond the usual patterns, subject to the referee's approval." Or a rule in Monopoly that says, "Bankers may at their discretion decide if a player is clever enough to buy utilities."

What remains odd isn't just that the authors here clearly feel this is perfectly ordinary as a structure, but that now, 50 years later, it's still defended as rational. We can forgive the writers of the White Box set for being a little confused; it is a very different game and they're still figuring out the nuts and bolts, and logically they can't seen the repercussions of a few lines of indistinct or poorly nailed down language. But the idea that remains presently that this is good design that empowers the DM... yes, yes it does. And how is that a good thing?

Wisdom is the prime requisite for Clerics. It may be used on a 3 for 1 basis by fighters, and on a 2 for 1 basis by Magic-Users, in their respective prime requisite areas. Wisdom rating will act much as does that for intelligence.

That last line is incredible, isn't it?  It’s not only a full abdication of actual design, it refuses to separate wisdom from intelligence, telling us that it more or less functions as intelligence does. This begs the question — why are there two stats?  The answer is that we must have something that separates the character's choice to be a cleric or to be a mage. And, of course, because the writers are thinking like wargamers, they don't need to justify it beyond this need for an arbitrary differentiation.

Unfortunately, all these handwaves accumulate over the decades, metastasising as dogma, becoming foundations for further confused layers of assumption, while fossilising as things party A ignores while party B treates with ritualistic importance. And as D&D evolves, most of these indescrepancies and inconsistencies aren't resolved, for that would infuriate numerous groups that are more important as customers than adherents — so that each fix preserves the flaws already established. And so fifty years later, we’re still carrying the weight of sentences written by young enthusiasts who thought they were just jotting down house rules for their friends. The logical game, it can be seen, was doomed from the start.

Constitution is a combination of health and endurance. It will influence such things as the number of hits which can be taken and how well the character can withstand being paralyzed, turned to stone, etc.

Here we have the first stat that actually explains what it's supposed to represent... perhaps because there are no character notes to be made about how it applies to this or that class. But it creates a problem: if constitution inhabits these physical strengths, what does strength i nhabit? The ability to lift? Weight? Carrying capacity? Because the last is a matter of endurance as much as it is physical power —  which originates largely from health. We're in the weeds here and no one's acknowledging it. Presumably, too, there's a reason why characters need to know this about constitution, but no reason for them to know what strength, intelligence or wisdom are — except, of course, that the latter two serve as a device to let the DM know what you as a player are not allowed to think.

Dexterity applies to both manual speed and conjuration. It will indicate the character's missile ability and speed with actions such as firing first, getting off a spell, etc.

Again, a definition. And this one is a great deal clearer, even though we're not told precisely how these affect things yet. All of this would be sorted out by 1978's Player's Handbook, when the stats were given specific tables to describe their effects. But then, TSR had more money to spend, on hardcover books, and thus more space. Apart from the lack of explanation, this offers no new troubles not already explained.

Charisma is a combination of appearance, personality, and so forth. Its primary function is to determine how many hirelings of unusual nature a character can attract. This is not to say that he cannot hire men-at-arms and employ mercenaries, but the charisma function will affect loyalty of even these men. Players will, in all probability, seek to hire Fighting-Men, Magic-Users, and/or Clerics in order to strengthen their roles in the campaign. A player-character can employ only as many as indicated by his charisma score.

In addition the charisma score is usable to decide such things as whether or not a witch capturing a player will turn him into a swine or keep him enchanted as a lover.

Finally, charisma will aid a character in attracting various monsters to his service.

We see that an effort has been put into establishing a firm purpose for charisma here, which is a good thing. There's nothing here about the character being liked, or impressing strangers, or otherwise being treated as special. It's a hiring measure, and occasionally applies to loyalty of those same hirelings. The transactional process of managing subordinates, logistics and leadership is refreshing... the soft, pliable rules surrounding likability, persuasion and personal magnetism haven't been invented yet, so this is refreshingly airtight.

Yet, that addendum, "...and so forth": and so forth what? Imagine that Jefferson had written, "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, and so forth..." Would we have known what he meant? The so forth ended up being social modifiers, influence mechanics, saves and charisma-based classes... which is all fine, I play some of those rules myself and have dabbled in making them fixed. But are we certain that's what they meant?

And that little bit about witches. Does this happen a lot? It's very oddly specific. And, seriously, are either of the options necessarily better than the other? There is a reveal in it, though, that they were starting to think outside the box of the wargame set-up. That is very plainly a narrative... in a game system that provides exactly no information on how to deal with a narrative. Where is the rule for what happens when "romantic enchantment" happens?

That's enough.