Quote from: Phillip;685668That depends upon what the game system in question makes of STR 3. In the original D&D set, I'm pretty sure it's no worse than STR 6: something like -15% or -20% to experience points. Starting a career as a cleric or MU might be more advantageous, but the handicap is not terribly great.

What matters more in the long run is what happens in the long run. Your fighter could end up with Giant Strength and all the benefits of high level, while a figure starting with extraordinary ability rolls ends up simply dead!

Yeah, the whole importance of character generation thing shifted as the focus of gameplay began creeping more toward what your character could do mechanically instead of what decisions you made in actual play as the largest determining factor in measuring survival & success.

You can have two fighters in OD&D, one with all 18's and the other with all 12's, and they both have roughly the same odds of making it to 2nd level. The quality of actual play decisions matters a hell of a lot more than stat adjustments.

There were stat prerequisites to prevent "fighter with STR 3" issues pre-WotC D&D. You may end up that way through play. But that's an exciting recounting of one's adventures on how one got there, not chargen.

Anyhoo, I'm very much in the "let's fucking play already!" camp. Had too many gatherings devolve into 4+ hour chargen sessions. Might as well call it a chargen party and then turn everything the players make into ruthless NPC antagonists. It'd finally turn their talents to something useful, like saving the GM time.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;685677Yeah, the whole importance of character generation thing shifted as the focus of gameplay began creeping more toward what your character could do mechanically instead of what decisions you made in actual play as the largest determining factor in measuring survival & success.

You can have two fighters in OD&D, one with all 18's and the other with all 12's, and they both have roughly the same odds of making it to 2nd level. The quality of actual play decisions matters a hell of a lot more than stat adjustments.

Personally, I like to play a character to their abilities, not mine.  Players who imprint their personality on every single character they play tend to annoy me; I like to make every character unique.  As far as personalities go, there may be a few archetypes that I tend to gravitate toward - for example, most my characters are squarely in the 'good guy' camp - but not always!  

In any case, regardless of how I generate abilities, I tend to think about how they influence the character's personality - and play that aspect up.  If I end up with a low-Wisdom high-Charisma character, I'll probably end up playing a social character that automatically trusts everyone (s)he meets - even if it's more likely to cause me to not reach next level.  

Surviving is part of the fun and the challenge - but acting 'in character' is also part of the appeal for me.  

I prefer to create a character that matches my established concept, so I prefer a high degree of customization.  

I'm not a big fan of point-buy, but I see the advantages.  

I usually like to do 4d6 drop the lowest, arrange as desired or my most preferred is to generate characters as a group.  

What we usually do is everyone (and the DM) rolls a 4d6 drop the lowest for Strength, and then all the other abilities in order.  Then we divvy them up according to what the character will do.  

So even if you rolled all 18s, those end up in the common pool and most people will get the best stat in their primary attribute.  We usually roll-off to determine who picks first - so the Wizard might pick the highest Intelligence, then the Rogue picks the highest Dexterity, and so on until everyone has all of their ability scores.  

I like that it makes character creation a group activity and helps everyone to get a sense of what other characters will be like.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;685677Yeah, the whole importance of character generation thing shifted as the focus of gameplay began creeping more toward what your character could do mechanically instead of what decisions you made in actual play as the largest determining factor in measuring survival & success.

You can have two fighters in OD&D, one with all 18's and the other with all 12's, and they both have roughly the same odds of making it to 2nd level. The quality of actual play decisions matters a hell of a lot more than stat adjustments.

This.

The character is a tool used to explore the world.

I know I'm in the minority, but I prefer it that way.  "Player skill, not character skill."  I want to think, not see what fucking number is on a piece of paper.

Quote from: Old Geezer;685690This.

The character is a tool used to explore the world.

I know I'm in the minority, but I prefer it that way.  "Player skill, not character skill."  I want to think, not see what fucking number is on a piece of paper.

The one problem I have with player skill is that I like to play a variety of characters and some are far cleverer, or much less clever, than I am.

Sure, some lements of the players mind will always leak through, but I want to roleplay characters that are not me.

Quote from: Bill;685760The one problem I have with player skill is that I like to play a variety of characters and some are far cleverer, or much less clever, than I am.

Sure, some lements of the players mind will always leak through, but I want to roleplay characters that are not me.

Are you a fighting man, a holy cleric, a magic user, or a thief?

Unless the answer is yes to any of these options you can safely play any main archetype and none of them will be you.

Depends on the game, but I'm not a fan of huge charop exercises in any case.

For an old-school game where mortality is a likelihood, and I'll probably have a 'stable' of characters anyway, I like random generation.  It forces me to play characters that I otherwise might not.  The crappy stats are less disconcerting because well, there's a good chance he'll die anyway, and I've got other characters to play.  I'd usually run a game like that in 1e or B/X anyway, so the bonus/penalty curves are flattened a bit, and those games usually don't *presume* that you've got high stats.

Bonus difficulty:  Use the random personality generator in the 1e DMG to get the basics of your personality down.

For a more character-driven game (aka modern (mid-80s+) style , one character per person, little realistic chance of death), I prefer the ability to customize my character more, but still avoid heavy charop like the plague.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;685771Are you a fighting man, a holy cleric, a magic user, or a thief?

Unless the answer is yes to any of these options you can safely play any main archetype and none of them will be you.

That's what a character does, not who they are.

I can play 'me' in any fantasy role if I want too.  But I also enjoy playing people that are 'not me' in a fantasy role.  You might not realize from my internet posting, but in real life, I'm a pretty stand-up guy.  I can enjoy playing some much more complex and conflicted personalities than my own.  

I understand why it isn't for everybody, but playing different personalities is one of the major appeals of an RPG.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;685774That's what a character does, not who they are.

This is the difference between classes as archetype and classes as vocation.

D&D was designed with classes as archetype.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;685776This is the difference between classes as archetype and classes as vocation.

D&D was designed with classes as archetype.

This is crazy and borderline nonsensical.  'Wizard' is not an archetype, and quite specifically if there are stereotypes around what a wizard is like, PC wizards are antithetical toward those stereotypes.  

The stereotypical wizard lives in a tower, has some type of muscle-bound servitor, and doesn't like vistiors.  Doesn't sound like an adventurer to me.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;685778This is crazy and borderline nonsensical.  'Wizard' is not an archetype, and quite specifically if there are stereotypes around what a wizard is like, PC wizards are antithetical toward those stereotypes.  

The stereotypical wizard lives in a tower, has some type of muscle-bound servitor, and doesn't like vistiors.  Doesn't sound like an adventurer to me.

Definition of ARCHETYPE
1: the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies : prototype; also : a perfect example



Definition of STEREOTYPE
1: a plate cast from a printing surface
2: something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; especially : a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment


It seems that you are confusing archetype and sterotype.

"Wizard" as an archetype is a master of magic that uses mystical energy and brains instead of brawn.

A "sterotypical wizard" is an old man in wide brimmed pointy hat, with long robes and gnarled staff.

See the difference?

There is room for creating all kinds of wizard archetype characters. The stereotype version are Gandalf clones.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;685771Are you a fighting man, a holy cleric, a magic user, or a thief?

Unless the answer is yes to any of these options you can safely play any main archetype and none of them will be you.

Thats not the point. I dont want my character to be a wizard with my brain and personality.

Quote from: Bill;685792Thats not the point. I dont want my character to be a wizard with my brain and personality.

Unless you know a really good neurosurgeon you are pretty much stuck with your brain whatever you play.

You can adopt whatever personality you wish for an archetype. The base archetypes are very broad and support a wide range of characters,

A chivalric knight, a cutthroat merc, a savvy woodsman, or a savage barbarian can all be played as the fighting man archetype.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;685803Unless you know a really good neurosurgeon you are pretty much stuck with your brain whatever you play.

You can adopt whatever personality you wish for an archetype. The base archetypes are very broad and support a wide range of characters,

A chivalric knight, a cutthroat merc, a savvy woodsman, or a savage barbarian can all be played as the fighting man archetype.

Sure. I was talking about how if I am playing a Paladin that is as dumb as a box of rocks, I don't play him as clever as I am in real life. (I am marginally more clever than a box of rocks)

Also, my paladin character is likely a bit nicer than I am.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;685788It seems that you are confusing archetype and sterotype.

And yet it seems that you are advocating for a player to have the same personality for every character they play.  

Quote from: Exploderwizard;685771Are you a fighting man, a holy cleric, a magic user, or a thief?

A fighting man can be devoted to his friends or cause, or he can be a savage bloodthirsty brute.

A holy cleric can believe in charity as the highest ideal or that the gods favor those who work to achieve their own aims.  

A magic-user can be devoted entirely to the collection of arcane information for the learning of the masses or focused entirely on their own power.

A thief can have a heart of gold or he can be purely mercenary.

A class is a collection of abilties - a character is the personality that gives those collection of abilities their unique...character.