Quote from: danskmacabre;836925I like using 3 full sets of 4d6 drop lowest and arrange how you like in each set, then choose a set you like the most.
 

3d6 – average is 10.5
4d6 discard lowest – average is 12.25
4d6 discard lowest, best of 3 – average is 13.22.
So the effect is to make the characters a lot better than average, which is why I don't personally like it, but...

Quote from: danskmacabre;836925If people (including myself) are having fun then it's all good.

Indeed!

Quote from: Beagle;836895Of course it is better to roll for chracters. Always. No exceptions. For any system. If the system you are going to play doesn't have a way of including random results in the character creation process, it is a good idea to create one. The results are less formulaic, cookie-cutterish characters and less focus on character optimisation. The players gain additional input from an outside source and as they have to integrate these excternal inspirations in their concept and thus are required to think outside the box and get to be ore creative.  As a result, the characters are  almost universally more dynamic, less stereotyical than in a pure point-buy creation system. Besides, not paying any tribute to the filthy lie that characters in an RPG could or should be balanced eliminates a few problems from the very start.
For D&D 5e, it should also be completely mandatory to roll on all these nice little tables for your background.

Preach on, brother.  Random rolls create interesting characters one might never have dreamt up on one's own.

But I'm not a fan of the "starting characters should already be powerful" thing. I always thought the quest for power and land and status was the fun part of the game.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;8369313d6 – average is 10.5
4d6 discard lowest – average is 12.25
4d6 discard lowest, best of 3 – average is 13.22.
So the effect is to make the characters a lot better than average, which is why I don't personally like it, but…

Indeed!

I don't dispute that it'll give a higher average.

However I state when offering this stat generation that I want to see at least one pretty low stat that has a penalty and that a character with all decent stats will be rejected, but at the same time, I have noted over the years people like to have a stat or 2 that are exceptional.
It separates their characters from the dross and if I get a lot of pleasure out of seeing people doing amazing stuff with their characters in RPGs I run.

So I apply all this as a rule of thumb and will override what are IMO too powerful characters.  

But sure, it's a taste thing. I like it and it works for me and people I run DnD for.
I tend to be more free and easy with stuff in DnD and don't look too closely at the minutae of things.

I would add though that people don't necessarily choose the highest stat group out of 3.
I've seen players (and recently) choose what were a more interesting spread over an overall high spread.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;836930No you're right, I double checked and it's 3 to 18. I just picked 1 out of a hat to mean "ridiculously low number," but 3 works too.

Is 3 even functionally human? Someone with 3 INT, for instance; I'm pretty sure a dog would have higher.

But yeah, if everybody just roleplayed it out then it's fine.

I don't know about newer editions but the D&D I have doesn't indicate that an Int score of 3 has to be played as a moron; it merely limits the character's ability to acquire languages and other things and, if one uses rolls vs. a stat, may limit his ability to learn or know additional things. For instance, he could be a competent soldier but not be smart enough to know much history of the region. I've worked with folks like this so I can buy into it: the people who seem to be able to do their work and get by but seem woefully ignorant about politics, history, culture, and so on. They tend to be adherents of creationism and "intelligent design" as it's easier to just swallow what they were told than to think about it. I don't mean that as an insult; merely observation.

Quote from: Matt;836932Preach on, brother.  Random rolls create interesting characters one might never have dreamt up on one's own.

But I'm not a fan of the "starting characters should already be powerful" thing. I always thought the quest for power and land and status was the fun part of the game.

Pretty much where I'm at.  I don't ever go into a game with a "character build" in mind.  I enjoy the challenge and the surprise of having to make the best of what fate (aka "the dice") deals me.  As such, I have no interest in point buy or point pool games.  I don't want that kind of control over the character I'm playing.  

I don't mind the idea of rolling 4D6 and dropping the low number, but that's about as far as I want to go with improving my odds.

Quote from: Matt;836935I don't know about newer editions but the D&D I have doesn't indicate that an Int score of 3 has to be played as a moron; it merely limits the character's ability to acquire languages and other things and, if one uses rolls vs. a stat, may limit his ability to learn or know additional things. For instance, he could be a competent soldier but not be smart enough to know much history of the region. I've worked with folks like this so I can buy into it: the people who seem to be able to do their work and get by but seem woefully ignorant about politics, history, culture, and so on. They tend to be adherents of creationism and "intelligent design" as it's easier to just swallow what they were told than to think about it. I don't mean that as an insult; merely observation.

The DM can call on a player to make a save based off a stat in any situation where the game calls for that stat. Therefore the interpretation of when you can use intelligence has expanded well beyond learning spells, languages and additional skills.

Really it depends on how you interpret and roleplay a character.
If you say these numbers really only represent he things expressely called out in the rules as relating to these numbers then you can play an Int 3 guy as witty, sly and resourceful, just like you could play a guy with 3 Chr as charming funny and likeable.

So it depends how you choose to roleplay and how you place that decision inside the "stats" of the PC

I won't make any judgments on the superiority of one process over the other, but I'll mention that for my current 5th ed D&D game I let the players choose from any of the three options in the Player's Handbook. They all chose random rolls, even the players who are notorious complainers about "bad luck" with dice rolling. Very interesting...

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;836894Yeah if I was going to have players roll for their characters, it would be in order and no dropping the lowest.

But what happens if they get a 1 or something? Do you use a minimum range? Like 4?

Um... If you have the standard roll 4 then you pretty much must drop the lowest otherwise you will get some potentially pretty overpowered characters with not much space left to grow into.

If you  mean roll 3. Then carry on. Though we do the r4dl in order quite often. That is my current character.

and... Um... You cannot get a 1. with the r3io you get a range of 3-18 with the average clustered around 10-11. Meaning you will see more rolls result around 9-12. With r4dl you get a range of 3-18 as well. But the average is around 13. Meaning you will see more rolls result around 11-14.

You can see it here. http://anydice.com/program/13e
vs
http://anydice.com/program/1

As for array vs point buy.

Array is my least favorite. But is viable. It tends to create characters that feel more cookie-cutter-ish. 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.

Point buy Id use if every other player didnt try to min-max with it. IE: 15, 15, 15, 8, 8, 8.

Both systems do though give potentially more room to grow into and potentially de-emphasize feats as every feat bought is 2 stat points not gained.

r4dl arrange method though is the norm for 5e and the array and point buy are optionals. I was a little disappointed that 5e did not mention r3io, or in order at all.

To put this all in perspective. By the point buy system Jannet and my own characters would have been at least 7 points short via point buy. And Kefra would total 1 point over the 27 allotted. We all used r4dl. But I kept the order I rolled in, Jan just swapped two stats. Charisma and Wisdom, and Kef arranged as she saw fit.

Quote from: jibbajibba;836943The DM can call on a player to make a save based off a stat in any situation where the game calls for that stat. Therefore the interpretation of when you can use intelligence has expanded well beyond learning spells, languages and additional skills.

Really it depends on how you interpret and roleplay a character.
If you say these numbers really only represent he things expressely called out in the rules as relating to these numbers then you can play an Int 3 guy as witty, sly and resourceful, just like you could play a guy with 3 Chr as charming funny and likeable.

So it depends how you choose to roleplay and how you place that decision inside the "stats" of the PC

I can't speak to any editions after 2nd; never played them or had any interest. What I hear seems to indicate a power creep has set in. Perhaps players are not happy with characters who have the occasional low score or are average across the board and they accommodated that in the revisions.

Quote from: jibbajibba;836905What about Amber Diceless?

Never played that one, and as far as I can tell, the necessity of character creation being a group activity, makes it very easy to use a different source of outside input during the character creation process, namely the other players; nonetheless there is no reason whatsoever to complement that system through, let's say the inclusion of a Tarot Deck and add prophecies or random background events to their backstory; besides if I am not mistaken, the amber bidding system is not the whole character creation, right? It also includes a lame point buy part, which can easily be upgraded thrrough more random numbers.  

Quote from: jibbajibba;836905What about a Sci Fi game where you play a clone?

Even in the most prevalent use of clones as a setting element in recent sci fi media, (which as far as I know that's Star Wars) whenever they play a major role (as in "they are potential player characters"), it is also pretty sure that the clone-protagonists are individuals with different personas and fields of expertise. Just because a character looks the same, it doesn't mean it is the same person, or has made the same experiences, even in a very controled environment.

Quote from: jibbajibba;836905Any consideration of genre? Dungeondelve vs Marvel Superheroes vs Star Wars?
Any consideration of styles of play? Gritty, heroic, cinematic, superheroic?

Why bother? The process of imagining characters and including both own ideas and outside input is pretty much independent from the chosen genre. The concrete ideas, events and character elements may differ greatly from one genre or setting to the other, but the basic principle of creating a fictional role to impersonate are the same, independently from the specfic elements. And as such, the inclusion of at least some random elements is always, always a boon to the game as a whole.
It is very, very unlikely that there is any character creation system that would not benefit at least slightly from being complimented with a few random ideas here or there, if only to dismiss the delusion of the game's potential balance right from the start.
Pretty much all games I run these days are based on a roll or chose system, were the players can either pick the exact trait they want or roll for it, usually doing both in roughly equal manner without artificial boundaries and restrictions.
And Star Wars (D6) is one of the games that greatly benefits from additional randomness during the character creation; due to the nature of the setting where there are two (or so) clear 'power tiers' of characters who are supposed to act together - jedi and ordinary people, making force sensitivity a more or less rare and random trait instead of a freely available convenience makes it not only more valuable and desirable, it is also a great example of how a random trait could change a character concept and twist it around; just imagine Han (or Chewey), not Luke were the one who is strong in the force.

Quote from: Beagle;836948Even in the most prevalent use of clones as a setting element in recent sci fi media, (which as far as I know that's Star Wars) whenever they play a major role (as in "they are potential player characters"), it is also pretty sure that the clone-protagonists are individuals with different personas and fields of expertise. Just because a character looks the same, it doesn't mean it is the same person, or has made the same experiences, even in a very controled environment.

In Paranoia they're literally identical but the game isn't meant to get too deep into that.

Quote from: Matt;836946I can't speak to any editions after 2nd; never played them or had any interest. What I hear seems to indicate a power creep has set in. Perhaps players are not happy with characters who have the occasional low score or are average across the board and they accommodated that in the revisions.

Pretty much. The game went from "make something of yourself in the world, starting from nothing" to "epic heroes touched by destiny remaking the world" type stuff. Although 5E tried to remedy that.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;836949Pretty much. The game went from "make something of yourself in the world, starting from nothing" to "epic heroes touched by destiny remaking the world" type stuff. Although 5E tried to remedy that.

I kinda like rolling up a character where I think I want to play a Conan-type warrior-thief and then end up with a scrawny hobbit pickpocket with minimal wisdom but plenty of chutzpah.

Quote from: Omega;836945Array is my least favorite. But is viable. It tends to create characters that feel more cookie-cutter-ish. 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.

Point buy Id use if every other player didnt try to min-max with it. IE: 15, 15, 15, 8, 8, 8.

I like it that you showed some actual numbers. It’s not very scientific I know, but here’s 10 characters rolled up with my method:

14, 13, 11,  9,  9,  7
14, 11, 10, 10,  9,  9
15, 15, 13,  9,  6,  5
14, 14, 12, 11,  8,  4
14, 13, 11,  9,  9,  7
15, 14, 13,  9,  8,  4
13, 13, 12, 12,  7,  6
15, 13, 10, 10,  8,  7
14, 12, 11, 10, 10,  6
18, 12, 11,  8,  8,  6

Anyone fancy doing that for their method?

(and yes, I did get excited when I rolled that 18 for the last one. Yes, sad I know).

Quote from: JoeNuttall;836951I like it that you showed some actual numbers. It's not very scientific I know, but here's 10 characters rolled up with my method:

14, 13, 11,  9,  9,  7
14, 11, 10, 10,  9,  9
15, 15, 13,  9,  6,  5
14, 14, 12, 11,  8,  4
14, 13, 11,  9,  9,  7
15, 14, 13,  9,  8,  4
13, 13, 12, 12,  7,  6
15, 13, 10, 10,  8,  7
14, 12, 11, 10, 10,  6
18, 12, 11,  8,  8,  6

Anyone fancy doing that for their method?

(and yes, I did get excited when I rolled that 18 for the last one. Yes, sad I know).

Seems like every character will have at least 1-3 above average scores and very few below average. Wouldn't use it personally but that's a matter of preference in game style.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;836930No you're right, I double checked and it's 3 to 18. I just picked 1 out of a hat to mean "ridiculously low number," but 3 works too.

Is 3 even functionally human? Someone with 3 INT, for instance; I'm pretty sure a dog would have higher.

But yeah, if everybody just roleplayed it out then it's fine.

In BX a 3 INT was described as "Has trouble with speaking, cannot read or write." 4-5 was "Cannot read or write" and 6-8 was "Can read simple common words." 9 and up was able to read and write normally.

A 5e dog or cat has an INT of 3.