What do you guys think of rolling for character creation instead of point buy / standard array? Is it fun?
Is it better when you drop the whole "drop lowest" thing?
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;836892What do you guys think of rolling for character creation instead of point buy / standard array? Is it fun?
Is it better when you drop the whole "drop lowest" thing?
IMO it's a bad idea when combined with "arrange as desired" but "roll in order, discard set if really bad" works well to create organic looking characters. I don't use it in my 5e game though, which uses default array. I do use drop-lowest.
In my Pathfinder game the player rolls in order, then can swap any one pair of stats around, eg STR with INT, to put a high number in a preferred location.
In my Classic D&D game the player rolls in order but can choose to put a roll in an unfilled slot (STR INT WIS etc). Once a number has been allocated to a slot it's locked in. This works great IME.
Yeah 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?
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;836892What do you guys think of rolling for character creation instead of point buy / standard array? Is it fun?
Of 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.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;836892Is it better when you drop the whole "drop lowest" thing?
The drop the lowest die system isn't better or worse; the results are just more likely to have higher average abilties, and depending on the campaign the Gamemaster imagines, this can be more or less appropriate. The system gets significanlty better though if you roll the abilities in a fixed order though instead of cherry-picking, creating unique characters who are not straightjackeded into a fixed character concept from the start.
I really like what you guys are saying so far.
Doesn't this NOT work in a game with dungeon crawling though? It's like the opposite. If you have a chance to die, then getting stuck with a guy with like 6 STR means you're pretty much screwed right?
In my games, characters have a chance to die in pretty much any environment. I don't like pulling punches or cheating to keep characters alive; it diminishes the actual triumph of the characters if they do not survive and succeed through their accomplishment but solely due to a sense of entitlement.
And yes, entitlement is the key issue in both cases: the idea that the player has the right to be at least this awesome (without any requirements) and this successful (by default) and deserves to see his characters survive (by due to the blessing of his mere presence) is pretty close to the root of both the idea of point-buy, and the concept of characters who are supposed to not die. And this sense of entitlement is actually quite bad for an activity like RPGs that require pretty constant and active contributions and effort from all involved actors to be truly great.
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.
Very well put.
Quote from: Beagle;836895Besides, 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.
Randomness doesn't mean you have to be wildly unbalanced though. In White Box OD&D the characters are unbalanced but only a little. AD&D/Greyhawk with its percentile strength makes some Fighters wildly better than others, and for me sounds the death knell for random character generation.
Quote from: Beagle;836895The drop the lowest die system isn't better or worse; the results are just more likely to have higher average abilties
Indeed, you still end up with some characters being wildly better than others.
I’m using straight 3d6 in order for white box D&D, but for B/X I use my random system for D&D (http://explorebeneathandbeyond.blogspot.com/2015/05/stat-generation-random-but-fair-this.html) which gives random stats with the same distribution as 3d6 but always with a total of 63 so the total bonus is near to zero (It's a bit long to post here - you roll 9 d6 in a 3*3 grid and derive your 6 stats from those rolls). It’s an alternative to point buy systems (cookie cutter) and 4d6 drop the lowest (just raising the bar).
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.
.
What about Amber Diceless?
What about a Sci Fi game where you play a clone?
Any consideration of genre? Dungeondelve vs Marvel Superheroes vs Star Wars?
Any consideration of styles of play? Gritty, heroic, cinematic, superheroic?
Wouldn't it be more aposite to say something like,
"Random character generation is suitable for certain games and play experiences. Sometimes you want more heroic characters for certain genres so you may want to introduce elements of adjustments to the random roll based on point buy or allocation of additional bonuses. Some systems have excellent character generation mechanics that don't rely on random generation as all such as the Attribute auction in Amber Diceless and associated games.
In effect you are best picking the type of character generation that best suits the type of game experience you want to have."
Though I guess you could caveat that with "in general I prefer random generation for a number of reasons ... etc"
Quote from: jibbajibba;836905What about a Sci Fi game where you play a clone?
Best counter example ever!
Quote from: JoeNuttall;836910Best counter example ever!
I wrote a Sci fi game when I was a kid.
The idea was there were hundreds of races but rather than detail them all you had a race design template. You had a pool of 25 d6 and 8 stats and each race had different numbers of dice on each stat.
The exceptions being robots who had 90 points to spend entirely point and the population of GR3X8 who were all clones and all had to pick one of 3 stat arrays based on their occupation type, Scientist, Warrior, Specialist.
was okay if all not that original (game play was basically replicating the 2000ad comic strip Ace Trucking :) ) but I was 13 so ....
Quote from: JoeNuttall;836902Indeed, you still end up with some characters being wildly better than others.
I’m using straight 3d6 in order for white box D&D, but for B/X I use my random system for D&D (http://explorebeneathandbeyond.blogspot.com/2015/05/stat-generation-random-but-fair-this.html) which gives random stats with the same distribution as 3d6 but always with a total of 63 so the total bonus is near to zero (It's a bit long to post here - you roll 9 d6 in a 3*3 grid and derive your 6 stats from those rolls). It’s an alternative to point buy systems (cookie cutter) and 4d6 drop the lowest (just raising the bar).
Looks interesting. However, isn't having a greater variation in stats the entire point of using random gen? If everything is fixed so it is always going to be in the 9 to 11 range then it seems like it just creates a ton of standardized bland characters.
I 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.
So far I've not seen any ridiculous stats and in general I'm pretty happy with that.
For me it's just a game and I don't take much of it very seriously.
If people (including myself) are having fun then it's all good.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;836921Looks interesting. However, isn't having a greater variation in stats the entire point of using random gen? If everything is fixed so it is always going to be in the 9 to 11 range then it seems like it just creates a ton of standardized bland characters.
There's exactly the same spread of stats for each stat. For example you have exactly the same chance of an 18 or a 3 for any given stat - 1 in 216.
Chance of 9-12 for one stat is 48%, just like standard 3d6.
Chance of
all stats 9-12 is 2.1% - with standard 3d6 it's only 1.2%.
So by the very nature of removing the extreme results there's a slight increase in bland results.
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?
Has character creation in D&D changed this much that you can roll a 1 now? It's not a randomly rolled range from 3-18 anymore? My word.
If you roll a 4 you explain it in your character's background and then roleplay it. Or so we used to do.
Quote from: Matt;836929Has character creation in D&D changed this much that you can roll a 1 now? It's not a randomly rolled range from 3-18 anymore? My word.
If you roll a 4 you explain it in your character's background and then roleplay it. Or so we used to do.
No 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.
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 (http://anydice.com/program/13e)
vs
http://anydice.com/program/1 (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.
Quote from: Omega;836955In 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.
I see. That sounds more like education than pure intellect. Or at least a mix.
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).
What method were you using?
With r4dl we got the following before race bonuses.
Me: 14, 10, 12, 8, 7, 14 which I kept.
Jan: 12, 14, 9, 6, 14, 5. she swapped the 14 and 5 around.
Kefra: 14, 12, 12, 7, 12, 15. Which she shuffled into 12, 14, 12, 7, 15, 12.
Human (feat version), Half Orc, and Wood Elf.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;836956I see. That sounds more like education than pure intellect. Or at least a mix.
Yes. A mix. In BX I think it was also the most expedient and least potentially offensive example they could give in a single sentence that got the point across. If you are looking for quantitative hardline definitions of stats. D&D aint it.
Quote from: Omega;836955In 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.
So dogs and cats can talk but with difficulty!
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?
When I use rolling there's no minimum score, but if the total array is really bad (eg net negative mods on best of 4 drop lowest) the player has the option to roll again. My current Classic D&D newbie group roll really well though, there is one STR 8 and one WIS 7, nothing below that AFAIK. If someone rolled a 3 (requiring 4 1s on 4d6) for a -3 attribute penalty, but rolled high in other stats so net attribute mods were positive, they would be expected to keep the character.
Quote from: jibbajibba;836943Really 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.
My view is that you can always roleplay a character however you want, but your mechanical stats may not back you up. For a Gamist game like D&D in partcular you are welcome to do your best with your INT 3 or CHA 3. I have a CHA 8 Cleric PC in a Labyrinth Lord game, Melissa Tyrell, who tries to be a charismatic icon of the Lord of Light - but naturally she struggles, and in consequence is often beset with self doubt. But the self doubt is my decision; I could equally well play her as convinced of her own charisma - and use my own meagre charisma to the best of my ability. I'd still be hit with that -1 Reaction modifier.
Quote from: Matt;836963So dogs and cats can talk but with difficulty!
In D&D? Yes. :cool:
aheh. In BX monsters did not have stats so a a dog or cat could be whatever you wanted it to be really.
In 5e a 3 INT is apparently the threshold between relatively non-intelligent and the greater grasp of the world. An ogre has an INT of 5 and are often depicted at the stone-age level. Lizard men have an INT of 7 and seem to be at the threshold of bronze age if given a chance. Kobolds are an 8 INT, which is the same as a human tribal warrior in the MM. INT 8.
Make of it what you will.
Wisdom is the really interesting one in 5e. Quite a few normal animals in 5e have wisdom scores over 10. A few have scores of 14. Which fits as in 5e Wisdom covers senses and awareness as well as common sense. And really, most animals have more common sense than most humans...
Well except for one of my cats who liked to rub up against lit candles... errrr... :eek:
Quote from: Matt;836954Seems 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.
In that set, yes. But the next 10 are:
14 12 12 10 8 7
12 12 11 11 10 7
16 15 12 8 6 6
17 13 10 9 7 7
14 12 12 10 8 7
17 13 12 8 7 6
15 14 9 9 8 8
14 13 11 11 8 6
15 11 11 10 9 7
15 13 13 10 9 3
So this time over half are below average, and a few 16s and 17s.
Quote from: S'mon;836967My view is that you can always roleplay a character however you want, but your mechanical stats may not back you up.
This is how I play it (well, DM it). I prefer random rolls, even as a player. I have issues with people dump statting charisma, so I warn them ahead of time. Basically, if you dump stat charisma (you know, your force of personality, self esteem, all that shit), you are choosing to play someone who is unable, unwilling, or afraid to deal with others. You may think you sound like a badass when you talk (especially in your own mind), but you're closer to a mumbler who doesn't look people in the eyes.
I generally prefer the 4d6-L, arranged how you like.
Quote from: JoeNuttall;836972In that set, yes. But the next 10 are:
14 12 12 10 8 7
12 12 11 11 10 7
16 15 12 8 6 6
17 13 10 9 7 7
14 12 12 10 8 7
17 13 12 8 7 6
15 14 9 9 8 8
14 13 11 11 8 6
15 11 11 10 9 7
15 13 13 10 9 3
So this time over half are below average, and a few 16s and 17s.
Do you mean the actual 3d6 average roll of 10.5 or "average" per D&D definition = 9? Those guys still look pretty extraordinary to me. Either way less than half those #s are below average.
Quote from: Matt;836974Do you mean the actual 3d6 average roll of 10.5 or "average" per D&D definition = 9? Those guys still look pretty extraordinary to me. Either way less than half those #s are below average.
Each of them averages 10.5, as per 3d6. What D&D average of 9 are you referring to?
30 of the 60 scores are 10 or below, so that's exactly half of them.
You're right about 30/60; I miscounted. In D&D the average attribute was considered to be 9 in the olden days. Maybe that has changed.
Quote from: Matt;836976You're right about 30/60; I miscounted. In D&D the average attribute was considered to be 9 in the olden days. Maybe that has changed.
Average now is 10-11, especially since the standard race stats cap at 20. 9-12 was average in BX and I think AD&D.
Quote from: Omega;836962Yes. A mix. In BX I think it was also the most expedient and least potentially offensive example they could give in a single sentence that got the point across. If you are looking for quantitative hardline definitions of stats. D&D aint it.
What did it say about the other stats? Like low WIS.
Quote from: Matt;836976You're right about 30/60; I miscounted. In D&D the average attribute was considered to be 9 in the olden days.
I know in the 1e AD&D Monster Manual "average" Intelligence is 8-10, AIR human intelligence is "average to high". Where else is 9 given as 'average'?
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;836984What did it say about the other stats? Like low WIS.
BX only qualifies Intelligence in that way.
Every other stat simply states a +/-
So wisdom simply states a +/- to magic saves
Quote from: Matt;836976You're right about 30/60; I miscounted. In D&D the average attribute was considered to be 9 in the olden days. Maybe that has changed.
I've only ever played OD&D, B/X and AD&D, and 10.5's always been average. I thought you might be referring to some modern edition of the game!
Quote from: S'mon;836985I know in the 1e AD&D Monster Manual "average" Intelligence is 8-10, AIR human intelligence is "average to high". Where else is 9 given as 'average'?
Ah - I've never noticed that! What an odd list.
Another way of rolling stats I heard of is 2d6+4. A narrower range, giving you stats between 6 and 16.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;837001Another way of rolling stats I heard of is 2d6+4. A narrower range, giving you stats between 6 and 16.
Never seen that. I'd rather risk a 3 and be able to get an 18!
Doesn't Call of Cthulhu do 2d6 + 6 for some stats?
Quote from: Matt;837004Doesn't Call of Cthulhu do 2d6 + 6 for some stats?
Yes, for INT and SIZ.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;836930Is 3 even functionally human? Someone with 3 INT, for instance; I'm pretty sure a dog would have higher.
If the INT stat is assumed to be equivalent to our IQ distribution, then a character with 3 INT is roughly equivalent to 61 or less in IQ. An 8 is roughly 90/91 IQ. I think Runequest got it right by using 2d6+6 to give a low of 8 so characters are at least at the low end of average. Normal population could be 3d6 like the real world, but in my opinion adventurers should at least be draft capable.
Quote from: Omega;836971In D&D? Yes. :cool:
aheh. In BX monsters did not have stats so a a dog or cat could be whatever you wanted it to be really.
In 5e a 3 INT is apparently the threshold between relatively non-intelligent and the greater grasp of the world. An ogre has an INT of 5 and are often depicted at the stone-age level. Lizard men have an INT of 7 and seem to be at the threshold of bronze age if given a chance. Kobolds are an 8 INT, which is the same as a human tribal warrior in the MM. INT 8.
Make of it what you will.
Wisdom is the really interesting one in 5e. Quite a few normal animals in 5e have wisdom scores over 10. A few have scores of 14. Which fits as in 5e Wisdom covers senses and awareness as well as common sense. And really, most animals have more common sense than most humans...
Well except for one of my cats who liked to rub up against lit candles... errrr... :eek:
Some of that might get my "anthropologist" heckles up. the idea that non-literate tribal groups are less intelligent is somewhat akin to Nazi Eugenics.....
The fact is that most roleplayers have a narrow band they role play in and actually playing a 4 int character like Hodor would be really challenging so they don't.
Wisdom is now very problematic. What is now covers is so wide a topic because there is no perception stat that its almost impossible to define.
Remember in 1e where Wisdom was the dump stat for weak willed theives (a character with 5 or lower Wis could only be a thief) now that woudl imply that Thieves need the lowest perception and awareness of any class ... hmmmm...... and Priests are all Recon Special ops :)
Quote from: ptingler;837022If the INT stat is assumed to be equivalent to our IQ distribution, then a character with 3 INT is roughly equivalent to 61 or less in IQ. An 8 is roughly 90/91 IQ. I think Runequest got it right by using 2d6+6 to give a low of 8 so characters are at least at the low end of average. Normal population could be 3d6 like the real world, but in my opinion adventurers should at least be draft capable.
this is where the topic of stats becomes most interesitng though and why I listed out genre as tied to stat generation.
Are we saying that Adventurers are exceptional just because they are adventurers but they have the stats of anyone or are we saying adventurers become adventurers because they are exceptional.
In some Genres having all PCs as normal makes absolute sense. Zombipocalypse, CoC etc actually benefit is the PCs are normal people (god how I hate the player when asked to create a normal PC for a modern horror game insists that their normal PC used to be Delta force special ops ..) but some games, Supers, 007, modern mercenary special ops simply don't. If I am playing a game based on the Expendables where the PCs are all larger than life former special ops Delta Force guys I don't want a bunch of people who are below average across their stat range a guys who is 11,12,8,8,10,13 is not going to be get entry into the Para's, selected and trained by the SAS and then go on to survive 8 years as a mercenary in Angola. So then the generation of PCs needs to be contextualised by the genre.
Sometimes we want to play Johnny English but some times we actually want to play James Bond.
Quote from: jibbajibba;837041this is where the topic of stats becomes most interesitng though and why I listed out genre as tied to stat generation.
Are we saying that Adventurers are exceptional just because they are adventurers but they have the stats of anyone or are we saying adventurers become adventurers because they are exceptional.
In some Genres having all PCs as normal makes absolute sense. Zombipocalypse, CoC etc actually benefit is the PCs are normal people (god how I hate the player when asked to create a normal PC for a modern horror game insists that their normal PC used to be Delta force special ops ..) but some games, Supers, 007, modern mercenary special ops simply don't. If I am playing a game based on the Expendables where the PCs are all larger than life former special ops Delta Force guys I don't want a bunch of people who are below average across their stat range a guys who is 11,12,8,8,10,13 is not going to be get entry into the Para's, selected and trained by the SAS and then go on to survive 8 years as a mercenary in Angola. So then the generation of PCs needs to be contextualised by the genre.
Sometimes we want to play Johnny English but some times we actually want to play James Bond.
Average intelligence, sure, but I just don't see playing a mentally retarded adventurer as plausible. That's why I think the range works better as 90 IQ and up.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;836984What did it say about the other stats? Like low WIS.
Nothing, Intelligence was the only one that had that distinction. Everything else was mechanical notes. Interestingly Strength in BX did not equate to lifting and carrying ability. All characters could carry the same weight limits, about 160lb in gear and/or stuff and still be able to walk slowly.
Quote from: ptingler;837044Average intelligence, sure, but I just don't see playing a mentally retarded adventurer as plausible. That's why I think the range works better as 90 IQ and up.
The logical extension of that is that a secret agent in a James Bond game should have above average intelligence, reflexes and possibly willpower or Charisma.
You can go on and do this for a range of genres.
So this leads to the implication that the Chargen system you use should match the genre you want to play.
Going back to D&D therefore, if you want to play a fantasy genre like Lord of the Rings you need certan sorts of stats, even the hobbits have great willpower and perserverence (Frodo probably has "willpower" close to maximum and great consitution). If you want to play a game like the musketeers you need a different games of stats.
The standard 3d6 straight assign as rolled model really only creates characters that fit D&D's own internal genre or possibly a game set in Joe Ambercrombie's Union.
Quote from: jibbajibba;837037Some of that might get my "anthropologist" heckles up. the idea that non-literate tribal groups are less intelligent is somewhat akin to Nazi Eugenics.....
The fact is that most roleplayers have a narrow band they role play in and actually playing a 4 int character like Hodor would be really challenging so they don't.
Wisdom is now very problematic. What is now covers is so wide a topic because there is no perception stat that its almost impossible to define.
Remember in 1e where Wisdom was the dump stat for weak willed theives (a character with 5 or lower Wis could only be a thief) now that woudl imply that Thieves need the lowest perception and awareness of any class ... hmmmm...... and Priests are all Recon Special ops :)
1: Yeah, Kefra got a chuckle from that. Shes from Africa and a tribal background of some sort. But studied in a US college before returning.
2: Id say more that some have really variant ideas on stats and character than others do. Like some of the discussions here have shown. Some players pretty much ignore their stats. Others play to their stats as the limiter on their acting, others use the stats as a guideline on how to play the character, and so on.
3: 5e pretty much places the traditional thieves routine of trap detection and lock picking into anyones hands who has the thieves tools proficiency. And yeah, the druid in our group is the point for trap detection. Appropriate as she took the Criminal background.
Quote from: jibbajibba;837047Going back to D&D therefore, if you want to play a fantasy genre like Lord of the Rings you need certan sorts of stats, even the hobbits have great willpower and perserverence (Frodo probably has "willpower" close to maximum and great consitution). If you want to play a game like the musketeers you need a different games of stats.
Frodo actually shows a kinda low willpower as he succombs to the rings tricks early on and it gets worse from there. Sam resists it better than Frodo! Hobbits in general in LOTR were noted as overall mildly resistant to Saurons influence by Gandalf. In general all of the characters in the books are pretty flawed. But either very competent, or near supernaturally lucky.
As for stats mapping to real world. They do. But depending on the edition, it varies wildly and tends to be pretty loose and "make of it what you will" sort of generalization. That and the variance between the PCs and the common folk has shifted from edition to edition.
Seems like in 5e we are back to adventurers being not much different from the general populace.
Quote from: Omega;837049Frodo actually shows a kinda low willpower as he succombs to the rings tricks early on and it gets worse from there. Sam resists it better than Frodo! Hobbits in general in LOTR were noted as overall mildly resistant to Saurons influence by Gandalf. In general all of the characters in the books are pretty flawed. But either very competent, or near supernaturally lucky.
Frodo had the ring for years and wore it (for the most part around his neck, although he did use it a fair bit) for a long time even when he was really close to Mt Doom.
Sam only wore it for MAX a day and and he was getting pretty tempted to use it already.
Quote from: jibbajibba;837047Going back to D&D therefore, if you want to play a fantasy genre like Lord of the Rings you need certan sorts of stats, even the hobbits have great willpower and perserverence (Frodo probably has "willpower" close to maximum and great consitution). If you want to play a game like the musketeers you need a different games of stats.
The standard 3d6 straight assign as rolled model really only creates characters that fit D&D's own internal genre or possibly a game set in Joe Ambercrombie's Union.
The hobbits are supposed to be perfectly average hobbits - it's one of the central motifs of LOTR & The Hobbit. Joe Average goes on an adventure. The other characters I'd model being above average by them being higher than 1st level.
Quote from: K Peterson;837012Yes, for INT and SIZ.
Makes sense if your protagonists are HPL type male WASPs...
Quote from: jibbajibba;837037Some of that might get my "anthropologist" heckles up. the idea that non-literate tribal groups are less intelligent is somewhat akin to Nazi Eugenics....
Reminds me of how Hitler hated Himmler's obession with investigating the Germans' pre-literate tribal past, since it just demonstrated how unimpressive their achievements were compared to Greece & Rome.
As for INT, to the extent it measures Magic-User style analytical intelligence it is going to be basically the same as IQ and thus measure higher in urbanised literate populations than in hunter-gatherer societies (this is why we have or had the Flynn Effect, with some sorts of IQ measures increasing dramatically during the 20th century). D&D tends to put the non-IQ sorts of cognitive abilities into WIS, which I think works ok.
Quote from: JoeNuttall;837055The hobbits are supposed to be perfectly average hobbits - it's one of the central motifs of LOTR & The Hobbit. Joe Average goes on an adventure. The other characters I'd model being above average by them being higher than 1st level.
But hobbits should be getting a beefy + to their resistance to magical temptation "stat" maybe they roll 2d6+6 or 10 + 2d4 or something.
And since increasing stats as you level has only been around since 3e and the LotR probably clock in at about 5th level for the most part so meh... levelling wouldn't explain their hig stats.
I am not saying that all PCs need to be superhuman, unless you are playing in a superhero genre.....
Quote from: S'mon;837057Reminds me of how Hitler hated Himmler's obession with investigating the Germans' pre-literate tribal past, since it just demonstrated how unimpressive their achievements were compared to Greece & Rome.
As for INT, to the extent it measures Magic-User style analytical intelligence it is going to be basically the same as IQ and thus measure higher in urbanised literate populations than in hunter-gatherer societies (this is why we have or had the Flynn Effect, with some sorts of IQ measures increasing dramatically during the 20th century). D&D tends to put the non-IQ sorts of cognitive abilities into WIS, which I think works ok.
But that is just proving the limited use of IQ tests.
If D&D intelligence is "a measure of how well you do on IQ tests" then it might be relevant it it actually measures memory and cognitative/analytical reasoning then the Australian aboriginal that can recall the precise location of a dozen waterholes he has been to once and the Azande tribesman who has rationalised the existance of Sorcery based on the scientific method would disagree with you, as would the average inhabitant of Peterlee New Town, but for opposite reasons.....
Quote from: jibbajibba;837047The standard 3d6 straight assign as rolled model really only creates characters that fit D&D's own internal genre or possibly a game set in Joe Ambercrombie's Union.
Quote from: jibbajibba;837060But hobbits should be getting a beefy + to their resistance to magical temptation "stat" maybe they roll 2d6+6 or 10 + 2d4 or something.
You can do that just as a bonus to their saving throw as per B/X. Or give them a CON bonus, or a plus to their CON stat.
Quote from: jibbajibba;837060And since increasing stats as you level has only been around since 3e and the LotR probably clock in at about 5th level for the most part so meh... levelling wouldn't explain their hig stats.
Aragorn, for example, spent years proving himself in various adventures before LOTR, so he's definitely high level. I don't agree with the "fifth level" bit – I think that's a reference to the old "Gandalf was a fifth level wizard" idea in which (because magic in LOTR ain't nothing like D&D magic) your fifth level MU is as powerful as Gandalf which was meant to make you feel good about how powerful your MU was, not to downplay Gandalf.
Aragorn has to be at least 10th level to have proved himself worthy (i.e. be name level). So D&D straight up roll 3d6 models this sort of thing fine, it just comes down to whether you think a high level characters should:
1) Have better stats because the ones with better stats survived (as per the analysis on http://deltasdnd.blogspot.co.uk/)
2) Get increased stats as they level up (as per D&D3E)
3) It is sufficient for them to get increased bonuses (but not stats) as they level up (e.g. saving throws, to hit bonuses, skills etc.)
Quote from: jibbajibba;837061But that is just proving the limited use of IQ tests.
If D&D intelligence is "a measure of how well you do on IQ tests" then it might be relevant it it actually measures memory and cognitative/analytical reasoning then the Australian aboriginal that can recall the precise location of a dozen waterholes he has been to once and the Azande tribesman who has rationalised the existance of Sorcery based on the scientific method would disagree with you, as would the average inhabitant of Peterlee New Town, but for opposite reasons.....
Rationalizing the existence of sorcery using scientific method = not using scientific method, therefore your example is utter nonsense. That's your example of intelligence? I suggest you refer your friend to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
(Sorry, posted without reading the whole thread. Nevermind.)
Quote from: jibbajibba;837061But that is just proving the limited use of IQ tests.
If D&D intelligence is "a measure of how well you do on IQ tests" then it might be relevant it it actually measures memory and cognitative/analytical reasoning then the Australian aboriginal that can recall the precise location of a dozen waterholes he has been to once and the Azande tribesman who has rationalised the existance of Sorcery based on the scientific method would disagree with you, as would the average inhabitant of Peterlee New Town, but for opposite reasons.....
I'm not sure what you're saying in the second bit.
IQ tests turned out to have high predictive value for job performance in an industrialised technological society such as our own. IQ seems to correlate positively with most other mental abilities (which would include ability to remember waterhole location), hence the hypothesised 'g' factor or general-intelligence, which is not itself directly measurable. Australian Aboriginals might score lower on IQ tests than white Australians, while being better at remembering waterhole locations, but IQ and waterhole-location-remembering abilities will correlate positively in both groups.
Gygax describes INT as basically IQ, and it seems to be treated as such in older D&D. It gets a bit iffier in 3e+, by 4e I'm not sure what it's supposed to represent.
Quote from: Matt;837072Rationalizing the existence of sorcery using scientific method = not using scientific method, therefore your example is utter nonsense. That's your example of intelligence? I suggest you refer your friend to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
I suggest you read the seminal
Witchcraft and Magic Among the Azande in which EE Evans-Pritchard compares Azande Sorcery to the Scientific Method.
Just saying.....
Quote from: S'mon;837271I'm not sure what you're saying in the second bit.
IQ tests turned out to have high predictive value for job performance in an industrialised technological society such as our own. IQ seems to correlate positively with most other mental abilities (which would include ability to remember waterhole location), hence the hypothesised 'g' factor or general-intelligence, which is not itself directly measurable. Australian Aboriginals might score lower on IQ tests than white Australians, while being better at remembering waterhole locations, but IQ and waterhole-location-remembering abilities will correlate positively in both groups.
Gygax describes INT as basically IQ, and it seems to be treated as such in older D&D. It gets a bit iffier in 3e+, by 4e I'm not sure what it's supposed to represent.
Yes I agree with most of that the problem is with IQ tests as a method to measure IQ :)
So IQ tests have large chunks of cultural bias and can be said to measure a causal link towards intelligence. This article - http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/flynn1987.pdf demonstrates that in most of the Western World IQ levels have risen by close to 20 points in the last 50 years.
The implication is that now Mathematicians or Scientists such as Turing, Oppenheimer, Einstein, etc etc should be common place. This is not the case.
If we can site that IQ scores have risen but IQs themselves seem to have stayed relatively static the implication would be that IQ scores have inherent cultural elements that can be learned or at least are more common today than in the past. This applies even tot eh Ravens tests that are supposed to be culturally neutral.
Anyway its an interesting topic that has been debated hotly for years.
It is postulated that there are 9 types of intelligence I suspect it's a far more complex picture than that.
Quote from: jibbajibba;837705Yes I agree with most of that the problem is with IQ tests as a method to measure IQ :)
So IQ tests have large chunks of cultural bias and can be said to measure a causal link towards intelligence. This article - http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/flynn1987.pdf demonstrates that in most of the Western World IQ levels have risen by close to 20 points in the last 50 years.
The implication is that now Mathematicians or Scientists such as Turing, Oppenheimer, Einstein, etc etc should be common place. This is not the case.
If we can site that IQ scores have risen but IQs themselves seem to have stayed relatively static the implication would be that IQ scores have inherent cultural elements that can be learned or at least are more common today than in the past. This applies even tot eh Ravens tests that are supposed to be culturally neutral.
Anyway its an interesting topic that has been debated hotly for years.
It is postulated that there are 9 types of intelligence I suspect it's a far more complex picture than that.
Some of that is a bit obfuscatory IMO - the Flynn effect (rise in IQ over 20th century) is 'cultural' yes, in that it only affects certain parts/sorts of the IQ test (clearly not the parts that create more Turings or Einsteins), and the rise seems to be a result of cultural change. But this is not the same as 'cultural bias' in the sense of "immigrants don't understand the cultural references in this question" - the latter sort of stuff is recognised as bad testing ("weakly g-loaded") and is avoided.
I think IQ testing is good at measuring IQ, and IQ has predictive ability for performance in many areas. But IQ still only measures certain sorts of cognitive ability. Those sorts of cognitive ability DO correlate with many other sorts of cognitive ability, it is very much not the case that the universe compensates your weakness in ability A by making you good at ability B. So testing well on IQ will always (AFAIK) correlate positively with waterhole-remembering ability, although these are not the same thing, and will show different distributions in different population groups. On average, the better a person is at waterhole-remembering, the better they will do on IQ tests.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;837001Another way of rolling stats I heard of is 2d6+4. A narrower range, giving you stats between 6 and 16.
There's similar suggested methods for statting Drow NPCs in AD&D 1e. From the Fiend Folio:
QuoteDrow abilities are determined as follows: Strength 8 +1-6 (6 + 1-6 for males); Intelligence 12 + 1-6 (10 + 1-8 for males); Wisdom 8 + 1-10 (8 + 1-4 for males); Dexterity 12 + 2-8; Constitution 4-16; Charisma 10 + 1-8 (8 + 1-8 for males).
Also, to fit smaller groups (1-3 players, with one character each) Gary wrote up an alternate stat generation method in Unearthed Arcana that was very, very generous. You'd pick your preferred class then get like...9d6 pick the best 3 in the classes' required stats. So a Paladin would have to have this WIS and that CHA, so you'd get a very high chance of actually having those stats.
Finally, the Cavalier had "percentile stats" across the board, which could go up as much as 10% per level!
AD&D - and I fully acknowledge this, being the resident Angry 1e Fan - was moving in a
very different direction even
before Gary left TSR.
Also, I've opined that it would be an interesting trick to get a d16 that rather than going 1-16, was numbered 3-18 and gen up a character with it. Flat, no curve. :)
Quote from: thedungeondelver;837752Also, I've opined that it would be an interesting trick to get a d16 that rather than going 1-16, was numbered 3-18 and gen up a character with it. Flat, no curve. :)
http://www.shapeways.com/product/PVUQUW9UA/16-sided-die-octagonal-bipyramid-d16?li=shop-results&optionId=9264084
Here is a blank D16 you can get and number as desired. You could make a statistic rolling die with this. :)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;837785http://www.shapeways.com/product/PVUQUW9UA/16-sided-die-octagonal-bipyramid-d16?li=shop-results&optionId=9264084
Here is a blank D16 you can get and number as desired. You could make a statistic rolling die with this. :)
Neat! I wonder if I could get it custom pre-printed 3-18...
Forget who, but someone way way back who hated the bell curve presented this idea.
Roll a d20 and re-roll any results of 1-2 or 19-20
Quote from: Omega;837845Forget who, but someone way way back who hated the bell curve presented this idea.
Roll a d20 and re-roll any results of 1-2 or 19-20
I hate the bell curve. Grrr. It's too damn... curvy!
Quote from: JoeNuttall;837855I hate the bell curve. Grrr. It's too damn... curvy!
Originally I did not understand the bell curve
at all. But once it clicked I saw its uses and how many game designs take it into account. It creats characters that are usually about average for a portion of their stats, and over and under for a few, and exceptional (good or bad) at maybe one or two.
It gives you some control over the random where as a flat rate is pure chaos. Which can actually be not all that fun or interesting sometimes.
3 rolls using that d20 method.
14, 11, 3, 17, 16, 18.
7, 16, 8, 10, 12, 4.
3, 13, 16, 4, 12, 4
Quote from: Omega;837880Originally I did not understand the bell curve at all. But once it clicked I saw its uses and how many game designs take it into account. It creats characters that are usually about average for a portion of their stats, and over and under for a few, and exceptional (good or bad) at maybe one or two.
It gives you some control over the random where as a flat rate is pure chaos. Which can actually be not all that fun or interesting sometimes.
3 rolls using that d20 method.
14, 11, 3, 17, 16, 18.
7, 16, 8, 10, 12, 4.
3, 13, 16, 4, 12, 4
"Reality" woudl indeed suggest that most people were average at most things.
However you could also easily argue that "reality" suggests that explorers adventures and the type tend to be above average ant most things.
If you look at
i) Richard Burton (the explorer not the actor)
A British explorer, geographer, translator, writer, soldier, orientalist, cartographer, ethnologist, spy, linguist, poet, fencer, and diplomat. Founhded the Anthopological Society in London, translated the Karma Sutra, as a Captain in the East India Company he was a skilled figther and horseman.
ii) Robert Falcon Scott (...of the Antarctic..)
High Flying Naval Officer, first class honors across his training, Leader, charmer with the ladies, incredible stamina etc.
likewise Marco Polo, John Murray, Captain Cook etc etc ...
In fiction this is even more common of course.
Quote from: Omega;837880It gives you some control over the random where as a flat rate is pure chaos. Which can actually be not all that fun or interesting sometimes.
3 rolls using that d20 method.
14, 11, 3, 17, 16, 18.
7, 16, 8, 10, 12, 4.
3, 13, 16, 4, 12, 4
Dwarf Fortress!
Stark Raving Mad Dwarf goes Berserk!
Mt. Dwarf Barbarian Acolyte
Lv 3. PB +2. AC 15 (17 w/ shield). HD d12. HP 38.
STR 15 (+2), DEX 12 (+1), CON 18 (+4), INT 4 (-3), WIS 3 (-4), CHA 4 (-3)
"Totem pole animals in wrong order! In wrong order!"...
Quote from: jibbajibba;837914"Reality" woudl indeed suggest that most people were average at most things.
However you could also easily argue that "reality" suggests that explorers adventures and the type tend to be above average ant most things.
I an certainly not arguing for "reality".
The bell curve just makes the outliers more special and characters less wildly swingy.
It also maps to the games base idea that most people will be "kinda almost maybe average", and probably excel at one or two things and possibly not at something. It was Gygax who explained that one.
I am guessing that plays back into the OD&D or Chainmail iterations where the henchmen, followers and occasional NPC were also the players pool of potential back-up characters?
To answer the OP, rolling is the only way I think is right. Point-buy sucks.
Quote from: RPGPundit;838022To answer the OP, rolling is the only way I think is right. Point-buy sucks.
Depends on the point buy. 5es point buy I actually like as it caps at 15. With the default at a minimum of 8. 27 points to spend with the cost rising as you get near 15. Definitely leaves space to grow into.
Quote from: Omega;838027Depends on the point buy. 5es point buy I actually like as it caps at 15. With the default at a minimum of 8. 27 points to spend with the cost rising as you get near 15. Definitely leaves space to grow into.
I still like random generation a lot more, for a variety of reasons; first and foremost specifically because you don't get to pick and choose what your character looks like.