Quote from: Chris24601 on June 28, 2021, 11:44:22 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on June 28, 2021, 11:29:41 PM

Quote from: Pat on June 28, 2021, 10:58:46 PM
The point is there is a vast variety in all those games, even the ones with relatively few character creation options. Power level is just one of many axes, and good stats are just a part of that. And it is balanced, because everyone has the same chance of rolling such a character. And since you play so many characters, and switch back and forth, everyone will play such a character, at some point. You sometimes feel special, and sometimes don't. It's balanced, but it's balanced over time, not right now. You never feel like everyone is always forced to be equal.

Balanced over time is probably the worst way to try and balance something except for Balanced after having to kill a million boars.

Agreed. My experience is more than half of campaigns fall apart after fewer than six levels gained so if you start at level one those who have to wait for their time to shine never get it and if you start at higher levels the window for those balanced around the early game is either already closed or in the process of doing so rapidly.

Balance over time is awful... and so is having to play something you have zero interest in because your rolled stats in order don't let you play something you're actually interested in. I have limited free time, I'm not going to waste it playing something I don't enjoy just so a GM can have the power trip of demanding I play a randomly generated character. I'll just find another GM playing a game more to my tastes.

I agree with you. If chargin as Crom intended isn't your cuppa, then don't play with that GM.

That said, at least for me, it isn't a "power trip"  that has me requiring my players to play what they roll (3d6, in-order), it is literally in the DCC rules. One of the many charms of DCC is chargin with 3d6 in-order (of multiple 0-level PCs) followed by the 0-level funnel adventure. I have also allowed chargin using the DCC Lankhmar rules. Still 3d6 in-order, but allows you to swap one pair of stats.

And fwiw, 5E Hardcore Mode uses 3d6 in-order for chargin. Again, no power trip, but a feature.

Id generally rather have low value point buy then randomgen stats for anything but a intentionally throwaway character.

But I have a feeling that if classic d&d character creation involved sticking you arm into a wasps nest and counting the wounds, they would be insistent on that style of play to this day and claiming anything else is a power trip or inauthentic.

Quote from: Pat on June 28, 2021, 08:33:12 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 28, 2021, 07:36:01 PM
Is the "nostalgia" comment turning into the new Godwin?  Because you'll rarely lose a bet if you take the position that an argument made that "X is only done because of nostalgia" is not only wrong but obviously so.  It's an argument made from someone that in their own mind has already lost the argument.

It's not new, people have been Godwinning the OSR with "nostalgia" since the aughts.

I'm not saying that the "nostalgia" thought is new.  I heard those kind of comments earlier than that, at least early 90's.  What is now relatively new is the "Godwin-like" aspect that it gets trotted out as if it were a self-evidently magic word that proves the argument.  There was a time when it was included in an argument, but the argument was still made.

There may be some really good arguments against how early D&D does stats.  I think I could trot out ten without even trying (though fully defending them would be tough).  If you wanted to make that argument and win it, you'd find every point you could, rank them, and decide which ones to use.  "Nostalgia" wouldn't even make the list, because to make it is to undermine your other points.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 29, 2021, 09:22:12 AM

Quote from: Pat on June 28, 2021, 08:33:12 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 28, 2021, 07:36:01 PM
Is the "nostalgia" comment turning into the new Godwin?  Because you'll rarely lose a bet if you take the position that an argument made that "X is only done because of nostalgia" is not only wrong but obviously so.  It's an argument made from someone that in their own mind has already lost the argument.

It's not new, people have been Godwinning the OSR with "nostalgia" since the aughts.

I'm not saying that the "nostalgia" thought is new.  I heard those kind of comments earlier than that, at least early 90's.  What is now relatively new is the "Godwin-like" aspect that it gets trotted out as if it were a self-evidently magic word that proves the argument.  There was a time when it was included in an argument, but the argument was still made.

New to you, maybe. My point is that I've seen that exact same use since the OSR started appearing on people's radar, around '08 or so. If anything, I think it's softened a bit and become less common.

Quote from: Pat on June 28, 2021, 10:58:46 PMBut to address your point, it provides a lot more variability. If you're playing an 18/00 strength fighter and everyone else in the party has normal stats, you really stand out. You're special in a real way, beyond just simple niche protection or roleplaying. You're reacting against this, because you're taking the short term view. You're asking yourself why this player gets to be special, but not the rest of the group. But this is a very deliberate design feature in old school games, not a flaw. The reason you're having a hard time seeing it because you're starting with a different set of assumptions.

3d6 in order does increase the variability, but only through the creation of weaker characters. Even the most die hard proponents of ability score rolling will allow re-rolls in the case of the "hopeless character" so there has always been an admission that there is a limit to how bad a character can be and still be viable.

In one of his early articles, Gygax recommends that players who roll average (or worse) ability scores should choose to become demi-humans because, as he puts it, they will most likely die before ever hitting their level limits. So even back then, there was an expectation that players would churn through several low scoring character before finally arriving at an above average "keeper". This isn't some new school idea cooked up by story gamers, it's Gary Gygax in 1975.

And while a randomly rolled character generation system might be workable in an open table campaign reminiscence of Gary's and Dave's first games, most people don't actually play like that anymore. There's no reason not to use a character generation system that produces character with both strengths and weaknesses that are all relatively balanced with one another, because such a system will work fine in an open table campaign as well as the modern "four players playing every week" style of game.

Unless you just like the churn. As a DM, I'd rather avoid that if at all possible.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 29, 2021, 01:30:30 PM

Quote from: Pat on June 28, 2021, 10:58:46 PMBut to address your point, it provides a lot more variability. If you're playing an 18/00 strength fighter and everyone else in the party has normal stats, you really stand out. You're special in a real way, beyond just simple niche protection or roleplaying. You're reacting against this, because you're taking the short term view. You're asking yourself why this player gets to be special, but not the rest of the group. But this is a very deliberate design feature in old school games, not a flaw. The reason you're having a hard time seeing it because you're starting with a different set of assumptions.

3d6 in order does increase the variability, but only through the creation of weaker characters. Even the most die hard proponents of ability score rolling will allow re-rolls in the case of the "hopeless character" so there has always been an admission that there is a limit to how bad a character can be and still be viable.

In one of his early articles, Gygax recommends that players who roll average (or worse) ability scores should choose to become demi-humans because, as he puts it, they will most likely die before ever hitting their level limits. So even back then, there was an expectation that players would churn through several low scoring character before finally arriving at an above average "keeper". This isn't some new school idea cooked up by story gamers, it's Gary Gygax in 1975.

And while a randomly rolled character generation system might be workable in an open table campaign reminiscence of Gary's and Dave's first games, most people don't actually play like that anymore. There's no reason not to use a character generation system that produces character with both strengths and weaknesses that are all relatively balanced with one another, because such a system will work fine in an open table campaign as well as the modern "four players playing every week" style of game.

Unless you just like the churn. As a DM, I'd rather avoid that if at all possible.

If you are comparing 3d6 in-order to the Lake Woebegon (where all of the children are above-average) methods, then yes, it produces weaker PCs in terms of their stats.

And no, I do not allow players to reroll their 0-level PCs. Into the funnel with them and let Crom sort them out. 

I don't want "balanced" PCs in my game. I want variation, both good and bad.

I see the "churn" (i.e., PC death) as a feature, not a bug. But then I am much more partial to G.R.R. Martin than D. Eddings. Professor Dungeon Master gives a good explanation for why PCs need to, on occasion, die.
https://www.youtube.com/c/DUNGEONCRAFT1/search?query=death

And as always, YMMV.

First one to 4th level gets a name!

If adventuring weren't dangerous, it wouldn't be as exciting. Or profitable. The game is self-balancing anyway. If your characters don't have the stats to take on a dragon at level one, then don't start with a dragon hunt. All this stat inflation does is lead you out of the world of fantasy towards the world of super heroes.

Quote from: mightybrain on June 29, 2021, 07:24:56 PM
If adventuring weren't dangerous, it wouldn't be as exciting. Or profitable. The game is self-balancing anyway. If your characters don't have the stats to take on a dragon at level one, then don't start with a dragon hunt. All this stat inflation does is lead you out of the world of fantasy towards the world of super heroes.

Yes, to an extent; but why would someone with 11, 8, 9, 7, 9, 6 ever leave the farm to go place their life in constant peril?  I understand why someone with 17, 14, 15, 11, 12, 10 would.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on June 28, 2021, 11:18:45 PM
It's not necessary - but all else being equal it is definitely desirable.

No, it is neither necessary nor desireable.

An imbalanced game means two things. Firstly, that those with weaker characters must be more creative. You get the best play in sports when teams are slightly behind - it makes them think more about what they're doing. The 240lb rugby player who squats 500lb does not have to think much about what to do to shine on his team, the 180lb player who squats 180lb has to be smarter.

Secondly, imbalance encourages teamwork. If your wizard has AC5 and 20 hit points at first level, my fighter with AC3 and 24 hit points hasn't a lot to do. But if your wizard has AC10 and 2 hit points, the role of my fighter is very clear - stand in front of the wizard!

That's a simple example but it carries on throughout the game: characters being bad at things mean other characters have to back them up. RPGs are a social creative hobby, and we want rules, settings and playstyles which encourage being social, and encourage being creative. Teamwork is part of being social, and in teamwork creativity can shine.

Quote from: hedgehobbitEven the most die hard proponents of ability score rolling will allow re-rolls in the case of the "hopeless character" so -

The only "hopeless" character is one which qualifies for no class. For example we see in the Intelligence entry next to 5 INT - "here or lower the character can only be a fighter." If that same character has Strength 8, he does not qualify to be a fighter. Thus he cannot be any class at all, and is obviously a 0-level commoner, to be used as an non-player character hireling only. The player will then roll another character, hoping to get one qualifying for at least one character class. Thus there are no hopeless player characters.

While there are no hopeless player characters, there are certainly hopeless players. One way to spot them is by seeing if they whinge about stats and decree their character unplayable. Consider playing chess and starting off with a handicap, a couple of pieces down. Would Kasparov complain about that? No: he would make the best of it, and still demolish any of us. But the amateur player would most certainly complain about that.

Consider the best player you have ever known. Imagine them with a character with straight 9s. Now consider the worst and dumbest player you have ever known, imagine them with a character with straight 18s. Which character is likely to live longer and achieve more?

Player, and character. These are two different things. A good player can make up for deficiencies in the character, but no character can make up for deficiencies in the player. And putting in rules to try to boost up characters to make up for deficient players encourages deficient play.

Quote from: hedgehobbitThis isn't some new school idea cooked up by story gamers, it's Gary Gygax in 1975.

Gygax was soft.

Quote from: hedgehobbitAnd while a randomly rolled character generation system might be workable in an open table campaign reminiscence of Gary's and Dave's first games, most people don't actually play like that anymore.

They should, since as was observed in this thread, most campaigns fizzle out in a few levels anyway. Key group members leave, or the group splits, or the campaign is set aside "temporarily" while they go and play different things, and so on. So if you want to keep gaming then you need a constant stream of new players. This is most easily-achieved by having an open game table.

Quote from: ShasarakFirst one to 4th level gets a name!

Normally we say, "We don't want to know your name until you survive the first combat." Seeing them going around shaking hands and introducing themselves among all the corpses and captured enemy is touching.

[double post]

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on June 29, 2021, 07:53:30 PM
An imbalanced game means two things. Firstly, that those with weaker characters must be more creative. You get the best play in sports when teams are slightly behind - it makes them think more about what they're doing. The 240lb rugby player who squats 500lb does not have to think much about what to do to shine on his team, the 180lb player who squats 180lb has to be smarter.

Secondly, imbalance encourages teamwork. If your wizard has AC5 and 20 hit points at first level, my fighter with AC3 and 24 hit points hasn't a lot to do. But if your wizard has AC10 and 2 hit points, the role of my fighter is very clear - stand in front of the wizard!

That's a simple example but it carries on throughout the game: characters being bad at things mean other characters have to back them up. RPGs are a social creative hobby, and we want rules, settings and playstyles which encourage being social, and encourage being creative. Teamwork is part of being social, and in teamwork creativity can shine.

Do you know what would generate teamwork?

If you had character with different classes that could do different things.  You know, just like in Rugby.

Quote from: Jam The MF on June 29, 2021, 07:43:08 PM

Quote from: mightybrain on June 29, 2021, 07:24:56 PM
If adventuring weren't dangerous, it wouldn't be as exciting. Or profitable. The game is self-balancing anyway. If your characters don't have the stats to take on a dragon at level one, then don't start with a dragon hunt. All this stat inflation does is lead you out of the world of fantasy towards the world of super heroes.

Yes, to an extent; but why would someone with 11, 8, 9, 7, 9, 6 ever leave the farm to go place their life in constant peril?  I understand why someone with 17, 14, 15, 11, 12, 10 would.

Because even with crap stats it is better than continuing to be a Gong Farmer.

I mentioned this discussion to one of my players today. And he reminded me that, at least in DCC, if you can survive to 2nd level, the level bonuses begin to outweigh crap stats.

Quote from: Jam The MF on June 29, 2021, 07:43:08 PM

Quote from: mightybrain on June 29, 2021, 07:24:56 PM
If adventuring weren't dangerous, it wouldn't be as exciting. Or profitable. The game is self-balancing anyway. If your characters don't have the stats to take on a dragon at level one, then don't start with a dragon hunt. All this stat inflation does is lead you out of the world of fantasy towards the world of super heroes.

Yes, to an extent; but why would someone with 11, 8, 9, 7, 9, 6 ever leave the farm to go place their life in constant peril?  I understand why someone with 17, 14, 15, 11, 12, 10 would.

In OD&D, a character with the 2nd set of scores in that order gets no bonuses of any kind whatsoever, except maybe a bonus to XP if they choose the right class.

Quote from: dkabq on June 29, 2021, 08:17:07 PM
Because even with crap stats it is better than continuing to be a Gong Farmer.

I mentioned this discussion to one of my players today. And he reminded me that, at least in DCC, if you can survive to 2nd level, the level bonuses begin to outweigh crap stats.

Conversely, that is another way in 5E in which the stats matter more.  There are only so many bumps you can get to your proficiency.  Of course, other abilities, hit points, better equipment, etc. also has a role.  And the level-based ability score bumps are thus a hybrid.