For comparison here are the top 10 in a population of 300,000 (the approx. population of Earth in 1100 AD) rated by total points using 3d6 straight down:
[17, 11, 18, 14, 18, 16] total = 94
[15, 17, 14, 16, 17, 14] total = 93
[11, 17, 16, 17, 14, 18] total = 93
[18, 11, 15, 15, 15, 18] total = 92
[18, 13, 16, 13, 17, 15] total = 92
[15, 14, 15, 15, 15, 18] total = 92
[13, 14, 15, 14, 18, 18] total = 92
[14, 17, 17, 13, 14, 16] total = 91
[13, 14, 13, 15, 18, 18] total = 91
[17, 13, 18, 13, 17, 13] total = 91

Quote from: mightybrain on July 03, 2021, 03:22:33 AM
For comparison here are the top 10 in a population of 300,000 (the approx. population of Earth in 1100 AD) rated by total points using 3d6 straight down:

You are out by a factor of about 1000 there.

Might want to roll again.

Quote from: Shasarak on July 03, 2021, 03:40:58 AM

Quote from: mightybrain on July 03, 2021, 03:22:33 AM
For comparison here are the top 10 in a population of 300,000 (the approx. population of Earth in 1100 AD) rated by total points using 3d6 straight down:

You are out by a factor of about 1000 there.

Might want to roll again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_population#Before_1950

Quote from: Shasarak on July 03, 2021, 03:40:58 AM

Quote from: mightybrain on July 03, 2021, 03:22:33 AM
For comparison here are the top 10 in a population of 300,000 (the approx. population of Earth in 1100 AD) rated by total points using 3d6 straight down:

You are out by a factor of about 1000 there.

Might want to roll again.

Yeah, by even conservative estimates we haven't been below a million people as a species since Dogerland and Sundaland were places you could walk to and Mammoths, Giant Sloths and Sabertooth Tigers were still living species. We haven't been below 100,000 since the Toba Catastrophe/population bottleneck about 70,000 years ago (where it fell to just a few thousand) and estimates of post speciation hunter-gatherers that deep into pre-history were 100-300 thousand.

That said... a Stone Age tribal survival game could kick ass; particularly if you threw in some fantasy elements like a precursor civilization (dinosaur-men?) and lost technology as "magic" who left some ruins behind (that'll all be wiped away once the Ice Age ends and sea levels rise more than 300 feet).

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 01, 2021, 11:20:28 AMOSR-ism appeal to certain mindsets in the same way camping appeals to certain mindsets. Presuming it will appeal to everyone if they just give it "a fair shake" is misinformed at best. I've given it plenty of fair shakes and it can go join camping.

Beyond that. The belief that camping cures the common cold, cleans your teath, makes you better at taxes, and that taking any other kind of vacation is a sign of weakness.
And no, you can't use any new elements to improve the camping experience like ultralight tents, electric lighting or 'matches' (phah).
The pioneers of the past clearly used flint rocks and animal pelts because they where genuises ahead of their time, and not because they where figuring out new things and would use new techniques and elements as they became available.

Oops. Here's the top 10 out of 300 million:
[17, 17, 18, 15, 18, 16] total = 101
[18, 17, 18, 16, 15, 17] total = 101
[18, 13, 18, 17, 18, 16] total = 100
[16, 13, 17, 18, 18, 18] total = 100
[18, 18, 17, 18, 15, 14] total = 100
[15, 18, 18, 17, 16, 15] total = 99
[15, 18, 17, 18, 16, 15] total = 99
[17, 15, 17, 15, 17, 18] total = 99
[16, 15, 17, 17, 17, 17] total = 99
[15, 18, 17, 14, 17, 18] total = 99

Thanks Shasarak. Silly mistake. That's what I get for copy and pasting stats without reading the notes.

I have rolled 4d6 drop one, for years; without ever beating a 91, total.  I've rolled two 18s, or an 18 and a 17 on occasion; but then I might also roll a 6, 7, 8, etc.  Rolling all 6 scores in the mid to high teens, is challenging.

This is based on 100,000 randomly generated 3d6 in order characters, sorted by point total, then highest scores (i.e. 18, 16 is better than 17, 17)

1 in 100,000 (92 points): 11, 17, 17, 17, 14, 16
1 in 10,000 (89 points): 18, 13, 11, 16, 15, 16
1 in 1,000 (85 points): 14, 15, 13, 14, 17, 12
1 in 100 (80 points): 12, 11, 12, 16, 16, 13

90% (72 points): 14, 10, 13, 9, 17, 9
80% (69 points): 16, 11, 9, 10, 10, 13
70% (67 points): 6, 13, 11, 14, 13, 10
60% (65 points): 11, 14, 11, 6, 13, 10
50% (63 points): 14, 12, 8, 5, 11, 13
40% (61 points): 10, 11, 8, 15, 8, 9
30% (59 points): 11, 11, 6, 4, 13, 14
20% (57 points): 11, 9, 7, 7, 13, 10
10% (54 points): 10, 5, 11, 8, 9, 11

1 in 100 (46 points): 6, 12, 7, 5, 6, 10
1 in 1,000 (41 points): 5, 7, 10, 6, 4, 9
1 in 10,000 (37 points): 8, 6, 4, 5, 4, 10
1 in 100,000 (30 points): 5, 5, 3, 10, 3, 4

I'd like to emphasize how bad that last array is. To create a single character using 3d6 in order, you roll 18 d6s. That 30 point character managed to roll 12 1s (113212111514111211). The best score (the 92 point character) is expected to appear about 1 in 31K character. But that 30 point character is more than 10 times less common (1 in 369K).

Average array (63 points): 14.2, 12.5, 11.1, 9.9, 8.5, 6.8
... integers: 14, 12, 11, 10, 9, 7

Quote from: Pat on July 03, 2021, 02:11:07 PM
1 in 100 (46 points): 6, 12, 7, 5, 6, 10
1 in 1,000 (41 points): 5, 7, 10, 6, 4, 9
1 in 10,000 (37 points): 8, 6, 4, 5, 4, 10
1 in 100,000 (30 points): 5, 5, 3, 10, 3, 4

I'd like to emphasize how bad that last array is. To create a single character using 3d6 in order, you roll 18 d6s. That 30 point character managed to roll 12 1s (113212111514111211).

In Basic, the last three examples there could be rejected under the two or more stats lower than a 6 rule.

Quote from: mightybrain on July 03, 2021, 02:19:35 PM

Quote from: Pat on July 03, 2021, 02:11:07 PM
1 in 100 (46 points): 6, 12, 7, 5, 6, 10
1 in 1,000 (41 points): 5, 7, 10, 6, 4, 9
1 in 10,000 (37 points): 8, 6, 4, 5, 4, 10
1 in 100,000 (30 points): 5, 5, 3, 10, 3, 4

I'd like to emphasize how bad that last array is. To create a single character using 3d6 in order, you roll 18 d6s. That 30 point character managed to roll 12 1s (113212111514111211).

In Basic, the last three examples there could be rejected under the two or more stats lower than a 6 rule.

AD&D1e has some complex lower bounds as well, when you consider all the maximums and minimums for classes and races. But I was mostly just pointing out that when using Monte Carlo simulations like this, the outer bounds tend to be a bit swingy. The 1 in 100,000 characters will vary a lot more than the 90% characters, or even the 1 in 10,000 characters.

Here's the top ten (ranked by total points) in 300 million characters generated using 4d6 and drop the lowest:
[18, 16, 18, 18, 18, 18] total = 106
[18, 17, 18, 18, 18, 16] total = 105
[18, 16, 17, 18, 18, 18] total = 105
[18, 16, 18, 16, 18, 18] total = 104
[18, 16, 17, 18, 18, 17] total = 104
[18, 18, 17, 18, 17, 16] total = 104
[18, 17, 17, 18, 18, 16] total = 104
[15, 18, 18, 17, 18, 18] total = 104
[17, 18, 17, 18, 17, 17] total = 104
[18, 16, 18, 18, 16, 18] total = 104

I made a chart for the four main types of character generation systems. It is more important which quadrant you prefer over quibbling as to the specific dice generation method.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 03, 2021, 04:39:05 PM
I made a chart for the four main types of character generation systems. It is more important which quadrant you prefer over quibbling as to the specific dice generation method.

I am solidly in the balanced/player assigned quadrent, though I'm also good with no stats and pregens if it's a convention game.

Looks like I am Player Assigned Neutral

I'm in the Any Die Roll In Order, camp.