What you could also do is have them roll up 3 characters, and they choose which they play - but they play that character until they die or retire, after which they take one of the others, after which they take whatever is left.

After which they do not get a 4th character.

Choose carefully, play it well.

back when i still played dnd / d20;

4d6 drop lowest arrange to taste, adjust for racial, then subtract 2 to add 1 where you please.

Quote from: Pat on June 23, 2021, 06:34:48 PM
I'm not sure what algorithm the gold box games used for generating ability scores, because it wasn't strict 4d6 best 3 for classes like the ranger. And it didn't just set lower rolls to the minimum, because higher scores were too common.

I fired up FRUA and did a quick test and you are right. Far as I could tell you seem unable to actually roll under 10. (11 was the lowest I ever saw.) And the rolls were freakishly high, everything from pairs of 18s to tripple 17s.

I can ask. I was part of the FRUA group and SSI gave us the source code for the game when they folded. Not my field but pretty sure at least one of the others disected the code to figure out what the system was really doing behind the DM screen. But if I recall right it is doing a sort of weighted roll based on class and race. But that sure does not seem the case with what I am seeing.

But... According to one person who examined the rolls the system appeared to be closest to this...
flip a coin 12 times for a  0 or 1. Keep the best 10. Then add 8

Can tell you that there were in the code unfinished classes. Not sure what other then Paladin which eventually got implemented.

update: Turns out I CANT ask because @#$%&ing Yahoo deleted the whole groups system now. All gone.

Quote from: jhkim on June 24, 2021, 09:37:04 PMWell, but that begs the question of what "bad behavior" is. I've had a ton of fun playing in games where the PCs were *not* nice people who all got along and had good family values.

So have I, but the behaviour that gets called out is player behaviour not character behaviour. 'I was roleplaying' is the excuse. But a character immediately committing suicide because their player rolled bad stats is the opposite of roleplaying.

Quote from: mightybrain on June 25, 2021, 03:38:47 AM

Quote from: jhkim on June 24, 2021, 09:37:04 PMWell, but that begs the question of what "bad behavior" is. I've had a ton of fun playing in games where the PCs were *not* nice people who all got along and had good family values.

So have I, but the behaviour that gets called out is player behaviour not character behaviour. 'I was roleplaying' is the excuse. But a character immediately committing suicide because their player rolled bad stats is the opposite of roleplaying.

There is a kind of middle ground that we did when we started:  You got bad stats (according to you), then the idea was to play the character as well as you could--but more aggressively.  You either made some levels in a hurry or you died quick.  Made the GMs life even easier, too.  All I had to do was dangle a treasure around some risk, and I knew they were going for it.  Created differences of opinion of what should be tried, too, which was funny as hell. 

That attitude combined with roll 3d6 in order was how we had that startling incident of the wizard with an 18 Str, 16 Int, and 7 Con (B/E play).  Despite his 1 hit point, he kept running to the front, because a quarterstaff with +3 to hit and damage was too useful to leave in the back.  The whole party made 3rd level fast, with only a few losses along the way.  Where upon they decided they liked what they had and got a little more cautious.  The wizard promptly fell into a bit anyway, and his 4 hit points weren't enough.

Quote from: Pat on June 24, 2021, 09:59:29 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 24, 2021, 09:37:04 PM
So they killed the guy because he was unlucky?  As I said -- I would think that just not adventuring with the person should work.

Are you really acting appalled because a character in a game was treated unfairly?

This isn't a "person", it's a character. Treating a character with a few bad rolls under their belt as cursed, and murdering them for it, is just another type of roleplaying. It's only a problem if it causes a major disruption at the player level, and there's no universal standard for that. Each table has their own unique set of acceptable or unacceptable behaviors.

I'm only pointing out that *in-character*, it is appalling behavior to kill one's own a teammate because they were unlucky. I'm not judging the players in the slightest. As far as I know, all of the players were happy with outcome and had fun.

It was supposed to go in line with my observation that PCs often all have the attitude "I will continue to adventure with these other people until I die" -- which is also bizarre behavior in terms of the game world.

I feel like games are more interesting and immersive if this is dropped, and it's considered OK for a character to leave the party and do something else - and the player takes a new PC.

Quote from: jhkim on June 25, 2021, 02:23:12 PM

Quote from: Pat on June 24, 2021, 09:59:29 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 24, 2021, 09:37:04 PM
So they killed the guy because he was unlucky?  As I said -- I would think that just not adventuring with the person should work.

Are you really acting appalled because a character in a game was treated unfairly?

This isn't a "person", it's a character. Treating a character with a few bad rolls under their belt as cursed, and murdering them for it, is just another type of roleplaying. It's only a problem if it causes a major disruption at the player level, and there's no universal standard for that. Each table has their own unique set of acceptable or unacceptable behaviors.

I'm only pointing out that *in-character*, it is appalling behavior to kill one's own a teammate because they were unlucky. I'm not judging the players in the slightest. As far as I know, all of the players were happy with outcome and had fun.

It was supposed to go in line with my observation that PCs often all have the attitude "I will continue to adventure with these other people until I die" -- which is also bizarre behavior in terms of the game world.

I feel like games are more interesting and immersive if this is dropped, and it's considered OK for a character to leave the party and do something else - and the player takes a new PC.

It's appalling by your standards, from the perspective of someone living in an environment with great wealth, no real risk, and a heavy dose of scientific skepticism. But it would be really boring if every fantasy world was just modern 21st century people, playing with swords. The normal human condition is superstitious and fears unseen forces that are more defined by anthropomorphism and sense of justice and guilt than some particle theory. Even when you're looking at it from the in-character perspective, you're still seeing it with player's eyes.

Not having a cohesive group can make for an interesting model, but without an unusual player dynamic it can be a tough sell. It worked for the very old school games with a massive number of occasional players who dropped in and out and had characters of various levels so they could bring one out that was appropriate for the night's adventure. But in an era of smaller, more stable groups, where even the core cast of many forms of inspirational media behave like they're wearing "Hi, I'm a PC!" nametags and stick together regardless of the contortions needed, it's very much again the normative grain.

Quote from: jhkim on June 24, 2021, 09:37:04 PM
While there is some limit, I think a player should just be able to put a character aside rather than have their character die before taking another character. In-game, it's weird that all the PCs to have an attitude of "I must continue to adventure with these other people until I die". Logically, if a character isn't a good fit, they wouldn't be invited to join the party.

Quote from: DocJones on June 24, 2021, 07:26:26 PM
One of my players made a wizard out of a funnel survivor that had a luck score of 3.   Through mercurial magic, one their spells (color spray I think) caused someone they knew to die every time they cast it.  Other spells also had terrible side effects but not as bad.   The other player characters put this character out of their misery after two sessions.  ;-)

So they killed the guy because he was unlucky?  As I said -- I would think that just not adventuring with the person should work.

Depends on the situation. If he's casting a spell that kills someone they know, then even just knowing the character is dangerous.

Quote from: Pat on June 25, 2021, 03:09:30 PM
Not having a cohesive group can make for an interesting model, but without an unusual player dynamic it can be a tough sell. It worked for the very old school games with a massive number of occasional players who dropped in and out and had characters of various levels so they could bring one out that was appropriate for the night's adventure. But in an era of smaller, more stable groups, where even the core cast of many forms of inspirational media behave like they're wearing "Hi, I'm a PC!" nametags and stick together regardless of the contortions needed, it's very much again the normative grain.

Not disagreeing with anything you said.  However, I will observe that I've found it much easier to run not having a cohesive group when the players all have an extended history with each other.  Makes it easier for everyone to see the benefit of that unusual player dynamic and thus pursue it.  Of course, that doesn't really say anything about how prevalent or easy it is in general.  To some extent, players in my group self-select to be the kind of players to enjoy that dynamic.  Then my games really push it, which reinforces the trend. 

I had some worries that my GM style might not appeal when I started a second group, mostly of beginners.  Almost all of them took to it like ducks to water--and the ones that didn't weren't interested in RPGs that much once they tried them, rather than having a problem with the style of the game.  In fact, I had to rein a few of the newbies in a little--they got a little too enthusiastic with the intra-party conflict.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 25, 2021, 08:07:18 AMThe wizard promptly fell into a bit anyway, and his 4 hit points weren't enough.

I hope his last words were "fly you fools!"

For D&D, I prefer 3d6 in order. If the scores are too low for anything else, STR is raise to 9 and you play a Human Fighter.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 25, 2021, 05:41:09 PM

Quote from: Pat on June 25, 2021, 03:09:30 PM
Not having a cohesive group can make for an interesting model, but without an unusual player dynamic it can be a tough sell. It worked for the very old school games with a massive number of occasional players who dropped in and out and had characters of various levels so they could bring one out that was appropriate for the night's adventure. But in an era of smaller, more stable groups, where even the core cast of many forms of inspirational media behave like they're wearing "Hi, I'm a PC!" nametags and stick together regardless of the contortions needed, it's very much again the normative grain.

Not disagreeing with anything you said.  However, I will observe that I've found it much easier to run not having a cohesive group when the players all have an extended history with each other.  Makes it easier for everyone to see the benefit of that unusual player dynamic and thus pursue it.  Of course, that doesn't really say anything about how prevalent or easy it is in general.  To some extent, players in my group self-select to be the kind of players to enjoy that dynamic.  Then my games really push it, which reinforces the trend. 

I had some worries that my GM style might not appeal when I started a second group, mostly of beginners.  Almost all of them took to it like ducks to water--and the ones that didn't weren't interested in RPGs that much once they tried them, rather than having a problem with the style of the game.  In fact, I had to rein a few of the newbies in a little--they got a little too enthusiastic with the intra-party conflict.

In addition to a lengthy shared history, I think going through changes in life stages makes a difference. Maturing, working full time, having kids, moving... these all make it harder to get everyone together, which at least seems to make people more open to the possibility. I'm not saying it automatically happens -- running characters as NPCs, in-character justifications for why the character comes and goes, and a reliance on one-shots for the times when the gang is back together, seem more common. But it at least opens the door.

System also matters. This is one thing that D&D traditionally does well -- the geometric progression of XP serves as a catch-up mechanism. That means even newly introduced characters will be mostly caught up with the rest of the party, by the time everyone goes up another level. Being stuck permanently behind is a strong incentive to stick with the same character.

Quote from: jhkim on June 25, 2021, 02:23:12 PM

Quote from: Pat on June 24, 2021, 09:59:29 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 24, 2021, 09:37:04 PM
So they killed the guy because he was unlucky?  As I said -- I would think that just not adventuring with the person should work.

Are you really acting appalled because a character in a game was treated unfairly?

This isn't a "person", it's a character. Treating a character with a few bad rolls under their belt as cursed, and murdering them for it, is just another type of roleplaying. It's only a problem if it causes a major disruption at the player level, and there's no universal standard for that. Each table has their own unique set of acceptable or unacceptable behaviors.

I'm only pointing out that *in-character*, it is appalling behavior to kill one's own a teammate because they were unlucky. I'm not judging the players in the slightest. As far as I know, all of the players were happy with outcome and had fun.

It was supposed to go in line with my observation that PCs often all have the attitude "I will continue to adventure with these other people until I die" -- which is also bizarre behavior in terms of the game world.

I feel like games are more interesting and immersive if this is dropped, and it's considered OK for a character to leave the party and do something else - and the player takes a new PC.

I am reminded of that Russel Crowe movie, "Master and Commander" or something like that. One character in the movie got the reputation for being unlucky, and the crew turned against him, gossiping about him behind his back and blaming him for the loss of another crew member.

Quote from: mightybrain on June 24, 2021, 07:29:43 PM
'I was roleplaying my character,' has to be the most common excuse I've heard for bad behaviour from a player. But it always makes me laugh, because it reminds me of the time one of my other players responded by asking, "have you ever considered roleplaying someone who isn't a c***?"

How about GMs that say "I was only playing my monster(s)" as an excuse for bad behavior? I can't say I haven't done it on occasion, and I've seen it in well-regarded GMs from time to time--most often as counter-battery fire in response to player dickery.

Quote from: mightybrain on June 23, 2021, 07:41:17 PM
As a DM I would feel it my duty to construct a special level of hell for players who kill their own characters because they didn't like their rolls.

You don't kill your own character, you just play without the usual caution needed to keep a character alive.


Strange pool of liquid ... "I'll drink it"

Obviously magic shield covered in mold ... "Let me get that for you"

Chest full of treasure might be trapped .... "I will open it."


Trust me when I say that the other players will not be upset in the slightest by my actions. The real question is whether or not a DM can actually expect a player to treat a character who has below average rolls exactly like he would treat a character with two natural 18s?