What makes you tick?
I personally like to roll up several characters with 4d6, drop the lowest; but straight down the line. I assign a Class to each stat block, and choose one to start with. If my character passes on, I already have a few stat blocks waiting in the wings. Grab another, and let the DM work it into the game.
Everyone used to have a few characters ready to go, back in the old days.
I've come to appreciate stat arrays. (A set of attribute values instead of rolling dice) Everybody gets the same numbers and there's no quibbling about making requisites.
For random systems, I prefer 4d6, drop the low dice, assign to taste. Works well enough if you allow the player to discard and re-roll a "hopeless" set of stats. Yes, you can RP a character will all low attributes, but I don't like to push a player into having to do it.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 19, 2021, 02:24:25 AM
I've come to appreciate stat arrays. (A set of attribute values instead of rolling dice) Everybody gets the same numbers and there's no quibbling about making requisites.
For random systems, I prefer 4d6, drop the low dice, assign to taste. Works well enough if you allow the player to discard and re-roll a "hopeless" set of stats. Yes, you can RP a character will all low attributes, but I don't like to push a player into having to do it.
I'm not necessarily opposed to Stat Arrays; but it feels like a cookie cutter approach, to me. When I roll straight down the line, I'm letting the dice create the characters I have available to choose from. I get some interesting mixes. Strong, tough, charismatic Fighters. Strong tough guys, that are probably loners. Strong, tough Clerics.
I like 4d6 and arrange. It give enough variety to not seem like a cookie cutter and gives the player a choice about about the character's strengths and weaknesses.
8d6 Take the bottom 5. Then roll an extra 5d6 and add it to those 5 and take the 4th, 6th and 7th highest dice of that.
Then assign at random an ability score to each player at the table by drawing cards. If you don't have 6 players than you just assign empty cards to empty places.
You then assign the ability scores in the order of the cards going counterclockwise from the youngest player. Repeating the initial process as above.
You then check which ability score corresponds to the GM. The player may then choose to reroll that score by rolling 6d6 dropping the highest and then choosing the next 3 highest die numbers. If the result is higher than the previous ability score they can swap it. If it's lower they can they choose to use it in place of their lowest other ability score.
If any player has their birthday in the month in which the characters are created they may choose to scrap the process of the first result, in which case, every goes through the process again, unless it is a leap year, in which the oldest player may make that choice instead.
I came to this method after a lot of experimentation and found that it was generally the simplest method to remember.
Most of the games that I enjoy playing don't use randomness in character creation at all (excepting, maybe, generating some starting cash). I prefer my randomness to start at the table in-play, not before then.
When I ran 5e D&D, I only allowed the stat array.
3d6 straight down the line.
Put me down for Arrays as well.
I used to prefer point buy, but ultimately there were just a few good combos the charops types used and a bunch of mediocre combos that essentially gimped the non-charops types for daring to build for concept instead of rules mastery.
My own system actually gives each player a choice of one of three arrays; balanced (3, 2, 2, 1, 1, -1), strong (3, 3, 1, 1, 0, -1) or focused (4, 2, 1, 0, 0, -1); to allow variations while leaving out the gimped and potentially broken options and forcing everyone to pick a stat they're below average at so every hero has some type of flaw.
I dislike any sort of random stat generation outside of meat grinder scenarios where you have no attachment to the PC and they won't live long enough for you to get one.
My feeling is that chargen when the PC is intended for the long haul isn't a point where you want one bad roll to gimp a PC for their whole career or force a player into a class they don't really want to play.
Most players I know play to relax and blow off steam and saddling them with traits beyond their control and a "job" they may not like (particularly if the RNG gave someone else a godly set of attributes and the ability to choose the exact class they wanted) is closer to "real life: the simulator" (at least emotionally) complete with tendencies to breed resentments and perverse incentives where subpar PCs engage In suicidally dangerous actions so the unhappy player can take another spin on the chargen lotto wheel to hopefully get something they want to play.
It's just way easier to let players choose what they want their PCs to be good at from the start and since it's something they've taken a little time to build what they want they're going to be more invested.
Frankly, all the variant rolling methods; roll extra dice and drop the lowest from each stat, roll extra stats and drop the lowest of those, place the stats in any order, raise a stat by one by reducing another by two, etc. are really just "how do we let the players to get stats high enough to play what they actually want to play?"
So skip all the convolutions and just uses arrays/point buys.
3d6 straight down.
Depends on the game. I prefer some element of randomization and "playing what you get", but nevertheless I ran my last 5E campaigns with the standard array. It was handy with a bunch of players coming and going. Also depends on how easy it is to compensate for bad stats--either improving them later or the stats are only so important anyway.
I once really liked 4d6, arrange in order. However, all that does is generally inflate the numbers, since the players will arrange to suit. For 3E, I ended up using a card draw instead of dice. Gave everyone total modifiers within -1 to +1 of an 3E standard array but the assignment of scores was still almost completely random. (We kept out a 2 and two 1's that the player could assign to any stack after they saw how the values came out.)
My current game uses 3d6, in order. Then swap any two scores, if you want. That pretty neatly answers the first objection to complete random, "I wanted to play a warrior and got a 5 in the most important stat and a 16 in the most useless." The player can dictate what they play, but the other stats are what you got. Then there are moderate bumps to ability scores throughout the progression of the character that are dependent on what you do. Really focus on warrior type abilities, those stats are the ones that will generally go up. However, I also changed the modifier thresholds to support a -4 to +4 range, with the lower numbers skewed to less likely. (That is, it's not a bell curve like the traditional 3d6 from -3 to +3 being parallel. Instead, a 10 gives a +1.)
We have a player happily playing a character with a 3 "Agility". Don't get that in a lot of games.
For BEMCI, I'd be quite happy with 3d6, in order, swap any two scores. Because getting a +1 somewhere that is useful is pretty much my definition of playable character in BEMCI. And that's really the key to me. I don't want a lot of re-rolling or tricks to inflate it without seeming to. If you expect viable characters to have a +1 or so, make that highly likely. If they need more than that, just cut to the chase.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 19, 2021, 09:15:29 AM
We have a player happily playing a character with a 3 "Agility". Don't get that in a lot of games.
That describes about 75% of starting PCs that I've seen in FFG's Star Wars games.
3d6 straight down, with the option to replace any one score with a 13 (or whatever number first gives the +1 modifier in this system).
For D&D I like 4d6 drop the low and arrange according to desire. I choose class before I roll which is why I like this. Now this did lead to me rolling a fighter that has some insane stats (I dont have a stat under 13, and 2 17's and a 16 at creation. But hey, genetically gifted can be a background.
I like the 3d6 down the line for DCC, and most other games I play are point buy/assign systems (savage worlds, GURPS).
Quote from: TJS on June 19, 2021, 03:20:31 AM
8d6 Take the bottom 5. Then roll an extra 5d6 and add it to those 5 and take the 4th, 6th and 7th highest dice of that.
Then assign at random an ability score to each player at the table by drawing cards. If you don't have 6 players than you just assign empty cards to empty places.
You then assign the ability scores in the order of the cards going counterclockwise from the youngest player. Repeating the initial process as above.
You then check which ability score corresponds to the GM. The player may then choose to reroll that score by rolling 6d6 dropping the highest and then choosing the next 3 highest die numbers. If the result is higher than the previous ability score they can swap it. If it's lower they can they choose to use it in place of their lowest other ability score.
If any player has their birthday in the month in which the characters are created they may choose to scrap the process of the first result, in which case, every goes through the process again, unless it is a leap year, in which the oldest player may make that choice instead.
I came to this method after a lot of experimentation and found that it was generally the simplest method to remember.
But how do you break ties?
4d6 drop lowest in order. I've done 3d6 in order as player and GM, and I didn't mind the experience but it convinced me there's nothing too wrong with 4d6 drop lowest.
Arrange to suit, I'm aware let's people play what they want to play, but to me at that point you might as well consider stat arrays. Roll and arrange actually exaggerates the differences between high and low rollers, compared to roll in order and getting something that might be powerful but not where you want everything.
Personal favourites are...
3d6 in order then shuffle a few points: As used on O and BX D&D in one form or another. This was the first system I played with so the one I tend to gravitate to given a choice. It allows a bit of freedom to get at least one stat close to what you want at a cost. It produces really random characters and obviously not everyone is keen on that. Works best with BX and O where stats were not as important as they become in AD&D an onwards.
4d6-drop lowest and assign: This is really the most elegant of the systems. Nice and straightforward.
Stat Array: 5e was my first exposure to this and I have since come to appreciate its strengths. It allows freedom of choice while keeping everyone on an even playing field. And removes any question of cheating rolls. I use this now alot for online campaigns.
Point Buy: 5e again was my introduction to this in a more solid form than prior. It gives alot of freedom, keeps everyone on the same playing field, and removes cheating rolls. Main drawback its its very abusable in the hands of min-maxers, moreso than array.
Quote from: Jam The MF on June 19, 2021, 12:07:56 AM
What makes you tick?
I personally like to roll up several characters with 4d6, drop the lowest; but straight down the line. I assign a Class to each stat block, and choose one to start with. If my character passes on, I already have a few stat blocks waiting in the wings. Grab another, and let the DM work it into the game.
Everyone used to have a few characters ready to go, back in the old days.
4d6 drop lowest
2d6 + 6
3d6
No assigning though. Just straight down. I let the players choose how we'll start.
3d6 straight down the line.
The emergent gameplay from this system is outstanding; in my experience, and far exceeds the "oooo, I wanted to play a X ..."
Quote from: Omega on June 19, 2021, 02:50:31 PM
Point Buy: 5e again was my introduction to this in a more solid form than prior. It gives alot of freedom, keeps everyone on the same playing field, and removes cheating rolls. Main drawback its its very abusable in the hands of min-maxers, moreso than array.
That last part is why I've come to prefer arrays over point buys, but the real key for any of the "arrange to taste (or even swap two)" system I've found is it needs to mated to a system that doesn't have super-stats that are way more valuable than other stats.
Dex in 5e giving you initiative, AC, Dex saves, ranged and light melee attacks/damage and some solid movement based skills and is a prime example of a super-stat compared to the easy to dump Str (even an 8 Str can carry 80 lb. without being slowed) or Int (as long as you're not a wizard and someone in the party has it, throwing your 8 there rarely hurts).
Quote from: Chris24601 on June 19, 2021, 04:41:22 PM
Quote from: Omega on June 19, 2021, 02:50:31 PM
Point Buy: 5e again was my introduction to this in a more solid form than prior. It gives alot of freedom, keeps everyone on the same playing field, and removes cheating rolls. Main drawback its its very abusable in the hands of min-maxers, moreso than array.
That last part is why I've come to prefer arrays over point buys, but the real key for any of the "arrange to taste (or even swap two)" system I've found is it needs to mated to a system that doesn't have super-stats that are way more valuable than other stats.
Dex in 5e giving you initiative, AC, Dex saves, ranged and light melee attacks/damage and some solid movement based skills and is a prime example of a super-stat compared to the easy to dump Str (even an 8 Str can carry 80 lb. without being slowed) or Int (as long as you're not a wizard and someone in the party has it, throwing your 8 there rarely hurts).
No, no, no... An 8 strength allows 120 lbs. Without being encumbered under standard rules. The variant encumbrance rules are tougher, but end up pushing characters even more to abandoning heavy armor and Strength in favor of Dex.
Quote from: Jam The MF on June 19, 2021, 01:07:36 PM
Quote from: TJS on June 19, 2021, 03:20:31 AM
8d6 Take the bottom 5. Then roll an extra 5d6 and add it to those 5 and take the 4th, 6th and 7th highest dice of that.
Then assign at random an ability score to each player at the table by drawing cards. If you don't have 6 players than you just assign empty cards to empty places.
You then assign the ability scores in the order of the cards going counterclockwise from the youngest player. Repeating the initial process as above.
You then check which ability score corresponds to the GM. The player may then choose to reroll that score by rolling 6d6 dropping the highest and then choosing the next 3 highest die numbers. If the result is higher than the previous ability score they can swap it. If it's lower they can they choose to use it in place of their lowest other ability score.
If any player has their birthday in the month in which the characters are created they may choose to scrap the process of the first result, in which case, every goes through the process again, unless it is a leap year, in which the oldest player may make that choice instead.
I came to this method after a lot of experimentation and found that it was generally the simplest method to remember.
But how do you break ties?
Luckily the player who hosts has a small farm so we gut a chicken and check out the entrails.
4d6 drop lowest arrange to taste.
Quote from: bryce0lynch on June 19, 2021, 04:06:59 PM
3d6 straight down the line.
The emergent gameplay from this system is outstanding; in my experience, and far exceeds the "oooo, I wanted to play a X ..."
Only for those who like total random, or a system like O or BX where stats are not as vital.
From AD&D on that total random becomes less and less a boon and more and more a bane unless you really want a challenge. And theres players like me who love that sort of challenge. Just not all the time.
Its also bad for anyone who just does not really fit certain classes. "Oh yay, I can play another fighter or cleric I dont like playing..." or more often. "Great! I qualify for a Thief!" then never sneaks, climbs, looks for traps or backstabs and is at the forefront of every battle because they are really playing a fighter. (Which can actually work!)
And god help you if you get a randomphobe in the group. Then again what the fuck are these psychos even doing anything near a game with dice? Other than to bitch about there being dice.
Traveller: 2d6 in order, 2d6 of rerolls through char gen.
D&D: Array for modern editions.
D&D, older: roll 6 sets of 3d, rthen assign as desired. If total of atts is less than 50, may reroll
You know, thinking on it. Shadowrun was probably my first RPG played with a point buy system. But oddly it doesnt feel like a point buy system to me at the same time?
Quote from: Omega on June 20, 2021, 12:42:59 PM
You know, thinking on it. Shadowrun was probably my first RPG played with a point buy system. But oddly it doesnt feel like a point buy system to me at the same time?
Try 4e if you really want it to feel like point buy.
I prefer 3d6 arrange to taste.
If someone is dead set on playing a character class (i.e. paladin) and can't meet the minimums, I'll assign those stats
at the minimums and make them use the lowest stats they rolled for the rest of the stats.
One of the DMs in my play group prefer rolling 6 characters 3d6 straight up and picking one.
Another prefers the 4d6 method and allows arranging them.
However nobody playing in our group actually cares that much about the rolling method,
but more so about what beer is on tap. ;-)\
One thing I noticed as the editions developed was an inflation in player character stats - and a corresponding hike in monster hit points. I prefer the idea that you don't need to be extraordinarily strong, fast, wise, etc. to be a hero. You just need to be willing to put your character's life on the line. Inflating stats doesn't help you do that. It just raises the bar for what it takes for your characters to be considered heroes.
Quote from: thedungeondelver on June 20, 2021, 01:33:34 AM
4d6 drop lowest arrange to taste.
It's sad when such a good friend is so wrong. But then, nobody's perfect - which really demonstrates why 3d6 in order is right and proper.
It depends upon the system. If attributes are going to be a large % of a character's power - I definitely prefer either point-buy or stat arrays (potentially a few stat array options).
If the attributes don't matter as much and/or it's going to be a one-shot, then randomness is fine. I definitely enjoy rolling for a CoC one-shot.
But if the rolls are going to be a big chunk of the character over the course of a campaign - I don't want to leave it purely to chance. (I don't like to be either the crappy character or the OP character.)
That's why early D&D rolling for stats worked - because often it didn't matter that much - just on the edges. Especially starting in 3.x onward - your attributes are a big chunk of your character's power.
I'm growing to loathe the way standard array produces standardised mid-level and high level stats.
Next time out I'll try 4d6 drop lowest, in order, play what you get, I'm sure it will give more interesting characters.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on June 20, 2021, 10:06:08 PM
It depends upon the system. If attributes are going to be a large % of a character's power - I definitely prefer either point-buy or stat arrays (potentially a few stat array options).
If the attributes don't matter as much and/or it's going to be a one-shot, then randomness is fine. I definitely enjoy rolling for a CoC one-shot.
But if the rolls are going to be a big chunk of the character over the course of a campaign - I don't want to leave it purely to chance. (I don't like to be either the crappy character or the OP character.)
That's why early D&D rolling for stats worked - because often it didn't matter that much - just on the edges. Especially starting in 3.x onward - your attributes are a big chunk of your character's power.
Quote from: mightybrain on June 20, 2021, 09:42:27 PM
One thing I noticed as the editions developed was an inflation in player character stats - and a corresponding hike in monster hit points. I prefer the idea that you don't need to be extraordinarily strong, fast, wise, etc. to be a hero. You just need to be willing to put your character's life on the line. Inflating stats doesn't help you do that. It just raises the bar for what it takes for your characters to be considered heroes.
Both of these hit on an important point. In early D&D, bonuses were mostly earned via class progression and/or magic items. Stats didn't go up naturally via leveling (that was completely a feature of 3e and later). So your stats really didn't have much effect beyond a small attribute bonus, level limits, and an experience bonus. The method of stat generation has only really become an issue once stats became more important to character utility and performance...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 03:25:29 PM
Both of these hit on an important point. In early D&D, bonuses were mostly earned via class progression and/or magic items. Stats didn't go up naturally via leveling (that was completely a feature of 3e and later). So your stats really didn't have much effect beyond a small attribute bonus, level limits, and an experience bonus. The method of stat generation has only really become an issue once stats became more important to character utility and performance...
That wasn't my experience with AD&D first edition. I always felt like the AD&D1 ability score rolls were extremely important - moreso than later editions. Later editions smoothed out the bonuses so there was more of an incremental change as you got better, and removed the level limits and experience bonus based on stats. Among groups I played, getting an 18 in your primary stat was a big deal -- much bigger than in later editions when 18 is just a minor incremental change from 16. Most of the attributes charts had sharp changes in the 15-18 range, and further, high stats let you be limited character types like a ranger or paladin that weren't available at all otherwise.
The main offset to this was just that there tended to be more randomness in adventures, so even a great stat character could fail a save-or-die effect, for example, or get level drained.
My preferred system is point buy.
If I have to roll then it has to be old school 4d6 roll 1s again and assign to taste.
Quote from: Shasarak on June 21, 2021, 05:04:06 PM
My preferred system is point buy.
If I have to roll then it has to be old school 4d6 roll 1s again and assign to taste.
I use that type of roll, but in order down the line. Roll multiple characters. Assign a class to each. Choose one, and use it. The others are backup characters.
Quote from: mightybrain on June 20, 2021, 09:42:27 PM
One thing I noticed as the editions developed was an inflation in player character stats - and a corresponding hike in monster hit points. I prefer the idea that you don't need to be extraordinarily strong, fast, wise, etc. to be a hero. You just need to be willing to put your character's life on the line. Inflating stats doesn't help you do that. It just raises the bar for what it takes for your characters to be considered heroes.
Its been all over the place with D&D. Early game had little limits on how far you could take stats. IF you could get the things needed. The usual scarcity if those boosters was the limiter.
In 2e there were some upper limits combined with certain drawbacks to trying to do it via spell. Much the same as it was in AD&D.
3e seems to be where things went nuts and you could pump stats like crazy and sometimes had to just about to reach certain thresholds.
4e no idea.
5e caps normally at 20 for PCs, with a few exceptions allowing to go over that.
Quote from: Omega on June 21, 2021, 05:54:44 PM
4e no idea.
5e caps normally at 20 for PCs, with a few exceptions allowing to go over that.
4E used exclusively level-based stat increases; you got +1 to any two stats at levels 4, 8, 14, 18, 24 and 28 and +1 to all stats at levels 11 and 21. A couple of epic destinies also gave you +2 to any two stats (effectively +1 to rolls related to that stat) in lieu of other features.
Magic items did not increase stats at all (ex. Gauntlets of Ogre Power increased your lifting capacity and allowed you to throw 20+ lb. objects as weapon attacks, but did not affect your Strength score).
Another important note about 5e's stats is that, unless you're using feats (they are optional and I know at least a few groups who don't use them) you're pretty much going to get your class' key stat and probably some others to 20 eventually since, without feats to spend them on instead every class gets at least +10 to their stats over the course of leveling up and some, like the fighter (+14) and rogue (+12), getting even more than that.
If you had a 16 to start in your class' primary stat, you'd be able to get it to 20 by level 8 on most classes and level 6 on a fighter.
As such, ironically, 5e almost goes back to the "stats don't matter that much" since everyone will eventually cap their main stat. The only difference is what level they cap it and how many other stats they're able to improve in addition to their main one.
Quote from: Omega on June 21, 2021, 05:54:44 PM
Its been all over the place with D&D. Early game had little limits on how far you could take stats. IF you could get the things needed. The usual scarcity if those boosters was the limiter.
I miss the ADnD stats and being able to unlock things like regeneration if you could get over an 18.
I certainly remember that getting an 18 stat in Basic was an event. Maybe 1 in 20 characters had one. So your party was not likely to have such a superstar. Taking the best 3 of 4d6 method reduced that to about 1 in 5 so almost every party would have at least one PC with an 18 stat. At first it seemed like a better deal, but it wasn't as special precisely because your chances were greater. In any game your exact stats don't matter as much as the distribution among the players / enemies.
Quote from: jhkim on June 21, 2021, 04:31:36 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 03:25:29 PM
Both of these hit on an important point. In early D&D, bonuses were mostly earned via class progression and/or magic items. Stats didn't go up naturally via leveling (that was completely a feature of 3e and later). So your stats really didn't have much effect beyond a small attribute bonus, level limits, and an experience bonus. The method of stat generation has only really become an issue once stats became more important to character utility and performance...
That wasn't my experience with AD&D first edition. I always felt like the AD&D1 ability score rolls were extremely important - moreso than later editions. Later editions smoothed out the bonuses so there was more of an incremental change as you got better, and removed the level limits and experience bonus based on stats. Among groups I played, getting an 18 in your primary stat was a big deal -- much bigger than in later editions when 18 is just a minor incremental change from 16. Most of the attributes charts had sharp changes in the 15-18 range, and further, high stats let you be limited character types like a ranger or paladin that weren't available at all otherwise.
The main offset to this was just that there tended to be more randomness in adventures, so even a great stat character could fail a save-or-die effect, for example, or get level drained.
Please explain how, to a non-fighter, the difference between an 8 or an 18 is a "big deal." Explain how it has " sharp changes in the 15-18 range."
Or how a 14 in con is so much better than a 7. Or how a non-fighter experiences a "sharp change" in bonuses above 14. You must have been using a very different edition of AD&D than the rest of us...
Edit: One of those charts is from 2e, but the bonuses are the same...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 09:33:52 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 21, 2021, 04:31:36 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 03:25:29 PM
Both of these hit on an important point. In early D&D, bonuses were mostly earned via class progression and/or magic items. Stats didn't go up naturally via leveling (that was completely a feature of 3e and later). So your stats really didn't have much effect beyond a small attribute bonus, level limits, and an experience bonus. The method of stat generation has only really become an issue once stats became more important to character utility and performance...
That wasn't my experience with AD&D first edition. I always felt like the AD&D1 ability score rolls were extremely important - moreso than later editions. Later editions smoothed out the bonuses so there was more of an incremental change as you got better, and removed the level limits and experience bonus based on stats. Among groups I played, getting an 18 in your primary stat was a big deal -- much bigger than in later editions when 18 is just a minor incremental change from 16. Most of the attributes charts had sharp changes in the 15-18 range, and further, high stats let you be limited character types like a ranger or paladin that weren't available at all otherwise.
The main offset to this was just that there tended to be more randomness in adventures, so even a great stat character could fail a save-or-die effect, for example, or get level drained.
Please explain how, to a non-fighter, the difference between an 8 or an 18 is a "big deal." Explain how it has " sharp changes in the 15-18 range."
Or how a 14 in con is so much better than a 7. Or how a non-fighter experiences a "sharp change" in bonuses above 14. You must have been using a very different edition of AD&D than the rest of us...
Edit: One of those charts is from 2e, but the bonuses are the same...
Where did you get most of that? He specifically said an 18 in a
primary stat was a big deal, which means fighters, not "non-fighters". And he was talking about the bonuses in the 15-18 range, and didn't say a thing about how a 14 was much better than a 7.
4d6 + arrange to taste for the win!
To answer OP, one of my favorites is 4d6 in order, swap any two. Arrays and point buys tend to result in the same few stat distributions, so I like the randomness of rolling. And arranging the stats at will has the same problem, because even if the numbers are randomly generated, players will inevitably distribute the scores in the same order. Random rolls in order just creates so much more variety. You may end up with an unexpected weakness or strength, and it breaks up the stereotypes like all fighters are dumb, or Charisma is a dump stat. Though there will always be players who are unhappy with the results, and allowing them to swap any two stats lets them to shore up a weak point, or make their chosen ability the highest one. It gives them power over the stat they feel is most important, while leaving everything else the player judges as less important to the randomness of the dice. There's nothing magical about 4d6, it just tends to work well for games like AD&D. 3d6 is often better for BD&D or OD&D.
Quote from: Pat on June 21, 2021, 09:43:09 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 09:33:52 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 21, 2021, 04:31:36 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 03:25:29 PM
Both of these hit on an important point. In early D&D, bonuses were mostly earned via class progression and/or magic items. Stats didn't go up naturally via leveling (that was completely a feature of 3e and later). So your stats really didn't have much effect beyond a small attribute bonus, level limits, and an experience bonus. The method of stat generation has only really become an issue once stats became more important to character utility and performance...
That wasn't my experience with AD&D first edition. I always felt like the AD&D1 ability score rolls were extremely important - moreso than later editions. Later editions smoothed out the bonuses so there was more of an incremental change as you got better, and removed the level limits and experience bonus based on stats. Among groups I played, getting an 18 in your primary stat was a big deal -- much bigger than in later editions when 18 is just a minor incremental change from 16. Most of the attributes charts had sharp changes in the 15-18 range, and further, high stats let you be limited character types like a ranger or paladin that weren't available at all otherwise.
The main offset to this was just that there tended to be more randomness in adventures, so even a great stat character could fail a save-or-die effect, for example, or get level drained.
Please explain how, to a non-fighter, the difference between an 8 or an 18 is a "big deal." Explain how it has " sharp changes in the 15-18 range."
Or how a 14 in con is so much better than a 7. Or how a non-fighter experiences a "sharp change" in bonuses above 14. You must have been using a very different edition of AD&D than the rest of us...
Edit: One of those charts is from 2e, but the bonuses are the same...
Where did you get most of that? He specifically said an 18 in a primary stat was a big deal, which means fighters, not "non-fighters". And he was talking about the bonuses in the 15-18 range, and didn't say a thing about how a 14 was much better than a 7.
"Most of the attributes charts had sharp changes in the 15-18 range". Don't see primary stat anywhere in that sentence.
But even assuming he meant for the previous mention to apply here... nope... they didn't. Con, even for fighters, gives only hp (the other effects are in single digit percent). And 18, even if you were a fighter and used percentile strength (which was optional), you went from +1 to +2 to hit unless you roll a 00. Wow, that +1 is game-changing...
A fighter going up a level gets +1 to hit; +2 every second level on the charts so as not to make them too big, but most of us made it +1 per level. Acquiring a relatively minor magical weapon would also give +1 to hit.
And of course, it's +1 on a d20, and so a 5% change in the odds. If you saw two players side-by-side and they simply rolled their dice and didn't announce their modifiers, it would take you a lot of dice rolls before you figure out that one of them had +1 compared to the other, or even +3.
You would much more quickly figure out which player was smarter and used better tactics, though.
In AD&D1e, stats were in fact not that important. The players' wits and sheer luck were much, much more important.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 10:17:39 PM
Quote from: Pat on June 21, 2021, 09:43:09 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 09:33:52 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 21, 2021, 04:31:36 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 03:25:29 PM
Both of these hit on an important point. In early D&D, bonuses were mostly earned via class progression and/or magic items. Stats didn't go up naturally via leveling (that was completely a feature of 3e and later). So your stats really didn't have much effect beyond a small attribute bonus, level limits, and an experience bonus. The method of stat generation has only really become an issue once stats became more important to character utility and performance...
That wasn't my experience with AD&D first edition. I always felt like the AD&D1 ability score rolls were extremely important - moreso than later editions. Later editions smoothed out the bonuses so there was more of an incremental change as you got better, and removed the level limits and experience bonus based on stats. Among groups I played, getting an 18 in your primary stat was a big deal -- much bigger than in later editions when 18 is just a minor incremental change from 16. Most of the attributes charts had sharp changes in the 15-18 range, and further, high stats let you be limited character types like a ranger or paladin that weren't available at all otherwise.
The main offset to this was just that there tended to be more randomness in adventures, so even a great stat character could fail a save-or-die effect, for example, or get level drained.
Please explain how, to a non-fighter, the difference between an 8 or an 18 is a "big deal." Explain how it has " sharp changes in the 15-18 range."
Or how a 14 in con is so much better than a 7. Or how a non-fighter experiences a "sharp change" in bonuses above 14. You must have been using a very different edition of AD&D than the rest of us...
Edit: One of those charts is from 2e, but the bonuses are the same...
Where did you get most of that? He specifically said an 18 in a primary stat was a big deal, which means fighters, not "non-fighters". And he was talking about the bonuses in the 15-18 range, and didn't say a thing about how a 14 was much better than a 7.
"Most of the attributes charts had sharp changes in the 15-18 range". Don't see primary stat anywhere in that sentence.
But even assuming he meant for the previous mention to apply here... nope... they didn't. Con, even for fighters, gives only hp (the other effects are in single digit percent). And 18, even if you were a fighter and used percentile strength (which was optional), you went from +1 to +2 to hit unless you roll a 00. Wow, that +1 is game-changing...
I highlighted the primary for you.
Quote from: Pat on June 21, 2021, 11:04:32 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 10:17:39 PM
Quote from: Pat on June 21, 2021, 09:43:09 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 09:33:52 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 21, 2021, 04:31:36 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 03:25:29 PM
Both of these hit on an important point. In early D&D, bonuses were mostly earned via class progression and/or magic items. Stats didn't go up naturally via leveling (that was completely a feature of 3e and later). So your stats really didn't have much effect beyond a small attribute bonus, level limits, and an experience bonus. The method of stat generation has only really become an issue once stats became more important to character utility and performance...
That wasn't my experience with AD&D first edition. I always felt like the AD&D1 ability score rolls were extremely important - moreso than later editions. Later editions smoothed out the bonuses so there was more of an incremental change as you got better, and removed the level limits and experience bonus based on stats. Among groups I played, getting an 18 in your primary stat was a big deal -- much bigger than in later editions when 18 is just a minor incremental change from 16. Most of the attributes charts had sharp changes in the 15-18 range, and further, high stats let you be limited character types like a ranger or paladin that weren't available at all otherwise.
The main offset to this was just that there tended to be more randomness in adventures, so even a great stat character could fail a save-or-die effect, for example, or get level drained.
Please explain how, to a non-fighter, the difference between an 8 or an 18 is a "big deal." Explain how it has " sharp changes in the 15-18 range."
Or how a 14 in con is so much better than a 7. Or how a non-fighter experiences a "sharp change" in bonuses above 14. You must have been using a very different edition of AD&D than the rest of us...
Edit: One of those charts is from 2e, but the bonuses are the same...
Where did you get most of that? He specifically said an 18 in a primary stat was a big deal, which means fighters, not "non-fighters". And he was talking about the bonuses in the 15-18 range, and didn't say a thing about how a 14 was much better than a 7.
"Most of the attributes charts had sharp changes in the 15-18 range". Don't see primary stat anywhere in that sentence.
But even assuming he meant for the previous mention to apply here... nope... they didn't. Con, even for fighters, gives only hp (the other effects are in single digit percent). And 18, even if you were a fighter and used percentile strength (which was optional), you went from +1 to +2 to hit unless you roll a 00. Wow, that +1 is game-changing...
I highlighted the primary for you.
I highlighted the part where it didn't matter for you.
4d6, drop the lowest, arrange to taste is how we mostly did it.
I know later editions have moved to arrays, and I can see the appeal in it honestly. Just old habits are hard to break.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 09:33:52 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 21, 2021, 04:31:36 PM
That wasn't my experience with AD&D first edition. I always felt like the AD&D1 ability score rolls were extremely important - moreso than later editions. Later editions smoothed out the bonuses so there was more of an incremental change as you got better, and removed the level limits and experience bonus based on stats. Among groups I played, getting an 18 in your primary stat was a big deal -- much bigger than in later editions when 18 is just a minor incremental change from 16. Most of the attributes charts had sharp changes in the 15-18 range, and further, high stats let you be limited character types like a ranger or paladin that weren't available at all otherwise.
Please explain how, to a non-fighter, the difference between an 8 or an 18 is a "big deal." Explain how it has " sharp changes in the 15-18 range."
Or how a 14 in con is so much better than a 7. Or how a non-fighter experiences a "sharp change" in bonuses above 14. You must have been using a very different edition of AD&D than the rest of us...
I can explain the sharp changes I'm talking about. With lucky rolls you'll get an 18 in your top/primary stat, with unlucky rolls you'll still get at least a 14 or so. The question is, how much difference does that luck make. For example, in AD&D1, the Dex bonuses are like this:
Dex 14: +0AC, Dex 15: -1AC, Dex 16: -2AC, Dex 17: -3AC, Dex 18: -4AC
In 3rd-5th edition, the bonuses are:
Dex 14: -2AC, Dex 15: -2AC, Dex 16: -3AC, Dex 17: -3AC, Dex 18: -4AC
So even if you have only a 14 in your thief's dexterity, you still get a +2 bonus to missiles and AC. In AD&D1, you get nothing with a 14. The range of 14 to 18 has a much bigger change.
The contrast is a bit less in Strength, but still notable.
Str 14: +0 , Str 18/51: +2 hit, +3 damage
Later editions:
Str 14: +2 , Str 18: +4
If you only have a 14 as your top stat in later editions, the difference is relatively minor: just a +-2 difference compared to 18. In AD&D1, with high stats you will not only have greater change of bonus/benefit -- there's also the +10% experience bonus and possibly more class options like druid, illusionist, ranger, and paladin.
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2021, 03:25:03 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 09:33:52 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 21, 2021, 04:31:36 PM
That wasn't my experience with AD&D first edition. I always felt like the AD&D1 ability score rolls were extremely important - moreso than later editions. Later editions smoothed out the bonuses so there was more of an incremental change as you got better, and removed the level limits and experience bonus based on stats. Among groups I played, getting an 18 in your primary stat was a big deal -- much bigger than in later editions when 18 is just a minor incremental change from 16. Most of the attributes charts had sharp changes in the 15-18 range, and further, high stats let you be limited character types like a ranger or paladin that weren't available at all otherwise.
Please explain how, to a non-fighter, the difference between an 8 or an 18 is a "big deal." Explain how it has " sharp changes in the 15-18 range."
Or how a 14 in con is so much better than a 7. Or how a non-fighter experiences a "sharp change" in bonuses above 14. You must have been using a very different edition of AD&D than the rest of us...
I can explain the sharp changes I'm talking about. With lucky rolls you'll get an 18 in your top/primary stat, with unlucky rolls you'll still get at least a 14 or so. The question is, how much difference does that luck make. For example, in AD&D1, the Dex bonuses are like this:
Dex 14: +0AC, Dex 15: -1AC, Dex 16: -2AC, Dex 17: -3AC, Dex 18: -4AC
In 3rd-5th edition, the bonuses are:
Dex 14: -2AC, Dex 15: -2AC, Dex 16: -3AC, Dex 17: -3AC, Dex 18: -4AC
So even if you have only a 14 in your thief's dexterity, you still get a +2 bonus to missiles and AC. In AD&D1, you get nothing with a 14. The range of 14 to 18 has a much bigger change.
The contrast is a bit less in Strength, but still notable.
Str 14: +0 , Str 18/51: +2 hit, +3 damage
Later editions:
Str 14: +2 , Str 18: +4
If you only have a 14 as your top stat in later editions, the difference is relatively minor: just a +-2 difference compared to 18. In AD&D1, with high stats you will not only have greater change of bonus/benefit -- there's also the +10% experience bonus and possibly more class options like druid, illusionist, ranger, and paladin.
You are ignoring the earlier part where I noted that in modern versions your attributes increase via experience. So the real change in a modern iteration is from 16 (+3) to 20 (+5) in your primary (usually by 8th level). Plus another couple.of points in a different stat later. In early editions stats didn't change, except due to magic (which was DM dependent). Your 18 lasted your entire career, only modified by the magic you could find. In fact, many magic items that were valuable in early editions have become low-level or secondary items in later editions. A belt of hill giant strength? It was an upgrade for a fighter throughout his career in AD&D. Now it's useless for one by 6th level. A headband of intellect? By 8th your Mage can give it away. Your stats have become more important, as they are a larger part of your bonuses, as opposed to earlier editions, where your bonuses were mostly from the magic you found adventuring. 5e's proficiency bonus just exacerbates this even more. Despite "bounded accuracy," your 6th level fighter can be +8 to hit and +5 to damage without a single magic item. Show me how that is possible in 1st edition. The stat increases via leveling are far more important in present editions than in early ones.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 11:08:30 PM
I highlighted the part where it didn't matter for you.
That sentence literally makes no sense, but I don't suppose it matters. The primary was in the previous sentence, and you were pretending it didn't apply to later sentences. Sentences don't work like that. They build on each other.
We're talking about bonuses in AD&D. You're saying a +1 doesn't matter. That's false. A +1 in AD&D usually matters significantly more than in later games, like 3e. Bonuses are harder to acquire, and on a smaller scale, so each matters more.
Also, bonuses in AD&D are highly skewed toward the ends of the probability distribution. There's little difference between a 7 and a 14, but each point from 15 to 18 typically gives a significant bonus. This contrasts with Basic D&D, where the breakpoints are 13, 16, and 18. With 3d6 in order, a Basic character will typically have one or two bonuses. An AD&D character using the same method can expect zero. That makes the bonuses rarer in AD&D, further increasing their significance. The same applies to OD&D (13 is generally the only breakpoint), and later editions that give a +1 for ever 2 points in a stat.
You're also underestimating the impact of Strength. It's true that percentile strength is even more highly skewed than other stats, because the bonuses are thin in the typical 15-18 range, and you need to roll an 18 plus be a fighter and then roll percentile strength. But if you manage to do so, it's not just a +1 or a +2 to hit. It's also a +3 to +5 (ignoring the 00 option, as you did) to damage. Given the typical weapon does somewhere between 2.5 and 5.5 damage (S-M), that's a huge increase in damage potential. Especially when combined with multiple attacks, thrown weapons, and so on. Even an 18/01 can more than double a character's damage output, and that's not even including the increased likelihood to hit. There's a reason the double dart specialist fighter was a trope.
Finally, you're talking about single digit increases in the odds for Con. That's misleading, because while it's true in the absolute sense, what matters is the relative improvement. The percentiles you roll against using Con are system shock and resurrection survival. These aren't rolling to see if you get a bonus, but rolling to see if you avoid a something very bad, like dying or dying permanently. So when your odds increase from 94% to 99%, you've literally reduced the chance of dying by a factor of 5. Saying it's just a single digit improvement is pretending that's not the case.
Quote from: Pat on June 22, 2021, 06:04:25 AM
Finally, you're talking about single digit increases in the odds for Con. That's misleading, because while it's true in the absolute sense, what matters is the relative improvement. The percentiles you roll against using Con are system shock and resurrection survival. These aren't rolling to see if you get a bonus, but rolling to see if you avoid a something very bad, like dying or dying permanently. So when your odds increase from 94% to 99%, you've literally reduced the chance of dying by a factor of 5. Saying it's just a single digit improvement is pretending that's not the case.
So, according to you, an increase from 94% to 99% is
better than an increase of 70% to 90% (from lower score increases), because of the relative odds increase (6x vs 3x)? Do you work for the CDC?
Going from a 30% chance of dying to a 10% chance is better than going from a 6% chance to a 1%. The percent decrease of the odds is irrelevant next to the absolute chance off the occurrence. If, by spending $1 million we could reduce the fatality of one disease from 30% to 10% or another disease with the same number of cases from 6% to 1%, you would advocate for the second option because of the relative change in odds? Which would lower the number of fatalities more?
Yours is a textbook example of how to distort statistics to try to reach a desired result. Ask any player (or statistician) which will increase your success rate more: to increase your odds from 7 in ten to 9 in ten or from 18 in 20 to 19 in 20. They'll pick the former every time.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 22, 2021, 06:43:44 AM
Quote from: Pat on June 22, 2021, 06:04:25 AM
Finally, you're talking about single digit increases in the odds for Con. That's misleading, because while it's true in the absolute sense, what matters is the relative improvement. The percentiles you roll against using Con are system shock and resurrection survival. These aren't rolling to see if you get a bonus, but rolling to see if you avoid a something very bad, like dying or dying permanently. So when your odds increase from 94% to 99%, you've literally reduced the chance of dying by a factor of 5. Saying it's just a single digit improvement is pretending that's not the case.
So, according to you, an increase from 94% to 99% is better than an increase of 70% to 90% (from lower score increases), because of the relative odds increase (6x vs 3x)? Do you work for the CDC?
Going from a 30% chance of dying to a 10% chance is better than going from a 6% chance to a 1%. The percent decrease of the odds is irrelevant next to the absolute chance off the occurrence. If, by spending $1 million we could reduce the fatality of one disease from 30% to 10% or another disease with the same number of cases from 6% to 1%, you would advocate for the second option because of the relative change in odds? Which would lower the number of fatalities more?
Yours is a textbook example of how to distort statistics to try to reach a desired result. Ask any player (or statistician) which will increase your success rate more: to increase your odds from 7 in ten to 9 in ten or from 18 in 20 to 19 in 20. They'll pick the former every time.
You've already proved you don't understand statistics in the other thread, you don't have to keep showing off that lack of ability.
Yes, reducing your odds by a factor of 5 is a greater improvement than reducing your odds by a factor of 3. There are situations where absolute number matters, for instance the number of people affected across an entire population, but when discussing risk avoidance at an individual level the goal is to avoid the problem entirely. As a result, reducing the risk to a very low level matters. If you have a 60% chance of dying and reduce it to 40%, that's an improvement. But you're probably going to die quickly anyway after just one or two checks. But if you reduce the change from 5% to 1%, then you'll typically survive 5 times as long. That's a huge improvement.
Quote from: Pat on June 22, 2021, 07:15:22 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 22, 2021, 06:43:44 AM
Quote from: Pat on June 22, 2021, 06:04:25 AM
Finally, you're talking about single digit increases in the odds for Con. That's misleading, because while it's true in the absolute sense, what matters is the relative improvement. The percentiles you roll against using Con are system shock and resurrection survival. These aren't rolling to see if you get a bonus, but rolling to see if you avoid a something very bad, like dying or dying permanently. So when your odds increase from 94% to 99%, you've literally reduced the chance of dying by a factor of 5. Saying it's just a single digit improvement is pretending that's not the case.
So, according to you, an increase from 94% to 99% is better than an increase of 70% to 90% (from lower score increases), because of the relative odds increase (6x vs 3x)? Do you work for the CDC?
Going from a 30% chance of dying to a 10% chance is better than going from a 6% chance to a 1%. The percent decrease of the odds is irrelevant next to the absolute chance off the occurrence. If, by spending $1 million we could reduce the fatality of one disease from 30% to 10% or another disease with the same number of cases from 6% to 1%, you would advocate for the second option because of the relative change in odds? Which would lower the number of fatalities more?
Yours is a textbook example of how to distort statistics to try to reach a desired result. Ask any player (or statistician) which will increase your success rate more: to increase your odds from 7 in ten to 9 in ten or from 18 in 20 to 19 in 20. They'll pick the former every time.
You've already proved you don't understand statistics in the other thread, you don't have to keep showing off that lack of ability.
Yes, reducing your odds by a factor of 5 is a greater improvement than reducing your odds by a factor of 3. There are situations where absolute number matters, for instance the number of people affected across an entire population, but when discussing risk avoidance at an individual level the goal is to avoid the problem entirely. As a result, reducing the risk to a very low level matters. If you have a 60% chance of dying and reduce it to 40%, that's an improvement. But you're probably going to die quickly anyway after just one or two checks. But if you reduce the change from 5% to 1%, then you'll typically survive 5 times as long. That's a huge improvement.
I think the difference is that you're looking at it from the POV of an individual and how it impacts him/her, while the other asshole is looking at it in terms of how it impacts a population. Both are relevant, but the POV has to be considered.
The longer I play they more I randomize even characters in systems that do not support random build at all.
Quote from: Pat on June 22, 2021, 07:15:22 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 22, 2021, 06:43:44 AM
Quote from: Pat on June 22, 2021, 06:04:25 AM
Finally, you're talking about single digit increases in the odds for Con. That's misleading, because while it's true in the absolute sense, what matters is the relative improvement. The percentiles you roll against using Con are system shock and resurrection survival. These aren't rolling to see if you get a bonus, but rolling to see if you avoid a something very bad, like dying or dying permanently. So when your odds increase from 94% to 99%, you've literally reduced the chance of dying by a factor of 5. Saying it's just a single digit improvement is pretending that's not the case.
So, according to you, an increase from 94% to 99% is better than an increase of 70% to 90% (from lower score increases), because of the relative odds increase (6x vs 3x)? Do you work for the CDC?
Going from a 30% chance of dying to a 10% chance is better than going from a 6% chance to a 1%. The percent decrease of the odds is irrelevant next to the absolute chance off the occurrence. If, by spending $1 million we could reduce the fatality of one disease from 30% to 10% or another disease with the same number of cases from 6% to 1%, you would advocate for the second option because of the relative change in odds? Which would lower the number of fatalities more?
Yours is a textbook example of how to distort statistics to try to reach a desired result. Ask any player (or statistician) which will increase your success rate more: to increase your odds from 7 in ten to 9 in ten or from 18 in 20 to 19 in 20. They'll pick the former every time.
You've already proved you don't understand statistics in the other thread, you don't have to keep showing off that lack of ability.
Yes, reducing your odds by a factor of 5 is a greater improvement than reducing your odds by a factor of 3. There are situations where absolute number matters, for instance the number of people affected across an entire population, but when discussing risk avoidance at an individual level the goal is to avoid the problem entirely. As a result, reducing the risk to a very low level matters. If you have a 60% chance of dying and reduce it to 40%, that's an improvement. But you're probably going to die quickly anyway after just one or two checks. But if you reduce the change from 5% to 1%, then you'll typically survive 5 times as long. That's a huge improvement.
So, let's say you have two saves Wis and Con that occur about equally in the game. You have one "point" to spend to improve your saves. You can improve your Wisdom from a 60% chance of success to an 80% chance of success, or you can improve your Con save from a 92% chance to a 98% chance. Which do you spend you point on? That's not a "population" level choice, btw (re Happyderp). Tell me that the character will benefit more from spending the point on Con. The relative change in odds are irrelevant next to the actual change in performance. That is the proper application of statistics in this case.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 22, 2021, 08:35:23 AM
Quote from: Pat on June 22, 2021, 07:15:22 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 22, 2021, 06:43:44 AM
Quote from: Pat on June 22, 2021, 06:04:25 AM
Finally, you're talking about single digit increases in the odds for Con. That's misleading, because while it's true in the absolute sense, what matters is the relative improvement. The percentiles you roll against using Con are system shock and resurrection survival. These aren't rolling to see if you get a bonus, but rolling to see if you avoid a something very bad, like dying or dying permanently. So when your odds increase from 94% to 99%, you've literally reduced the chance of dying by a factor of 5. Saying it's just a single digit improvement is pretending that's not the case.
So, according to you, an increase from 94% to 99% is better than an increase of 70% to 90% (from lower score increases), because of the relative odds increase (6x vs 3x)? Do you work for the CDC?
Going from a 30% chance of dying to a 10% chance is better than going from a 6% chance to a 1%. The percent decrease of the odds is irrelevant next to the absolute chance off the occurrence. If, by spending $1 million we could reduce the fatality of one disease from 30% to 10% or another disease with the same number of cases from 6% to 1%, you would advocate for the second option because of the relative change in odds? Which would lower the number of fatalities more?
Yours is a textbook example of how to distort statistics to try to reach a desired result. Ask any player (or statistician) which will increase your success rate more: to increase your odds from 7 in ten to 9 in ten or from 18 in 20 to 19 in 20. They'll pick the former every time.
You've already proved you don't understand statistics in the other thread, you don't have to keep showing off that lack of ability.
Yes, reducing your odds by a factor of 5 is a greater improvement than reducing your odds by a factor of 3. There are situations where absolute number matters, for instance the number of people affected across an entire population, but when discussing risk avoidance at an individual level the goal is to avoid the problem entirely. As a result, reducing the risk to a very low level matters. If you have a 60% chance of dying and reduce it to 40%, that's an improvement. But you're probably going to die quickly anyway after just one or two checks. But if you reduce the change from 5% to 1%, then you'll typically survive 5 times as long. That's a huge improvement.
So, let's say you have two saves Wis and Con that occur about equally in the game. You have one "point" to spend to improve your saves. You can improve your Wisdom from a 60% chance of success to an 80% chance of success, or you can improve your Con save from a 92% chance to a 98% chance. Which do you spend you point on? That's not a "population" level choice, btw (re Happyderp). Tell me that the character will benefit more from spending the point on Con. The relative change in odds are irrelevant next to the actual change in performance. That is the proper application of statistics in this case.
We were talking about one variable (Save), you're setting up comparatives between two. That's literally apples to oranges, and there's no reason you only have "one point" to split between them like you set up in your non-sense response.
When talking about one variable, one guy goes from a 2/5 failure rate to a 1/5 failure rate while the second goes from 5/100 to 1/100. The first cut his chances of failure by a factor of 2 while the second cut it by a factor of 5.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 22, 2021, 08:35:23 AM
Quote from: Pat on June 22, 2021, 07:15:22 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 22, 2021, 06:43:44 AM
Quote from: Pat on June 22, 2021, 06:04:25 AM
Finally, you're talking about single digit increases in the odds for Con. That's misleading, because while it's true in the absolute sense, what matters is the relative improvement. The percentiles you roll against using Con are system shock and resurrection survival. These aren't rolling to see if you get a bonus, but rolling to see if you avoid a something very bad, like dying or dying permanently. So when your odds increase from 94% to 99%, you've literally reduced the chance of dying by a factor of 5. Saying it's just a single digit improvement is pretending that's not the case.
So, according to you, an increase from 94% to 99% is better than an increase of 70% to 90% (from lower score increases), because of the relative odds increase (6x vs 3x)? Do you work for the CDC?
Going from a 30% chance of dying to a 10% chance is better than going from a 6% chance to a 1%. The percent decrease of the odds is irrelevant next to the absolute chance off the occurrence. If, by spending $1 million we could reduce the fatality of one disease from 30% to 10% or another disease with the same number of cases from 6% to 1%, you would advocate for the second option because of the relative change in odds? Which would lower the number of fatalities more?
Yours is a textbook example of how to distort statistics to try to reach a desired result. Ask any player (or statistician) which will increase your success rate more: to increase your odds from 7 in ten to 9 in ten or from 18 in 20 to 19 in 20. They'll pick the former every time.
You've already proved you don't understand statistics in the other thread, you don't have to keep showing off that lack of ability.
Yes, reducing your odds by a factor of 5 is a greater improvement than reducing your odds by a factor of 3. There are situations where absolute number matters, for instance the number of people affected across an entire population, but when discussing risk avoidance at an individual level the goal is to avoid the problem entirely. As a result, reducing the risk to a very low level matters. If you have a 60% chance of dying and reduce it to 40%, that's an improvement. But you're probably going to die quickly anyway after just one or two checks. But if you reduce the change from 5% to 1%, then you'll typically survive 5 times as long. That's a huge improvement.
So, let's say you have two saves Wis and Con that occur about equally in the game. You have one "point" to spend to improve your saves. You can improve your Wisdom from a 60% chance of success to an 80% chance of success, or you can improve your Con save from a 92% chance to a 98% chance. Which do you spend you point on? That's not a "population" level choice, btw (re Happyderp). Tell me that the character will benefit more from spending the point on Con. The relative change in odds are irrelevant next to the actual change in performance. That is the proper application of statistics in this case.
I'd bump Con. Better to be virtually immune to a category that can include "death" as an effect than have significant windows (20% failure rate means failure is still going to happen every 5 or so checks) for both "mind-control" and "death" to hit you.
Its also easier to take proactive steps to avoid one weakness than have to take steps to mitigate two weaknesses. Its easier to avoid eye contact with a mesmerist than it is to stop the poison on an arrow AND still have to worry about the mesmerist.
Pat is absolutely right on the statistics. 92% means 1 in about 12.5 rolls will be a failure, while 98% jumps it to only 1 in 50 is a failure.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 22, 2021, 08:35:23 AM
Quote from: Pat on June 22, 2021, 07:15:22 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 22, 2021, 06:43:44 AM
Quote from: Pat on June 22, 2021, 06:04:25 AM
Finally, you're talking about single digit increases in the odds for Con. That's misleading, because while it's true in the absolute sense, what matters is the relative improvement. The percentiles you roll against using Con are system shock and resurrection survival. These aren't rolling to see if you get a bonus, but rolling to see if you avoid a something very bad, like dying or dying permanently. So when your odds increase from 94% to 99%, you've literally reduced the chance of dying by a factor of 5. Saying it's just a single digit improvement is pretending that's not the case.
So, according to you, an increase from 94% to 99% is better than an increase of 70% to 90% (from lower score increases), because of the relative odds increase (6x vs 3x)? Do you work for the CDC?
Going from a 30% chance of dying to a 10% chance is better than going from a 6% chance to a 1%. The percent decrease of the odds is irrelevant next to the absolute chance off the occurrence. If, by spending $1 million we could reduce the fatality of one disease from 30% to 10% or another disease with the same number of cases from 6% to 1%, you would advocate for the second option because of the relative change in odds? Which would lower the number of fatalities more?
Yours is a textbook example of how to distort statistics to try to reach a desired result. Ask any player (or statistician) which will increase your success rate more: to increase your odds from 7 in ten to 9 in ten or from 18 in 20 to 19 in 20. They'll pick the former every time.
You've already proved you don't understand statistics in the other thread, you don't have to keep showing off that lack of ability.
Yes, reducing your odds by a factor of 5 is a greater improvement than reducing your odds by a factor of 3. There are situations where absolute number matters, for instance the number of people affected across an entire population, but when discussing risk avoidance at an individual level the goal is to avoid the problem entirely. As a result, reducing the risk to a very low level matters. If you have a 60% chance of dying and reduce it to 40%, that's an improvement. But you're probably going to die quickly anyway after just one or two checks. But if you reduce the change from 5% to 1%, then you'll typically survive 5 times as long. That's a huge improvement.
So, let's say you have two saves Wis and Con that occur about equally in the game. You have one "point" to spend to improve your saves. You can improve your Wisdom from a 60% chance of success to an 80% chance of success, or you can improve your Con save from a 92% chance to a 98% chance. Which do you spend you point on? That's not a "population" level choice, btw (re Happyderp). Tell me that the character will benefit more from spending the point on Con. The relative change in odds are irrelevant next to the actual change in performance. That is the proper application of statistics in this case.
Wis and Con aren't interchangeable. They do completely different things and benefit different characters in different ways.
If you make system shock saves with a 60% chance, or a 40% chance, you're probably dead on the first or second roll (your chance of surviving two rolls is 36% and 16%, respectively). Even an 80% chance only has an expected survival time of just a hair over 3 rolls (51.2%). There's a much bigger difference as you get close to the edges of the probability range, because a 92% chance can be expected to survive 8 or 9 rolls, and a 98% can be expected to survive 34 to 35.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 22, 2021, 06:03:39 AM
You are ignoring the earlier part where I noted that in modern versions your attributes increase via experience. So the real change in a modern iteration is from 16 (+3) to 20 (+5) in your primary (usually by 8th level). Plus another couple.of points in a different stat later. In early editions stats didn't change, except due to magic (which was DM dependent). Your 18 lasted your entire career, only modified by the magic you could find.
I'm not sure what we're arguing here. I agree with this. Because your stats were harder to change in AD&D1, it made stat
rolls much more important. If a player only rolled max 14 instead of 18, they were stuck with that forever. And they got 10% less experience to boot.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 22, 2021, 06:03:39 AM
Your stats have become more important, as they are a larger part of your bonuses, as opposed to earlier editions, where your bonuses were mostly from the magic you found adventuring. 5e's proficiency bonus just exacerbates this even more. Despite "bounded accuracy," your 6th level fighter can be +8 to hit and +5 to damage without a single magic item. Show me how that is possible in 1st edition.
This is part is mathematical obfuscation. In AD&D1, a fighter's hit chances increase an average of +1 per level (technically +2 every two levels). This expressed as a changed target number in the to-hit table -- but that has exactly the same effect as a bonus. That's a much greater increase than 5e's proficiency bonus. In 5e, proficiency increases only +1 every 4 levels.
An argument could be that by expressing proficiency as a "bonus" instead of the to-hit table and non-proficiency penalty, it increases its psychological importance to the players - but that still is unrelated to attribute scores.
I agree that earlier editions emphasized hoards of magic items much more than 5e, but that's a different issue than the changes to the stat-related rules.
Another point on the nature of stats is what is meant by "average."
A 10 might be average human strength, but that doesn't mean any warrior has a strength that low. The average includes women, elderly and the infirm.
If you rolled for every adult human NPC about 1-in-4 would have a Strength of 13+. About 1-in-10 would have a 15+ and about 1-in-50 would have a 17+.
The typical ratio of full-time warriors in the population of medieval societies is about 1-in-100. The maximum you could conscript between planting and harvest without wrecking your economy was about 1-in-10 (and 1-in-20 is safer).
So that means with the standard attribute distributions for humans on 3d6 in order, there are enough humans with a Strength of 17+ to completely fill the ranks of the professional warrior class twice over and enough with Strength 15+ to completely fill the ranks of conscripted forces. And that's on 3d6 in order.
Realistically, every human fighter should have a Strength of 17+ if they're any type of professional warrior.
How common are wizards in your setting? If it's fewer than 1-in-1000 there's no reason for any wizard to ever take on an apprentice with less than an 18 Intelligence as they'd have 4+ candidates from the general 3d6-in-order human population to choose from... why settle for someone with only a 17?
And on down the line it goes; all the classes are rare enough in society that instructors and mentors could afford to be extremely picky in their choice of students. Even if the bulk of human society used 3d6 in order for their stats, the only way that makes sense for PCs relative to average humans is if you're literally playing average humans (i.e. peasants or serfs) or if you're letting the player pick "best of 100 sets" for their scores.
Quote from: Chris24601 on June 22, 2021, 03:47:29 PM
Another point on the nature of stats is what is meant by "average."
A 10 might be average human strength, but that doesn't mean any warrior has a strength that low. The average includes women, elderly and the infirm.
If you rolled for every adult human NPC about 1-in-4 would have a Strength of 13+. About 1-in-10 would have a 15+ and about 1-in-50 would have a 17+.
The typical ratio of full-time warriors in the population of medieval societies is about 1-in-100. The maximum you could conscript between planting and harvest without wrecking your economy was about 1-in-10 (and 1-in-20 is safer).
So that means with the standard attribute distributions for humans on 3d6 in order, there are enough humans with a Strength of 17+ to completely fill the ranks of the professional warrior class twice over and enough with Strength 15+ to completely fill the ranks of conscripted forces. And that's on 3d6 in order.
Realistically, every human fighter should have a Strength of 17+ if they're any type of professional warrior.
That assumes half the strongest people in the planet become warriors, with only the remainder spread across things like farmers tilling the fields, millers grinding flour, blacksmiths beating on iron, and on and on. Which seems extraordinarily unlikely, because there are a lot of pre-modern professions where great physical strength matters. Not to mention it ignores class -- the social kind, not the D&D kind -- a lot of people become warriors or are prohibited from becoming warriors because of their birth. And that's assuming 3d6 represents the overall population distribution not, say, the distribution among adventurers.
A more realistic approach is to look at the standard array. For 3d6 in order, it's roughly 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. The optimal choice for a fighter is to put that 13 into Strength. Won't always happen of course, but it's reasonable to assume it will occur more often than other placements. So while it's not a precise tool, using the optimal allocation of the standard array can work as an upper limit of a baseline for NPCs in a particular profession.
Quote from: Tristan on June 21, 2021, 11:24:33 PM
I know later editions have moved to arrays, and I can see the appeal in it honestly. Just old habits are hard to break.
I agree. Most people prefer rolling the dice, even if it turns out badly. It's more exciting than arrays.
Quote from: DocJones on June 22, 2021, 06:23:01 PM
Quote from: Tristan on June 21, 2021, 11:24:33 PM
I know later editions have moved to arrays, and I can see the appeal in it honestly. Just old habits are hard to break.
I agree. Most people prefer rolling the dice, even if it turns out badly. It's more exciting than arrays.
See, and this just goes to show the value of anecdotal evidence, since in my circles the majority of players prefer to not play dice with something as important and lasting as ability scores in a campaign of any length. Save the dice rolling for the actual game, not chargen.
In RPGs there are a lot of regional preferences that get presumed as applying across the board when they're not.
Quote from: DocJones on June 22, 2021, 06:23:01 PM
Quote from: Tristan on June 21, 2021, 11:24:33 PM
I know later editions have moved to arrays, and I can see the appeal in it honestly. Just old habits are hard to break.
I agree. Most people prefer rolling the dice, even if it turns out badly. It's more exciting than arrays.
Greetings!
Yep, I agree, DocJones! Every gamer I have played with in my groups have loved rolling dice for abilities. They so often love the excitement and unpredictability of seeing how the dice come up for everyone, not just their own characters.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Chris24601 on June 22, 2021, 03:47:29 PMRealistically, every human fighter should have a Strength of 17+ if they're any type of professional warrior.
The good ones were conscripted. The PCs are the ones who
didn't get conscripted, and thus are free to adventure.
3d6 down the line. Anything else and you may as well go join the People's Republic of Lake Woebegone.
I really liked and prefer the wider distribution of bonuses in B/X compared to 1st and 2nd edition AD&D. So much that I use it instead for my homebrew houseruled 2nd edition.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 23, 2021, 04:08:31 AM
I really liked and prefer the wider distribution of bonuses in B/X compared to 1st and 2nd edition AD&D. So much that I use it instead for my homebrew houseruled 2nd edition.
Interesting. Not being a B/X player, I hadn't realized how B/X was a precursor to 3rd edition in that respect, by standardizing and smoothing out the attribute bonuses. Just for anyone else who didn't realize, I looked this up and the bonuses standardized to this for most attributes:
3: -3
4-5: -2
6-8: -1
9-12: +0
13-15: +1
16-17: +2
18: +3
I think it's a subtle enough change that I wouldn't necessarily want to port it to 5E, but I like the design. In general, I have liked attributes being less of a focus in play. In D&D, I preferred the mechanics side to focus most on class and skills and special abilities -- and less on attributes and magic items.
My experience of AD&D1 was that getting good attribute rolls was a big deal. Later editions moderated this by removing the experience bonus and attribute minimums. They also smoothed out the bonuses which benefit of lucky 18s, but overall size of modifiers was just as important.
One of the advantages of not trying to be backwards/sideways compatible is that you can do things like this. It's what I'm using with the 3d6 in order, swap any 2:
| Score | Modifier |
| 1 | -4 |
| 2-3 | -3 |
| 4-5 | -2 |
| 6-7 | -1 |
| 8-10 | +0 |
| 11-13 | +1 |
| 14-16 | +2 |
| 17-19 | +3 |
| 20-23 | +4 |
| 24-28 | +5 |
There is a small chance that a starting character can get a level 1 bump that will turn a naturally rolled 16-18 into the 20-23 territory and get a +4 (tiny for 16 to 20, roughly 3%). But otherwise starting characters are kept in the -3 to +3 range, with minuses less common than plusses simply due to the skewed distribution on the 3d6. It does have the side effect of making the players a heck of a lot more open to rolling 3d6 in order. However, the main reasons that I did it were:
A. I wanted the full range of possibilities defined in the mechanics from the beginning even though I knew I'd be keeping most players in that -3 to +3 range, and even the outliers in the -4 to +4 range. That range is one thing that I do want to be compatible with earlier D&D versions. You'll note that the standard 13, 16, 18 scores have the compatible modifiers, too.
B. I wanted an easy, intuitive way to show that it's a lot easier to get rid of minuses with a bump than improve a positive. Since most bumps require the character to roll over their current stat on a d20 to get the full possible benefit, it's even more skewed than the chart would indicate. (Fail that roll, increase score by 1 point. Succeed, get 2-4 points).
Yeah, I know. You can do all of that and keep the traditional chart with some clever math while most preserving compatibility with D&D. Once compatibility became a low priority, however, this lets me ditch the clever math. Point being for this topic that it was actually easier for me to keep the old original style of rolling (mostly) and change the results of the roll than it was to change the rolling method.
Quote from: jhkim on June 23, 2021, 01:46:57 PM
Interesting. Not being a B/X player, I hadn't realized how B/X was a precursor to 3rd edition in that respect, by standardizing and smoothing out the attribute bonuses. Just for anyone else who didn't realize, I looked this up and the bonuses standardized to this for most attributes:
3: -3
4-5: -2
6-8: -1
9-12: +0
13-15: +1
16-17: +2
18: +3
It approximates the first 3 standard deviations. This would be closer:
3-4: -2
5-7: -1
8-13: 0
14-16: +1
17-18: +2
But doesn't get to +/-3, so it's fudged a point.
Which may be why the range feels fairly natural to a lot of people. Humans seem to have an intuitive grasp of the normal distribution.
Quote from: Shasarak on June 21, 2021, 07:09:58 PM
Quote from: Omega on June 21, 2021, 05:54:44 PM
Its been all over the place with D&D. Early game had little limits on how far you could take stats. IF you could get the things needed. The usual scarcity if those boosters was the limiter.
I miss the ADnD stats and being able to unlock things like regeneration if you could get over an 18.
Oh and hilariously enough. A hidden quirk of SSI's gold box games was that if you played the series through, had a dwarf with max con 19 without editing, and then got a manual that boosted CON, they gained regeneration since the Gold Box series used as much of the D&D rules as could code in.
Characters can even die of old age. I found this out the hard way since we had to sometimes rely on camping extended periods to heal.
Quote from: Omega on June 23, 2021, 05:01:55 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on June 21, 2021, 07:09:58 PM
Quote from: Omega on June 21, 2021, 05:54:44 PM
Its been all over the place with D&D. Early game had little limits on how far you could take stats. IF you could get the things needed. The usual scarcity if those boosters was the limiter.
I miss the ADnD stats and being able to unlock things like regeneration if you could get over an 18.
Oh and hilariously enough. A hidden quirk of SSI's gold box games was that if you played the series through, had a dwarf with max con 19 without editing, and then got a manual that boosted CON, they gained regeneration since the Gold Box series used as much of the D&D rules as could code in.
Characters can even die of old age. I found this out the hard way since we had to sometimes rely on camping extended periods to heal.
The Con boost was pretty well hidden. To get it, you have to read the manual and then rest for 30 days straight. That's completely abnormal behavior, and nothing in the game tells you that's how it works. So unless you remembered that particular detail from the DMG, you'll never figure out how to use it. And it didn't work across the entire gold box series. The manual is in the Pool of Radiance, but attempting to import a 20 Con dwarf to Curse of the Azure Bonds results in Con dropping down to 19.
But yes, it's remarkable how faithful the gold box series was.
Speaking of.
What is the stat array spread for 3d6?
Quote from: Pat on June 23, 2021, 05:47:42 PM
The Con boost was pretty well hidden. To get it, you have to read the manual and then rest for 30 days straight. That's completely abnormal behavior, and nothing in the game tells you that's how it works. So unless you remembered that particular detail from the DMG, you'll never figure out how to use it. And it didn't work across the entire gold box series. The manual is in the Pool of Radiance, but attempting to import a 20 Con dwarf to Curse of the Azure Bonds results in Con dropping down to 19.
But yes, it's remarkable how faithful the gold box series was.
Your CON dropped back to 19, but for whatever reason the regen persisted into Azure Bonds. Not sure if it persisted into Silver Blades and on.
I hit on it by a combination of accident and being a DM. It was like, huh, will this really work on this dwarf with 19 CON? wow? It did. Though took me a while to actually realize it was working.
Another thing the SSI games showed aplenty was just how ruthlessly good Fighters could be over Magic Users due to spell interruption and MU's being a bit fragile usually. That and how easy it was to mis-guess where that darn Fireball or Cloudkill was going to land. ow... lots of ow. On the other hand Stinking Cloud and Cloudkill became vital for defending the frontline fighters by making a deadly barricade.
Interestingly the SSI games were r4h3. But in order. You did not get to assign those rolls.
Quote from: Omega on June 23, 2021, 06:01:40 PM
Speaking of.
What is the stat array spread for 3d6?
There are a couple ways to generate the normal array for 3d6. The obvious method is to generate all possible results of 3d6 in order, sort each array from highest to lowest, then find the most common, or the median, or the mean array. The problem is these are fairly computationally intensive (6^18 is hundreds of trillions arrays), so doing a Monte Carlo simulation based on the mean is a quick easy alternative. The average of 100,000 randomly generated 3d6 in order characters, with the numbers in each array sorted from highest to lowest:
14.2, 12.4, 11.2, 9.9, 8.6, 6.8
Converted to integers, that works out to:
14, 12, 11, 10, 9, 7
Different methods of finding the normal array will generate minor variations. 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 is popular because it's easy to remember, though it doesn't come up on its own. Looking for the mode, arrays that start with 13, 13 are common as well, though I don't remember the rest of the array. Picking any of them is probably fine.
Quote from: Omega on June 23, 2021, 06:23:14 PM
Quote from: Pat on June 23, 2021, 05:47:42 PM
The Con boost was pretty well hidden. To get it, you have to read the manual and then rest for 30 days straight. That's completely abnormal behavior, and nothing in the game tells you that's how it works. So unless you remembered that particular detail from the DMG, you'll never figure out how to use it. And it didn't work across the entire gold box series. The manual is in the Pool of Radiance, but attempting to import a 20 Con dwarf to Curse of the Azure Bonds results in Con dropping down to 19.
But yes, it's remarkable how faithful the gold box series was.
Your CON dropped back to 19, but for whatever reason the regen persisted into Azure Bonds. Not sure if it persisted into Silver Blades and on.
I hit on it by a combination of accident and being a DM. It was like, huh, will this really work on this dwarf with 19 CON? wow? It did. Though took me a while to actually realize it was working.
Another thing the SSI games showed aplenty was just how ruthlessly good Fighters could be over Magic Users due to spell interruption and MU's being a bit fragile usually. That and how easy it was to mis-guess where that darn Fireball or Cloudkill was going to land. ow... lots of ow. On the other hand Stinking Cloud and Cloudkill became vital for defending the frontline fighters by making a deadly barricade.
Interestingly the SSI games were r4h3. But in order. You did not get to assign those rolls.
The regeneration didn't persist in my copy of Azure Bonds. I really wanted it for Silver Blades, because that's the game with endless dungeons, and it would have enabled the dwarf to get back up to full strength between encounters. But Azure Bonds introduced dual-classing, so there was a new toy to abuse.
I immediately thought of a Con 20 dwarf when I found the manual, but for a long time I though it was broken. Because I'd read the manual, and nothing would happen. I couldn't get it to work. It wasn't until I broke out my DMG, read the part about doing nothing for a month, and then tried resting for 30 days, that Con finally ticked up.
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.
Quote from: DocJones on June 22, 2021, 06:23:01 PMI agree. Most people prefer rolling the dice, even if it turns out badly. It's more exciting than arrays.
Players prefer to roll for stats because they know that they will ALWAYS have above average stats. Even those advocating 3d6 in order. If your stats are below average, you simply have to get that character killed (a trivial task) and you get a free re-roll. Keep re-rolling until you've got the stats you like.
Which is why, as a DM, I prefer point buy. That way the players can get the stats they want without all the wasted game time.
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.
3d6 down the line; as Crom intended.
I play DCC. I use the Purple Sorcerer's web-app to create PCs four-to-a-page, have my players randomly draw a page, and then run them through a 0-level funnel.
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.
Purposefully killing their PC would earn that player a red card, which means I'm no longer obligated to give them the time of day, 'cause they's a tit and they's out.
Quote from: dkabq on June 23, 2021, 08:04:59 PM
3d6 down the line; as Crom intended.
I play DCC. I use the Purple Sorcerer's web-app to create PCs four-to-a-page, have my players randomly draw a page, and then run them through a 0-level funnel.
DCC has a great set of rules. I bet those guys have awesome games.
Sometimes we play 4d6 drop the lowest. Sometime 3d6 twice in order pick the best. Just depends on the type of game. Never played just straight 3d6 with no rerolls
Quote from: Jam The MF on June 23, 2021, 09:14:02 PM
Quote from: dkabq on June 23, 2021, 08:04:59 PM
3d6 down the line; as Crom intended.
I play DCC. I use the Purple Sorcerer's web-app to create PCs four-to-a-page, have my players randomly draw a page, and then run them through a 0-level funnel.
DCC has a great set of rules. I bet those guys have awesome games.
I don't know how awesome my games are, but I can say that we have a lot of fun. Or at least enough fun to have played consistently (a 4-hour session every 2 to 3 weeks) for 3+ years.
I try to put enough role-play material into the games such that a PC can be successful even if they have low stats. For example, the worst Warrior PC, in terms of stats, is the most successful Warrior, in that he is a Sergeant in the local mercenaries guild and can form his own mercenary company. As part of the roleplaying, the other PCs look to him as their martial leader, despite his crap stats and the player's propensity to roll like crap (last session he rolled a fumble that resulted in him dropping his magical sword down into a grotto; it remains to be seen if in our next session him and the other PCs can get his sword back).
Quote from: dkabq on June 23, 2021, 08:11:39 PM
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.
Purposefully killing their PC would earn that player a red card, which means I'm no longer obligated to give them the time of day, 'cause they's a tit and they's out.
I didn't purposely kill my PC, I was roleplaying! My character is just very aggressive, and doesn't take shit from anything... including beholder/ancient red dragon hybrids.
Quote from: dkabq on June 24, 2021, 06:42:39 PM
I try to put enough role-play material into the games such that a PC can be successful even if they have low stats. For example, the worst Warrior PC, in terms of stats, is the most successful Warrior, in that he is a Sergeant in the local mercenaries guild and can form his own mercenary company. As part of the roleplaying, the other PCs look to him as their martial leader, despite his crap stats and the player's propensity to roll like crap (last session he rolled a fumble that resulted in him dropping his magical sword down into a grotto; it remains to be seen if in our next session him and the other PCs can get his sword back).
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. ;-)
'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***?"
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 23, 2021, 07:27:45 PMIf your stats are below average, you simply have to get that character killed (a trivial task) and you get a free re-roll. Keep re-rolling until you've got the stats you like.
This is one advantage of an open game table. Because players are constantly coming and going, players who do dumb shit soon figure out others are annoyed by them, and they move on. And the rest of us simply play as well as we can, and realise the stats aren't that important.
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.
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***?"
Well, 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. It's been fun to play as gangs of violent bastards who don't play nice. And sometimes some moralizing player comes in and calls us all assholes because our characters are assholes.
Quote from: jhkim on June 24, 2021, 09:37:04 PM
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.
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.
Either 3d6 straight
Or 2d6+6 straight
The Rules Cyclopedia had some interesting methods for generating "higher level characters": roll 5d6 and add 60, then distribute the total among the six attributes as desired. Or, just give the players a certain number of points between 60 and 90 to distribute. This would be very similar to how character stats are allocated in the infinity engine games—Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale.
The Mentzer Basic Set (Red Box) used an array for the sample characters (including the "poor but famous fighter" in the intro adventure): 17, 16, 14, 11, 9, 8
For Demihumans, it was 16, 14, 11, 9, 9, 7
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. :D
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. :D
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. :D
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. :D
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?
The funny thing is that because it's just a dice roll, and the bonus isn't high anyway, the incautious character often lives anyway. And the guy with high stats is also incautious. "I'll be okay, I have 18/00 Strength," he says striding ahead a moment before he falls into a 30 foot pit with spikes at the bottom.
It's not about stats. It's about smart play and luck.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 27, 2021, 08:58:48 PM
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?
If *I* were the DM...
1. The magic pool grants you 3000 XP!
2. You inhale a goodish part of the "mold" as you wipe it off the magic shield. Turns out it is actually powdered troll...you gain regeneration 5 per turn...indefinitely
3. You open the chest and an efreeti emerges. "Thank you for freeing me. If you survive to level 10, I will increase all of your ability scores to 18."
Classic. The Killer DM has to keep your character alive.
Good luck buddy.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 27, 2021, 08:58:48 PM
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?
I would. But then I have the expectation that my players can (and will) rollplay PCs other than above average ones. That said, in my campaign, players have more than one PC, so nobody is stuck for the duration with a below average PC.
And that said, if the GM and players all decide that they only want to play with above average PCs (e.g., play 5E), there is no wrongbadfun in that.
Quote from: dkabq on June 28, 2021, 06:58:05 AMAnd that said, if the GM and players all decide that they only want to play with above average PCs (e.g., play 5E), there is no wrongbadfun in that.
It's not about wanting to only play above average characters. It's about the players knowing that if their below average character dies that they will most likely end up with a better character in exchange. You've removed the downside to dying.
It might have made sense in the 70s, but there are dozens of new ways to create characters invented over the decades: point buy, stat arrays, randomized stat arrays, point allocation, random point allocation, life paths, etc. The only reason to stick to random rolls for ability scores is nostalgia.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 04:03:14 PM
It's not about wanting to only play above average characters. It's about the players knowing that if their below average character dies that they will most likely end up with a better character in exchange. You've removed the downside to dying.
It might have made sense in the 70s, but there are dozens of new ways to create characters invented over the decades: point buy, stat arrays, randomized stat arrays, point allocation, random point allocation, life paths, etc. The only reason to stick to random rolls for ability scores is nostalgia.
I have enjoyed random roll for games where there is more than just ability scores that are randomized. For example, Paranoia has random mutant powers and secret societies, which makes for a lot of fun uniqueness to characters. When I played Harnmaster, I rolled randomly for race, sex, social class, and other background as well as attributes. I rolled 3 to 5 characters and picked my preferred one among the set, keeping the others as backups. In Traveller, random-roll character generation is a fun minigame in itself.
But rolling for just attributes - yeah, I also find that's pointless for me, especially if it is roll-and-arrange.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 04:03:14 PM
It might have made sense in the 70s, but there are dozens of new ways to create characters invented over the decades: point buy, stat arrays, randomized stat arrays, point allocation, random point allocation, life paths, etc. The only reason to stick to random rolls for ability scores is nostalgia.
I respectfully disagree. Random rolls for PCs add variability to the PCs. And it precludes min/max-ing. And it provides opportunity for the player to develop their PC in terms of its deficiencies. For example, one of my DCC players has a Warrior with a STR 8 (i.e., -1 to-hit and damage in melee). He decided to have the PC focus on ranged attacks. Eventually we decided to convert the PC from a Warrior to a Ranger. Lots of roleplaying goodness from a crap stat.
But that's just me and how I like to run my game. YMMV.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 04:03:14 PM
It's not about wanting to only play above average characters. It's about the players knowing that if their below average character dies that they will most likely end up with a better character in exchange. You've removed the downside to dying.
I expect my players to play their PCs to the best of their abilities, even if they have crap stats. If I thought that one of them wasn't doing so, he'd get get a red card for being a tit, which means he's out and that I don't have to give him the time of day.
But my players also have multiple PCs, so they aren't stuck having to play Rupric the Idiot-Boy in every session. So I don't think my expectation is unreasonable. Moreover, I am happy to work with my players to give even their crap PCs opportunities to develop and advance.
As always, YMMV.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 04:03:14 PM
It might have made sense in the 70s, but there are dozens of new ways to create characters invented over the decades: point buy, stat arrays, randomized stat arrays, point allocation, random point allocation, life paths, etc. The only reason to stick to random rolls for ability scores is nostalgia.
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.
Quote from: dkabq on June 28, 2021, 06:11:36 PM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 04:03:14 PM
It might have made sense in the 70s, but there are dozens of new ways to create characters invented over the decades: point buy, stat arrays, randomized stat arrays, point allocation, random point allocation, life paths, etc. The only reason to stick to random rolls for ability scores is nostalgia.
I respectfully disagree. Random rolls for PCs add variability to the PCs. And it precludes min/max-ing. And it provides opportunity for the player to develop their PC in terms of its deficiencies. For example, one of my DCC players has a Warrior with a STR 8 (i.e., -1 to-hit and damage in melee). He decided to have the PC focus on ranged attacks. Eventually we decided to convert the PC from a Warrior to a Ranger. Lots of roleplaying goodness from a crap stat.
But that's just me and how I like to run my game. YMMV.
Have you tried adding roleplaying for extra variability between PCs?
I like to stick to random rolls because then I get to create a character around the hand I'm dealt rather than trying to fit some pre-defined stat array into my pre-conceived character concept (which always falls short in my experience.) I prefer this because it makes it an act of creativity instead of accounting.
Quote from: dkabq on June 28, 2021, 06:11:36 PM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 04:03:14 PM
It might have made sense in the 70s, but there are dozens of new ways to create characters invented over the decades: point buy, stat arrays, randomized stat arrays, point allocation, random point allocation, life paths, etc. The only reason to stick to random rolls for ability scores is nostalgia.
I respectfully disagree. Random rolls for PCs add variability to the PCs. And it precludes min/max-ing. And it provides opportunity for the player to develop their PC in terms of its deficiencies. For example, one of my DCC players has a Warrior with a STR 8 (i.e., -1 to-hit and damage in melee). He decided to have the PC focus on ranged attacks. Eventually we decided to convert the PC from a Warrior to a Ranger. Lots of roleplaying goodness from a crap stat.
But that's just me and how I like to run my game. YMMV.
Greetings!
I agree, dkabq. Random attribute rolls make for the best diversity in characters, of every class. It doesn't of course preclude roleplaying a good personality, but provides a strong foundation for developing a character, again, of any class.
It can be refreshing and funny to see how a Wizard for example, with a 12 Intelligence and an 18 Strength gradually develops and gets fleshed out with their motivations and temperament, and so on. ;D
Stat arrays, in my experience, encourage a much more "Cookie Cutter" approach to the development of every character within a particular class. After three Wizards, or six, they all start looking very much the same. The same applies to Fighters, Rogues, and so on. It isn't just mechanically boring, but also serves to standardize every member of a class as having precisely the same strengths and weaknesses as every other member of the class. That tend to have secondary effects on the same kinds of personalities and same approaches to roleplaying the character as well, seemingly divorced from mechanical attributes, and yet, when looking under the hood, the same kinds of dynamics are ultimately connected.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
The next time I player poker, I'm going to throw out all the cards under 7. The game will be much better for it!
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.
Quote from: Shasarak on June 28, 2021, 07:42:09 PM
Quote from: dkabq on June 28, 2021, 06:11:36 PM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 04:03:14 PM
It might have made sense in the 70s, but there are dozens of new ways to create characters invented over the decades: point buy, stat arrays, randomized stat arrays, point allocation, random point allocation, life paths, etc. The only reason to stick to random rolls for ability scores is nostalgia.
I respectfully disagree. Random rolls for PCs add variability to the PCs. And it precludes min/max-ing. And it provides opportunity for the player to develop their PC in terms of its deficiencies. For example, one of my DCC players has a Warrior with a STR 8 (i.e., -1 to-hit and damage in melee). He decided to have the PC focus on ranged attacks. Eventually we decided to convert the PC from a Warrior to a Ranger. Lots of roleplaying goodness from a crap stat.
But that's just me and how I like to run my game. YMMV.
Have you tried adding roleplaying for extra variability between PCs?
"Roleplaying? Roleplaying? We don't need no stinking roleplaying!!!".
Quote from: Shasarak on June 28, 2021, 07:42:09 PM
Quote from: dkabq on June 28, 2021, 06:11:36 PM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 04:03:14 PM
It might have made sense in the 70s, but there are dozens of new ways to create characters invented over the decades: point buy, stat arrays, randomized stat arrays, point allocation, random point allocation, life paths, etc. The only reason to stick to random rolls for ability scores is nostalgia.
I respectfully disagree. Random rolls for PCs add variability to the PCs. And it precludes min/max-ing. And it provides opportunity for the player to develop their PC in terms of its deficiencies. For example, one of my DCC players has a Warrior with a STR 8 (i.e., -1 to-hit and damage in melee). He decided to have the PC focus on ranged attacks. Eventually we decided to convert the PC from a Warrior to a Ranger. Lots of roleplaying goodness from a crap stat.
But that's just me and how I like to run my game. YMMV.
Have you tried adding roleplaying for extra variability between PCs?
Yep yep. Some of my players are better at it than others, but they all make a good effort. Personally, I enjoy them playing down to their weaknesses as much as when they play up to their strengths, and I make a concerted effort to reward both. For example, one player has a Warrior (Maxxx) with:
STR = 12
AGL = 9
STA = 11
PER = 10
INT = 5
LUC = 7
Maxxx is played as the not-so-bright "muscle" of the same player's Wizard (Ambrose). He is also unlucky (-1 luck mod, in addition to his "lucky roll" of The Broken Star, which gives him +2 (higher is worse) on his fumble rolls). Maxxx is 100% devoted/loyal to Ambrose, despite Ambrose being kinda of an ass (ignorance is bliss). As such, Maxxx will, for better or worse, protect Ambrose with his life. So I gave Maxxx a +1d on his deed die when he is performing a selfless act of protection (e.g., jumping into 10' deep water, while in scale mail, to save Ambrose from being attacked by water snakes).
The player made the most of what Crom gave him, and I rewarded him for it. It is likely that Maxxx's luck will eventually run out and he will die in the service of Master Ambrose. But it is also likely to be a glorious and/or hilarious death.
Random rolled PCs work for me and my players. YMMV.
Quote from: Jam The MF on June 28, 2021, 08:54:17 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on June 28, 2021, 07:42:09 PM
Quote from: dkabq on June 28, 2021, 06:11:36 PM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 04:03:14 PM
It might have made sense in the 70s, but there are dozens of new ways to create characters invented over the decades: point buy, stat arrays, randomized stat arrays, point allocation, random point allocation, life paths, etc. The only reason to stick to random rolls for ability scores is nostalgia.
I respectfully disagree. Random rolls for PCs add variability to the PCs. And it precludes min/max-ing. And it provides opportunity for the player to develop their PC in terms of its deficiencies. For example, one of my DCC players has a Warrior with a STR 8 (i.e., -1 to-hit and damage in melee). He decided to have the PC focus on ranged attacks. Eventually we decided to convert the PC from a Warrior to a Ranger. Lots of roleplaying goodness from a crap stat.
But that's just me and how I like to run my game. YMMV.
Have you tried adding roleplaying for extra variability between PCs?
"Roleplaying? Roleplaying? We don't need no stinking roleplaying!!!".
Just badgers then?
Quote from: dkabq on June 28, 2021, 06:11:36 PMI respectfully disagree. Random rolls for PCs add variability to the PCs. And it precludes min/max-ing.
Half of the methods I mentioned include randomization methods. I even have my players randomly roll their race (as part of a background roll). So my argument has nothing to do with variability vs no variability. But about the expectation that some DMs seem to have that players who roll poorly should be forced to play such a character even when it's not in the player's (or party's) best interest for him to do so.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 28, 2021, 07:36:01 PMIs 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.
I feel that I've lost the argument because no one has even attempted to address my core concern. If a game is setup to have races that are fairly balanced with one another and classes balanced with one another, how is the game improved if all that is thrown out the window when it comes to each character's ability scores? Why is it a good idea for one player's character to be significantly more powerful than another player's character simply due to a random roll?
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 10:21:19 PM
Quote from: dkabq on June 28, 2021, 06:11:36 PMI respectfully disagree. Random rolls for PCs add variability to the PCs. And it precludes min/max-ing.
Half of the methods I mentioned include randomization methods. I even have my players randomly roll their race. So my argument has nothing to do with variability vs no variability. But about the expectation that some DMs seem to have that players who roll poorly should be forced to play such a character even when it's not in the player's (or party's) best interest for him to do so.
It sounds like you are arguing against negative variability in chargin. Which if you are, is fine -- no wrongbadfun.
As for player's or party's best interest, I suppose it all depends on how you define best interest. Moreover, I would argue that what is important is the best interest of the game. Which at my table includes players doing their best with poorly rolled PCs. From the first session, my players have known that PCs *will* die, due to poor choices or bad luck. Express your laments, then grab 3d6 and roll...
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 10:25:54 PM
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 28, 2021, 07:36:01 PMIs 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.
I feel that I've lost the argument because no one has even attempted to address my core concern. If a game is setup to have races that are fairly balanced with one another and classes balanced with one another, how is the game improved if all that is thrown out the window when it comes to each character's ability scores? Why is it a good idea for one player's character to be significantly more powerful than another player's character simply due to a random roll?
You did lose the argument, by doing the RPG equivalent of Godwinning.
But 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.
Consider the milieu in which OD&D was developed: Gygax ran a table where dozens of players rotated in and out, where players regularity switched between characters, and mortality was high, especially at low levels. In other words, if you roll a ranger with an 18 Con and start with a massive 24 hp, that's really cool. But you might roll terribly for hit points at later levels. Your buddy might find a sword of sharpness, and make you feel inferior. You might get level drained, and have to play catch up to the rest of the party. You might die. You might be a replacement for a character who died, and while 24 hp is nice for 1st level, it's less impressive when the rest of the party is 5th level. You also don't play the ranger all the time. You only bring the character out for level-appropriate adventures. Also, the character might not click. You might find the magic-user with no unique mechanical traits to be a lot more fun to play.
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.
If you expect to play the same character for years on end with no interruptions, then yes, you can make an argument for more consistent balance. But in an environment like I just described, it's another fun way to make everyone different.
You don't have to play that way, or like it, but you should be able to understand why other people appreciate it. And that they appreciate for real, rational reasons. Nostalgia is always a bad assumption, because many of these games were tightly designed (even if they were a mess in places) and were playtested to a degree you'd never see today. And since the advent of the OSR, they've been thoroughly and analyzed for why they work, and under what circumstances. But the environment for they were designed, and where they excel, is often alien to modern players. It requires getting in a different mindset. Which is hard, because examining our own subconscious assumptions is very difficult.
Nostalgia may be a factor for dilettantes who want to revisit something temporarily, but the people who play these games all the time do so because they're
fun.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 10:25:54 PMIf a game is setup to have races that are fairly balanced with one another and classes balanced with one another, how is the game improved if all that is thrown out the window when it comes to each character's ability scores?
This implies that "game balance" is a necessary or desirable approach. It is not.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 10:25:54 PM
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 28, 2021, 07:36:01 PMIs 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.
I feel that I've lost the argument because no one has even attempted to address my core concern. If a game is setup to have races that are fairly balanced with one another and classes balanced with one another, how is the game improved if all that is thrown out the window when it comes to each character's ability scores? Why is it a good idea for one player's character to be significantly more powerful than another player's character simply due to a random roll?
That is an interesting point that you raise. My take is that as far as DCC is concerned, classes are not fairly balanced. Put a Warrior toe-to-toe with Thief, and the Thief is toast. On the other hand, put them both in an urban adventure where climbing shear surfaces, picking locks, and detecting/disarming traps determine survival, then the Warrior is taking the dirt nap. Or take a social situation, where the players coming up with a cunning plan could what matter more than the DC checks.
Moreover, I do not believe that player power in terms of stats (or abilities) is all that important in the overall game. Having a AGL 18 isn't going to make you the leader of the thieves guild. And the PCs are not going to take the same "advancement" paths. Yes, there are those that will strive for martial or magical prowess. But I have a group of PCs that are trying for material and political advancement. Another player wants his Cleric to become a lich, at which point he plans to hand over him over to me to be an NPC. That's assuming he doesn't run afoul of his god before then and have to hand him over sooner.
In fact, I would argue that player creativity is more important than the stats of his PCs.
YMMV.
Props to Pat for that well thought out post.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on June 28, 2021, 11:06:41 PM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 10:25:54 PMIf a game is setup to have races that are fairly balanced with one another and classes balanced with one another, how is the game improved if all that is thrown out the window when it comes to each character's ability scores?
This implies that "game balance" is a necessary or desirable approach. It is not.
It's not necessary - but all else being equal it is definitely desirable.
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.
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.
So you're saying it's better than 100,000 tons of bacon.
Yum.
Quote from: Pat on June 28, 2021, 11:39:15 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.
So you're saying it's better than 100,000 tons of bacon.
Yum.
Worse then that its maginary bacon.
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.
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.
You're objectively wrong because you're stating your preference as an objective fact.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to anyone else's, though.
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.
Quote from: Jam The MF on June 29, 2021, 07:43:08 PMYes, 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.
Also, the motivation to risk your life to find gauntlets that give you the strength of an ogre might be lower if you were born with the strength of an ogre.
Quote from: dkabq on June 29, 2021, 08:17:07 PMBecause even with crap stats it is better than continuing to be a Gong Farmer.
Most people do not appreciate that the life of a peasant has uncertainties, too. Many were and are only one unusually wet or dry season away from starvation. Subsistence farming offered miserable poverty and a chance of death. Being an adventurer would offer miserable poverty and a chance of death - but also a chance of riches!
As well, the old "join the army, see the world!" thing was not always a joke as it is today. Tomorrow morning, pack a lunch and water bottle and go out and walk as far as you can for four hours. Sit down there, eat your lunch and drink your water and rest for an hour, then walk for another four hours. Take a note of where you are and how far you've come. Most people will be unlikely to have gone more than thirty miles, twenty is more common.
When you make your way back home by taxi or public transport or ride from a friend, get out a map and look at the various places you've travelled to in your life, and figure out how long it would have taken you to get there on foot as you went today.
Historically, most people never went more than a day's walk from their home village. Those who joined the army or navy really would get to see the world, and see people and places most would never see.
Adventure!
Plus, a 1st level character is remarkably more powerful than a 0-level commoner.
Quote from: Jam The MF on June 29, 2021, 07:43:08 PM
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.
Same as why a handicapped character would. Because they want to. Or because they have no choice. One of my longest lived characters for BX had some pretty sad stats other than a 16 CHA which the group put to frequent use.
Also some players love characters weak like that and somehow advancing them as far as can.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on June 28, 2021, 11:06:41 PM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 10:25:54 PMIf a game is setup to have races that are fairly balanced with one another and classes balanced with one another, how is the game improved if all that is thrown out the window when it comes to each character's ability scores?
This implies that "game balance" is a necessary or desirable approach. It is not.
Agreed. 4E was the epitome of "game balance." And it sucked.
Quote from: Mishihari on July 01, 2021, 02:27:32 AM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on June 28, 2021, 11:06:41 PM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 10:25:54 PMIf a game is setup to have races that are fairly balanced with one another and classes balanced with one another, how is the game improved if all that is thrown out the window when it comes to each character's ability scores?
This implies that "game balance" is a necessary or desirable approach. It is not.
Agreed. 4E was the epitome of "game balance." And it sucked.
I thought we agreed that 4e sucked because of the art direction? :P
Quote from: Shasarak on July 01, 2021, 02:30:54 AM
Quote from: Mishihari on July 01, 2021, 02:27:32 AM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on June 28, 2021, 11:06:41 PM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 10:25:54 PMIf a game is setup to have races that are fairly balanced with one another and classes balanced with one another, how is the game improved if all that is thrown out the window when it comes to each character's ability scores?
This implies that "game balance" is a necessary or desirable approach. It is not.
Agreed. 4E was the epitome of "game balance." And it sucked.
I thought we agreed that 4e sucked because of the art direction? :P
No. 4E sucked because it replaced 3.5E with a Military Tactical Simulation with Assigned Roles for each character. It may have been an OK game otherwise, but it was very different from 3.5E.
I am not for 3d6 down the line. If I am making a potential adventurer I prefer the 4d6 and assign. People mention why would the guy with an 11 strength go out to be a fighter...well taking into account the training to be a 1st level fighter you would see that is simply not for you. As Octavius says as he trains his fighting skills with Pullo, "The graveyard is FULL of middling swordsmen," as he realizes this will simply never be something he shines at.
Quote from: oggsmash on July 01, 2021, 09:49:13 AM
I am not for 3d6 down the line. If I am making a potential adventurer I prefer the 4d6 and assign. People mention why would the guy with an 11 strength go out to be a fighter...well taking into account the training to be a 1st level fighter you would see that is simply not for you. As Octavius says as he trains his fighting skills with Pullo, "The graveyard is FULL of middling swordsmen," as he realizes this will simply never be something he shines at.
Another thing that doesn't sit right about the randomized stats is the degree to which training plays a part. I'll never be a top tier athlete, but if I started weight and endurance training plus practicing particular sports I guarantee my Str, Dex and Con stats would be vastly better a year from now than they are presently.
Similarly, you can practice memory and situational awareness techniques and study techniques for winning friends and influencing people... and given a year you'd be notably better than before you began the effort unless you were already at or near your peak anyway.
It'd actually make more sense if the random rolls were for "maximum potential" rather than "actual ability" and then you had development points you could spend to improve some of your stats above baseline to a maximum of your potential (or it costs double to exceed that potential).
So the attribute rolls might be 2d6+6 in order for potential, but your actual stats start at 8 and you have only 24 points to improve them and points above the rolled potential cost double.
That high score in something might encourage you towards a particular class, but if you're determined to pick a certain class you can pour yourself into developing that stat all the way to 18 at the expense of all else.
Or you might have a 16 potential in your class' key attribute, and now have to decide if developing it to 18 is worth not putting 4 development points into something else that would be a good supplemental attribute and isn't af it's potential yet.
That would feel more like how real people develop to me than everyone's stats representing both their actual ability AND maximum potential.
Standard array (15,14,13,12,10,8) is my preferred method. You get good, but not great stats. You can improve the 15 with ability score increases, and race bonuses (if they are available, and you can qualify for any class, so you can play what you want.
In a high attrition game, standard array saves time by eliminating the rolling proceedure.
The "8" (-1 bonus) ensures that everyone has a weakness.
It is not everyone's cup of tea, but it works for me.
I am noticing a lot of conflation in this thread. "3d6 down the line" has two elements to it: its stat range, and its order. It seems to me that most people who dislike this method argue against one or the other only, and yet prefer an alternative that dispenses with both. I think each element has its own advantages and disadvantages, and that they are severable.
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on July 01, 2021, 10:27:53 AM
In a high attrition game, standard array saves time by eliminating the rolling proceedure.
Or, if you play DCC, your Judge uses the Purple Sorcerer Games 0-Level party generator (https://purplesorcerer.com/create_party.php) to "roll" up 50 sheets of 4-to-a-sheet level-0 PCs, and you select randomly from the stack.
And there is also an "Upper Level Character Generator":
https://purplesorcerer.com/create_upper.php
YMMV.
FWIW, while I prefer 3d6 in-order, I understand why those that want to play high-fantasy games, with a single specific race/class PC in a long-term game, or just are attached to their PCs, would want more control over chargin. I agree that for some it would suck to want to play a fighter in a long-term game and roll a "5" for STR (I have one player that would see that as a challenge to be met).
In those cases, skewed random rolls, a standard array, or point-buy have their merits.
But if you are playing low-fantasy, like a roleplaying challenge, and/or get to play multiple PCs in a long-term game, I believe that 3d6 in-order is a better match.
YMMV.
Quote from: Zalman on July 01, 2021, 10:28:55 AM
I am noticing a lot of conflation in this thread. "3d6 down the line" has two elements to it: its stat range, and its order. It seems to me that most people who dislike this method argue against one or the other only, and yet prefer an alternative that dispenses with both. I think each element has its own advantages and disadvantages, and that they are severable.
Eh, I argue against both. I have limited free time and no desire to run a PC I have no investment in or a desire to play. Random results and random order both make those more difficult and funnels just waste time you could have spent playing a PC you actually give a damn about.
I also find funnels rather limited in the type of campaigns they can support simply because they alway open with a meat grinder.
"You'll learn to love this randomly generated character if you play it enough," is the same logic as your parents telling you that "you'll love camping if you just do it enough."
That I say "Screw camping! I'd rather not take a vacation than go camping... at least I get paid for the discomfort of working" despite FIFTEEN years of 2-4 week summer family camping trips and a week of Scout Camp for half-a-dozen on top says that line of reasoning is a load of male bovine manure.
OSR-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.
Quote from: dkabq on July 01, 2021, 11:08:34 AM
FWIW, while I prefer 3d6 in-order, I understand why those that want to play high-fantasy games, with a single specific race/class PC in a long-term game, or just are attached to their PCs, would want more control over chargin. I agree that for some it would suck to want to play a fighter in a long-term game and roll a "5" for STR (I have one player that would see that as a challenge to be met).
In those cases, skewed random rolls, a standard array, or point-buy have their merits.
But if you are playing low-fantasy, like a roleplaying challenge, and/or get to play multiple PCs in a long-term game, I believe that 3d6 in-order is a better match.
YMMV.
I think 3d6 works for DCC, mainly because you roll up LOTS of characters, and you still pick the characters, and then fate sorts them for you (which IME, players tend to throw the worst characters away to death traps and leading charges). Rolling one character to come up with a warrior who cant lift a shield? No thanks. I am pretending to be someone BETTER than me, not someone who is worse. I do think it makes a mythical 18 much more valuable of course. But I dont think high fantasy is the realm of high attributes. Real life, high fantasy, sword and sorcery, etc are all pretty good examples of outstanding people going into careers that match their attributes.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on June 30, 2021, 07:57:44 PM
Quote from: dkabq on June 29, 2021, 08:17:07 PMBecause even with crap stats it is better than continuing to be a Gong Farmer.
Most people do not appreciate that the life of a peasant has uncertainties, too. Many were and are only one unusually wet or dry season away from starvation. Subsistence farming offered miserable poverty and a chance of death. Being an adventurer would offer miserable poverty and a chance of death - but also a chance of riches!
As well, the old "join the army, see the world!" thing was not always a joke as it is today. Tomorrow morning, pack a lunch and water bottle and go out and walk as far as you can for four hours. Sit down there, eat your lunch and drink your water and rest for an hour, then walk for another four hours. Take a note of where you are and how far you've come. Most people will be unlikely to have gone more than thirty miles, twenty is more common.
When you make your way back home by taxi or public transport or ride from a friend, get out a map and look at the various places you've travelled to in your life, and figure out how long it would have taken you to get there on foot as you went today.
Historically, most people never went more than a day's walk from their home village. Those who joined the army or navy really would get to see the world, and see people and places most would never see.
Adventure!
Plus, a 1st level character is remarkably more powerful than a 0-level commoner.
The Roman army did not recruit based on the pay and retirement plan. They sold the fact that winning armies get to LOOT!! But, they also had some requirements for stature and build. they were not so interested in the dude who was sickly and weak.
I generally prefer point buy or array, but if random rolling: 4d6, drop lowest, arrange.
There was a really odd one I saw once, I think in Dragon Magazine, which gave you a pool of dice -- 20 or 30 or something. You'd assign a number of dice to each stat, and then roll and keep the best 3 (since you can't exceed the 18 attribute cap). Let's say your DM gives you 24d6 to work with, and you're a fighter. So you'd do this:
STR: 5d6
DEX: 4d6
CON: 5d6
INT: 3d6
WIS: 3d6
CHA: 4d6
Not sure if I like it, but it is interesting.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on July 01, 2021, 12:13:41 PM
I generally prefer point buy or array, but if random rolling: 4d6, drop lowest, arrange.
There was a really odd one I saw once, I think in Dragon Magazine, which gave you a pool of dice -- 20 or 30 or something. You'd assign a number of dice to each stat, and then roll and keep the best 3 (since you can't exceed the 18 attribute cap). Let's say your DM gives you 24d6 to work with, and you're a fighter. So you'd do this:
STR: 5d6
DEX: 4d6
CON: 5d6
INT: 3d6
WIS: 3d6
CHA: 4d6
Not sure if I like it, but it is interesting.
Definitely interesting, but ultimately all the alternate methods comes down to "how do we increase the odds of giving a player the character they actually want to play without alienating the players who want to feel special because they were lucky with the RNG?"
It's basically trying to have the cake and eat it too while still having the problem that there's enough wiggle room that if you suspect a player is a dice fudger you're still going to want them to roll the character up in front of you.
Which is one of other nice things about arrays/point buy; you don't need to take the player's word for it... the numbers either add up or they don't. Which in turn means that CharGen can be homework instead of taking up table time. Session Zero can be brainstorming ideas for PCs with actual associations and reasons for adventuring both generally and with each other and collaborating with the GM on how they fit into the GM's campaign world.
It's NOT OSR-style play, but not everything has to be.
Quote from: Zalman on July 01, 2021, 10:28:55 AM
I am noticing a lot of conflation in this thread. "3d6 down the line" has two elements to it: its stat range, and its order. It seems to me that most people who dislike this method argue against one or the other only, and yet prefer an alternative that dispenses with both. I think each element has its own advantages and disadvantages, and that they are severable.
I suspect they're being conflated because that's the usage pattern. There are some gamers (mostly old-schoolers) who use 3d6 in order; and some old-schoolers and some new-schoolers use best-3-of-4d6 and arrange (that's Method I in the original DMG).
As far as I know, I don't think anyone uses best-3-of-4d6 down the line; or roll 3d6 and arrange. Though I'd be curious if anyone has experience with those.
Quote from: Chris24601 on July 01, 2021, 02:13:53 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on July 01, 2021, 12:13:41 PM
I generally prefer point buy or array, but if random rolling: 4d6, drop lowest, arrange.
There was a really odd one I saw once, I think in Dragon Magazine, which gave you a pool of dice -- 20 or 30 or something. You'd assign a number of dice to each stat, and then roll and keep the best 3 (since you can't exceed the 18 attribute cap). Let's say your DM gives you 24d6 to work with, and you're a fighter. So you'd do this:
STR: 5d6
DEX: 4d6
CON: 5d6
INT: 3d6
WIS: 3d6
CHA: 4d6
Not sure if I like it, but it is interesting.
Definitely interesting, but ultimately all the alternate methods comes down to "how do we increase the odds of giving a player the character they actually want to play without alienating the players who want to feel special because they were lucky with the RNG?"
It's basically trying to have the cake and eat it too while still having the problem that there's enough wiggle room that if you suspect a player is a dice fudger you're still going to want them to roll the character up in front of you.
Which is one of other nice things about arrays/point buy; you don't need to take the player's word for it... the numbers either add up or they don't. Which in turn means that CharGen can be homework instead of taking up table time. Session Zero can be brainstorming ideas for PCs with actual associations and reasons for adventuring both generally and with each other and collaborating with the GM on how they fit into the GM's campaign world.
It's NOT OSR-style play, but not everything has to be.
Completely agree. PF2E's character generation (where every option you pick as you build your PC bumps one stat or another) is also neat.
OSR is nice, but it's not like the Ten Commandments, carved into stone and brought down the mountain by Gygax and Arneson :)
Quote from: jhkim on July 01, 2021, 02:37:25 PM
As far as I know, I don't think anyone uses best-3-of-4d6 down the line; or roll 3d6 and arrange. Though I'd be curious if anyone has experience with those.
I have done both of those and run a game with them, along with too many options to list. Though I'm not sure that exactly counts, because that was with a group that would try something different every weekend, roll up characters, get them killed, and reset the deck for trying something new next week.
Having tried nearly everything at one time or another, I'm largely in the camp of wanting
one of the following:
- The characters are practically throwaway, you go through them fast, until you latch onto one that you like. Lots of rolls spread over many characters. The fun is dealing with it best you can.
- The characters are designed to be long term from the get go and abilities are relatively set at the beginning. The exact method doesn't matter that much, as long as it tends to not produce a lot of outliers. The fun is getting to do what you want.
- The characters may or may not be long term (depending on events in the game). Abilities have some way of improving that tends to even them out somewhat if the game goes long enough. The fun is that abilities scores are just another way in which your character advances.
For the same reason, in D&D I prefer either fixed hit points OR rerolling the whole set at each level. (At 2nd level, roll both dice. If total greater than current hit points, take the new roll.)
However, I usually don't like "carefully crafted to make everything fit exactly towards some mechanical ideal" characters, either. So that means some kind of randomness, somewhere. Or when I do want that, I want more options than D&D will typically provide. Might as well play Fantasy Hero or GURPS.
Quote from: jhkim on July 01, 2021, 02:37:25 PM
Quote from: Zalman on July 01, 2021, 10:28:55 AM
I am noticing a lot of conflation in this thread. "3d6 down the line" has two elements to it: its stat range, and its order. It seems to me that most people who dislike this method argue against one or the other only, and yet prefer an alternative that dispenses with both. I think each element has its own advantages and disadvantages, and that they are severable.
I suspect they're being conflated because that's the usage pattern. There are some gamers (mostly old-schoolers) who use 3d6 in order; and some old-schoolers and some new-schoolers use best-3-of-4d6 and arrange (that's Method I in the original DMG).
As far as I know, I don't think anyone uses best-3-of-4d6 down the line; or roll 3d6 and arrange. Though I'd be curious if anyone has experience with those.
Pretty much seen the same thing. I use 3d6 in order for my OD&D games, but have used 3d6 arrange for BX/LOTFP. However, after moving over to the playtest rules for lamentations, I went back to 3d6 in order. In general though, it seems 3d6 in order are married more often than not. Same with 4d6 arrange.
Quote from: Shasarak on July 01, 2021, 02:30:54 AM
I thought we agreed that 4e sucked because of the art direction? :P
What part? The PHB I had a look through looked fine? Aside from some of the dragonborn looking like someone dropped an anvil on their heads... ow...
3e or 3.5 on the other hand... MM was pretty bad.
Can we all at least agree that the 12d0/1 +8 in order method is the best? 8)
I liked 3d6 in order, but I also like Method V.
Quote from: Zalman on July 01, 2021, 10:28:55 AM
I am noticing a lot of conflation in this thread. "3d6 down the line" has two elements to it: its stat range, and its order. It seems to me that most people who dislike this method argue against one or the other only, and yet prefer an alternative that dispenses with both. I think each element has its own advantages and disadvantages, and that they are severable.
Put me down for neither 3d6 nor down the line.
No body got time for that shit.
Quote from: Omega on July 01, 2021, 03:22:23 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on July 01, 2021, 02:30:54 AM
I thought we agreed that 4e sucked because of the art direction? :P
What part?
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c7/b3/68/c7b368d63715a075b202bd52bf9a54d4.png)
Quote from: jhkim on July 01, 2021, 02:37:25 PM
Quote from: Zalman on July 01, 2021, 10:28:55 AM
I am noticing a lot of conflation in this thread. "3d6 down the line" has two elements to it: its stat range, and its order. It seems to me that most people who dislike this method argue against one or the other only, and yet prefer an alternative that dispenses with both. I think each element has its own advantages and disadvantages, and that they are severable.
I suspect they're being conflated because that's the usage pattern. There are some gamers (mostly old-schoolers) who use 3d6 in order; and some old-schoolers and some new-schoolers use best-3-of-4d6 and arrange (that's Method I in the original DMG).
As far as I know, I don't think anyone uses best-3-of-4d6 down the line; or roll 3d6 and arrange. Though I'd be curious if anyone has experience with those.
I primarily use Best 3 of 4d6, Straight Down the Line. I love it. Using it right now, by the way. 16 S, 12 D, 12 C, 9 Int, 13 W, 11 Cha. Hello Mr. Fighter.
Quote from: oggsmash on July 01, 2021, 11:27:47 AMThe Roman army did not recruit based on the pay and retirement plan. They sold the fact that winning armies get to LOOT!! But, they also had some requirements for stature and build. they were not so interested in the dude who was sickly and weak.
Yes, this is why a fighter must have at least Str 9 and Con 7 in AD&D1e.
It's not until you hit Con 6 that you get a malus to hit points - which is about when someone might perceive you as "sickly."
Strength likewise has no malus until 6, but the army would also be concerned about your being able to move equipment and your encumbrance, too. Remember that you can do a strict overhead press of 10lb for each point of Strength (with some more complex rules for percentile) which means a minimum press of 90lb. It's that sort of level you'd need to be able to put a heavy pack on your back, help move around tent poles and fortification stakes, and so on.
Quote from: Jam The MF on June 29, 2021, 07:43:08 PMYes, 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.
Obviously both of these stats are possible with just 3d6 (if somewhat unlikely.) The chances of rolling no stat (out of 6) greater than 11 are the same as rolling no stat lower than a 10. And those chances are about 6%.
On the other hand, the chances of rolling a character better than 17 14 15 11 12 10 in at least one stat with just 3d6 is about 80%, believe it or not.
Quote from: Chris24601 on July 01, 2021, 10:13:30 AMAnother thing that doesn't sit right about the randomized stats is the degree to which training plays a part. I'll never be a top tier athlete, but if I started weight and endurance training plus practicing particular sports I guarantee my Str, Dex and Con stats would be vastly better a year from now than they are presently.
In Basic, this was achieved by exchanging ability score points 2 for 1 in your prime stat. Although you could not lower a stat below 9 and you could not lower Dex, Cha, or Con.
Quote from: BasicThis is like practicing hard to
learn your Class, but at the cost of not
developing another Ability at the same
time.
In BECMI/AD&D, the 2 for 1 exchange isn't terribly crippling since losing a couple points out of a stat that was average generally wouldn't apply a penalty. If you needed a one point bump to push you over into the +10% XP range or to boost to the next point of bonus to whatever, it was generally a good deal.
Quote from: mightybrain on July 01, 2021, 08:48:42 PM
Quote from: Jam The MF on June 29, 2021, 07:43:08 PMYes, 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.
Obviously both of these stats are possible with just 3d6 (if somewhat unlikely.) The chances of rolling no stat (out of 6) greater than 11 are the same as rolling no stat lower than a 10. And those chances are about 6%.
On the other hand, the chances of rolling a character better than [17 14 15 11 12 10] in at least one stat with just 3d6 is about 80%, believe it or not.
I believe that what you are saying is that if you roll 3d6 in-order, there is a an 80% chance that one of the stats you roll will be higher than its corresponding value in [17 14 15 11 12 10]. For example if you rolled [3 3 3 3 3 11], you would have met your success criterion. I ran 10,000,000 trials for three replicates and calculated a probability of 80.0%
However, the probability of rolling a better PC where at least one stat was better than [17 14 15
11 12 10] (for example if you rolled [17 14 15
12 12 10] is 0.0001%, calculated with 10,000,000 trials for three replicates.
The probability of rolling a PC with a better stat array than [17 14 15 11 12 10] (for example [17 15 14
13 12 10] is better than [17 15 14 12 11 10]) is 10%, calculated with 10,000,000 trials for three replicates. Note that in this instance the stat order does not matter, so [11 11 12 14 15 17] is better than [17 15 14 12 11 10].
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 01, 2021, 08:19:18 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on July 01, 2021, 11:27:47 AMThe Roman army did not recruit based on the pay and retirement plan. They sold the fact that winning armies get to LOOT!! But, they also had some requirements for stature and build. they were not so interested in the dude who was sickly and weak.
Yes, this is why a fighter must have at least Str 9 and Con 7 in AD&D1e.
It's not until you hit Con 6 that you get a malus to hit points - which is about when someone might perceive you as "sickly."
Strength likewise has no malus until 6, but the army would also be concerned about your being able to move equipment and your encumbrance, too. Remember that you can do a strict overhead press of 10lb for each point of Strength (with some more complex rules for percentile) which means a minimum press of 90lb. It's that sort of level you'd need to be able to put a heavy pack on your back, help move around tent poles and fortification stakes, and so on.
I remember using that funky formula they had in the Phb for YEARS while I was in high school to track my real life strength "stat". I can even remember knowing I had finally hit a 18/62 Str when I was 25 and thinking to myself that was likely my cap of all time. And it was.
Quote from: oggsmash on July 02, 2021, 02:21:08 PMwhen I was 25 and thinking to myself that was likely my cap of all time. And it was.
That's why Gygax put that age chart in the DMG. I hope you levelled up before you aged!
You cant change your stats by exercising or studying!
Only by sucking the sweet sweet xps from your defeated foes.
Quote from: Shasarak on July 02, 2021, 07:59:04 PM
You cant change your stats by exercising or studying!
Only by sucking the sweet sweet xps from your defeated foes.
Actually, back in first edition, wasnt there a book you could read, and do the exercises and gain constitution and strength (Tome of gainful exercise??).
Quote from: Shasarak on July 02, 2021, 07:59:04 PM
You cant change your stats by exercising or studying!
Only by sucking the sweet sweet xps from your defeated foes.
In Classic
Traveller, you can take up gym work and get a +1 to your Strength, Dexterity and Endurance - all at once! This bonus will remain, but after four years you must make a "dedication throw" of 8+ on 2d6 to make it stick. No word on whether you can stack it, getting +1 every four years. This gives a 42% chance of a permanent +1 to Str/Dex/End.
In my gym experience, that understates the benefit (stat bonus) and overstates the chances of the person sticking with it. Even those who work out a few months get a huge leap in ability, more like +2 or +3 - but very few do it for more than a few months, and most of those who come to the gym go through the motions and aren't getting further stat improvements.
Of course, we could say the same for academic pursuits. CT also allows you to take courses to improve Education, each taking about a year - up to your level of Intelligence.
Lifting and running are a lot of effort. It'd be much easier if I could just hit people and level up.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on July 02, 2021, 08:51:20 AMIn BECMI/AD&D, the 2 for 1 exchange isn't terribly crippling since losing a couple points out of a stat that was average generally wouldn't apply a penalty. If you needed a one point bump to push you over into the +10% XP range or to boost to the next point of bonus to whatever, it was generally a good deal.
Using straight 3d6 in order and adjusting in this way you can expect 40% of characters you roll to have a 10% bonus, and another almost 40% to have a 5% bonus. Although the rules allowed for negatives for low stat values in your prime requisite I think that was only to cater for stat reduction effects in play. Most low roll stats would get rejected by one of the two rules: 2 or more stats of less than 6, or a highest stat of 8 or less. And even then, the chances of rolling that badly were less than 3%.
Quote from: oggsmash on July 02, 2021, 08:05:10 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on July 02, 2021, 07:59:04 PM
You cant change your stats by exercising or studying!
Only by sucking the sweet sweet xps from your defeated foes.
Actually, back in first edition, wasnt there a book you could read, and do the exercises and gain constitution and strength (Tome of gainful exercise??).
Yeah, I remember that one
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71lkb-0fZgL._RI_.jpg)
Been rolling a bunch of character / npc / villain stats; using 4d6 drop the lowest, straight down the line.
Just rolled up a dandy.
10 Str
15 Dex
16 Con
15 Int
16 Wis
17 Cha
An honest to goodness ringer, of a character. Using modern modifiers (18 = +4); that's a +2 or +3 for all 3 main saves, and extra HP. Heck, a +2 or +3 for 5 of the 6 Ability Scores.
I promise, it has taken dozens and dozens of characters to get this one; straight down the line.
Quote from: Jam The MF on July 02, 2021, 09:27:02 PM
Been rolling a bunch of character / npc / villain stats; using 4d6 drop the lowest, straight down the line.
Just rolled up a dandy.
10 Str
15 Dex
16 Con
15 Int
16 Wis
17 Cha
An honest to goodness ringer, of a character. Using modern modifiers (18 = +4); that's a +2 or +3 for all 3 main saves, and extra HP. Heck, a +2 or +3 for 5 of the 6 Ability Scores.
I promise, it has taken dozens and dozens of characters to get this one; straight down the line.
You character's stats add up to 89.
I just rolled up 10,000 characters using 4d6 best 3. Only 119 of those characters had an ability score total of 89 or higher. Your character is 1 in 100.
Quote from: Pat on July 02, 2021, 09:51:23 PM
Quote from: Jam The MF on July 02, 2021, 09:27:02 PM
Been rolling a bunch of character / npc / villain stats; using 4d6 drop the lowest, straight down the line.
Just rolled up a dandy.
10 Str
15 Dex
16 Con
15 Int
16 Wis
17 Cha
An honest to goodness ringer, of a character. Using modern modifiers (18 = +4); that's a +2 or +3 for all 3 main saves, and extra HP. Heck, a +2 or +3 for 5 of the 6 Ability Scores.
I promise, it has taken dozens and dozens of characters to get this one; straight down the line.
You character's stats add up to 89.
I just rolled up 10,000 characters using 4d6 best 3. Only 119 of those characters had an ability score total of 89 or higher. Your character is 1 in 100.
Thank you, for putting that into perspective. Definitely not a Strength-based dynamo, but rock solid otherwise. I have rolled some dandy characters before, on rare occasions; with a 17 and 18, or 16 and 18. But this one is about as versatile top to bottom, as I can remember.
Quote from: Jam The MF on July 02, 2021, 10:10:26 PM
Thank you, for putting that into perspective. Definitely not a Strength-based dynamo, but rock solid otherwise. I have rolled some dandy characters before, on rare occasions; with a 17 and 18, or 16 and 18. But this one is about as versatile top to bottom, as I can remember.
Most of the other 89s (and a lot of those 119 characters were 89s) had more 18s. Your character is more of a generalist.
If you're curious, the best character out of 10,000 was 18, 17, 17, 15, 15, 15 (97 points).
Quote from: Pat on July 02, 2021, 10:14:28 PM
Quote from: Jam The MF on July 02, 2021, 10:10:26 PM
Thank you, for putting that into perspective. Definitely not a Strength-based dynamo, but rock solid otherwise. I have rolled some dandy characters before, on rare occasions; with a 17 and 18, or 16 and 18. But this one is about as versatile top to bottom, as I can remember.
Most of the other 89s (and a lot of those 119 characters were 89s) had more 18s. Your character is more of a generalist.
If you're curious, the best character out of 10,000 was 18, 17, 17, 15, 15, 15 (97 points).
Looking back through old 4d6 stat sets I had rolled in the past, I found one character with a total of 90. A total dynamo, but not a single 18.
17 Str
15 Dex
13 Con
15 Int
17 Wis
13 Cha
I think I wrote War Priest beside that stat set. That will be tough for anyone to beat.
I also found one set with a total of 91, believe it or not. Lots and lots of rolling stats.
14 Str
15 Dex
14 Con
13 Int
18 Wis
17 Cha
More reasonable stats, but still an awesome fighter:
17 Str
14 Dex
17 Con
13 Int
11 Wis
9 Cha
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/EvfkuMW.jpg)
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/EvfkuMW.jpg)
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.
Quote from: Pat on July 03, 2021, 02:27:44 PMAD&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.
If I'm reading it right, both AD&D and Basic D&D expect you to roll your stats before you choose your character race / class. AD&D doesn't appear to have any rules about unplayable characters (before choose race and class) except an implication that you should keep rolling until you get an acceptable character. I guess the hope is that the various rolling methods I to IV should avoid the need for that.
Quote from: mightybrain on July 04, 2021, 07:23:25 PM
Quote from: Pat on July 03, 2021, 02:27:44 PMAD&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.
If I'm reading it right, both AD&D and Basic D&D expect you to roll your stats before you choose your character race / class. AD&D doesn't appear to have any rules about unplayable characters (before choose race and class) except an implication that you should keep rolling until you get an acceptable character. I guess the hope is that the various rolling methods I to IV should avoid the need for that.
The AD&D PHB was released a year prior, to the release of the DMG; so the game was played for a year, prior to any additional methods spelled out in the DMG.
Quote from: mightybrain on July 04, 2021, 07:23:25 PM
Quote from: Pat on July 03, 2021, 02:27:44 PMAD&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.
If I'm reading it right, both AD&D and Basic D&D expect you to roll your stats before you choose your character race / class. AD&D doesn't appear to have any rules about unplayable characters (before choose race and class) except an implication that you should keep rolling until you get an acceptable character. I guess the hope is that the various rolling methods I to IV should avoid the need for that.
AD&D has implicit rules. Each of the races has stat mins and maxes, though since (male) humans don't have any restrictions, human can always serve as a fall back. But each of the classes have stat minimums, and it's possible to roll a character who doesn't qualify for any class. For instance a character with S 5 and I 8. The reason that doesn't work is because you need at least an I 9 to play a magic-user, but characters with S 5 or less are only allowed to be magic-users. This being AD&D, which arrays don't qualify for any class cam get fairly complex, but in practice it doesn't come up that often.
I don't know if anyone has an accurate number for the total D&D players in the world. I've seen ~10,000,000 used. Given that, and assuming they each make one character using 4d6 and drop the lowest, here's what the top ten rolled characters would look like:
[18, 18, 17, 18, 16, 16] total = 103
[18, 18, 17, 18, 16, 16] total = 103
[17, 18, 17, 18, 16, 17] total = 103
[18, 17, 17, 17, 17, 17] total = 103
[16, 18, 18, 16, 18, 17] total = 103
[16, 18, 16, 18, 17, 17] total = 102
[16, 17, 17, 17, 17, 18] total = 102
[18, 17, 18, 14, 17, 18] total = 102
[17, 17, 18, 18, 16, 16] total = 102
[17, 18, 17, 15, 18, 17] total = 102
Whereas with 3d6 they would look more like this:
[17, 17, 15, 17, 16, 17] total = 99
[16, 15, 15, 18, 17, 17] total = 98
[14, 18, 17, 18, 15, 15] total = 97
[13, 18, 17, 17, 16, 16] total = 97
[16, 11, 18, 16, 18, 17] total = 96
[18, 15, 15, 16, 16, 16] total = 96
[17, 17, 15, 16, 17, 14] total = 96
[17, 14, 16, 15, 17, 17] total = 96
[16, 17, 17, 18, 12, 15] total = 95
[17, 15, 16, 17, 13, 17] total = 95
Those top results are crazy.
Quote from: mightybrain on July 04, 2021, 08:13:24 PM
I don't know if anyone has an accurate number for the total D&D players in the world. I've seen ~10,000,000 used. Given that, and assuming they each make one character using 4d6 and drop the lowest, here's what the top ten rolled characters would look like:
[18, 18, 17, 18, 16, 16] total = 103
[18, 18, 17, 18, 16, 16] total = 103
[17, 18, 17, 18, 16, 17] total = 103
[18, 17, 17, 17, 17, 17] total = 103
[16, 18, 18, 16, 18, 17] total = 103
[16, 18, 16, 18, 17, 17] total = 102
[16, 17, 17, 17, 17, 18] total = 102
[18, 17, 18, 14, 17, 18] total = 102
[17, 17, 18, 18, 16, 16] total = 102
[17, 18, 17, 15, 18, 17] total = 102
Whereas with 3d6 they would look more like this:
[17, 17, 15, 17, 16, 17] total = 99
[16, 15, 15, 18, 17, 17] total = 98
[14, 18, 17, 18, 15, 15] total = 97
[13, 18, 17, 17, 16, 16] total = 97
[16, 11, 18, 16, 18, 17] total = 96
[18, 15, 15, 16, 16, 16] total = 96
[17, 17, 15, 16, 17, 14] total = 96
[17, 14, 16, 15, 17, 17] total = 96
[16, 17, 17, 18, 12, 15] total = 95
[17, 15, 16, 17, 13, 17] total = 95
I assume you ran 10,000,000 trials. How many replicates did you run?
The absoukte best roll ive seen a player get was 4 18s and 2 17s, and whats crazy is she's dine this twice, only the 2nd time one if the 17s was a 16.
Quote from: mightybrain on July 04, 2021, 08:13:24 PM
I don't know if anyone has an accurate number for the total D&D players in the world. I've seen ~10,000,000 used. Given that, and assuming they each make one character using 4d6 and drop the lowest, here's what the top ten rolled characters would look like:
[18, 18, 17, 18, 16, 16] total = 103
[18, 18, 17, 18, 16, 16] total = 103
[17, 18, 17, 18, 16, 17] total = 103
[18, 17, 17, 17, 17, 17] total = 103
[16, 18, 18, 16, 18, 17] total = 103
[16, 18, 16, 18, 17, 17] total = 102
[16, 17, 17, 17, 17, 18] total = 102
[18, 17, 18, 14, 17, 18] total = 102
[17, 17, 18, 18, 16, 16] total = 102
[17, 18, 17, 15, 18, 17] total = 102
Whereas with 3d6 they would look more like this:
[17, 17, 15, 17, 16, 17] total = 99
[16, 15, 15, 18, 17, 17] total = 98
[14, 18, 17, 18, 15, 15] total = 97
[13, 18, 17, 17, 16, 16] total = 97
[16, 11, 18, 16, 18, 17] total = 96
[18, 15, 15, 16, 16, 16] total = 96
[17, 17, 15, 16, 17, 14] total = 96
[17, 14, 16, 15, 17, 17] total = 96
[16, 17, 17, 18, 12, 15] total = 95
[17, 15, 16, 17, 13, 17] total = 95
Of course - that's assuming that dice are totally random. Even the best dice will slant a bit - and some dice are pretty badly weighted.
So - I'd assume that more extreme rolls would be more common than that simply due to improperly weighted dice.
Quote from: dkabq on July 04, 2021, 09:20:56 PM
I assume you ran 10,000,000 trials. How many replicates did you run?
Only one.
Here's a second run with 3d6:
[16, 18, 16, 18, 13, 17] total = 98
[17, 17, 18, 18, 11, 17] total = 98
[17, 16, 15, 18, 16, 16] total = 98
[17, 18, 16, 12, 17, 17] total = 97
[12, 18, 16, 18, 16, 17] total = 97
[17, 13, 18, 17, 16, 16] total = 97
[15, 17, 15, 17, 14, 18] total = 96
[17, 11, 17, 18, 17, 16] total = 96
[18, 15, 17, 17, 14, 15] total = 96
[15, 16, 17, 13, 17, 18] total = 96
Not vastly different.
Quote from: Slambo on July 04, 2021, 10:15:37 PM
The absoukte best roll ive seen a player get was 4 18s and 2 17s, and whats crazy is she's dine this twice, only the 2nd time one if the 17s was a 16.
Was that with 4d6 drop the lowest, or 3d6?
I think the highest I've seen is one 18 and one 17. And I thought that was pretty lucky even with 4d6 and drop the lowest.
Straight down the line gives the representation, that these are the cards you were dealt at birth. This is what you started out with. You're just playing the hand that you were dealt. It offers an insight into who exists in your setting. I don't mind a person rolling up 3 or 4 characters, and choosing one to play first; but those other characters they rolled, also exist in the setting. They just aren't part of the adventuring party, yet.
I'd note here two things. The best stat rolls in terms of total number of points does not necessarily generate the best character for a particular class. And your party is unlikely to be made up entirely out of such one in a million characters.
Here, for example, is the best party in terms of total points from 2 million parties of 5:
[15, 12, 15, 14, 6, 12]
[12, 16, 12, 14, 11, 13]
[10, 13, 16, 17, 10, 14]
[14, 16, 7, 15, 13, 17]
[12, 14, 14, 13, 10, 17]
I'm sure there are many better parties in that mix, but I won't find them using a pure points criteria.
Quote from: mightybrain on July 05, 2021, 07:52:14 AM
I'd note here two things. The best stat rolls in terms of total number of points does not necessarily generate the best character for a particular class. And your party is unlikely to be made up entirely out of such one in a million characters.
Here, for example, is the best party in terms of total points from 2 million parties of 5:
[15, 12, 15, 14, 6, 12]
[12, 16, 12, 14, 11, 13]
[10, 13, 16, 17, 10, 14]
[14, 16, 7, 15, 13, 17]
[12, 14, 14, 13, 10, 17]
I'm sure there are many better parties in that mix, but I won't find them using a pure points criteria.
FWIW, another metric of "goodness" to consider would be the sum of the stat bonuses/penalties.
Quote from: dkabq on July 05, 2021, 08:20:12 AM
FWIW, another metric of "goodness" to consider would be the sum of the stat bonuses/penalties.
That's less universal, because it varies by edition. Point totals are the most broadly applicable standard.
Another option is some kind of point buy total, like third edition's, which would favor exceptional scores combined with poor scores over consistently high scores. But again, this should be tweaked by edition.
Quote from: mightybrain on July 05, 2021, 02:43:48 AM
Quote from: Slambo on July 04, 2021, 10:15:37 PM
The absoukte best roll ive seen a player get was 4 18s and 2 17s, and whats crazy is she's dine this twice, only the 2nd time one if the 17s was a 16.
Was that with 4d6 drop the lowest, or 3d6?
I think the highest I've seen is one 18 and one 17. And I thought that was pretty lucky even with 4d6 and drop the lowest.
Its been a while but i think it was 4d6 drop lowest. Though...she did 3d6 in order for out swords and wizardry game and her lowest stat there are really good and those were digital dice. I think she's just lucky.
Quote from: Slambo on July 05, 2021, 11:12:32 AM
Quote from: mightybrain on July 05, 2021, 02:43:48 AM
Quote from: Slambo on July 04, 2021, 10:15:37 PM
The absoukte best roll ive seen a player get was 4 18s and 2 17s, and whats crazy is she's dine this twice, only the 2nd time one if the 17s was a 16.
Was that with 4d6 drop the lowest, or 3d6?
I think the highest I've seen is one 18 and one 17. And I thought that was pretty lucky even with 4d6 and drop the lowest.
Its been a while but i think it was 4d6 drop lowest. Though...she did 3d6 in order for out swords and wizardry game and her lowest stat there are really good and those were digital dice. I think she's just lucky.
4 18s and 2 17s isn't just lucky, it's the third best of all possible rolls. That's Teela Brown lucky.
Best I ever scored on 3d6 in order back in the day was a human fighter with Str 17, Dex 18, Con 16, Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 16.
I could have gone thief I suppose, but the better armor and hit points (I believe I had AC 0 [chain+shield] and 11 hp out of the box) were worth it... they let the PC survive the early levels and they eventually found some gauntlets of ogre power which gave me the 18/00 Strength anyway.
I've been rolling stats a lot. Finally rolled a character set with 92 total points; using 4d6, and drop the lowest. Straight down the line:
Str 15
Dex 17
Con 15
Int. 13
Wis 15
Cha 17
Two +3's, Three +2's, and a +1. Man, that's stout!!!
Quote from: Chris24601 on July 05, 2021, 11:51:01 AM
Best I ever scored on 3d6 in order back in the day was a human fighter with Str 17, Dex 18, Con 16, Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 16.
Studies on penis size have noted that penises measured by their owners at home are always larger than penises measured in the lab.
It's amazing how well people roll when nobody's looking.
You should probably get better looking lab techs.
Just saying.
Has always been point buy for me. Easier to make builds that way and when the entire group uses point buy or standard array it becomes easier for the DM to design encounters and what not. If I am not mistaken some systems balance their monsters based on standard array and point buy characters.
When I first encountered point buy I thought it was a great idea, since all characters would be balanced with each other and with the monsters. However, after playing for a while, it turned out that balance made for a more predictable and dull game.
Those who've played basic... what was your typical party composition; did you mix up classes, or was every party all fighters?
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 07, 2021, 10:39:39 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on July 05, 2021, 11:51:01 AM
Best I ever scored on 3d6 in order back in the day was a human fighter with Str 17, Dex 18, Con 16, Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 16.
Studies on penis size have noted that penises measured by their owners at home are always larger than penises measured in the lab.
It's amazing how well people roll when nobody's looking.
That result was in front of the DM. It's funny that you think you're funny.
We believe you, Chris.
#believeallhighrollinggamers
3d6 in order. 4d6 in order if your soft.
It's amazing how many times people have begged me for 4d6 and just cried and cried when they still for crap scores.
Nah,3d6 in order. Love that 8 strength fighter and watch him go all the way!
Quote from: Gameogre on July 08, 2021, 10:04:41 AM
3d6 in order. 4d6 in order if your soft.
It's amazing how many times people have begged me for 4d6 and just cried and cried when they still for crap scores.
Nah,3d6 in order. Love that 8 strength fighter and watch him go all the way!
Even with 4d6 drop the lowest, I still get some 8's and 9's. Even a 6, here recently. There are no.guarantees.
To put it in some perspective, if you roll a new character (4d6 drop the lowest) every day you'll get about one 92 point or better character per year.
With 3d6 you'll be lucky to get one in your lifetime.
That said, with either method it's possible to do it in one attempt. Possible, just not very likely.
Quote from: Gameogre on July 08, 2021, 10:04:41 AMIt's amazing how many times people have begged me for 4d6 and just cried and cried when they still for crap scores.
Yeah, I've seen a 50 year old man act like a child over bad stat rolls. It's incredible.
If you're playing basic D&D and you roll 3d6 in order, pick your race/class, and exchange ability scores to raise your prime stat(s) you have an approximately ½% chance of generating a character with a negative prime requisite experience adjustment; a 77% chance of a +5% adjustment; and a 36% chance of a +10% adjustment.
To be fair, even a ½% can represent a lot of characters when you consider millions of players. Still, in terms of the average party, you're only likely get the one no hoper, and that can still be fun to play.
Speaking of odd rolls.
Was making an AD&D character and got this for rolls. Used as is that would make for at least a Cleric. Not a very bright cleric but hey.
ST:7, IN:4, WS:13, DX:8, CN:10, CH:10.
If placing as desired that could make for a viable fighter, magic user, thief even. One of D&D's strengths pre-3e was that even relatively low to average stats like that still made for a playable character.
For a one off BX session I got a character with this for stats.
STR:8, INT:5, WIS:9, DEX:8, CON:9, CHA:13
Feeble Fighter was tempting. Barely Literate Elf though was too funny to pass up. We dub thee Death, the Elf! 8)
Quote from: Omega on July 10, 2021, 08:59:40 PMFor a one off BX session I got a character with this for stats.
STR:8, INT:5, WIS:9, DEX:8, CON:9, CHA:13
Feeble Fighter was tempting. Barely Literate Elf though was too funny to pass up. We dub thee Death, the Elf! 8)
The important thing is to have fun playing the character. Going strictly by the book a character must have an intelligence of 9 or greater to be an elf. But a barely literate dwarf or cleric might be just as amusing to play.
Quote from: mightybrain on July 11, 2021, 08:30:02 AM
Quote from: Omega on July 10, 2021, 08:59:40 PMFor a one off BX session I got a character with this for stats.
STR:8, INT:5, WIS:9, DEX:8, CON:9, CHA:13
Feeble Fighter was tempting. Barely Literate Elf though was too funny to pass up. We dub thee Death, the Elf! 8)
The important thing is to have fun playing the character. Going strictly by the book a character must have an intelligence of 9 or greater to be an elf. But a barely literate dwarf or cleric might be just as amusing to play.
um... No such restriction in BX. All the INT 5 there means is the character is totally illiterate regarding common. (But apparently can read and write Elven.)
STR 8 is just a -1 to hit and damage in melee. and -1 on open doors.
DEX 8 is a +1 penalty to AC, and a -1 penalty to ranged to hit and to initiative.
I could drop the WIS 9 down to a 7 to bump STR or DEX up to 9 and thus remove the penalty.
In AD&D though assigning those rolls allows for a small bit of leeway in what could play.
And heres another oddball for BX.
STR:9, INT:9, WIS:9, DEX:11, CON:11, CHA:11
I get weird patterns like that with surprising frequency when rolling 3d6 in order for some reason.
Quote from: Omega on July 12, 2021, 10:06:51 PM
And heres another oddball for BX.
STR:9, INT:9, WIS:9, DEX:11, CON:11, CHA:11
I get weird patterns like that with surprising frequency when rolling 3d6 in order for some reason.
Not that oddball. It's a very normal set of stats, and humans are good at recognizing patterns, so it's likely that a high proportion of normal rolls will seem ordered in some way. After all, one of the most common arrays is 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8.
That's very different from the the four 18s and two 17s, which is so unlikely we can safely dismiss it.
I admit I've threatened to field-execute my dice on a couple of occasions :D
Using this (https://www.dragonsfoot.org/fe/articles/1echargen.shtml).
Hireling: Str 11, Int 15, Wis 9, Dex 10, Con 13, Cha 5. This could be a decent if unlikable magic-user, but Cha 5 - "here or lower the character can only be an assassin," and they don't have the stats to be an assassin, so this character cannot have a class, and is set aside to be an NPC hireling. Well-educated and smart, but fucking annoying. Let's call him Ackshually.
Thief: Str 6, Int 10, Wis 11, Dex 11, Con 11, Cha 11. A weakling, but otherwise ordinary, and could be an ordinary magic-user, cleric or thief. As an MU they'd struggle a bit with spells beyond their starting ones, as a cleric they'd be unremarkable, a thief would probably be the best choice, though they can't carry much loot, and will have the overhead press of a small female. Perhaps that's what she is? She takes the gems, someone else can carry the coin. We'll call her Slight.
Fighter: Str 10, Int 6, Wis 12, Dex 7, Con 14, Cha 7. This one qualifies as a fighter, tough but clumsy and a bit of an annoying bastard. We'll call him Mongrel.
Cleric: Str 15, Int 13, Wis 15, Dex 11, Con 10, Cha 11. This qualifies for any of the basic four classes, but the 15s tempt me to say he'd be either a wise fighter or a strong cleric. But Strength 15 offers nothing but some increased encumbrance and slightly better BB/LG, whereas Wis 15 gives 2x 1st and 1x 2nd extra spells daily, which could help the party a lot. I think I'd make this one a cleric, give him a club and call him Bludgeon.
Magic-User: Str 7, Int 11, Wis 8, Dex 11, Con 6, Cha 15. I'm a bit worried about this one. They qualify for either magic-user or thief, but won't be able to carry much loot, and with Con 6 they could be slain by a dodgy curry. A thief is expected to fight a bit, which this one definitely shouldn't, and magic-users don't have many hit points anyway, so MU is the way to go, I think. With Charisma 15 they'll get +15% on reaction rolls, so can talk their way out of some fights, and they'll get +15% for their men-at-arm followers - and what does a 1st level magic-user spend their starting coin on but men-at-arms? Let's call her Elvira.
With a player who has been sensible and read the back of the PHB as outlined by Bill (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lDrgX4MbRU), any of the four could be quite playable and useful characters. And the funny thing is, the ones with good stats tend to get killed more often than those with poor or ordinary stats. That's because the player with the Str 18/00 and 10 hit point fighter has him take risks, the player with the Str 11 and 5 hit point fighter tends to be more cautious and think about what he's doing. Avoid unnecessary encounters - especially if you're created using 3d6 in order.
Quote from: Omega on July 12, 2021, 10:06:51 PMum... No such restriction in BX.
Page B9. Elves, paragraph 3 in my copy.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 13, 2021, 08:37:57 AM
Using this (https://www.dragonsfoot.org/fe/articles/1echargen.shtml).
Hireling: Str 11, Int 15, Wis 9, Dex 10, Con 13, Cha 5. This could be a decent if unlikable magic-user, but Cha 5 - "here or lower the character can only be an assassin," and they don't have the stats to be an assassin, so this character cannot have a class, and is set aside to be an NPC hireling. Well-educated and smart, but fucking annoying. Let's call him Ackshually.
Thief: Str 6, Int 10, Wis 11, Dex 11, Con 11, Cha 11. A weakling, but otherwise ordinary, and could be an ordinary magic-user, cleric or thief. As an MU they'd struggle a bit with spells beyond their starting ones, as a cleric they'd be unremarkable, a thief would probably be the best choice, though they can't carry much loot, and will have the overhead press of a small female. Perhaps that's what she is? She takes the gems, someone else can carry the coin. We'll call her Slight.
Fighter: Str 10, Int 6, Wis 12, Dex 7, Con 14, Cha 7. This one qualifies as a fighter, tough but clumsy and a bit of an annoying bastard. We'll call him Mongrel.
Cleric: Str 15, Int 13, Wis 15, Dex 11, Con 10, Cha 11. This qualifies for any of the basic four classes, but the 15s tempt me to say he'd be either a wise fighter or a strong cleric. But Strength 15 offers nothing but some increased encumbrance and slightly better BB/LG, whereas Wis 15 gives 2x 1st and 1x 2nd extra spells daily, which could help the party a lot. I think I'd make this one a cleric, give him a club and call him Bludgeon.
Magic-User: Str 7, Int 11, Wis 8, Dex 11, Con 6, Cha 15. I'm a bit worried about this one. They qualify for either magic-user or thief, but won't be able to carry much loot, and with Con 6 they could be slain by a dodgy curry. A thief is expected to fight a bit, which this one definitely shouldn't, and magic-users don't have many hit points anyway, so MU is the way to go, I think. With Charisma 15 they'll get +15% on reaction rolls, so can talk their way out of some fights, and they'll get +15% for their men-at-arm followers - and what does a 1st level magic-user spend their starting coin on but men-at-arms? Let's call her Elvira.
With a player who has been sensible and read the back of the PHB as outlined by Bill (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lDrgX4MbRU), any of the four could be quite playable and useful characters. And the funny thing is, the ones with good stats tend to get killed more often than those with poor or ordinary stats. That's because the player with the Str 18/00 and 10 hit point fighter has him take risks, the player with the Str 11 and 5 hit point fighter tends to be more cautious and think about what he's doing. Avoid unnecessary encounters - especially if you're created using 3d6 in order.
And that, friends, is why sometimes 'the old style' isn't necessarily the best.
The hireling would make a perfectly serviceable magic-user -- but because of the 'must be an assassin' rule for low Charisma, he's actually (ackshually?) locked out of
everything. He can't be an assassin, because his other attributes aren't high enough.
The thief is... okay, I guess?
Fighter's no great shakes as Con 14 means he doesn't even get a HP bonus. His system shock and resurrection chances are pretty good, though.
Cleric is definitely the rough gem in this lot. With a Wisdom 15, Bludgeon gets a +1 to save against magical effects as well as extra spells. While his Str 15 won't give him any attack bonuses, it does buff his carrying capacity enough to kit him out in heavier armor.
The magic-user... if you could swap Int and Cha, you'd have a pretty effective one. But that Int 11 means Elvira has a 45% chance to learn spells, and can only learn seven spells per level. She won't be casting spells above 5th level, either.
Method IV from the 1st edition DMG involves rolling 3d6 in order, 12 times, and picking your favorite.
Here's a 4 member party randomly rolled that way:
Half-elf fighter/magic-user: S 15, I 17, W 7, D 8, C 16, Ch 11 (74 points). That's a really good roll, with the scores in useful stats. (The second best option was a 73 point character with two 15s, which doesn't amount to much.). The obvious choice would be an elf fighter/magic-user, but that would drop Con to 15, and halve the hp bonus. A half-elf fighter/magic-user, then. Maximum levels f 6/mu 7.
Cleric: S 10, I 9, W 11, D 11, C 12, Ch 16 (69 points). Completely unexceptional, except for Charisma. Which, if you use hirelings and henchmen, is kind of the god stat. It's a toss-up between fighter and cleric, but I'll pick cleric because Strength isn't that great. The second-best alternative (68 points, S 13, I 10, W 14, D 10, C 16, Ch 5), is also a good choice, if I wanted to play a fighter with no personality. But I'll stick with the cleric.
Fighter: S 11, I 10, W 13, D 11, C 14, Ch 15 (74 points) is the best total, but completely uninspiring. Fortunately, I also rolled two 72 point characters, and one of them has an exceptional score: S 14, I 13, W 9, D 11, C 7, Ch 18. So I'll use the that array, instead. How about a fighter? A natural leader of men-at-arms, and strong enough to wear decent armor, but a little sickly. Which might not be the worst situation for a fighter, because it's not low enough to affect hp (Con 6 or less needed to get a penalty to hp).
Magic-user: S 7, I 18, W 11, D 15, C 12, Ch 18 (81 points) just shows how swingy the process can get. That's a full 7 points higher than any of the other sets of 12 characters, and I didn't cheat or reroll multiple times to get that result. Not to mention, I'm ending up with 3 out of 4 characters with Charisma as their highest stat. In any case, a clear magic-user. Can't carry a lot, but wizard robes don't weigh much. The Dex bump to AC is nice. The maxxed out Int means they can learn new spells easily, and can potentially learn to cast 9th level spells. The high Cha would make them a good vizier-type, excelling at politics and manipulation.
The four of them can recruit a total of 41 henchmen (with normal Cha, I'd be limited to 4 per PC). It's an interesting group, and one that I would have never ended up with with point buy.
Supposedly; Gygax himself allowed 4d6 drop the lowest, and arrange as desired at his table. Players also started out at 3rd Level. Gygax also allowed a Balrog PC in one of his games. Therefore, I say just do whatever makes you happy.
Quote from: Jam The MF on July 13, 2021, 02:28:24 PM
Supposedly; Gygax himself allowed 4d6 drop the lowest, and arrange as desired at his table. Players also started out at 3rd Level. Gygax also allowed a Balrog PC in one of his games. Therefore, I say just do whatever makes you happy.
Many people either really enjoy the whole experience of "play what fate has dealt to me and see how it goes" or the other extreme of playing the character they have in mind. Some like a mix of that--often a very specific mix, such as, "fate handed me 1, 2, 3 and from there I take control."
Problem is that it's not at all rare for a given group to have some of both extremes and 1 or 2 in the middle. So "do whatever makes you happy" is a plural you. It's fairly rare to find a player that is happy to play all of those approaches. The longer the game is planning to run, the more it matters, too.
My problem is that I want those surprise parties like Pat rolled up above, that you would never do with point buy, but I've got a couple of regular players that want a lot of control and others that leans more towards control. (And one players that is just happy to play, doesn't care how we make characters.) Otherwise, we are highly compatible. In practice, this means that we switch it up a lot so that we all get what we want sometimes.
I have sometimes flirted with the idea of building a highly random character generation method (much more random than most games), where the players gets to assert control at any 3 points but otherwise plays what they are dealt. That is, the normal game is you roll for your character race, but you can instead use that as one of your 3 picks and simply assert your race choice. It would be a hassle for something that I'm not sure would work. The idea is that most of the players that don't like random stuff tend to focus on particular aspects that they don't like as random, and those vary by the player.
Watching all these useless characters being created, doomed to never ever hit the game table, certainly gives me a hit of nostalgia.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on July 13, 2021, 10:36:16 AM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 13, 2021, 08:37:57 AM
Using this (https://www.dragonsfoot.org/fe/articles/1echargen.shtml).
Hireling: Str 11, Int 15, Wis 9, Dex 10, Con 13, Cha 5. This could be a decent if unlikable magic-user, but Cha 5 - "here or lower the character can only be an assassin," and they don't have the stats to be an assassin, so this character cannot have a class, and is set aside to be an NPC hireling. Well-educated and smart, but fucking annoying. Let's call him Ackshually.
Thief: Str 6, Int 10, Wis 11, Dex 11, Con 11, Cha 11. A weakling, but otherwise ordinary, and could be an ordinary magic-user, cleric or thief. As an MU they'd struggle a bit with spells beyond their starting ones, as a cleric they'd be unremarkable, a thief would probably be the best choice, though they can't carry much loot, and will have the overhead press of a small female. Perhaps that's what she is? She takes the gems, someone else can carry the coin. We'll call her Slight.
Fighter: Str 10, Int 6, Wis 12, Dex 7, Con 14, Cha 7. This one qualifies as a fighter, tough but clumsy and a bit of an annoying bastard. We'll call him Mongrel.
Cleric: Str 15, Int 13, Wis 15, Dex 11, Con 10, Cha 11. This qualifies for any of the basic four classes, but the 15s tempt me to say he'd be either a wise fighter or a strong cleric. But Strength 15 offers nothing but some increased encumbrance and slightly better BB/LG, whereas Wis 15 gives 2x 1st and 1x 2nd extra spells daily, which could help the party a lot. I think I'd make this one a cleric, give him a club and call him Bludgeon.
Magic-User: Str 7, Int 11, Wis 8, Dex 11, Con 6, Cha 15. I'm a bit worried about this one. They qualify for either magic-user or thief, but won't be able to carry much loot, and with Con 6 they could be slain by a dodgy curry. A thief is expected to fight a bit, which this one definitely shouldn't, and magic-users don't have many hit points anyway, so MU is the way to go, I think. With Charisma 15 they'll get +15% on reaction rolls, so can talk their way out of some fights, and they'll get +15% for their men-at-arm followers - and what does a 1st level magic-user spend their starting coin on but men-at-arms? Let's call her Elvira.
With a player who has been sensible and read the back of the PHB as outlined by Bill (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lDrgX4MbRU), any of the four could be quite playable and useful characters. And the funny thing is, the ones with good stats tend to get killed more often than those with poor or ordinary stats. That's because the player with the Str 18/00 and 10 hit point fighter has him take risks, the player with the Str 11 and 5 hit point fighter tends to be more cautious and think about what he's doing. Avoid unnecessary encounters - especially if you're created using 3d6 in order.
And that, friends, is why sometimes 'the old style' isn't necessarily the best.
The hireling would make a perfectly serviceable magic-user -- but because of the 'must be an assassin' rule for low Charisma, he's actually (ackshually?) locked out of everything. He can't be an assassin, because his other attributes aren't high enough.
The thief is... okay, I guess?
Fighter's no great shakes as Con 14 means he doesn't even get a HP bonus. His system shock and resurrection chances are pretty good, though.
Cleric is definitely the rough gem in this lot. With a Wisdom 15, Bludgeon gets a +1 to save against magical effects as well as extra spells. While his Str 15 won't give him any attack bonuses, it does buff his carrying capacity enough to kit him out in heavier armor.
The magic-user... if you could swap Int and Cha, you'd have a pretty effective one. But that Int 11 means Elvira has a 45% chance to learn spells, and can only learn seven spells per level. She won't be casting spells above 5th level, either.
Greetings!
*Laughing* Very true, my friend! ;D
I myself love random generation for stats, though I prefer 4d6 drop the lowest, so that players on average will get reasonably competent characters. The game world--at least my world of Thandor--is a very brutal, harsh place, with many challenges and things to worry about. I've seen players get fairly despondent over the fact that they have to fight against a suite of inherent problems and deficiencies with weak, pathetic, retarded characters--in trying to deal with the horrendous challenges of such a harsh and brutal world. A decent argument can be made that such pathetic characters should more than likely stay home safe on the farm--and leave the heroic adventuring to people that aren't so pathetic, weak, and incompetent. Playing such deficient characters can be fun for some--but many others aren't terribly amused by their character's consistent failures, fuck-ups, and constant mediocrity.
Being consistently mediocre can *drain* the fun from playing the game for many players, as their pathetic character experiences a weekly diet of "The wondrous ways I failed" instead of experiencing any kind of consistent success. I can sympathize with such players. Players definitely don't need to be "superheroes"--but being stuck with a drooling, incompetent buffoon isn't something I think a lot of players want to sign up for.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Shasarak on July 13, 2021, 05:07:10 PM
Watching all these useless characters being created, doomed to never ever hit the game table, certainly gives me a hit of nostalgia.
Greetings!
*Laughing* So true, huh Shasarak?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 13, 2021, 03:13:11 PM
Quote from: Jam The MF on July 13, 2021, 02:28:24 PM
Supposedly; Gygax himself allowed 4d6 drop the lowest, and arrange as desired at his table. Players also started out at 3rd Level. Gygax also allowed a Balrog PC in one of his games. Therefore, I say just do whatever makes you happy.
Many people either really enjoy the whole experience of "play what fate has dealt to me and see how it goes" or the other extreme of playing the character they have in mind. Some like a mix of that--often a very specific mix, such as, "fate handed me 1, 2, 3 and from there I take control."
Problem is that it's not at all rare for a given group to have some of both extremes and 1 or 2 in the middle. So "do whatever makes you happy" is a plural you. It's fairly rare to find a player that is happy to play all of those approaches. The longer the game is planning to run, the more it matters, too.
My problem is that I want those surprise parties like Pat rolled up above, that you would never do with point buy, but I've got a couple of regular players that want a lot of control and others that leans more towards control. (And one players that is just happy to play, doesn't care how we make characters.) Otherwise, we are highly compatible. In practice, this means that we switch it up a lot so that we all get what we want sometimes.
I have sometimes flirted with the idea of building a highly random character generation method (much more random than most games), where the players gets to assert control at any 3 points but otherwise plays what they are dealt. That is, the normal game is you roll for your character race, but you can instead use that as one of your 3 picks and simply assert your race choice. It would be a hassle for something that I'm not sure would work. The idea is that most of the players that don't like random stuff tend to focus on particular aspects that they don't like as random, and those vary by the player.
My game's default gives players a choice of three arrays; balanced (3, 2, 2, 1, 1, -1), strong (3, 3, 1, 1, 0, -1) and focused (4, 2, 1, 0, 0, -1).
One of the available optional rules; this one not even requiring the GM's permission to use in normal play; randomizes which array you use and then randomly assigns each score to an attribute.
Since I spent a LOT of work making every attribute matter in some fashion to every class (each class has one or two primary attributes and a class feature choice that grants options based on your choice of another stat) you're guaranteed a viable character that will probably even be at least okay at any class you wish to take; you just won't know what form that "okay" will take.
Quote from: SHARK on July 13, 2021, 05:59:34 PM
Being consistently mediocre can *drain* the fun from playing the game for many players, as their pathetic character experiences a weekly diet of "The wondrous ways I failed" instead of experiencing any kind of consistent success. I can sympathize with such players. Players definitely don't need to be "superheroes"--but being stuck with a drooling, incompetent buffoon isn't something I think a lot of players want to sign up for.
I don't tend to use straight 3d6 in D&D, but I regularly play Call of Cthulhu, where the PCs are typically not very heroic and frequently experience failure, insanity, and/or death. I've often used straight 3d6 in CoC, though I've also used point buy which still leaves characters quite average. Despite this - or perhaps because of this - CoC is very popular as a horror game.
Consistent success almost never happens in CoC, in my experience, but players still really enjoy the "hard mode" aspect of horror play. For example, my second-to-last PC in our last Masks campaign died after I rolled a critical failure when throwing dynamite at the enemy. I dropped it in the middle of our firing line, and it could have killed a bunch of us, but I elected to jump on the stick and killed myself to protect the others. That was a heroic and well-remembered death.
I think there's a lot of fun to be had playing all three of hapless investigators, heroic adventurers, and superheroes.
The people who leave the farm and go out to find adventure aren't always those with the highest Str., they are those with the greater determination.
Rolling higher stats will not make you a better D&D player. Ordinary characters who achieve extraordinary things will be remembered. Extraordinary characters are expected to achieve extraordinary things, they will be remembered most for their failures.
Quote from: Jam The MF on July 13, 2021, 02:28:24 PM
Supposedly; Gygax himself -
- grew soft in his old age. It happens.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 13, 2021, 08:21:33 PM
Quote from: Jam The MF on July 13, 2021, 02:28:24 PM
Supposedly; Gygax himself -
- grew soft in his old age. It happens.
2E did away with the 'character with a stat this low can only be X class'. Which was a good thing, since as I illustrated, poor Ackshually can't actually be a PC because he can't take any class.
Evaluating data and revising systems isn't exactly 'going soft'. But I mean, if you have that much desire to buttfuck a player in chargen, why not play Traveller? :)
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 13, 2021, 08:21:33 PM
Quote from: Jam The MF on July 13, 2021, 02:28:24 PM
Supposedly; Gygax himself -
- grew soft in his old age. It happens.
No. I don't think so? I think the books were meant for "the rest of us". People kept asking him how they ought to play make believe; so he sold them 3 core books, plus many more. He ran primarily what he was running back in the OD&D days, prior to AD&D. There were others at TSR who also weren't running AD&D, even though it was their flagship product line. They already knew how they wanted to play make believe at their own tables.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on July 13, 2021, 10:36:16 AMAnd that, friends, is why sometimes 'the old style' isn't necessarily the best.
The hireling would make a perfectly serviceable magic-user -- but because of the 'must be an assassin' rule for low Charisma, he's actually (ackshually?) locked out of everything. He can't be an assassin, because his other attributes aren't high enough.
I consider it simply a way to moderate the worst rolls. Some groups of rolls will be set aside. You'll lose the worst rolls (5 and under), and there may be some good rolls (15 and above) as collateral damage. We take the bad with the good, such is life.
When GMing, I do away with all the minimums. If you really want to play a Cha 5 MU, go for it. You can play a Str 6 Int 12 fighter if you want, as well. Maybe dad is friends with the chief instructor, gave him 100gp and said, "Graduate him no matter what, he's such a bookworm, too soft, some time in the line of battle will toughen him up."
This is based on Method V from 1e's Unearthed Arcana. Unlike all the other methods, you have to choose your race and class first, and then you roll the number of dice specified on a table. This method is notorious for the number of dice -- it ranges from 9d6 (best 3) in your class's most important stat, down to 8d6 in the next most important, and so on terminating at 3d6 in your least important stat.
Yes, that works out to 7 different abilities. This was in the brief interval when Comeliness was a stat. Since nobody uses Comeliness anymore, I'm going to adapt the method a bit. The obvious solution is to just ignore Com and use the number of dice in the table, but that ends up penalizing the thief (8d6 Com) and rewarding everyone else (all the other classes roll 3d6 to 5d6). The solution I'll use is to drop Comeliness and fill in the gap by shifting the other dice totals up or down 1. There are two ways to do this, ending up with either 9d6...4d6 or 8d6...3d6.
As a side note, the official version of Method V can only be used by single class humans, but it's not hard to generalize to multi-class characters or demihumans. If anyone's interested, I could go into details.
Here are four characters, randomly generated using Method V. The default uses the 9d6...4d6 variation, but if dropping the first die (8d6...3d6) changed anything, it's noted in parentheses.
Cleric: S 17, I 10, W 15, D 12, C 15, Ch 12 (S 16, Ch 10). Fairly low Wis, nice Str.
Fighter: S 9, I 12, W 17, D 15, C 9, Ch 11 (I 8, W 15, D 13, C 8, Ch 10). The total of 73 points is very low, and the arrangement is even more bizarre (yes it's possible to roll a 9 using 9d6 [112222251]). I can't imagine any player being happy with those rolls.
Magic-user: S 10, I 17, W 15, D 17, C 15, Ch 14 (I 15, D 16, C 13, Ch 10). Solid.
Thief: S 18, I 17, W 12, D 17, C 13, Ch 11 (no changes). Smart and strong. A lazy natural.
With all those dice, I only managed to roll a single 18, and it wasn't in the class's prime requisite (a thief rolls strength using 6d6 adjusted up to 7d6 to account for the loss of Comeliness). That corresponds with my memories of using Method V -- rolling all those dice led players to expect multiple 18s, and they were always disappointed with the results. Ironically, this led to more pressure to allow rerolls than with less generous methods.
Based on 10K random characters, the average for 9d6...4d6 is 15.8, 15.4, 14.9, 14.3, 13.4, 12.2. Converted to the integer array closest to the total, that's 16, 15, 15, 14, 14, 12. The mode (most common results for each stat) is 16, 16, 16, 15, 14, 13. Nice, but much lower than most people would expect. 8d6...3d6 is 15.4, 14.9, 14.3, 13.4, 12.3, 10.5, array 15, 15, 14, 14, 12, 11, mode 16, 16, 16, 14, 12, 11.
If a player doesn't like the stats they've rolled, they could always make up the character and give it to the DM to use as an NPC before rolling a new one.
Last night, I rolled up straight down the line:
16 Str
14 Dex
14 Con
11 Int
16 Wis
10 Cha
That would be a very interesting character to play. Not a super hero, but doesn't suck either. Either a solid Fighter; or a pretty good Cleric, limited by their Int and Cha scores. Just think of them as more of a scrappy Cleric. Like a Fighter; but with fewer HP, in exchange for some Healing ability. Good saves for Dex, Con, and Wis too.
Quote from: mightybrain on July 14, 2021, 06:26:58 PM
If a player doesn't like the stats they've rolled, they could always make up the character and give it to the DM to use as an NPC before rolling a new one.
The DM could always use this NPC to stalk and kill their "better" character.
I'm not being serious, but the thought did occur to me.
Quote from: DocJones on July 14, 2021, 07:29:33 PMI'm not being serious, but the thought did occur to me.
You read my mind. As a DM I'd most certainly make the character into the PC's nemesis.
Quote from: mightybrain on July 14, 2021, 07:44:14 PM
Quote from: DocJones on July 14, 2021, 07:29:33 PMI'm not being serious, but the thought did occur to me.
You read my mind. As a DM I'd most certainly make the character into the PC's nemesis.
"They called me... Mr. Glass..."
There you go. And now you have a legitimate and believable reason to use that wheelchair in an encounter.
Today we played in Bill's stream. With straight 10s and 6hp my fighter walked into the gym and fell in a twenty foot pit, and died.
This could have happened even if he'd had 18/00 strength :)
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 15, 2021, 03:31:09 AM
Today we played in Bill's stream. With straight 10s and 6hp my fighter walked into the gym and fell in a twenty foot pit, and died.
This could have happened even if he'd had 18/00 strength :)
What, was the pool drained? Why was there a 20' pit in the gym?
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 15, 2021, 03:31:09 AM
Today we played in Bill's stream. With straight 10s and 6hp my fighter walked into the gym and fell in a twenty foot pit, and died.
This could have happened even if he'd had 18/00 strength :)
Would have survived with an 18 Con.
No, because on that pit the lid closes over you and they leave you there until you starve to death, or until someone else comes and sets off the pit trap to open the lid. A PC with a party to come and rescue them may survive, a PC on their own is dead.
I could have had straight 18s, a +5 vorpal sword and +5 plate mail - somehow as a 1st level fighter - and I would still ultimately have been killed by a 20 foot pit with a lid on it.
The fault lies with me. I had subdued a kobold and used him as a negotiator, sending him in, I wanted to set the kobolds and the ogre to fight each-other so I could sweep in and steal the treasure of at least one of them. I asked for safe passage for parley.
"Kobold no stabby," they said. I went in.
And they kept their word, they didn't stab me. They just let me walk into the pit. They kept the letter, not the spirit of their promise. They are after all lawful evil.
No amount of stats and bling can save a player from their own dumb play. And a player with ordinary stats and no bling will do well if they have smart play. Players want good stats and bling because they think it will save them from their dumb play, but it won't.
I guess if the rest of your party wanders away leaving you to starve to death.
Quote from: mightybrain on July 13, 2021, 10:36:02 AM
Quote from: Omega on July 12, 2021, 10:06:51 PMum... No such restriction in BX.
Page B9. Elves, paragraph 3 in my copy.
um... That is is not a restriction. Its a listing of the prime requisite thresholds to get a bonus to EXP.
Try again please.
Quote from: Pat on July 12, 2021, 10:17:21 PM
Not that oddball. It's a very normal set of stats, and humans are good at recognizing patterns, so it's likely that a high proportion of normal rolls will seem ordered in some way. After all, one of the most common arrays is 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8.
That's very different from the the four 18s and two 17s, which is so unlikely we can safely dismiss it.
Except that is not the point. The point is that with unusual regularity I get weird roll patterns like that.
16, 14, 16, 14, 16, 14 and its reverse have popped up more than once for some reason.
Quote from: Omega on July 16, 2021, 11:50:06 PM
Quote from: Pat on July 12, 2021, 10:17:21 PM
Not that oddball. It's a very normal set of stats, and humans are good at recognizing patterns, so it's likely that a high proportion of normal rolls will seem ordered in some way. After all, one of the most common arrays is 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8.
That's very different from the the four 18s and two 17s, which is so unlikely we can safely dismiss it.
Except that is not the point. The point is that with unusual regularity I get weird roll patterns like that.
16, 14, 16, 14, 16, 14 and its reverse have popped up more than once for some reason.
That's exactly the point. Humans are amazing at noticing patterns, and because it's better to think you see a tiger when one isn't there and run away needlessly, than it is to not see a tiger that's actually there and get eaten, our pattern recognition is optimized to over match, and return false positives. Conversely, humans tend to be terrible at estimating low probability events. Unless you run an extensive test showing that yes, patterns crop up more often when you're rolling them, the overwhelmingly most probable explanation is your brain is just fixating on a selective and unrepresentative subset, and seeing something that doesn't actually exist. And by overwhelmingly, I mean overwhelmingly. Our Bayesian prior should be so close to zero as to be indistinguishable for all practical purposes.
Quote from: Omega on July 16, 2021, 11:42:58 PMum... That is is not a restriction. Its a listing of the prime requisite thresholds to get a bonus to EXP.
Try again please.
The notes about prime requisite thresholds are in paragraph 2 in my copy. I'm looking at the Moldvay 1981 first printing. Paragraph 3 says:
Quote from: B9
RESTRICTIONS: Elves use six-sided dice (d6) to determine their hit points. They may advance to a maximum of 10th level of experience. Elves have the advantages of both fighters and magicusers. They may use shields and can wear any type of armor, and may fight with any kind of weapon. They can also cast spells like a magic-user, and use the same spell list. A character must have an intelligence of 9 or greater to be an elf.
Anyone used anydice to look at the results?
3d6 gives you average 10.5, standard deviation 2.96
4d6 drop lowest gives you average 12.24, standard deviation 2.85, which is about where the newer 15/14/13/12/10/8 pattern leaves you (those numbers sum to 72).
anydice.com
Quote from: Null42 on July 24, 2021, 07:46:29 PM
Anyone used anydice to look at the results?
3d6 gives you average 10.5, standard deviation 2.96
4d6 drop lowest gives you average 12.24, standard deviation 2.85, which is about where the newer 15/14/13/12/10/8 pattern leaves you (those numbers sum to 72).
anydice.com
If you input this function into anydice...
ABILITIES: 6 d [highest 3 of 4d6]
loop P over {1..6} {
output P @ ABILITIES named "Ability [P]"
}
... it will give you the average results of the highest of the attribute rolls, then the next highest all the way down to the sixth highest and the results are damnably close to the default array in 3e-5e.
You can also switch out the brackets for other dice types [ex. 3d6, 2d10, highest 3 of 6d6, etc.] and the first 6 and the one in the {1...6} for the number of attributes in a different system to get the same sort of arrays for them.
A 74 point array would be closer to 4d6 drop the lowest, with 16 being your highest and 9 being your lowest. Something like: 16/14/13/12/10/9.
For 3d6 it's closer to a 63 point array with 14 being your highest and 7 being your lowest: 14/12/11/10/9/7.
The standard 15/14/13/12/10/8 stat array falls between. It is closer to 4d6 drop the lowest, but only in the middling numbers.
This Kotdt reminds me of this thread
Quote from: Shasarak on July 25, 2021, 04:57:13 PM
This Kotdt reminds me of this thread
Lol. I recently experienced the polar opposite. My player with an annoying gnome character ripped up his stats and re-rolled because they were "too low" for him to be properly annoying.