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? 

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? 

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.