Quote from: S'mon;1070711Found it - the humans use 17 16 14 11 9 8. The demi-humans use 16 14 11 9 9 7.

Which gives me some more potential arrays, thanks.

Quote from: Kiero;1070703My interest here is solely that OD&D has a neat little core system that runs fast. I'm not interested in any of the baggage that goes with it.

   In an overly gloomy and negative mood, I'm not sure this is possible any more.

Quote from: Kiero;1070707It's incredible that for a hobby that prides itself on people hacking things to meet a particular objective, there are so many purists who recoil at the notion of someone changing something as trivial as how ability scores are generated.

   Continuing the above theme, the hobby is dead. All we have now are mutually exclusive and hostile ideological camps and cults.

Looks like you are actually working off Swords & Wizardry or the TSR Boxed sets from the 80s, rather than 1974 D&D Kiero.

D&D 1974

Prime requisite 15: 10% experience bonus
Prime requisite 13-14: 5% experience bonus

Constitution 15: +1 per hit die
Constitution 6: -1 per hit die
Dexterity 12: +1 to missle
Dexterity 9: -1 to missle

Charisma
13-15: +1 loyalty
16-17: +2 Loyalty
18: +4 Loyalty
Loyalty is between 1 and above 19.


Focusing on the modifiers is a skewed way to look at the attribute scores in 1974 D&D.  The scores help the player and DM with the visualization and conceptualization of the character and how that character acts and may act in the world.  Not so much about modifiers.

If you would like a smaller group, which an array creates, just do so, perhaps 1-10 or even 1-6.  NPCs and monsters don't have ability scores remember.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1070715Continuing the above theme, the hobby is dead. All we have now are mutually exclusive and hostile ideological camps and cults.

Jesus fucking christ, the two of you are whiners. There's no baggage. Play, or don't play. Nobody cares. Just stop with all this passive aggressive shit, and stop playing victim. It makes you shitty people, and makes for shitty threads.

Alternative random but balanced system: get 18 playing cards and deal them into six piles of three cards each. For 3d6-level stats get three of each card from 1-6, for higher stats adjust higher.

Your card method would be a nice change to achieve something like an array Daztur.  Cards for ranges can be a fun.

I like 4d6 drop the lowest.  Damn 3d6.  When 10 is supposedly a common normal stat for an everyday NPC on the street, how can a heroic adventurer have a 6 in any stat?  All of my pre gens have a 10 or better in every stat.  It makes them functional.  Why would a character with a low score or two, ever go into a dungeon?  My NPCs usually have a 10 in every stat, unless they are an exceptional NPC.

16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10 arrange to taste would be awesome; but 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 is more down to earth, I suppose.

Quote from: Razor 007;1070733I like 4d6 drop the lowest.  Damn 3d6.  When 10 is supposedly a common normal stat for an everyday NPC on the street, how can a heroic adventurer have a 6 in any stat?  All of my pre gens have a 10 or better in every stat.  It makes them functional.  Why would a character with a low score or two, ever go into a dungeon?  My NPCs usually have a 10 in every stat, unless they are an exceptional NPC.

16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10 arrange to taste would be awesome; but 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 is more down to earth, I suppose.

I figure those people in those games aren't "heroes" but just people actually dumb enough to risk their life to do stupid things for money instead of just being a farmer.

Best way to get a proper array is to figure out what the bonus required to generally succeed an X amount of time.  Do you want players to win 20-30-40% of the time?  Higher?  50-70%?  With or without magic items?  And then base the stats around the classes prime stats.  Then judge hit points vs. average damage meted out, the basic difficulty of spell/ability saving throws.

Quote from: Kuroth;1070722Looks like you are actually working off Swords & Wizardry or the TSR Boxed sets from the 80s, rather than 1974 D&D Kiero.

Why would he actually read the game he wants to change?

Quote from: KieroIt's incredible that for a hobby that prides itself on people hacking things to meet a particular objective, there are so many purists who recoil at the notion of someone changing something as trivial as how ability scores are generated.

But you're not hacking it to meet an objective, you just "don't like" random character generation. I don't like polearms - should I take them out of the rules? No, because doing so would not achieve any particular objective, it would not make the game session better. As a DM, it's not about my personal likes and dislikes, it's about what the players find fun.

If you actually play a game, rather than just reading it, or reading a clone of it, then you have some experiences on which to base any changes you and your players think good. By playing a game, you start to figure out that some things you thought were issues aren't, and some things you thought would be fine cause a mess. With experience, you can then solve the problems arising, if any, and make the game session more fun. Until then you're offering solutions in search of a problem.

Some years back S John Ross commented that, answering questions on the GURPS mailing list, he could tell the difference between the questions that came up from playing the game, and the questions that came up from reading the book. On reading a book, many things seem to be issues which turn out not to be in play - and vice versa. This is doubly so when you're not even reading the book but a rewriting of it.

Play the game with a competent and experienced DM for a while, and then start thinking about changing things. Until then you're a virgin arguing about sex. This is a long pattern for you, Kiero, going back to rpg.net days where you proclaimed "I'm not a gamer."

You can and should change.

Quote from: Razor 007;1070733When 10 is supposedly a common normal stat for an everyday NPC on the street, how can a heroic adventurer have a 6 in any stat?

Ordinary people can do extraordinary things. They just need daring, wits and luck. Two of those three are in the control of the player. That's part of the fun of the game.

An array I've used pre-3e that works well was 16 14 13 12 10 9. It's based off best 3 of 4d6 as the baseline for PCs though.

Quote from: Kuroth;1070722Looks like you are actually working off Swords & Wizardry or the TSR Boxed sets from the 80s, rather than 1974 D&D Kiero.

D&D 1974

Prime requisite 15: 10% experience bonus
Prime requisite 13-14: 5% experience bonus

Constitution 15: +1 per hit die
Constitution 6: -1 per hit die
Dexterity 12: +1 to missle
Dexterity 9: -1 to missle

Charisma
13-15: +1 loyalty
16-17: +2 Loyalty
18: +4 Loyalty
Loyalty is between 1 and above 19.


Focusing on the modifiers is a skewed way to look at the attribute scores in 1974 D&D.  The scores help the player and DM with the visualization and conceptualization of the character and how that character acts and may act in the world.  Not so much about modifiers.

If you would like a smaller group, which an array creates, just do so, perhaps 1-10 or even 1-6.  NPCs and monsters don't have ability scores remember.

I'm working off B/X-derived ACKS, which has a unified system of modifiers for the stats. That's why it's tagged OSR-ish, not OD&D 1974. Perhaps I should have said "for OD&D-type games" rather than simply "for OD&D"?

In ACKS, those modifiers go:
3: -3
4-5: -2
6-8: -1
9-12: 0
13-15: +1
16-17: +2
18: +3

Thus the modifiers matter intrinsically, as they do in all the later games for which the elite array is featured. We're talking about two completely different interpretations of what the ability scores are there for.

Quote from: Pat;1070725Jesus fucking christ, the two of you are whiners. There's no baggage. Play, or don't play. Nobody cares. Just stop with all this passive aggressive shit, and stop playing victim. It makes you shitty people, and makes for shitty threads.

There clearly is baggage, since people are wasting text trying to justify how important random ability scores are, even though I expressly asked them not to.

Baggage, Exhibit A:

Quote from: thedungeondelver;1070705Kiero can I suggest you play something else?

I'm not trying to be nasty, but really, just...there's plenty of other games that'll do what you want to do without you having to reinvent the wheel.

"Please don't alter the game I hold sacred!"

Exhibit B: everything Kyle Aaron has posted in this thread.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1070734I figure those people in those games aren't "heroes" but just people actually dumb enough to risk their life to do stupid things for money instead of just being a farmer.

Which is nice if people want to rationalise why their adventurer with no aptitude is doing stupid things, but not what I'm interested in for the types of games I run.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1070746But you're not hacking it to meet an objective, you just "don't like" random character generation. I don't like polearms - should I take them out of the rules? No, because doing so would not achieve any particular objective, it would not make the game session better. As a DM, it's not about my personal likes and dislikes, it's about what the players find fun.

If you actually play a game, rather than just reading it, or reading a clone of it, then you have some experiences on which to base any changes you and your players think good. By playing a game, you start to figure out that some things you thought were issues aren't, and some things you thought would be fine cause a mess. With experience, you can then solve the problems arising, if any, and make the game session more fun. Until then you're offering solutions in search of a problem.

Some years back S John Ross commented that, answering questions on the GURPS mailing list, he could tell the difference between the questions that came up from playing the game, and the questions that came up from reading the book. On reading a book, many things seem to be issues which turn out not to be in play - and vice versa. This is doubly so when you're not even reading the book but a rewriting of it.

Play the game with a competent and experienced DM for a while, and then start thinking about changing things. Until then you're a virgin arguing about sex. This is a long pattern for you, Kiero, going back to rpg.net days where you proclaimed "I'm not a gamer."

You can and should change.

I don't care about the original game, nor does it matter whether I'm reading it or a clone, they all fall under the broad umbrella of OD&D. I've got more than enough experience of actually playing D&D (numerous editions) to know what I'm doing. I've run OD&D-derived games where I changed the chargen method, and surprisingly, they were fun. I only GM games I think are fun, and I'm upfront about what changes I've made and why in the pitch. If people don't like that, then they say so and we don't play it.

So take your tiresome, patronising schtick about how much more experienced in the world you are and stick it. I don't need your approval, nor do I care whether you think I've "earned my dues". Your opinion is irrelevant in this thread, feel free to stop offering it.

Quote from: S'mon;1070749An array I've used pre-3e that works well was 16 14 13 12 10 9. It's based off best 3 of 4d6 as the baseline for PCs though.

Another one for consideration, thanks.

Quote from: Kiero;1070758Another one for consideration, thanks.

You'll note that with B/X (or ACKS) bonuses it gives a +2, two +1s, and three +0s, which I find works very nicely.

If you have characters in a game with only scores from 9-18 there is no reason to have an array range from 9-18, since no one has 1-8.  Just use 1-10.  NPC don't need ability scores and monster don't.  

'Array Ability Stats for Adventurer Conquer King' is your thread title.  I guarantee GMs that play it like threads about their main game.