You could also use a flat array instead, or as flat as it can get.

Example in 5e the flat array is 13, 13, 13, 12, 12, 12. (27 points)
While in the playtest it was 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 13. (30 points)

A flat array for 3d6 would then be something like 11, 11, 11, 11, 10, 10. (16 points)

Quote from: kythri;1070818You have a far more lenient and agreeable approach to the situation than some I've seen 'round these parts.

Started out back in the late 70s with AD&D 1st when I was the referee who let players trash his campaign.

I still let players players "trash" my campaign I just give it fancy names these days.

Quote from: kythri;1070818You have a far more lenient and agreeable approach to the situation than some I've seen 'round these parts.

One other note, Preservationists have a point about using classic D&D 'as is'. Just keep in mind these things

1) They worth listening too because they made RAW work and work well. This is useful to know when making the system to you want based on classic D&D (or Traveller, or Runequest 2nd edition, etc). It often answers the question of why X mechanic works the way it does.

2) They are having just as much fun with the hobby as any other segment of the tabletop roleplaying. And deserving of respect as much as any other segment of the hobby.

3) And I said this before, they just a segment of the hobby, what important we along with them (and anybody) have equal access to the open content that been made available. And is free (in both sense of the word) to whatever one things best with the material

And if you want to share or sell what you created it far easier to today with digital technology.

Quote from: Brad;1070830Late to the party, but last AD&D game I ran I let everyone do 5D6x2 (drop two), 4D6x2 (drop one), 3D6x2, assign as desired. Then any prime requisites could be raised to 18 (similar to Rolemaster), so usually this meant someone playing a fighter would assign a low roll (7 or something) to Strength and still have an 18.

You know what happened? Nothing. The game was pretty much the same as every other AD&D game I've ran: the retards died horribly, the smart players survived. I don't think stats are all that relevant, to be perfectly honest.

In my last historical game, for the PCs, I used: Roll 1d6+12, 2d6+6 twice and 3d6 four times. Drop the lowest result from these seven rolls. That's your array, choose to use it, or that of another player at the table (non-exclusively), assign as you like.

Everyone ended up using the same array (but assigned differently). It meant they were all capable and believable as professional mercenaries each worthy of leading their own retinues (and everyone went for a CHA high enough to give a bonus, and thus give extra henchmen).

Quote from: Omega;1070833You could also use a flat array instead, or as flat as it can get.

Example in 5e the flat array is 13, 13, 13, 12, 12, 12. (27 points)
While in the playtest it was 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 13. (30 points)

A flat array for 3d6 would then be something like 11, 11, 11, 11, 10, 10. (16 points)

A flat one is a potential additional option, thanks.

Quote from: Kuroth;1070764Nah, NPCs never need ability scores in D&D.

At this point, there's almost 20 years of products that say the opposite. Whether you like those products or not, ability scores for NPCs is a part of D&D today.

Quote from: Kiero;1070758There 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:

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

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

There's nothing of the sort in thedungeondelver's post, which you quoted. And Kyle Aaron hadn't posted anything significant in the thread at the time.

Though after my post, Kyle Aaron turned into a complete jackass and started telling you how to fucking play.

But you were still preemptively whiny and made the thread worse that it needed to be.

Quote from: Kiero;1070838In my last historical game, for the PCs, I used: Roll 1d6+12, 2d6+6 twice and 3d6 four times. Drop the lowest result from these seven rolls. That's your array, choose to use it, or that of another player at the table (non-exclusively), assign as you like.

Everyone ended up using the same array (but assigned differently). It meant they were all capable and believable as professional mercenaries each worthy of leading their own retinues (and everyone went for a CHA high enough to give a bonus, and thus give extra henchmen).

Sure that works. Too many sacred cows around here that just need to be sacrificed in the name of fun.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1070868At this point, there's almost 20 years of products that say the opposite. Whether you like those products or not, ability scores for NPCs is a part of D&D today.

But it kinda isn't actually. I haven't used NPC stats since the 3.5 days, and I'd consider the very concept more of an artifact of the 3.0/3.5/PF rule-set, than an integral part of D&D.

Quote from: SP23;1070909But it kinda isn't actually. I haven't used NPC stats since the 3.5 days, and I'd consider the very concept more of an artifact of the 3.0/3.5/PF rule-set, than an integral part of D&D.

Yes, it started in 3e, but it's still going strong in 5e (the current D&D). Retro materials are steps backward, but everything moving forward uses ability scores for NPCs/monsters.

Quote from: kythri;1070771Wouldn't a character's wits be based on their INT/WIS stats?

That depends on the edition, or even the system. But typically what we call "INT" is better conceived of as education, general knowledge &c such as academics have, while "WIS" is common everyday stuff such as peasants etc have. Some systems will have some kind of perception stat, to show how much of what's before them the character notices. Real-world intelligence we think of in terms of putting together what you see now with what you know already, which is up to the player.

Quote from: kythriIf you've got a low INT/low WIS character, than that character doesn't have much in the way of wits about them.

Remember too that in pre-AD&D2e versions, the character class can also be conceived of as a very broad skill. The fighter doesn't need high INT/WIS to plan an ambush, because that's what fighters do; but MUs won't be able to plan an ambush however high their INT. "I'm not a smart man, Jennoi, but I know what an L-shaped ambush izzz." You might of course argue that a higher-INT (or WIS) fighter could plan an ambush better than a low-INT one, and I think that'd be reasonable.

The question of an eloquent player playing a low-CHA player, or vice versa, I've not found to be an issue in play. The eloquent player typically gets amusement from playing someone more obnoxious (or whatever) from time to time, and the inarticulate player will be helped along - as estar said, just tell us what you want to say and we'll assume it's said as someone with 15 Charisma would say it.

And if an eloquent player sits there entertaining us with their eloquence, is that really a problem? If a smart player comes up with a brilliant tactical plan, should we say, "but does your character have the INT to think of that?" Should we discourage eloquence and smarts at the game table? I don't think so - my aim is to have fun. If we can allow fireballs, we can allow smart players to come up with smart and entertaining ideas, even if their character couldn't. We're there to have fun.

Quote from: estarIf the changes you are making keep piling up then you need to ask yourself what are you getting out of using an edition of D&D? [...]

Finally some changes seem innocous but require a lot of work to implement even though the result is still largely compatible.

Correct. Which is why I say, try using the spanner as a spanner rather than using it as a hammer. See how that goes for you. Experience can then inform your decisions better.

Quote from: estarAlso he survived is now 4th level.

"But he has 6 CON! Impossible!"
QED.

Quote from: estarOne other note, Preservationists have a point about using classic D&D 'as is'.

I say: change it as much as you like. Just try it more or less by the book first, so that your changes are in response to something going wrong in play, rather than purely theoretic problems. Many things you think will be problems on reading turn out not to be, and many things that looked fine turn out to be a mess.

Try it first. THEN change it, rip it to pieces! But try it first. Radical idea, I know.

We've already covered these three (old school equivalents to third edition's standard, nonelite, and elite arrays):

• Standard array: 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10. No bonuses. This just the average of 3d6 (not in order), and is the default for most creatures.
• Nonelite array: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. This is the typical 3d6 in order array, rounded down. The bonuses (+1... -1) are enough to distinguish a strength and a weakness, so it's good for notable NPCs (in third edition, NPCs with NPC classes). You can assume a typical town guard has +1 bonus from Strength, for instance.
• Elite array: 14, 13, 11, 10, 8, 7. This is the typical 3d6 in order array, except rounded up. The bonuses (+1, +1... -1, -1) allow more differentiation. It's aimed at PCs, but can also be used for major or unique NPCs. This doesn't increase their bonus in their prime stat, but does give them a secondary strength (and weakness), so it's more about an additional distinguishing characteristic than being better than the nonelites.

But one thing about Basic (BX/BECMI/etc.) is ability scores can be adjusted. In general, you can increase you prime by 1 point in exchange for lowering another ability score by 2 points. There are various additional restrictions on top of this, the key one being you can't lower Dex, Con, or Cha. If we assume the 14 goes into your prime, the elite array gives 3 options for increasing it: reducing the 13 by 2 or 4 points, and reducing the 11 by 2 points. Since all we need is +2 to reach the next breakpoint (16, or +2), what that really boils down to is the 13 needs to be in an ability that can be reduced. If the scores can be assigned as desired by the player, that's automatic. Randomly, the odds are closer to 1 in 3, but the array represents a typical 3d6 in order roll, not all possible rolls. In many other possible arrays, it's more likely. So if we want to, we can treat it as a variant elite array:

• Elite array (adjusted): 16, 11, 10, 8, 7. This is the typical 3d6 in order array, rounded up, and adjusted. The bonuses (+2... -1, -1) have the same sum as the elite array's, but exchange two +1s for a single +2, so it's good for more specialized PCs (or unique NPCs).

This has some interesting world building implications. It suggests that most people don't have any particular bonuses, but those with specialized training in an area related to one of the main stats get a +1 bonus (Str for smiths, Int for scholars, etc.), but will tend to sacrifice some other ability (the scholars might have a -1 to Str, because they spend a lot of time at a desk). If you want to make an NPC unique, add another +1 and another -1, making them a little different from their peers. Finally, someone who's really dedicated might be able to increase the +1 in the prime to a +2, but will have to take another weakness (2 -1s). That gives a decent baseline for the world. It allows truly exceptional people (you rolled an 18?) to really stand out, but assumes some basic competence on the part of the masses. It's also really easy to apply, ad hoc, especially since you can just ignore the penalties (-1s) most of the time (weaknesses are less important than strengths; they're primarily there to help give NPCs who spend a little more time in the spotlight a little extra character). And that's exactly what this is -- one of many ways to add a little character. While it's linked to some mechanical benefits, that's mostly relevant for the PC's opposition. If the town blacksmith has S 13 can be just listed with other character traits, like friendly or grouchy. Even better, use an adjective to describe the type of S 13. Maybe the town's blacksmith is S 13 (burly), while the veteran is S 13 (wiry).

Quote from: Brad;1070904Sure that works. Too many sacred cows around here that just need to be sacrificed in the name of fun.

Agreed, and it worked well in that instance.

Quote from: SP23;1070909But it kinda isn't actually. I haven't used NPC stats since the 3.5 days, and I'd consider the very concept more of an artifact of the 3.0/3.5/PF rule-set, than an integral part of D&D.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1070920Yes, it started in 3e, but it's still going strong in 5e (the current D&D). Retro materials are steps backward, but everything moving forward uses ability scores for NPCs/monsters.

Indeed, I statted out NPCs and the game was better for it. Less handwaving or delays while I had to arbitrarily decide how to play an NPC or what they might know on the spot. I statted up all the bigwigs in the settlement during my setting prep, once we'd discussed the outline of the game.

For example, these were the "stat blocks" of the three presidents of the settlement's ruling council:

Spoiler

Pelopidas (12, 15, 8, 8, 9, 10)
-oldest member and senior of the three presidents; indecisive
-mid-60s (Old - adjustment applied)
-actually relies on his wife to make decisions, and so often tries to defer during debates until the next session to deliver his verdict
-often bullied into taking the side of the aristocratic faction

Laodamas F5 (14, 16, 13, 10, 13, 11)
-second president and a moderate aristocrat
-open to reasoned argument, reputation for fairness
-has experience of fighting in Sikelia in his youth
-Prime=43; early 50s (Middle Aged - age adjustment applied)
-tries to avoid faction, but often ends up the ajudicator between them

Cleonymos  W6 (16, 13, 9, 9, 13, 16)
-youngest and junior of the three presidents
-bitter opponent of Menesthios (formerly his closest friend - they were born a day apart and grew up together),
-leader of the aristocratic faction
-fought in Sikelia and Italia
-Prime=40 (Middle Aged, adjustments applied)

Quote from: Pat;1070967We've already covered these three (old school equivalents to third edition's standard, nonelite, and elite arrays):

• Standard array: 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10. No bonuses. This just the average of 3d6 (not in order), and is the default for most creatures.
• Nonelite array: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. This is the typical 3d6 in order array, rounded down. The bonuses (+1... -1) are enough to distinguish a strength and a weakness, so it's good for notable NPCs (in third edition, NPCs with NPC classes). You can assume a typical town guard has +1 bonus from Strength, for instance.
• Elite array: 14, 13, 11, 10, 8, 7. This is the typical 3d6 in order array, except rounded up. The bonuses (+1, +1... -1, -1) allow more differentiation. It's aimed at PCs, but can also be used for major or unique NPCs. This doesn't increase their bonus in their prime stat, but does give them a secondary strength (and weakness), so it's more about an additional distinguishing characteristic than being better than the nonelites.

But one thing about Basic (BX/BECMI/etc.) is ability scores can be adjusted. In general, you can increase you prime by 1 point in exchange for lowering another ability score by 2 points. There are various additional restrictions on top of this, the key one being you can't lower Dex, Con, or Cha. If we assume the 14 goes into your prime, the elite array gives 3 options for increasing it: reducing the 13 by 2 or 4 points, and reducing the 11 by 2 points. Since all we need is +2 to reach the next breakpoint (16, or +2), what that really boils down to is the 13 needs to be in an ability that can be reduced. If the scores can be assigned as desired by the player, that's automatic. Randomly, the odds are closer to 1 in 3, but the array represents a typical 3d6 in order roll, not all possible rolls. In many other possible arrays, it's more likely. So if we want to, we can treat it as a variant elite array:

• Elite array (adjusted): 16, 11, 10, 8, 7. This is the typical 3d6 in order array, rounded up, and adjusted. The bonuses (+2... -1, -1) have the same sum as the elite array's, but exchange two +1s for a single +2, so it's good for more specialized PCs (or unique NPCs).

As I said, it doesn't make a lot of sense to base them on 3d6 in order when that isn't even my starting point. I'm mirroring the arrays of the later editions, using their modifiers to map the values across.

However, something based on 3d6 is useful for a standard array, if the newer edition's 4d6 drop one is for an elite array. I do agree with the differentiation between the two, keeping the elite for PCs and significant NPCs, and the standard for everyone else.

Quote from: Pat;1070967This has some interesting world building implications. It suggests that most people don't have any particular bonuses, but those with specialized training in an area related to one of the main stats get a +1 bonus (Str for smiths, Int for scholars, etc.), but will tend to sacrifice some other ability (the scholars might have a -1 to Str, because they spend a lot of time at a desk). If you want to make an NPC unique, add another +1 and another -1, making them a little different from their peers. Finally, someone who's really dedicated might be able to increase the +1 in the prime to a +2, but will have to take another weakness (2 -1s). That gives a decent baseline for the world. It allows truly exceptional people (you rolled an 18?) to really stand out, but assumes some basic competence on the part of the masses. It's also really easy to apply, ad hoc, especially since you can just ignore the penalties (-1s) most of the time (weaknesses are less important than strengths; they're primarily there to help give NPCs who spend a little more time in the spotlight a little extra character). And that's exactly what this is -- one of many ways to add a little character. While it's linked to some mechanical benefits, that's mostly relevant for the PC's opposition. If the town blacksmith has S 13 can be just listed with other character traits, like friendly or grouchy. Even better, use an adjective to describe the type of S 13. Maybe the town's blacksmith is S 13 (burly), while the veteran is S 13 (wiry).

A goodly proportion of this is handled by skills, which add the nuances to explain what the scores mean. They'd act as a guide on how to modify the array for NPCs.

Quote from: SP23;1070909But it kinda isn't actually. I haven't used NPC stats since the 3.5 days, and I'd consider the very concept more of an artifact of the 3.0/3.5/PF rule-set, than an integral part of D&D.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1070920Yes, it started in 3e, but it's still going strong in 5e (the current D&D). Retro materials are steps backward, but everything moving forward uses ability scores for NPCs/monsters.

Except D&D has been statting NPCs since at least Village of Hommlet circa 1979. Right there on page 3 Elderly Farmer,retired lvl4 fighter S15 I12 W16 D12 C16 C11. Then Elmo the lvl4 ranger with S18/43 I15 W16 D16 C17 C11.

Quote from: Kiero;1070975As I said, it doesn't make a lot of sense to base them on 3d6 in order when that isn't even my starting point. I'm mirroring the arrays of the later editions, using their modifiers to map the values across.

You missed two key words: "For me". As I said before, you can use whatever arrays you want, but you don't get to redefine the basic arrays.

Though if you want a far more generous array, here's one based on the high-powered method in third edition, i.e. 5d6 best 3,

• High-powered array: 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10. Bonuses +2, +1, +1, +1, or exceptional at most things. The 16 is right on the border, and could be easily flipped to 17.
• High-powered array (adjusted 1): 18, 14, 13, 13, 10, 10. Bonuses +3, +1, +1, +1. This is the previous array, using the ability score adjustment rules to get an 18. It's objectively better than the standard high-powered array (because reducing the 15 to 13 and the 12 to 10 doesn't result in a loss of ability score bonuses), so it's not a good trade off. Use one or the other.
• High-powered array (adjusted 2): 16, 16, 14, 13, 10, 10. Bonuses +2, +2, +1, +1. Another adjusted variant, this time going for dual 16s.

Quote from: Pat;1071005You missed two key words: "For me". As I said before, you can use whatever arrays you want, but you don't get to redefine the basic arrays.

Why are you being so pedantic? "For me" when discussing ideas we like on a message board about RPGs is pretty much implied unless you're an asshole looking for something to be offended about.