Quote from: Chris24601;1071033Why 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.

Have you read the thread? There's been a very strong tendency on both sides to present their preferences as objective absolutes.

There was an OSR online pre-OSR. AKA, people in the late 90s who played B/X and OD&D talking about it. I picked up an idea from that group and it was pretty fun regarding "standard arrays". Each player rolled 3d6 and the GM recorded the number until you got 6 scores. Those became the only scores that you could use to make up PCs for the entire campaign. Some GMs were doing that for AD&D and thus it limited certain classes existing in some campaigns. I've done it for Tunnels & Trolls and it was quite fun. It's a real hoot when the players realize they gotta incorporate Timmy rolling a 5 into all their character concepts!

I run OD&D, often via S&W: White Box because its a free PDF. S&W uses -1/0/+1 for stats. It's easy enough to make the array as 2 x -1, 2 x 0, 2 x +1 and go with that. S&W uses 7 or less = -1, 8-13 = 0, 14 or higher = +1 if you want numbers. Thus, as S&W array could be 4, 6, 10, 12, 14, 16

Quote from: Omega;1070824That seems way way too high for a 3d6 array. Thats higher even that the playtest 5e's r4h3. Which was 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8

I was a bit surprised Mentzer used such a high array. It kinda fits with the drift away from Fantasy Effin Vietnam towards more of a Chosen Heroes feel.

I've used the card method (N cards of 1-6, draw to simulate 3d6 rolls) several times, and really enjoyed it.  It's a good compromise between some randomness and a standard array.  The great benefit of the standard array is that you can get on with it.  For me, though, a standard array can get a little stale.  

Card draw is also easy to customize.  Since we wanted a slightly higher set of stats than 3d6, and wanted some very mild player choice, we included an extra "2" and an extra "1" in the deck that were not drawn, but assigned to two different "rolls" after the player drew.  (There was still a maximum score that could not be exceeded with the extra cards.)  Point being, you can customize a card draw to do whatever you want.

I rather like the idea, though I've never done it, of letting each player do a card draw at the start of the campaign.  Those then become the possible standard arrays for that campaign.

Another option is building an array based on Method V in Unearthed Arcana. That's the notorious method where humans roll 9d6 and take the best 3 in their most important ability, then 8d6 in their next, down to 3d6 in their last ability. It's not really feasible to generate all possible arrays and find the median (6^42 is a big number), but we can approximate it with the median of the individual rolls.

• Method V array: 16, 16, 15, 15, 14, 12, 10. Bonuses +2, +2, +1, +1, +1. Yes, there's a 7th number, that's because Method V includes Comeliness. Just drop a number off the front (for 8d6..3d6) or the back (for 9d6..4d6) for the standard 6 abilities. Note this is a very adjustable array -- dropping one 15 to a 9 could turn a 16 into an 18, and the other 15 into a 16.

As for Array vs. Random in Chargen, I gotta give the last Gamma World mad props. Here's how it works:

1) Make one score 18.
2) Make another score 16.
3) Roll 3D6 for the rest.

I thought that method really squared the circle.

Quote from: Kiero;1070703No, I don't give a shit. I couldn't care less how it was done "back in the day" or what the aesthetic is or anything else. I don't care what your anecdotal experience was in your group.

My 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.

No, YOU still do not know what the fuck you're talking about.  In OD&D stats do not influence "How often you succeed."

 The only person who says more about OD&D while knowing less than you is CB.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1071211No, YOU still do not know what the fuck you're talking about.  In OD&D stats do not influence "How often you succeed."

 The only person who says more about OD&D while knowing less than you is CB.

So what did?  (Honest question)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1071211No, YOU still do not know what the fuck you're talking about.  In OD&D stats do not influence "How often you succeed."

 The only person who says more about OD&D while knowing less than you is CB.

I'm not talking about the 1974 edition of the game, you muppet. I know that was poorly designed and inconsistent, and given the way you talk about it, encouraged "Mother May I" play. OD&D is a generic term for games derived from that, as well as referring to a specific edition.

And as I already said, I don't give a flying fuck how it was "back in the day", it's totally irrelevant to my games.

Quote from: Kiero;1071218OD&D is a generic term for games derived from that, as well as referring to a specific edition.

No it not a generic term. There is Holmes, B/X, BECMI, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e. The only thing ambiguous about using OD&D is whether one referring to just the 3 LBB or the 3 LBB plus supplements.

Quote from: Kiero;1071218I'm not talking about the 1974 edition of the game, you muppet.

You were talking about ACKS which is B/X with modifications. As stated in this post.

Quote from: Kiero;1070802Given that ACKS, which is my starting point, has a set of unified modifiers just like later editions, it makes even more sense to use that approach when determining both an elite and standard array against those values.

Quote from: Kiero;1071218I know that was poorly designed and inconsistent, and given the way you talk about it, encouraged "Mother May I" play. OD&D is a generic term for games derived from that, as well as referring to a specific edition.

And as I already said, I don't give a flying fuck how it was "back in the day", it's totally irrelevant to my games.

Don't be willfully ignorant. You been part of numerous conversations on this forums where it was explain how it was "back in the day". It was not a case of "Mother may I", the "missing" rules are found in the setting the referee opted to used. If the referee opted to do a fantasy medieval setting then the expectations that unless stated otherwise what held true in our own medieval time period would hold true in the referee's rulings.

Things like attacking the flank, and attacking from above is good, being attacked from the rear is bad. People want to sell high and buy low, you can only jump so far and so on. All these developed as a result knowing or being taught about medieval history not a case of "Mother may I."

"Mother may I" results from several things individually  or in combination.  Players not understanding the setting from not willing to read up on anything. And/Or the referee not doing their job explaining what important about their setting. Rules don't fix this issue.

And your chosen baseline, ACKS, is very much a product of this attitude as the author added numerous subsystem and designer notes on top of a B/X variant that reflects their deep knowledge of how ancient/medieval life worked. The heart of ACKS remains B/X which in turn was a cleaned presentation of OD&D.

Quote from: estar;1071220No it not a generic term. There is Holmes, B/X, BECMI, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e. The only thing ambiguous about using OD&D is whether one referring to just the 3 LBB or the 3 LBB plus supplements.

OD&D doesn't just mean "Original D&D", it also means "old D&D".

Quote from: estar;1071220You were talking about ACKS which is B/X with modifications. As stated in this post.

Don't be willfully ignorant. You been part of numerous conversations on this forums where it was explain how it was "back in the day". It was not a case of "Mother may I", the "missing" rules are found in the setting the referee opted to used. If the referee opted to do a fantasy medieval setting then the expectations that unless stated otherwise what held true in our own medieval time period would hold true in the referee's rulings.

Things like attacking the flank, and attacking from above is good, being attacked from the rear is bad. People want to sell high and buy low, you can only jump so far and so on. All these developed as a result knowing or being taught about medieval history not a case of "Mother may I."

"Mother may I" results from several things individually  or in combination.  Players not understanding the setting from not willing to read up on anything. And/Or the referee not doing their job explaining what important about their setting. Rules don't fix this issue.

I've seen many accounts of "back in the day" and people claiming they're being faithful to the way it was played in reporting how they play. Aaron Kyle describes his games as his players impressing him with what they decide upon, most of which is metagame stuff, not even really about what their characters would necessarily know. It looks a lot like "Mother May I".

Rules can fix the issue if it makes it clear to everyone what the situation is. Especially when they cover things which are actually well handled by rules, like skill systems. Instead of handwaved rulings on the spot from case to case, if we all know in advance what your characters' skillset is, all the ambiguity and potential for abuse disappears. That isn't a mandate for 3.x style bean-counting, merely an argument for having a skill system at all. Omitting them in 1974 was forgiveable, because it was all new. Doing the same 45 years later is misguided or just plain lazy.

Not only that, your choice of skills is a really important part of flavouring the setting from the player's perspective. What is and isn't featured on the list, and how broad they are speak volumes about many of the assumed conceits of the setting.

Quote from: estar;1071220And your chosen baseline, ACKS, is very much a product of this attitude as the author added numerous subsystem and designer notes on top of a B/X variant that reflects their deep knowledge of how ancient/medieval life worked. The heart of ACKS remains B/X which in turn was a cleaned presentation of OD&D.

ACKS is ancient, rather than medieval; that's why it was so easy for me to convert the currency to an actual ancient one with nothing more than a multiplier (1gp is 5 silver drachmae). Even the silver to gold conversion rate is consistent with the Hellenistic era, after Alexander had looted the Persian treasuries and devalued gold.

Quote from: Kiero;1071221OD&D doesn't just mean "Original D&D", it also means "old D&D".

OD&D is most commonly used to mean the original game. If you look at the Dragonsfoot forum titles https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/index.php the non-AD&D old D&D is referred to as Classic D&D, with an OD&D sub forum for the original game. So it's probably best to say 'Classic', or 'B/X' if being more specific (eg excluding Mentzer BECMI/RC).

Quote from: Kiero;1071221OD&D doesn't just mean "Original D&D", it also means "old D&D".

Only if one trying to be unclear as to which edition of D&D they are referring too. Especially there is a commonly accepted term that applies to all pre D&D 3.0 editions, classic D&D.
 

Quote from: Kiero;1071221I've seen many accounts of "back in the day" and people claiming they're being faithful to the way it was played in reporting how they play. Aaron Kyle describes his games as his players impressing him with what they decide upon, most of which is metagame stuff, not even really about what their characters would necessarily know. It looks a lot like "Mother May I".

Kyle Aaron did not play in Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and Tekumel, Mike Monard did. Since Mike's reports and anecdotes are consistent with various pieces of primary documentation we have and the anecdotes of other who played or refereed in the same time period, I know who I would accept an authority on what how people played back in the day.

The implications of this are... nothing. It information it neither superior or inferior to how things are today. It is however useful because it illustrates alternatives that were lost due to the personal or business interests of the designers that shaped the hobby and industry since.

My recommendation is to lose the attitude and listen you might learn something useful.

And because this needs to be spelled out, me saying is it neither inferior or superior also means how useful it is to you is a matter of opinion. That my position stated earlier continues to be go with what works for you.

Also I get that you think skill systems are important.

In addition RPG history isn't a case where everybody was marching in lockstep. There are accounts of people who were very much "Do what impress me" style referee. However the norm, the person who you were likely to run into prior to D&D spreading all over the place in the mid 70s were individual who were versed how history and combat worked. Who were used to making rulings and debating from first principles. Whose charts and talbles wasn't some Avalon Hill, SPI, or TSR author judgment of how things worked but based on actual military studies with charts outlined various percentages and statistics.

Quote from: Kiero;1071221Rules can fix the issue if it makes it clear to everyone what the situation is.

Only in specific circumstances. There isn't a set of rules made that can handle all things players can do in a RPG campaign while interacting with a setting as their character. Hence the need for the considered judgment of the human referee.

Because of this what important is that the referee communicates clearly what the situation is with the campaign. The rules used for adjudication only a part of this.

 

Quote from: Kiero;1071221Especially when they cover things which are actually well handled by rules, like skill systems.

 While Skill systems are in common use it is not a settled that it is a accurate and useful reflection of human capabilities. Thus still a point of debate. I happen to find skill system useful however I also acknowledge there is a legitimate counterpoint against skill systems.
 
 My overall opinion is that in addition to reflecting the setting, designed as a useful tools, a rule system has to work with how a given referee thinks both in terms of procedure and what detailed are covered.
 
 

Quote from: Kiero;1071221Instead of handwaved rulings on the spot from case to case, if we all know in advance what your characters' skillset is, all the ambiguity and potential for abuse disappears.

It not ambiguous if you understand history.  
 

Quote from: Kiero;1071221That isn't a mandate for 3.x style bean-counting, merely an argument for having a skill system at all. Omitting them in 1974 was forgivable, because it was all new. Doing the same 45 years later is misguided or just plain lazy.

I think you are ignorant of the alternatives. I prefer to use skill systems and created one for my Majestic Fantasy rules. However I also understand and have put into practice how to referee fairly and clearly without a skill system. Doing this proved invaluable to creating and understanding the design of system I used since.

It about understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches. None are "better", or misguided or being lazy. It rather it has to do with what abstracted, what details are emphasized, and the way the referee thinks. All subjective opinions that could change depending as the details of the campaigns change.

Quote from: Kiero;1071221Not only that, your choice of skills is a really important part of flavouring the setting from the player's perspective. What is and isn't featured on the list, and how broad they are speak volumes about many of the assumed conceits of the setting.

True as long as one keeps in mind that for tabletop roleplaying games the rules can not define all what a player can do as their character. Only the setting and the specifics of the character does that.

Quote from: Kiero;1071221ACKS is ancient, rather than medieval; that's why it was so easy for me to convert the currency to an actual ancient one with nothing more than a multiplier (1gp is 5 silver drachmae). Even the silver to gold conversion rate is consistent with the Hellenistic era, after Alexander had looted the Persian treasuries and devalued gold.

I know what the author based the Auran setting on and how the rules reflect that. However is not ancient as in Sumeria, Egypt and Shang Dynasty but classical as in Greece, Rome, and the Han. Which is a hop and the skip from the medieval and if you have read their axioms you will see that much of their original work is applicable to a broad span of time. This is on top of the fact that is based on B/X which is based on OD&D which is assumes a fantasy medieval setting. And in OD&D it is treated in a way that is flexible enough to handle John Carter of Mars to 4th millenia Sumeria.

Quote from: S'mon;1071223OD&D is most commonly used to mean the original game. If you look at the Dragonsfoot forum titles https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/index.php the non-AD&D old D&D is referred to as Classic D&D, with an OD&D sub forum for the original game. So it's probably best to say 'Classic', or 'B/X' if being more specific (eg excluding Mentzer BECMI/RC).

Classic D&D is popular on Dragonsfoot, less so elsewhere. Basic D&D is an alternative, which can cover anything from Holmes through the RC. Though neither is likely to cause any confusion.

Or even more generally, old school D&D. That covers pretty much everything from OD&D (correct use) to the Basic and Advanced lines, to more recent incarnations like the clones, or more broadly any OSR game. Or OSR D&D, though that excludes the originals.

As far as reffing CHA goes, IMC everything starts with what a player actually says - high CHA won't fill in the blank for you with a die roll, you still have to decide how to approach a conversation.

But if you have high CHA anything you say is respun in its best possible light.  So if a high CHA PC is played by a dull player then I as a DM "re-state" whatever is said in a way more agreeable to the NPC (since only I know what would be agreeable to an NPC).

Likewise, if a charismatic player tries to dump-stat CHA, everything the player adds in conversation will be re-stated in a bad light, commensurate with the score given.  They could make a statement that is perfect at the table, cracks everybody up, and is of such insight that it expresses exactly what would be necessary to "solve" the conversation to the PCs favor - but I'll in turn reply "well, you meant to say "X" but in reality the words you chose imply that the NPC's mother is undiscerning when seeking company."

The funny player does their job - makes the meatspace game fun for meatspace people - but their character is still tied to their CHA.  Likewise the player who can't play up to their stats gets a boost from the DM.