With the way I roll die I have to assign stats instead of straight up and down.
We used to do it that way in 2nd ed.

QuoteGender, yes. Background, no. Once you have your race and stats, it usually points you towards a background and class. I fear too much randomness would lead to the bizarre patchwork characters that you usually get from the munchkins. My rule of thumb is to roll for the things you don't get to choose (like your parents) but pick the things you can choose like your career.

I'd say - background is most often just that. Like you're nurture, not your professional career (that's your class).
Gives you some basic skills, social standing, but you start as Noble you can still end as Noble Fighter, Noble Cleric, Noble Warlock or Noble Cerealmancer, it's up to you - and depends of your stats.
You could be raised among clergy and become barbarian warrior, but still you gonna know more about religions around than your average barbarian. This sort of shit.

QuoteThe tree descended directly from the tree that literally brought light into the world - in the "let there be light" sense.

My neurosis forces me to point out Lighttowers and Stars were first
And tree was sort of shitty solution as it shined only upon one country.

QuoteMithirl obviously comes from Tolkien, and although I acknowledge what the 1E DMG says (and perhaps more importantly, *doesn't* say), it's also true that before 5E, mithril was not considered inherently magical, nor is it portrayed as such in Tolkien's source material. In fact, In his early writings, Tolkien described mithril as simply being silver that was finely-wrought by the Dwarven smiths until it was stronger and lighter than steel.

Although one should consider that dwarven craft could be magic-enhanced. After all "the dwarves of yore knows mighty spells".

3d6 straight down the line, take what you get and play it. No funny business fiddling with the numbers.

It is the best way. Try it.

Quote from: thomden on December 20, 2021, 01:51:00 AM
3d6 straight down the line, take what you get and play it. No funny business fiddling with the numbers.

It is the best way. Try it.

I did 3d6 in order once right in front of the DM; Str 17, Int 13, Wis 14, Dex 18, Con 17, Cha 16. Human Fighter who got a 9 on his starting HD for 12 hp. I don't remember the exact number but got close to max starting gold so had an AC 0 (chain+shield+dex).

Everyone else rolled like crap. They went through several PCs each before they got anywhere close while my character advanced in level. They weren't having fun and I wasn't having fun because they weren't having fun.

Experiences like that are why I never play systems with random stat generation anymore. Arrays or Point Buy make character creation smoother and puts all the players on the same field as a starting point. At least that's been my experience.

In the first game where I went hardcore on the character creation as a DM, a player rolled Str 11, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 8, Cha 18 and made a warlock character. Everybody else rolled bad to average but the party worked well together and so far it's the best game I've ever DM'd.

Quote from: thomden on December 20, 2021, 01:51:00 AM
3d6 straight down the line, take what you get and play it. No funny business fiddling with the numbers.

It is the best way. Try it.

This. Because the world needs ditch diggers and latrine sweepers. Only two ways out for "hopeless" characters - gold and glory, or in a pine box.

I think players place far too much emphasis on starting statistics. Thinking about this in relative terms, your typical 200 person village will probably have one villager with an 18 Str, one with an 18 Dex, etc. So even if you are going with 4d6 and drop the lowest, you are unlikely to be the strongest, fastest, most intelligent, etc. even when compared with the common folk in a starting village; and much less so in a town or city. What sets the PCs apart from their fellows though isn't their position on the bell curve, it's their will (supplied by us players) to risk their lives for fortune and glory. That's the way I look at it anyway.

Quote from: mightybrain on December 20, 2021, 07:44:52 PM
I think players place far too much emphasis on starting statistics.

Depends on the system. AD&D or BECMI; sure, you'll be fine with a statistical average 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 character.

In the World of Darkness by contrast; PCs are expected to add a minimum of seven dots to a group of three attributes on top of the free one in each and where 2 is considered an average person; the available spreads are therefore 3/3/4, 2/4/4, 2/3/5 or 1/4/5 for that grouping; far above "average". Even the worst grouping adds three dots on top of the free ones for an average score in the group being a 2... whether 2/2/2, 1/2/3 or 1/1/4.

Similarly, 4E's default is a 28 point buy where at least one 16 is expected and the minimum you could have in any attribute is 8 -or- an array of 16, 15, 14, 12, 10, 8 and the game's math was tight enough that something where you spread your point buy as evenly as possible would put you about 10% behind everyone else with no actual compensation for its literally just a bad build in the system.

It's only through the rather myopic lens of "OSR is the only game system" that your statement holds true.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 20, 2021, 09:47:56 PM
It's only through the rather myopic lens of "OSR is the only game system" that your statement holds true.

Maybe in the context of this discussion so far, but not more generally.  Though this is also a case of "cart before the horse" where it isn't always clear what is "cart" and what is "horse" for any given person. 

To wit, for me, there is intrinsic value in "starting statistics should not have so much emphasis" (compared to the usual modern take).  Aside from what particular D&D or D&D-like or even other games (e.g. Rune Quest) might emphasize or not emphasize starting statistics when taking a cold, hard look at how they work in the model and in practice.

Or to tie back to the topic, I find the question "Stats Straight down the Line or Arrange" itself has some "cart before the horse" implications, even if they aren't automatic in it. In a vacuum, one reason I'd prefer BEMCI/RC over AD&D is not so that I can more readily do 3d6 down the line versus 4d6, drop lowest, arrange to suit.  You could do either way with both games.  The characters in the former will be readily supported with lower stats, which makes 3d6 down the line viable.  That is, the method used to generate the stats is a symptom of bigger concerns--or at least a proxy for them if we don't want to get bogged down in the cause/effect relationship. 

This translates directly to why I'm using similar stats in my own game.  It's not OSR, but it's inspired by some of the same design constraints evident in BEMCI/RC, which are independent of OSR games. 

Philosophically, this translates directly, I think, to the opposing views of "more, bigger is better" versus "less is more", which will naturally have all kinds of effects on any game design.

If your character has a bunch of 8s and 9s, then perhaps they shouldn't be out adventuring?  Every family needs someone to stay at home, sometimes.  Let the strong, the swift, the smart, the wise, and those full of charisma take on the dangers of their world.  Let the below average characters do what must be done, back at home.

Quote from: Jam The MF on December 21, 2021, 01:47:13 PM
If your character has a bunch of 8s and 9s, then perhaps they shouldn't be out adventuring?  Every family needs someone to stay at home, sometimes.  Let the strong, the swift, the smart, the wise, and those full of charisma take on the dangers of their world.  Let the below average characters do what must be done, back at home.

Which is great, but that player still needs to roll up a PC for the game.

Or are you going to make them play Mister Peasant?

I'm playing a BFRPG game where it's 3d6 in order, but you can reroll if stats total under 70 or net mods are negative. This seems to work very well in making viable but interesting PCs, who tend to cluster in the bit-above-average range.

I tend to randomize everything as much as I can.
I find characters generated by Fate to be generally much more inspiring and interesting, than characters designed by player's desires. That include also my characters.

Nevertheless each game has it's demands.

In simulationist sandboxey game without estabilished clear modes of play and purposes, then vastly divergent players can work very well. It's mutual obligation of GM and players that someone will always have something to do. And even Superman cannot be in two places at the same time (No nr. 34 of Astonishing Tales from 1955 is not canon, dammit).
If game is more crafted to specific gameplay - then randomisation should create viable characters at minimum (if you really need one 16 in D&D 4E then randomisator should give everyone one 16.

Generally as a simulationist I believe attributes should matter both in good and bad way, no attribute should be dump stat, and there should be wide array of them to create wide array of possible human types. So this OSR attitude that they basically don't matter is really meh for me.
If they matter so little then just delete them from game and base everything on class abilities.

Quote from: S'mon on December 21, 2021, 03:39:21 PM
I'm playing a BFRPG game where it's 3d6 in order, but you can reroll if stats total under 70 or net mods are negative. This seems to work very well in making viable but interesting PCs, who tend to cluster in the bit-above-average range.

Lamentations of the Flame Princess recommends re-rolling if the total bonuses of your stats do not add up to +1.  This seems like the most effective method since every character has at least one good trait to make up for any bad ones.

It is also surprising considering the high turnover rate of LOTFP's adventurers.

It would be thrice as fast otherwise.