RPG Pondering: D&D Stat Generation [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Oracle_Hunter

2010-10-06, 09:21 AM

TSR D&D: 4d6, drop lowest; arrange to suit.
You're looking to go on adventures, not stat out awesome dudes. There just aren't all that many mechanical options available in character building so the focus has to be more on the actual adventures (and fluffy portions of the character).

Exception: if someone just absolutely must play a MAD character, either allow minimal point transfer (i.e. +x to a score in exchange to -x from another) or just fix their "required" stats at the minimum and 3d6 & arrange the others.

WotC D&D: Point Buy
So much of the game is focused on the mechanics of your character and stats are highly determinative of your ability to "play the game." As PC development is a major facet of the game, it is unwise to use a stat generation system that can close off major portions of the game from a Player.

Also, stats are so important to character power that using a random system will just exacerbate intra-party power inequities that are intrinsic to the system.
IMHO, no stat generation system should take more than the minimum amount of time needed to get the job done. For TSR D&D, that's usually a straight roll with minimal arranging - 30 minutes, tops, for a character. For WotC D&D this would be a point buy followed by about an hour of class, race, and feat selections. For SR, we're talking 2 hours just to spec out your cyberware :smallamused:

Gan The Grey

2010-10-06, 09:26 AM

However, in a realistic team of adventurers, each person is going to be about as competent as the next, otherwise the others will kick out the one who's holding them back or the savant will leave the group to find another more close to his peers for greater gains.

Ehhh....not really. Sometimes you deal with what you got because it's the only thing you can trust. Sometimes you adventure with your friends. Sure, on a sufficiently long enough timeline, you would probably get rid of the losers due to them retiring or just them dying off. Besides, depending on classes, a character with a low total attribute sum can easily and successfully adventure with a character with a high total attribute sum. I mean, how many points does a wizard REALLY need to have in order to keep up with the team fighter, or rogue, or MONK for that matter?

So saying that every single character in your group will always have an equal amount of stat distribution? Negative. Statistically improbable.

EDIT I think saying total attribute sum is misleading. What I mean to say is if you convert their random roll into what it would if it was a point buy. Just didn't know how to say that.

Kurald Galain

2010-10-06, 09:32 AM

Point Buy causes less arguments about (1) how exactly to roll and what qualifies for rerolls, and (2) that the char creation wasn't fair later on. That's two good arguments to use that.

Jack Zander

2010-10-06, 09:33 AM

So saying that every single character in your group will always have an equal amount of stat distribution? Negative. Statistically improbable.

To have an exact equal amount of point buy is very improbable, but so is two people adventuring with two widely differing ability levels. Realistic adventuring teams would probably be within no more than 5 point buys of each other.

Of course, skill has a lot to do with it as well, so depending on class, maybe not.

Fax Celestis

2010-10-06, 09:33 AM

I generally have my players roll 5d4 instead of 3d6 or 4d6b3. Sure, it's a 5-20 range, but it has a steeper bell curve, so that outlier low (and outlier high) scores are more uncommon.

Worlok

2010-10-06, 09:53 AM

I would propose some sort of hybrid system: The classes they want to play are noted down beforehand. Then you have the players roll the usual 6 rounds of 4d6, adding the three highest rolls as usual, but noting the one left out. The results are applied according to the list of abilities: First roll goes to strength, second to dexterity, third to constitution, fourth int., fifth wis., sixth cha. - This way, you get a fairly random set of statistics, allowing for people who exceed others in terms of overall competence as well as people who are just plain bad at what they do. If a key ability (Such as Charisma for a sorcerer) is below ten, the added result of the left-out dice can be added directly to that score until it hits twelve in an ad hoc point buy. This functions for exactly one ability score. If you still have points left from the dice result thereafter, they are bestowed upon the character as bonus skill points, applicable to any given class skill without exceeding the standard max ranks, but with any cross-class skill they may flow into being treated as a class skill then and ever after. That way you get randomly competent characters (remember: not everyone who does something should reasonably be doing that, but most of those do it anyway.) with unique sets of talents and interests. A rather unwise druid may still exceed in the right circumstances if he knows a lot about ancient elvish architecture, and a highly intelligent fighter may save the party's lives via tactics, even though she is below par as an actual fighter. I recently recommended this one to a DM I know and from what I could gather from his players, it actually helps growing an attachment to your characters. Criticism, anyone?

Oracle_Hunter

2010-10-06, 10:00 AM

I recently recommended this one to a DM I know and from what I could gather from his players, it actually helps growing an attachment to your characters. Criticism, anyone?
How, exactly, does the above method accomplish this? :smallconfused:

The system seems fine as written, albeit terribly complicated; I'm just confused as to how stat generation like this causes players to form a greater attachment to their character.

Radar

2010-10-06, 10:02 AM

The only way of Stat Generation I strongly dislike is rolling stats in order, since it takes away my decisions about the character I would like to play. Want to be a thief with a heart of gold? Not going to happen with an 8 in Dex, unless you want to be comedy gold instead. A lot of classes are completly shut down, if their stats aren't half decent. Obviously you can roll multiple times and pick the best set, but it's IMO just an unnecessary complication.

IMO point buy is much simplier, fair and doesn't require any supervision form the DM, since it's can be checked at any time. If you honestly need some more diversity, then after character creation (preferably done outside of a session) you can roll a d6 or d10 to get some bonus points to distribute before you start your first session.

Kurald Galain

2010-10-06, 10:05 AM

How, exactly, does the above method accomplish this? :smallconfused:
+1 to that.

Also, any system that can be expressed in one or two lines is preferable (to me) than one that requires several paragraphs of explanation. There doesn't seem to be an added value to the complexity, here.

Amphetryon

2010-10-06, 10:05 AM

(3d4+6)x7, drop lowest. Stats from 9 - 18, with 9 and 18 both being statistically rare.

EDIT: typo

Morty

2010-10-06, 10:08 AM

I'm perfectly fine with both methods, myself. Dice rolling? Okay. Point buy? Also okay. Point buy makes for more streamlined and balanced gameplay and dice rolling is pleasantly quirky. I see no reason to make a big deal out of it.

some guy

2010-10-06, 10:29 AM

IMO point buy is much simplier, fair and doesn't require any supervision form the DM, since it's can be checked at any time.

Though I agree with the fairness, I disagree with the simpleness. I play a lot with persons new to the hobby. With rolling abilities, they just need to roll and assign their abilities, fairly fast done and easy.
When they had to use point-buy it took a lot longer and they needed much more explaination from the DM (who was using a home-ruled version of point-buy I wasn't familiar with, so I couldn't help as much).

I like rolling my abilities, but I'm fine with point-buy too. Rolling just feels more like a game, as if you're already playing, I find it more exciting than point-buy. Point-buy, however, has the advantage of creating your character at home and jumping directly in the adventure without wasting play time.

Worlok

2010-10-06, 10:30 AM

How, exactly, does the above method accomplish this? :smallconfused:
+1 to that.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not totally sure. Apparently, which in this case means the way i understood them, it's something about coming up with a flawed character (the exemplar intellectual fighter is a character actively played in that camapaign) and working around the resulting impediment. So, a sense-of-accomplishment-thing. Then again, I'm a homebrewer, not a psychologist, so I remain open to the idea that it's primarily a roleplaying thing. Anyway, it's sort of positive feedback, so I thought I should perhaps sneak it in. :smalltongue:

Also, any system that can be expressed in one or two lines is preferable (to me) than one that requires several paragraphs of explanation. There doesn't seem to be an added value to the complexity, here.
I'll give you that. But I'm not exactly good at keeping things short and simple. My bad, most likely.

Duke of URL

2010-10-06, 10:32 AM

It all depends on your goals. Point-buy lets you set a power level for the game that can be controlled with little variation. Random, well, adds randomness, which generally leads to a much greater variance between characters.

As to whether or not the variance is a problem, that comes down to how much of a character's power is based on his/her ability scores. In the 3.x systems, my opinion is that matter less and less at higher levels -- yes, good scores always help, but they're not absolutely vital, as there are ways to either work around them or options that don't depend (at least heavily) on them.

So in high-level games, I have no problem with random variance, as it has a much lower effect on characters, proportionally. In lower-level games, random variance may add some simulationist realism, so it can be acceptable there, as well.

On the other hand, we are playing a game, after all, and players tend to want to at least start out on somewhat equal footing. Randomness can also lead to specific character concepts being impossible or strongly nerfed, which can be an issue if a player wants to play a certain concept but just doesn't have the rolls to do it.

Mix-and-match is also a possibility. E.g., standard point buy of 25+1d6 puts the average starting PB at 28-29, with the possibility of being a little better or a little worse. You can control the range of abilities while still allowing for some variability.

Kylarra

2010-10-06, 10:39 AM

I usually do a 4D6 drop lowest or pointbuy, with pointbuy as a fallback option if the first option is below some baseline (but not if they just don't like the rolls they made).

VarianArdell

2010-10-06, 10:55 AM

(2d4+10)x6 ranges 12-18, with 15 being average. then again, most of our campaigns are relatively high-powered...

bokodasu

2010-10-06, 11:11 AM

Although I actually prefer the randomness of rolling*, I've never played in a group without at least one cheater; point-buy all the way.

Wait, I take that back. ONCE I played in a group without any cheaters. But how often do I run games for my kids?

---
*This could also just be a throwback due to being old; I still remember the transgressive thrill from the first time we did 3d6*6 and arranged the stats in the order we wanted.

Aotrs Commander

2010-10-06, 11:30 AM

I generally use a point-buy these days (point-for-point, though, not WotC's); it as just less hassle than manually ensuring everyone had a reasonable balance of stats. I think Oracle_Hunter has a point; in AD&D it was less important (and though I tended to ensure everyone had at least one good stat), while in 3.5 it's more important.

I generally use base 8 +30 points (giving you, say an 18/16/14/12/10/8 array) nowadays.

(But I'm considering actually raising that (say +6) a bit to allow for some non-stat optimised roleplaying room. (It would not, cosmicially, increase the PCs power-level.) It's kind of tedious having everyone but the party face and maybe the cleric have Cha 8, after like, three or four parties. In fact, in our latest party (though I'm not the DM this time) all SIX of us are Cha 8! (Though the DM did say it was a primarrily dungeon-crawling game.) I think the anser is with the randomised stats, we probably got generally better than the 30 points-buy I used or the fact stats were worth less emant we got more median stats. I know I had a character that was basically all twelves at one point, though that might even have been in early 3.0.)

Oracle_Hunter

2010-10-06, 11:37 AM

Apparently, which in this case means the way i understood them, it's something about coming up with a flawed character (the exemplar intellectual fighter is a character actively played in that camapaign) and working around the resulting impediment. So, a sense-of-accomplishment-thing.
To be honest, this is the main concern of mine when it comes to Point Buys ("PBs") - characters usually don't have meaningful mechanical flaws. The flattening effect of standardizing a power level means that people choose their weaknesses where they can easily compensate for them, or otherwise render them irrelevant. In a pure dice roll you can end up with the sort of spread that ends up resulting in a mechanical flaw you have to deal with - but this is by no means assured.

However, I've made my peace with the fact that PBs are the way to go with WotC D&D games: the stats are simply too important to a major piece of game play (i.e. PC development) to be left up to chance.

If you want to have meaningful flaws in D&D PCs, and love to homebrew, I recommend making a d20 list of flaws for each class/type and having each player to roll twice and pick one flaw. Ideally the flaws would be equally mechanically meaningful for a class/type (e.g. cowardice for melee, easily distracted for casters) so that a bad luck doesn't cripple a character but rather provides a flaw for the Player to deal with.

Duke of URL

2010-10-06, 11:42 AM

It's a delicate balance between controlling power levels, allowing players to play the characters they want (without making them incapable of doing their primary job), and avoiding min/maxing.

That why I repeat my suggestion of a point buy with a random element. It's not perfect, but it allows for a narrow range of variability around a set power level.

El Dorado

2010-10-06, 11:44 AM

My DM mentioned disliking point buy because, in his view, it encourages min maxing. Meh.

That said, he usually provides a generous array of dice rolling methods. I used 5d6 (drop lowest 2) x 6 in our last campaign.

For me, I prefer point buy if I'm trying to create a specific class or am trying to roll up a character who is going to fill a needed role in the party. If I have no idea what I want to play, I let the dice rolls give me ideas.

Crow

2010-10-06, 11:50 AM

4d6 drop lowest, with a fallback of 25 point buy if the roller doesn't like what they rolled.

valadil

2010-10-06, 12:54 PM

I like point buy. It lets players write up their characters without a GM present. Even if you trust your players to roll stats on their own, the players might not trust each other. I like to avoid needless jealousy.

I've also seen players commit suicide when they don't like their rolls. IMO that's immature and indicative of a person with whom I don't want to game, but I don't always have full control over the group and can't go about kicking other PCs out of the party. PB avoids that situation entirely.

Tengu_temp

2010-10-06, 01:00 PM

Dubious Pie

2010-10-06, 01:11 PM

Everyone uses low point buys, but 4d6b3 is a 38 point buy equiviant.

Oracle_Hunter

2010-10-06, 01:12 PM

Point buy gives you more control over creating the character you want, and is more fair. If you ask me, rolling for stats is a relic from the old times, when RPGs were more like board games with the DM instead of a board. Are there any modern RPGs that use random elements in character creation, anyway? Even 4e no longer treats rolling for stats as default, and it did away with random HP.
Rolling Stat Generation is a great method if:

(1) You're using a game with numbered statistics
(2) Character creation is simple

It's quick and can help an undecided Player settle in for a game. TSR D&D was one such game, and many small-scope modern RPGs (like Great Ork Gods (http://www.greatorkgods.co.uk/)) use them.

Tyndmyr

2010-10-06, 01:22 PM

Point Buy causes less arguments about (1) how exactly to roll and what qualifies for rerolls, and (2) that the char creation wasn't fair later on. That's two good arguments to use that.

Yeah. Last char I rolled up used 4d6, drop lowest. My lowest score was a 13. Sure, it's a roll method that averages a bit higher than normal, but when my modifiers range equally between +1 to +3, Im gonna outperform that poor sap that the dice hate. Well, Im likely to, at any rate. And if he runs into bad luck, even if it's not caused by the poor stats, they're likely to be blamed by him.

Esser-Z

2010-10-06, 01:40 PM

Well, from a simulationist point of view, dice roll is the best, as not all people are created equal. Some people are just better than others.
I've not read the rest of the thread, so this post is CERTAIN to be redundant.

This would be an accurate statement IF the players are taking a person and then doing something that person is good at. Some people do this and enjoy it. I do not. I prefer designing a character. But, you say, people don't get to decide what they're good at!

Of course not. But I, out of character, outside the game, want to play a Paladin. Therefore, I am going to design a person who is good at Paladin (high str, cha, etc) stuff. Only people with those scores will be Paladins. I'm not starting with a random person and figuring out what they can do. I'm saying "I am going to play a person who does X, now what kind of attributes would such a person have?".

Rather than generating a character randomly, I DESIGN a character, based on what I, the player, want to play during the game. Thus, I vastly prefer pointbuy. Balance issues aside (these DO exist), and the whole 'fff all low' aside, I don't like the lack of control rolling brings. I want to determine what I'm going to play, not have the dice do that for me.

Doug Lampert

2010-10-06, 01:41 PM

Well, from a simulationist point of view, dice roll is the best, as not all people are created equal. Some people are just better than others.

Naturally this is done AFTER choosing rolling randomly for race and with the die rolls taken in order, no choice as to which roll goes there. Sorry that you wanted to play an orc fighter, you do realize that an orc with 16 Int and 10 Str is every bit as likely as one with 22 Str and 4 Int don't you? It should make a fine adventurer and it's perfectly plausible that he'd be kicked out of the tribe as the orc equivalent of a nerd and be forced to go adventuring.

Just simulating reality, and 3 Con isn't really crippling is it?

Simulating reality FAILS as an argument the moment you bring "Choose order" into it. At that point we're just debating how far you're willing to go in letting the player design the character he wants and how much deliberate inequality we want in the builds.

If inequality is an actual goal then use random rolls to determin how many points I get for point buy.

Everyone uses low point buys, but 4d6b3 is a 38 point buy equiviant.

This. Write a computer program someday to roll up a modest sized town's adult population (3d6 six times in order) and compute point buy totals. It isn't hard.

You'll find that point buy totals of FIFTY+ are typically present in any decent sized town.

Then they tell us that 32 is overpowered for most games and appropriate for great heroes! I want to play Conan, not the dweeb next door or me. Conan has enourmous strength, unbelievable endurance, agility like a cat, astonishing perception, enough brains to routinely be the leader who sees a way through, and enough charisma that people fall for him all the time and he ends up with a major kingdom.

Rolling people ROUTINELY change the method or just generate and let stay dead characters till they get one they like and end up with 40+ point builds. I suspect this is a major reason for the popularity of rolling, NOT the chance that you might get a total gimp or a weakness.

In fact it's point buy where every character seems to have an 8 or two, so we know which one generates the occasional weakness.

And if you want the weakness to not be min-maxed to not matter then we're back to needing the rolls to be in order.

DougL

Fax Celestis

2010-10-06, 01:50 PM

Balance issues aside (these DO exist), and the whole 'fff all low' aside, I don't like the lack of control rolling brings. I want to determine what I'm going to play, not have the dice do that for me.

Naturally this is done AFTER choosing rolling randomly for race and with the die rolls taken in order, no choice as to which roll goes there. Sorry that you wanted to play an orc fighter, you do realize that an orc with 16 Int and 10 Str is every bit as likely as one with 22 Str and 4 Int don't you? It should make a fine adventurer and it's perfectly plausible that he'd be kicked out of the tribe as the orc equivalent of a nerd and be forced to go adventuring.

I fail to see the part where rolling automatically includes complete random generation and automatically excludes the possibility of arranging your rolled stats. You also seem to be operating under the assumption that everyone only rolls one set. I, for example. let my players roll 3 sets of 7 * 5d4. They pick six of the seven stats from a set to keep, and then choose the set they like.

An example:
{table=head] Roll Number | Set 1 | Set 2 | Set 3
1 | 12 | 16 | 15
2 | 12 | 10 | 10
3 | 16 | 16 | 12
4 | 8 | 10 | 12
5 | 16 | 10 | 11
6 | 12 | 14 | 14
7 | 13 | 17 | 12
[/table]
Set 1 is 16 16 13 12 12 12
Set 2 s 17 16 16 14 10 10
Set 3 is 15 14 12 12 12 11

These sets are not even, but they are all usable, and some represent concepts better than others. If I were playing, say, a psychic warrior or a rogue, I'd grab Set 1. If I were playing a primary caster, I'd grab set 2.

Telonius

2010-10-06, 01:53 PM

I give my players one free 18. Then, roll d8+10 five times; reroll ones, once (if it comes up one on the second roll, it was meant to be); arrange as desired. The players are supposed to be borderline-superheroes.

Also, unbeknownst to the players, all monsters are advanced at least one hit die and gain +2 to their primary stat. Important NPCs use the same stat generation method as the PCs.

Esser-Z

2010-10-06, 01:54 PM

That's certainly BETTER than the traditional 4d6, drop lowest, order them as you will system, Fax. It's fine, and I'd be willing to play with it.

Thing is, though, I don't like the randomness itself. I want to design and play a specific character I have (usually) already conceptualized by this point. Really, I don't understand why there's a random element involved at all, other than Tradition.

Amphetryon

2010-10-06, 01:57 PM

Esser-Z

2010-10-06, 01:58 PM

I've also used what we called a 'rolled array' format before, where the players first determine what classes they wanted to start the game as, then one player rolls 4d6x7 for the array of stats everyone uses. It was amusing to watch them figure out a party of Hexblade, Wilder, Dread Necromancer, Bard on stats of something like 17 15 15 13 11 4, with a second 4 being dropped.
Amusing, perhaps, but I'd find that incredibly frustrating and unfun. Forcing a character to use stats that might not fit their concept makes no sense. Somebody who's bad at the things a certain class needs would not be a member of that class!

jpreem

2010-10-06, 02:12 PM

I've usually used 4d6b3 - kind of a classic feel to it :D
Recently I have thought of point buy - how many points should be comparable to 4d6b3?

Amphetryon

2010-10-06, 02:13 PM

I've usually used 4d6b3 - kind of a classic feel to it :D
Recently I have thought of point buy - how many points should be comparable to 4d6b3?

In theory, 25.

I've seen some number-crunching done where the median came closer to 27 points, though.

TheThan

2010-10-06, 02:25 PM

Fax Celestis

2010-10-06, 02:31 PM

For stat rolling, I like a method I came up with a while ago. I call it the D8 system.

Roll 1d8 six times and add 10 to each roll. This will generate a number between 11 and 18 each roll.
This is great because it eliminates the need for rerolling or rolling several sets of dice and make sure people get rolls they can use for most characters.

Yeah, but it has a flat-line instead of a bell curve. You have as much chance of rolling all 11s as you do of rolling all 18s as you do of rolling all 14s.

Tyndmyr

2010-10-06, 02:34 PM

Yeah, that'll actually result in more variance between characters in general. Sure, the minimum stat is higher(11), but more variance is generally considered undesirable. It not only leads to odd character possibilities being more frequent, but odd assumptions about the world.

TheThan

2010-10-06, 02:41 PM

Yeah, but most people whine about rolling low stats, not about rolling the same number several times. Which this is designed to help negate in a quick and efficient manner. Its also one of those things I’d only do with PCs, because as you say, it’ll lead to a rather odd world.

Forged Fury

2010-10-06, 02:42 PM

*This could also just be a throwback due to being old; I still remember the transgressive thrill from the first time we did 3d6*6 and arranged the stats in the order we wanted.
Ah, the good old days of simultaneous multiclass, dual classes, racial max levels and the statistical improbability of a Paladin PC ever existing.

Esser-Z

2010-10-06, 02:44 PM

I still want to know why stats should be rolled at all. Unless you're doing some sort of "roll, then figure out what you can play" game, I don't see any merit whatsoever.

Oracle_Hunter

2010-10-06, 02:47 PM

I still want to know why stats should be rolled at all. Unless you're doing some sort of "roll, then figure out what you can play" game, I don't see any merit whatsoever.
Um, yeah, that's pretty much when you'd use rolls over PB. It'd be weird to say "pick a class then roll to see if you can use it" :smalltongue:

EDIT: and, of course, rolling is strictly faster than PB. If your game is designed for quick and mechanically simple character generation, Dice Roll is a fine way to get the game going quickly. If stat generation is but one of several time-intensive parts of mechanical character creation, PB is a more reasonable choice.

Shyftir

2010-10-06, 02:48 PM

Rolling is fine for 3.5, but I'd never ever use it for 4e, but that's probably because 4e has less of the "You're a wizard, you are unstoppable" class inequalities. So stat equality is necessary to even semi-balanced play.

(I like and play both editions so let's not bring up the edition wars here.)

My (3.5) group regularly does a 4d6b3 (re-roll 1s - once) which obviously often gives very good stats. Especially since we often roll 3 sets as well.

Another method is to roll 4d6b3 one roll at a time and put your score in an ability before rolling the next one. It adds a bit of suspense in the rolling process.

WarKitty

2010-10-06, 02:48 PM

I still want to know why stats should be rolled at all. Unless you're doing some sort of "roll, then figure out what you can play" game, I don't see any merit whatsoever.

Depends on how you're rolling. Most rolled stat systems I've played are "roll your 6 scores and put the numbers where you want."

As a DM, I typically hand the players 2-3 stat arrays from which they can choose. They all have the same number of points in them. Players can choose between taking one high stat and some low ones, or several average ones, or somewhere in between. I also like PF-style floating bonuses (free +2 to a stat of your choice).

Esser-Z

2010-10-06, 02:50 PM

Depends on how you're rolling. Most rolled stat systems I've played are "roll your 6 scores and put the numbers where you want."

Which still has an element of determining what you'll be able to play, depending on how many high/medium/low/etc rolls you end up with.

Um, yeah, that's pretty much when you'd use rolls over PB. It'd be weird to say "pick a class then roll to see if you can use it"

Do many people play that way, then? I'm used to concept first, then all the mechanics.

TheThan

2010-10-06, 02:51 PM

I still want to know why stats should be rolled at all. Unless you're doing some sort of "roll, then figure out what you can play" game, I don't see any merit whatsoever.

Rolling stats typically leads to more organic feeling characters. If all characters ever are perfectly suited to whatever life path they choose to take then the world would have little in the way of verisimilitude.
with stat rolling suddenly that wizard is not the smartest person in the world, but he’s still smart enough to throw a few spells around and that rogue is little more than a brutish thug; instead of this crazy acrobat capable of amazing feats of dexterity.

some people like role playing as much (if not more than) roll playing.

Fax Celestis

2010-10-06, 02:52 PM

Which still has an element of determining what you'll be able to play, depending on how many high/medium/low/etc rolls you end up with.

So does point buy. :smallconfused:

Doug Lampert

2010-10-06, 03:01 PM

I fail to see the part where rolling automatically includes complete random generation and automatically excludes the possibility of arranging your rolled stats.

Because I was SPECIFICALLY replying to a "realism" argument. And aranged stats are unrealistic and allow unrealisticly high chances of synergy between rolls and racial adjustments. {Scrubbed}

Greenish

2010-10-06, 03:04 PM

some people like role playing as much (if not more than) roll playing.Now I'm confused. Roll-players don't roll, and roleplayers roll? What do roll-players do, role their stats? :smallconfused:

Do you roll to determine which you are?

*head asplode*

Doug Lampert

2010-10-06, 03:06 PM

Rolling stats typically leads to more organic feeling characters. If all characters ever are perfectly suited to whatever life path they choose to take then the world would have little in the way of verisimilitude.
with stat rolling suddenly that wizard is not the smartest person in the world, but he’s still smart enough to throw a few spells around and that rogue is little more than a brutish thug; instead of this crazy acrobat capable of amazing feats of dexterity.

some people like role playing as much (if not more than) roll playing.

And yet we've had a bunch of stat roll methods presented here which are pretty well GUARANTEED to give stronger characters than any DMG point buy.

If you like weaknesses and consider this "role" playing rather than "roll" playing then you should be an enthousiastic proponent of point buy.

In fact the posted rolling methods pretty well prove that weaknesses are exactly what people don't want from their rolled characters.

Fax Celestis

2010-10-06, 03:08 PM

Esser-Z

2010-10-06, 03:10 PM

Rolling stats typically leads to more organic feeling characters. If all characters ever are perfectly suited to whatever life path they choose to take then the world would have little in the way of verisimilitude.
But that's not the case at all! I'm not taking a person and saying 'what would he be good at', I'm taking a heroic concept and saying 'what would a person who can do these things be good at'. It's not an in character choice of life path based on existing abilities. It's a player-chosen path, which then the character is sculpted to match. The end IN CHARACTER result is 'this guy is very suited to fighting, so that's what he does', but the DESIGN path is 'this guy is very good at fighting. What should his scores look like?".

It's not "roll playing" to want my ace fighter to have stats that suit that. It'd be very strange to try to play an ace fighter who doesn't have stats that match that. A person with stats ill-suited for a path won't be on that path!

I want to roleplay as somebody who is good at X. Therefore, I design a character who is good at X. My character, being naturally inclined towards X, follows it as a life path. No lost verisimilitude at all.

In fact, I'd argue that a character with stats NOT suited to his life path breaks verisimilitude more, especially if he's supposed to be really good at what he does (Which PCs, being heroes, tend to be).

The thought process for me, as a player, deciding what I want to play is NOT the same as the character's process for determining what they are. I want to roleplay as X, so my character is built for X. As a person, in universe, my character was naturally inclined towards X, and thus IS X.

I'm not starting with a person and determining the path. I'm starting with a path (And personality and so forth) and determining what ability scores fit that person's personality and path.

So does point buy. :smallconfused:
I can control how much I lean towards a few high vs more even, though, rather than it being randomly determined (and I know that this will be visible relative to the party--everyone has the same material to work with).

Because I was SPECIFICALLY replying to a "realism" argument. And aranged stats are unrealistic and allow unrealisticly high chances of synergy between rolls and racial adjustments. {Scrubbed}

This is absolutely false. Arranged scores simply are a method of making sure the person is good at what the PLAYER wants them to be good at. In universe, they're naturally talented towards certain things, which influences what they do. Just because the PLAYER decided what they're good at first doesn't mean the CHARACTER did!

Tyndmyr

2010-10-06, 03:11 PM

Because I was SPECIFICALLY replying to a "realism" argument. And aranged stats are unrealistic and allow unrealisticly high chances of synergy between rolls and racial adjustments. {Scrubbed}

And yet, the background lore has an unusual amount of synergy between racial adjustment and racial trade choices.

Dwarves and elves do not randomly choose to live in trees or underground in the same ratios. Therefore, randomness is not actually that useful in depicting them realistically.

Susano-wo

2010-10-06, 03:21 PM

I have a sentimental attachment to rolling. I think its like the thrill of gambling. But I am coming to grips with the balancing factor of PB. I've just seen too many instances of people with 14s through 18s while some characters lag behind.

Ok, that's me--poor dice luck :D. Heck, due to a misinterpretation of the GMs instructions, we ended up rolling 4d6 drop the lowest *and* rolling 12 times. ( he said do either). I ended up with..crap, now I can't remember--well, the point was that the other characters were mostly higher. :smallredface:

I do favor giving recognized MAD classes some bonus points to help out, and maybe even reducing some SAD classes points to even them out.

(though one of these days I might try to do a game with 2d6+6. The variance for each roll is higher, and you don't get totally screwed, but its still only 1 in 36 to get one 18, not to mention getting multiple 18s.)

EDIT: If arranging stats is unrealistic, so is choosing a class to start with. :P Realisitic is not the same as the way things are in Real Life. It means maintaining acceptable levels of cause and effect. (and probably other things, but that's a good short definition)

Oracle_Hunter

2010-10-06, 03:26 PM

Do many people play that way, then? I'm used to concept first, then all the mechanics.
Yup, this was most TSR D&D (for me, anyhows). Roll stuff up and then see what it fits into. Since I always played with "placement" I could always pick my type; if I was lucky I'd play a Druid and if not, a Cleric.

You kids these days and your 1-20 progressions. Back in my day we didn't plan much beyond the current adventure, much less for the next level :smalltongue:

EDIT: A little bit on "realism"
As can be seen from this thread, "realism" doesn't actually favor one side of the debate or another; it is an equal-opportunity rhetorical tool. Consider that fact next time you feel like bringing up "realism" or "versimilitude" as a reason for supporting a particular game mechanic :smalltongue:
Sorry, but I had to take a short ride on my hobby horse :smallredface:

Esser-Z

2010-10-06, 03:31 PM

Another thing. I really wonder how rolling is less "rollplay" and more roleplay than buy-based determination.

Think about it. Rolling says 'here are your stats, make a concept that works with them'. The numbers define what you will play. Isn't that very much "roll"playing?

Consider pointbuy. Here, you have a CONCEPT and say "what stats will best fit this character idea". Is not making the mechanics fit the character concept very much roleplaying?

Fax Celestis

2010-10-06, 03:33 PM

A lot of people consider "making your stats exactly the way you want them" to be 'rollplaying'.

Personally, I find the 'rollplaying' portmanteau to be kind of offensive, considering I have never seen it used in a manner that isn't meant to be condescending.

Esser-Z

2010-10-06, 03:34 PM

A lot of people consider "making your stats exactly the way you want them" to be 'rollplaying'.

They do, but it doesn't actually make any sense once you think about it. Making your stats what you want them to be means the character you want defines the stats. In other words, the thing you are ROLEPLAYING determines your mechanics.

Fax Celestis

2010-10-06, 03:39 PM

The same argument could be made for rolling your stats: "rather than min/maxing your ability scores, you are letting the dice fall as they may."

To be frank, the real reason I prefer rolling for stats is that D&D is a game of rolling dice: you want to do something, you roll a d20. Why, then, would you not roll when determining a character? Why are you willing to put your character's fate into the hands of the dice in each and every combat, but not when creating said character?

Esser-Z

2010-10-06, 03:43 PM

The same argument could be made for rolling your stats: "rather than min/maxing your ability scores, you are letting the dice fall as they may."
Right, letting the dice decide. Rollplaying!

To be frank, the real reason I prefer rolling for stats is that D&D is a game of rolling dice: you want to do something, you roll a d20. Why, then, would you not roll when determining a character? Why are you willing to put your character's fate into the hands of the dice in each and every combat, but not when creating said character?
It's... pretty simple, really. The in-game rolls all have to do with success of various attempted actions (which may rely on external factors). Character creation defines what my character is, not just if some factor causes his attempted attack or what have you to fail.

They're completely different scenarios. My character's fate is determined by a host of factors--enemy skill, his skill, luck, deific influence, and so on. Thus, it is rolled.

What my character is, though... I define that. I decide the thing that I am going to play. I decide if he's very strong but dumb, smart but weak, pretty smart AND strong but lacking in common sense, etc.

Forged Fury

2010-10-06, 03:44 PM

Why are you willing to put your character's fate into the hands of the dice in each and every combat, but not when creating said character?
To improve your odds of survival when you do have to put your charater's fate into the hands of the dice?

What about rolling hitpoints at first level, then? Shouldn't we have them generated randomly as well? It used to be that way, but I guess everyone got tired of their Magic-User being one-shotted by a strong breeze.

Personally, I'm a fan of point-buy since I enjoy playing something that I have already conceptualized. I find it easier to insure something close to that concept when I can select my abilities.

Oracle_Hunter

2010-10-06, 03:45 PM

To be frank, the real reason I prefer rolling for stats is that D&D is a game of rolling dice: you want to do something, you roll a d20. Why, then, would you not roll when determining a character? Why are you willing to put your character's fate into the hands of the dice in each and every combat, but not when creating said character?
Of course, this argument can prove too much: why not roll for everything about your character, then? Roll for race; roll for class; roll for alignment - all are aspects of your character that can easily be determined through die rolls.

I suspect that this is not what you meant by your statement, but it is a natural corollary to it :smallsmile:

Fax Celestis

2010-10-06, 03:59 PM

Right, letting the dice decide. Rollplaying!So you are opposed to skill checks, attack rolls, and damage rolls then?

What my character is, though... I define that. I decide the thing that I am going to play. I decide if he's very strong but dumb, smart but weak, pretty smart AND strong but lacking in common sense, etc.And you can still do that with 5d4 * 7, best 6, arranged as you like.

To improve your odds of survival when you do have to put your charater's fate into the hands of the dice?Metagaming?

What about rolling hitpoints at first level, then? Shouldn't we have them generated randomly as well?Sure? Why not?

Of course, this argument can prove too much: why not roll for everything about your character, then? Roll for race; roll for class; roll for alignment - all are aspects of your character that can easily be determined through die rolls.They can. They shouldn't necessarily be determined so, because your character is indeed built by you. A completely randomly determined character runs into the issue wherein you have no connection to the character. A randomly statted character (using a "roll and arrange" system, be it 3d6, 4d6b3, 5d4*7, or 2d6+6) has only one issue: not having exactly the stats you wanted.

Esser-Z

2010-10-06, 04:05 PM

So you are opposed to skill checks, attack rolls, and damage rolls then?

No! Those don't have anything to do with defining what my character is. They resolve whether action X succeeds or not, which is different!

And you can still do that with 5d4 * 7, best 6, arranged as you like.

Maybe. Maybe not. I might roll one high number and a bunch of low/average numbers. Or ALL average/medium numbers! Yes, I can assign the numbers I DO get how I like... but those numbers themselves might not work with the concept I want to use.

Again, the dice are telling me what I'm allowed to play, rather than me getting to decide. 5d4*7, best six, arranged as I like has a greater range of probable concepts, but it's still entirely possible to get a roll that does not support what I want to do. If I want to play an exceedingly strong character, but roll nothing above 14...

Metagaming?

No. Just regular gaming.

Radar

2010-10-06, 04:06 PM

(...) A randomly statted character (using a "roll and arrange" system, be it 3d6, 4d6b3, 5d4*7, or 2d6+6) has only one issue: not having exactly the stats you wanted.
Which is not much of a change in the end, yet takes more time then a point buy and usualy requires attention of the DM.

Oracle_Hunter

2010-10-06, 04:07 PM

They can. They shouldn't necessarily be determined so, because your character is indeed built by you. A completely randomly determined character runs into the issue wherein you have no connection to the character. A randomly statted character (using a "roll and arrange" system, be it 3d6, 4d6b3, 5d4*7, or 2d6+6) has only one issue: not having exactly the stats you wanted.
Unfortunately, I don't think your initial argument provides such a clear line between what should be randomly determined and what should not. Or why your stats should be randomly determined instead of your alignment - or vice versa.

It is probably clearer to say "I prefer rolling dice for stats than PB" :smallsmile:

Forged Fury

2010-10-06, 04:07 PM

Metagaming?Not sure it can even be metagaming when you haven't even started the game yet, but whatever.

Hell, I take that back. Character creation in and of itself is the ultimate act of metagaming. It's supposed to be.

Esser-Z

2010-10-06, 04:09 PM

(...) A randomly statted character (using a "roll and arrange" system, be it 3d6, 4d6b3, 5d4*7, or 2d6+6) has only one issue: not having exactly the stats you wanted.

This is technically true, because it's a broad statement. "Not having the stats I wanted" can range from not having anything LOW despite wanting to be weak in an area to having a distribution (say nothing above 14) that makes the concept I wanted to play infeasible.

And beyond the actual mechanical issues, I don't like having something else, in this case the dice, define my character. I should do that, because it's my character. You don't roll to see how your character acts, what feats you have, what skills you have, what flaws you have, or so on, do you? Why then ability scores?

Amphetryon

2010-10-06, 04:10 PM

Esser-Z

2010-10-06, 04:11 PM

A lot of so-called metagaming is really just gaming.

Fax Celestis

2010-10-06, 04:12 PM

And beyond the actual mechanical issues, I don't like having something else, in this case the dice, define my character. I should do that, because it's my character. You don't roll to see how your character acts, what feats you have, what skills you have, what flaws you have, or so on, do you? Why then ability scores?

For an in-game reason, because your character didn't make himself: the gods did.

For an out-of-game reason, because otherwise everyone ends up looking exactly the same.

Oracle_Hunter

2010-10-06, 04:14 PM

Random aside re: metagaming -

I'd pay money to see a game of D&D played where no actions were taken or discussed that could reasonably be called metagaming. Please note that they'd have to actually play for money to change hands, including resolving conflicts and combats.
Shoot, that's easy!

Pick up a game of AD&D (First) in which all players are ignorant of the rules and are allowed to pick pre-gen characters soley based off of name, gender, alignment, and backstory. The players tell the DM what they want to do, he rolls all the dice, and tells them what happens as a result.

It's how the game way played back in the day :smallcool:

EDIT: Also, the DM would have to pass notes and no OOC conversation would be allowed. But hey, it's easy to do.

Morithias

2010-10-06, 04:14 PM

A lot of so-called metagaming is really just gaming.

He's right. My group once called me out when we came across a seemingly impossible to cross pit in a secret passage between two noble's houses and I went "Look there has to be a way around it, no noble would want to risk their life having to attempt to jump over it every time." Needless to say the accusation of metagaming came up, even though the justification was that most people don't like having to do life-or-death stuff every time they want to visit a friend, a.k.a common sense.

Esser-Z

2010-10-06, 04:15 PM

For an in-game reason, because your character didn't make himself: the gods did.

BUT! I'm not starting with some guy and deciding what he'll do. I'm effectively sorting through all the possible starting guys to find one that fits with the idea of the character. A person who is good at X is going to have the stats that reflect that.

In universe, my character was born with certain stats which then lead towards a certain path. OUT OF GAME, I prepared a character that fits that path. Why is this hard to grasp?

For an out-of-game reason, because otherwise everyone ends up looking exactly the same.
...what? I... just what. I suppose... if they had the same core stats, and the same flavor concepts regarding the stats NOT core to their class, then yes, they'd look the same. But... man. That's pretty obviously NOT going to be the case!

Morithias

2010-10-06, 04:19 PM

Oh and on the topic of stat generation. My prefered form is easily the less popular. The FATAL creation, you pick nothing. No max/min, even your backstory is picked for you.

I find it assuming how quickly "seasoned" dnd players fall apart once they realize that they're no long "Awesome Mckickass Wizard" and instead some NPC class, who was born into slavery and they actually have to try and roleplay to escape rather than "Color Spray" their way out.

Fax Celestis

2010-10-06, 04:20 PM

BUT! I'm not starting with some guy and deciding what he'll do. I'm effectively sorting through all the possible starting guys to find one that fits with the idea of the character. A person who is good at X is going to have the stats that reflect that. Basically, you're repeating what I said before: without point buy you might not get exactly the stats you want.

...what? I... just what. I suppose... if they had the same core stats, and the same flavor concepts regarding the stats NOT core to their class, then yes, they'd look the same. But... man. That's pretty obviously NOT going to be the case!

Every game I've ever seen people use point buy in has ended up with stat arrays that look like 16/14/14/12/12/10 or something. There's never any odd numbers, and people pretty much put exactly what stat they want where they want it.

Greenish

2010-10-06, 04:23 PM

Every game I've ever seen people use point buy in has ended up with stat arrays that look like 16/14/14/12/12/10 or something.So? If the aesthetics of their character sheets bother you, don't stare at them.

It's not like there's any difference between having 16 or 17 dexterity.

Fax Celestis

2010-10-06, 04:24 PM

It's not like there's any difference between having 16 or 17 dexterity.

Yes, there is. Ability damage, stat bumps, carrying capacity...all affected by odd scores.

Oracle_Hunter

2010-10-06, 04:26 PM

For an out-of-game reason, because otherwise everyone ends up looking exactly the same.
Only inasmuch as stats are the entirety of a character :smalltongue:

In a poorly designed game system, a PB would result in all, say, Fighters, "looking" the same:

- there would be one dominant strategy for playing a given class
- stat requirements for that class would be equally straightforward
- stats would also be so important in achieving a build that the other choices you could make are irrelevant
- choosing otherwise would place you at such a detriment that making alternate choices would be indefensible
However, better designed systems manage to either make stat determination less relevant to your overall build (i.e. the "look" of your character) or allow more wiggle-room in the power heirarchy such that no dominant or superior strategies exist or that choosing a lesser strategy is an acceptable choice.

AD&D, for example, placed less emphasis on the actual stats you rolled; you needed at least a 16 to pick up a meaningful bonus and most of what you did in the game was largely controlled by other variables (e.g. level, class, DM whimsy). You could PB in AD&D without worrying overmuch that 18/00 Fighters would make the world feel too "samey;" few people did because it took so much more time and effort than rolling and really wasn't all that important.

Morithias

2010-10-06, 04:26 PM

Yes, there is. Ability damage, stat bumps, carrying capacity...all affected by odd scores.

In the end the 17 is easily better. Because there are two key items for bumping stats, the Tomb +5 and item +6 for a +11. The 17 = 28 for a +9, while 16=27 for +8 unless you spend one of your rare 5 free stat boosts.

Edit: Wow epic fail on the math.

Skorj

2010-10-06, 04:30 PM

Whenever someone goes on about random character generation, I remember the original Traveller rules. :smalleek:

I've seen TPKs during character creation. I've made a character that retired wealthy and successful during character creation. I've watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate - wait, what was I saying?

TheThan

2010-10-06, 04:31 PM

But that's not the case at all! I'm not taking a person and saying 'what would he be good at', I'm taking a heroic concept and saying 'what would a person who can do these things be good at'. It's not an in character choice of life path based on existing abilities. It's a player-chosen path, which then the character is sculpted to match. The end IN CHARACTER result is 'this guy is very suited to fighting, so that's what he does', but the DESIGN path is 'this guy is very good at fighting. What should his scores look like?".

It's not "roll playing" to want my ace fighter to have stats that suit that. It'd be very strange to try to play an ace fighter who doesn't have stats that match that. A person with stats ill-suited for a path won't be on that path!

I want to roleplay as somebody who is good at X. Therefore, I design a character who is good at X. My character, being naturally inclined towards X, follows it as a life path. No lost verisimilitude at all.

In fact, I'd argue that a character with stats NOT suited to his life path breaks verisimilitude more, especially if he's supposed to be really good at what he does (Which PCs, being heroes, tend to be).

The thought process for me, as a player, deciding what I want to play is NOT the same as the character's process for determining what they are. I want to roleplay as X, so my character is built for X. As a person, in universe, my character was naturally inclined towards X, and thus IS X.

I'm not starting with a person and determining the path. I'm starting with a path (And personality and so forth) and determining what ability scores fit that person's personality and path.

I can control how much I lean towards a few high vs more even, though, rather than it being randomly determined (and I know that this will be visible relative to the party--everyone has the same material to work with).

This is absolutely false. Arranged scores simply are a method of making sure the person is good at what the PLAYER wants them to be good at. In universe, they're naturally talented towards certain things, which influences what they do. Just because the PLAYER decided what they're good at first doesn't mean the CHARACTER did!

Lets take a look at boxing.

Boxers are formidable fighters, they have to be because that’s how they earn their living. But not all boxers are tremendously strong and tough heavy weights. In fact, there are many boxers that are out right small. Does that make their choice to become a boxer any less legitimate than the guy that’s 6’8 and 280 lbs? Does that mean that the smaller man is fated to be less successful than the bigger man in the sport of boxing? In my book it doesn’t, he may or may not become as successful or famous as the bigger man but he has as much right to fight in the ring.

Another good example is scientists. We can’t all be Steven Hawking or Albert Einstein. They’ve become household names because they’re exceptional. Unfortunately not everyone is exceptional. While some (exceptional) people soar above everyone else, most people get lost somewhere in the middle of the pack and some unfortunately fall below that.

So it’s perfectly reasonable to see characters that aren’t fully optimized to fill their place in society. Now if you enjoy playing exceptional people, and your Dm is cool with it, then there is no reason why you shouldn’t be able to. There really is no “wrong” way to play dnd.

That's what i mean when i say "organic" people are just people after all.

Now I like the method I posted above because it works for my group. Rolling low stats is a surprisingly common occurrence at my table. My players, typically want good stats, because good stats reflect how well they’re characters are at doing any particular task. They prefer to be good at the things they choose to do. So I tend to hear a lot of whining when their dice come up with low results. The less whining I hear, the less intense the headache I get.

Now this isn’t to say this method is perfect, it’s far from it. But it tends to accomplish what it sets out to do. it might not be appropriate for your group.

I’ve had players that were perfectly happy to play a character with two negative stats, but at the same time, I’ve had players that whined because they rolled a 14 instead of an 18. I’ve experienced the gamut of player personalities, short of the dangerous types (fortunately). Most people want either total fairness or total control over the creation of their characters, so point buy has become very popular. But its not the only way to do things.

Now when I sit down to roll up a character for a game I’m playing in. I’m happy with whatever method the Dm deems appropriate, I’m happy to work with what’s available.

Morithias

2010-10-06, 04:31 PM

Esser-Z

2010-10-06, 04:36 PM

Basically, you're repeating what I said before: without point buy you might not get exactly the stats you want.

Yes. And I explained why that is actually quite bad.

Every game I've ever seen people use point buy in has ended up with stat arrays that look like 16/14/14/12/12/10 or something. There's never any odd numbers,
Well, let my delve into my Mythweavers, shall I?

Some random ones:
8/14/12/18/10/12
16/10/12/10/12/16
10/13/10/12/10/18
16/13/15/12/10/14

and people pretty much put exactly what stat they want where they want it.
OF COURSE. That's called designing a character.

Skorj

2010-10-06, 04:43 PM

That's just a sign of poor design. Done right random generation can be VERY good if you have open minded people.

I've never seen a good design, then, and can't imagine what it would look like. When I make a character I start with some sort of character concept that I'd like to play. The character creation rules are there to keep the realization of that concept in line with a chosen power level for PCs in a given campaign. Randomizing defeats both of those aims - it either takes a bunch of acrobatics to realize the character concept I want, or blocks it entirely. At the same time, the power of PCs can vary a lot between party members (admittedly, in 3.5 the dice will matter less than the tiers, but anyway).

In a bad point-buy system, player skill overly affects the power levels of characters at creation, but a good DM can reign that in. There's little a good DM can do about the evils of random character creation other than make it less random.

But maybe you've seen some system that I can't even imagine that fixes these problems?

Greenish

2010-10-06, 04:44 PM

Boxers are formidable fighters, they have to be because that’s how they earn their living. But not all boxers are tremendously strong and tough heavy weights. In fact, there are many boxers that are out right small. Does that make their choice to become a boxer any less legitimate than the guy that’s 6’8 and 280 lbs? Does that mean that the smaller man is fated to be less successful than the bigger man in the sport of boxing? In my book it doesn’t, he may or may not become as successful or famous as the bigger man but he has as much right to fight in the ring.If they all fought in the same weight class, for their lives, you might notice that the biggest and the meanest would be the cream of the crop, ie. adventurers.

Another good example is scientists. We can’t all be Steven Hawking or Albert Einstein. They’ve become household names because they’re exceptional. Unfortunately not everyone is exceptional. While some (exceptional) people soar above everyone else, most people get lost somewhere in the middle of the pack and some unfortunately fall below that.Right. And you know what those mediocre-to-poor sods are called? Non-player characters.

So it’s perfectly reasonable to see characters that aren’t fully optimized to fill their place in society.Except when their and their friend's lives are routinely dependent on their own performance. The weak will be killed off.

Have you noticed that firemen tend to be kinda buff? I haven't seen one in a wheelchair.

And I'm not sure Einstein or Hawking were non-organic.

Morithias

2010-10-06, 04:48 PM

My friend this is no such thing as a "non-player character" in real life. If you were to put "NPC" as a definition in the real world, it would be equal to "a person that you don't control".

So here's my question, are you an NPC, or do you have free will?

You can make a good movie out of any story, and you can make a good story out of any person.

Amphetryon

2010-10-06, 04:50 PM

If they all fought in the same weight class, for their lives, you might notice that the biggest and the meanest would be the cream of the crop, ie. adventurers.

I do hope you're not saying that the height and weight of a character (biggest) influences how well he does, or that the smooth-talking spellcaster (Sorcerer) falls short of the Barbarian with the mean streak in terms of efficiency in D&D....

Greenish

2010-10-06, 04:50 PM

My friend this is no such thing as a "non-player character" in real life.Right, but I play D&D, not this "real life" some people seem to be all about.

[Edit]:
I do hope you're not saying that the height and weight of a character (biggest) influences how well he does, or that the smooth-talking spellcaster (Sorcerer) falls short of the Barbarian with the mean streak in terms of efficiency in D&D....No, I was talking about boxers. They have separate weight classes, because otherwise the bigger fellows would tend to dominate (I think, I don't follow boxing, but that's the only reason I can figure for the weight classes existing in the first place).

Aotrs Commander

2010-10-06, 05:17 PM

Of course, this argument can prove too much: why not roll for everything about your character, then? Roll for race; roll for class; roll for alignment - all are aspects of your character that can easily be determined through die rolls.

I suspect that this is not what you meant by your statement, but it is a natural corollary to it :smallsmile:

Warhammer FRP actually does this (or at least heavily suggests it). You can build a character entirely from randomisation. If you play it to the hilt, you might have like, one or two choices; everything else is random.

Of course, while this makes for an entertaining exercise (as does a 3D6 straight down the line D&D stat roll) in it's own right, it doesn't appeal to a lot of people and isn't a very balanced way of doing things (in terms of potential party composition). It's horrifically easy to imagine a party beign thrown up with nothing but fighters or rogues or something...

And, of course, in AD&D and Warhammer both, it is quite possible to occasionally generate a character than fails to qualify for any class...! (I know, I did it while my first Warhammer character!)

Rolemaster's generation system - or at least the primary one of second edition, was also random; ten D100 rolls, rerolling any below 20, assign as required. RM did, to be fair, obviate useless character by saying any stat placed in your profession (i.e. class) was raised to 90 if it was below, so it would mean you could be at least passable at your chosen field.

As is virtually always true, anything with too much randomness is usually bad.

On the other hand, I myself avoided point-buy for years, as it does tend to create less organic stat blocks. In the end, it was sheer laziness as DM on my part that I decided to start using it, because I just couldn't be bothered to go through everyone's stats to make sure everyone had a reasonably equal array.

(With Rolemaster's random stat boost system, our 15-year old favourite party has had to have several PCs significantly boosted recently to close the gap between the ones who started with high stats and got better and the ones who merely had high stats1.)

In a perfect universe, you would be able to generate an ideal non-random variance (perhaps based on specific requirements like SAD verses MAD). As people have shown here, you can even make an attempt, with varying levels of success. Personally, though, in the end, I decided it simply wasn't worth my extra effort.

1Seriously, that party is fracking INSANE. The BOTTOM end of the stat scale is nearly superhuman (and very actually in the upper cases!) The SLOWEST-reacting members of the party are well into the human upper tiers. The average Quickness and Agility BONUSES of the party come in at +32, so what, that equates to roughly a party (of 13!) whose AVERAGE Dex is 22! I actually have to throw their time-travelling ninja monk enemies at them if I want something to ever actually stand a chance of going first!