Random, yet fair, stats

[Yakk]

Why might one want a character generation that is both random and fair?

Point based systems seriously encourage min/maxing. Unfair random systems make gimp and overpowered characters.

By giving people the same average stats, at worst you can have stats that aren't optimal for a particular build.

What follows is a number of systems.

First, The Table:
Every 1, increase strength.
Every 2, increase dex.
Every 3, increase con.
Every 4, increase int.
Every 5, increase wis.
Every 6, increase cha.

System 1:
Start with 8 in each stat.
Roll 13d6. Each die represents +2 in some stat -- see the table.
Next, roll 3d6, and reroll duplicates. Each represents +1 in one stat.
Reroll any roll that causes a stat to pass 18.

Avg: 12.8
Varience: Very broad. Characters will have 8s and 18s often.
Pros: Everyone has the same total stat mod.
Alternative: Start with 10 in each stat. Roll 10d6, each +2, then 3d6, each +1 with no duplicates. Now allow the player to subtract 2 from exactly one stat and add it to another.

Two sample results:
Str: 10|18
Dex: 15|8
Cn: 13|12
In: 13|15
Wis: 12|15
Cha: 14|9

System 2:
Start with 6 in every stat.

Roll 40d6.

Each die represents +1.

Average stats: 6+40/6 = 12.7.
95% confidence interval of a stat: 8 to 17.2

Ie, in about 3 out of 4 groups of characters won't have a stat lower than 8 or higher than 17.

Pros: Stats are quite random, and the system is simple. You do get lots of "wasted" odd stats.

2 Test characters:
Str: 11|16
Dex: 17|12
Con: 12|8
Int: 10|11
Wis: 15|18
Cha: 11|11

If you want a tighter stat distributions, roll 7+34d6 or 8+28d6.

...

Any of the above can have their power notched up or down a tad by adding more dice.
6 extra dice in method 2, or 3 extra dice in method 1, increases your average stat by +1 (from 12ish to 13ish).

[MandibleBones]

Hmm... I kinda like it - my one problem with is this: If I want to play a Wizard, and the fickle finger of fate gives me a CON of 18 and a INT of... 8, I'm still screwed.

Add in the option to switch at least one pair of abilities, and I'd be satisfied.

[Mauril Everleaf]

well, heres what we when we play. everyone rolls up a char sheet. then you pass em around so you can get one that sorta fits what you want. obviously a player has primary rights to his sheet, but this keeps stats randomized (4d6, drop low die on each roll, 2 stat rerolls) but allows people to play what they want, most of the time.

[Yakk]

*nod*.
Everyone in the group uses the top system.
You can then trade characters for the one that fits your character best.

You could do a more complex table that factors in common synergies.

Each stat starts at 6. Roll 14d10, and add:
1: +2 str +1 con
2: +2 dex +1 wis
3: +2 con +1 int
4: +2 int +1 dex
5: +2 wis +1 cha
6: +2 cha +1 str
7: +1 str +1 con +1 dex
8: +1 str +1 con +1 dex
9: +1 int +1 wis +1 cha
0: +1 int +1 wis +1 cha

Average stat is 13. Points over 18 are collected up, and then rolled on d6 (1=str, ..., 6=cha) each one adding +1, until you have consumed all of them.

[fangthane]

Here's another option which moderates the rolls a bit higher but not unreasonably:

Roll 3d6 for each stat. If all dice are sixes, mark down an 18. Otherwise, drop the low die and add 5. When you have 6 ability scores, put them in whatever order you like.

This tightens up the general rolling range and means that while 18s are rare for an otherwise high-powered mechanism, moderately good rolls (12-16) are much more likely. It generally results in sets similar to 4d6 drop low, but slightly beefier (+1 per ability, as an estimate - but note that I haven't done the probability calcs)

[Yakk]

3d drop lowest:
111(1)
112(3)
113(3) *22(4)
114(3) *23(9)
115(3) *24(9) *33(7)
116(3) *25(9) *34(15)
*26(9) *35(15) *44(10)
*36(15) *45(21)
*46(21) *55(13)
*56(27)
*66(16)

All 216 possibilities listed.
2: 1 c 1 w 2
3: 3 c 4 w 9
4: 7 c 11 w 28
5: 12 c 23 w 60
6: 19 c 42 w 114
7: 27 c 69 w 189
8: 34 c 103 w 272
9: 36 c 139 w 324
10: 34 c 173 w 340
11: 27 c 200 w 297
12: 16 c 216 w 192

Total w: 1827, avg 8.4533333

You lose 6 W by eliminating 666.

Without 666: total w: 1821, avg 8.4698

So that's a 1/216 chance of 18, plus an average of 13.47 else.

Overall average is 13.49, min 7 (1/216 chance).

To generate that with the "pools of dice"...
Start with 8.
Now we want +5.5 for each of 6 stats, so a total of +33.
Roll 33d6, use the table.

Trim off any stat over 18, and reroll any die.

Now trim off the 18s, and roll 1d6 for each one -- the stat remains 18 if and only if you hit it on the roll.

Like I said -- the main difference is that "fistful of die" stats end up having a more consistant average, so you won't have characters whose stats outshine each other.

(Edit add:
Legend:
C means Cumulative (sum of this chance and all lower-valued chances)
W means Weight (chance * value)

These are just useful for doing error checking and make playing with the values after the fact easier. :)
)

...

[i]Edit: The 3d6, keep 18s, then drop lowest and add 5...

On 6 stats it has an expected total of about 81.

It has a 95% confidence interval on 6 stats of 71 to 91. Ie, a parties total stats will most likely vary by at most 20%, unless you get unlucky.

[Dausuul]

Here's my suggestion, which is quicker and simpler:

Roll 3d6 on the following table (or one like it). The listed set of stats is what you get. All of the sets are balanced under a 32-point buy.

3: 18 18 8 8 8 8
4: 18 14 12 12 10 8
5: 18 12 12 12 10 10

6: 17 16 13 12 8 8
7: 17 14 13 12 10 10
8: 16 16 14 12 10 8

9: 16 14 14 14 10 10
10: 15 14 14 14 14 8
11: 15 14 14 14 12 10
12: 16 14 14 12 12 10

13: 16 16 12 12 10 10
14: 17 14 14 13 10 8
15: 17 16 14 11 8 8

16: 17 13 12 12 12 10
17: 18 14 14 12 8 8
18: 18 16 12 8 8 8

The distribution is such that your odds of getting an 18 are still quite low--only about 6%--but you always have reasonably balanced stats, whatever you roll.

[Triaxx]

This sounds over complex to me. Just roll a d20, and round up to 3, and down to 18. Otherwise take the number.

[Shular]

Let's give it a try:

[roll0]

This results in:

Str 18
Dex 9
Con 9
Int 11
Wis 17
Cha 12

I don't know....

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

Why might one want a character generation that is both random and fair?

Point based systems seriously encourage min/maxing. Unfair random systems make gimp and overpowered characters.

By giving people the same average stats, at worst you can have stats that aren't optimal for a particular build.

What follows is a number of systems.

First, The Table:
Every 1, increase strength.
Every 2, increase dex.
Every 3, increase con.
Every 4, increase int.
Every 5, increase wis.
Every 6, increase cha.

System 1:
Start with 8 in each stat.
Roll 13d6. Each die represents +2 in some stat -- see the table.
Next, roll 3d6, and reroll duplicates. Each represents +1 in one stat.
Reroll any roll that causes a stat to pass 18.

Avg: 12.8
Varience: Very broad. Characters will have 8s and 18s often.
Pros: Everyone has the same total stat mod.
Alternative: Start with 10 in each stat. Roll 10d6, each +2, then 3d6, each +1 with no duplicates. Now allow the player to subtract 2 from exactly one stat and add it to another.

Two sample results:
Str: 10|18
Dex: 15|8
Cn: 13|12
In: 13|15
Wis: 12|15
Cha: 14|9


I see one gigantic major flaw with this type of generation. What happens when you roll very little of a number. Let's say you were planning on playing a fighter, but roll very few ones, and end up with a 12 or a 13 for strength. Well, there goes playing a fighter, because that kind of score won't cut it. Same thing for an over 18 thing. Let's say you have a 23 again in strength(using fighter example again), then reroll and get like a 14. With that, you might as well think of a new class to play. This systme seems like it would work, only if you rolled your stats, and then decided what class to play that would match those stats. But again, another problem arises in that what if other party members end up with stats close to yours? You run the risk of having more than one class that's not imperative to have (wizard), and none of something you really need (cleric).

[Maryring]

I prefer things simple. The DM rolls 4d6 six times and writes down the stats. Everyone gets the same stats, but can put them around like they wish. That way, they are all equal, and there is still that element of luck. AND it makes it so that you can play MAD characters too.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

again, what is it with everyone being the same. Everyone in life isn't the same, we all don't have the same strengths and weaknesses are everyone else. Why should it be that way for D&D.

[belboz]

I kind of like Maryring's proposal. The thing is, two characters with the same stat total are not necessarily "fair" in the sense of equi-powered, even if you can arrange the stats to your liking. I'd much rather have, say, 16 14 13 12 10 8 than 13 13 13 12 12 12, even though they have the same total. I think I'd rather have the first one even for MAD characters, unless they're actually equally dependant on *all 6* stats.

Another option, if you don't want min/maxing but are worried about chance making uber or unter characters, is to just give everyone the elite array (to distribute as they like). Or the champion array, if you like a higher-powered campaign.

Edit: Simu-posted, but I have a response to PGC also. It's not a matter of everyone being the same. Characters with different stat distributions will have their own strengths and weaknesses, even if the distributions all come from a common array--some will be strong, some smart, and so on. What one might want, for purposes of a game, is that everyone at least have equal claim to having *some* strengths and *some* weaknesses. That may not be true in real life, but real life is often not fun or fair. D&D is supposed to be fun, and that usually requires being fair.

[Yakk]

I also like the fact that the "roll 40d6" system doesn't give you the power to pick which kind of character you are making.

I'll admit there are problems with that -- so many D&D classes require certain precice stats to be high to be effective. And D&D prestige classes seem to be built with the "you know what prestigue classes you want to become when you make your L 1 character" assumption. @_@

[Shadow of the Sun]

To make it more fair, just have it so you can re-arrange your stats. So it is sort of like a combination of 4d6 and Elite array. That way you will either have one very good stat or all average stats.

[Pegasos989]

Let's try 40d6 method...

[roll0]

EDIT: Oh, right...

40d6

EDIT2: Huh? I guess I will roll by myself

[Pegasos989]

7stats of 12/13/10/16/10/13... I guess it would make playable wizard.

However, I would not bring this over pointbuy. In my group is a guy who always likes to play melee guys and hates playing spellcasters, especially arcane and especially preparing casters. With str 12, dex 13 and con 10, he would hate the character...

I'll testcompate to standard 4d6 drop lowest, arrange as desired
14/11/8/5/13/13...

Nearly same problem.


But well, this shows why only pointbuy type systems can be fair. :P

[Yakk]

For a group: get everyone together, each person rolls. Now let people swap away for a character that suits them more.

That way your "I only like melee grunts" character won't be gimped by a high-mental stat character.

[Shazzbaa]

Ehh, it's not for me. I can see it working for some groups, but not me.

I like the systems where you get some stats, and then assign them to the proper ability scores... because I tend to have a character in my head and I try to make stats that reflect him. So if I'm thinking of a sorcerer, and I know he's gullible as crap, then I'll put a higher stat in CHA but I'll also want a lower stat in WIS, to go with the character concept.
...Trading around with other players until I find a stat array with high CHA won't necessarily give me everything I want for the character, so I prefer to have a bit more power over the stats.

But then again, I didn't realise there was anything wrong with being min-maxed. I mean, I prefer to play characters who have a definite weakness, rather than being "okay at everything."

[Pegasos989]

Ehh, it's not for me. I can see it working for some groups, but not me.

I like the systems where you get some stats, and then assign them to the proper ability scores... because I tend to have a character in my head and I try to make stats that reflect him. So if I'm thinking of a sorcerer, and I know he's gullible as crap, then I'll put a higher stat in CHA but I'll also want a lower stat in WIS, to go with the character concept.
...Trading around with other players until I find a stat array with high CHA won't necessarily give me everything I want for the character, so I prefer to have a bit more power over the stats.

But then again, I didn't realise there was anything wrong with being min-maxed. I mean, I prefer to play characters who have a definite weakness, rather than being "okay at everything."

I hear you there.

I see nothing wrong with being min maxed. I already know my TWF fighter is suboptimal but if I get non-pointbuy stats, I might not even be able to play him or he would be low on hp or ac or something in addition to being that suboptimal... All this meawhile the wizard next to me only needs int and possibly a bit of con and dex.

Also, if we pass character stats around... What when one dies? What if there is two people who like melee grunts but just one melee grunt stat thingy. "Sorry, you can't have fun this time, the other guy has."?

Not to mention the character concept before stats idea. "Gee, I got high int and con but I was really looking forward to this campaign so I could play raistlin type and low con with a bit better charisma...

[Yakk]

On the other hand, sometimes one wants to start with a pool of randomness, and from there generate a character concept.

I've had some fun with brewing up character concepts in other games based rougly on this mechanism. The game wasn't nearly as rules-landmined as D&D (in which your exact stat, down to the smallest point, can make a difference between a character that is what you want to play, and a completely different one... Ie, 12 int means no combat expertise, which does away with entire trees of feats, etc.)

Other varients:
Use one of the above systems, but with point buy. Ie, roll 25d6, each one representing a point for stats.

One could even do a 15 point buy character, then roll 10d6 to allocate the rest of the points.

Points "left over", not enough to buy up stats, could be rerolled in an order the player picks -- or maybe allocated as the player chooses.

[Emperor Tippy]

I prefer 1d10+8 for each stat. Average is 13, minimum is 9, max is 18.

I also do, every player rolls up a set of stats and then the DM picks one set for everyone to use.

For example:
Set 1: 18,17,17,16,12,8
Set 2: 18,15,12,8,8,10
Set 3: 16,14,15,9,10,11
Set 4: 12,12,12,15,16,8

I just pulled the numbers out of my ass but now the DM picks one set of stats and the whole party gets those to assign as they like.

Advantages:
-The DM has a lot more control over power level but less than in PB.
-The players are all balanced.
-The stats are still random
-The players have control over what stat goes where (solving the problems of many systems that people have proposed)

Disadvantages:
-The players all have exactly the same numbers


And I'm sure that you all can come up with some other disadvantages.

[Maryring]

Similar to what I do. I love it because it DOES make things fair, without removing the chance part.

[Devils_Advocate]

again, what is it with everyone being the same. Everyone in life isn't the same, we all don't have the same strengths and weaknesses are everyone else. Why should it be that way for D&D.
It isn't about everyone being the same, it's about every player getting the same opportunity to make an enjoyable character. The cleric, wizard, and rogue still aren't going to be the same, and are going to have different strengths and weaknesses, obviously!

True, a typical group of people in real life aren't going to have abilities of roughly equivalent power. A typical group of people in real life aren't going to invade underground complexes so they can kill monsters and take their stuff, either. Nor are a typical group of people in a D&D campaign world, for that matter - even within the game world, a group of adventurers is an extraordinary group of people. Yeah, real life isn't fair, and that's something that a lot of people dislike about it. D&D is not primarily supposed to be like real life, it's primarily supposed to be fun!

Most players find the game to be more fun when their characters can make a meaningful contribution to the party, and that means not being made redundant by other, more powerful characters. I don't see why some people seem to have such trouble with this concept! There's a reason that a campaign starts with all the characters at level, say, 9, instead of level 7 + 1d3.

You said yourself that with a 14 in your prime ability score, "you might as well think of a new class to play." That was in reference to an ordered set of stats like, say, Str 14 Dex 13 Con 10 Int 13 Wis 15 Cha 12. But you have the same basic problem if you get 14, 14, 13, 12, 11, 8 to assign in order from rolling 4d6 drop lowest. (Somewhat better, maybe, but not by much.) It's an inherent problem with any system that randomly generates ability scores - it limits the player's control over what sort of character they play, and thus more players are going to wind up with characters they're dissatisfied with. So... why not avoid that problem?

It's not that I can't understand why some people like randomness, it's that I can't understand why they don't see why other people don't like it.