It's absolutely harmless. Hell, in a game about storming dungeons, killing monsters and stealing treasure, nonhuman races tend to have an advantage.

Quote from: Franky;1069608You don't like Beowulf?  A British hero, or an Anglo-Saxon hero.  Also an extraordinary hero.

His deeds were extraordinary. But as the people who have statted out Gandalf have shown, you don't need to be straights 18s and level 20 to stand out among ordinary men. A level 3 fighter will run through a bunch of 0-level guys like a hot knife through butter, especially if (as in Beowulf) he is wearing mail and they are not.

[quoe]I agree.  And for all of the people to enjoy the evening, all of their PCs must matter somehow.  This does not mean super ability scores.   I liked that in the original game, ability scores did not mean all that much. [/QUOTE]
It's up to the player to make their character matter.

I am just now watching The Last Kingdom, and there's a scene where Uhtred has gone to a town which has changed sides to his enemies. He goes to the inn and eats, expecting the local thane to send for his enemies. The thane gets ambitious and surrounds the inn, demanding Uhtred surrender himself, his men can go. Uhtred offers his men the chance to leave, but he must have high CHA because his men-at-arms loyally stay. He has them bar the doors and he climbs up to the roof, gets an axe and hacks a hole in the ceiling, climbs through, and tosses torches from the fire onto the thatched roofs of the surrounding buildings.

The thane surrenders to Uhtred.

What are Uhtred's stats? Well, as a protagonist he's a pretty good fighter and a (sometimes, between pissing off his lord) lord in his own right. But in this scene it didn't matter. A 0-level commoner with straight 9s in every stat could bar doors, hack a hole in a roof with an axe, and toss torches. It just takes a cunning and ruthless person to think of it.

As I said, my observation is that players rolling poor stats have their characters survive longer than players rolling great stats - because they think more. A player whose fighter has 18/00 STR and 18 CON and has 14 hit points at 1st level along with wearing mail will tend to have him just charge in, and eventually with enough dice rolls against him, some stuff hits and knocks him down. A player whose fighter has 9 STR and CON and 1 hit point and who could only afford leather armour will be more cautious.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Make it necessary for your players to use their wits, rather than just looking down to their character sheet to find the drop-down menu to see which skill to apply. A good game is a game of wits and chance. By giving everyone high stats, you are severely underestimating the intelligence and creativity of your players. Don't insult them, give them the chance to be great, and great by their wits, daring and deeds, not great by some numbers on a piece of paper.

Quote from: rawma;1069681Add in that once raise dead was something a player character cleric could cast -

Raise Dead is a 5th level spell in AD&D1e, requiring a 7th level cleric. Achieving 7th level from 1st and 3d6 down the line would require a long campaign, and a shitload of luck. I suspect you are talking about starting characters at higher levels than 1st, and/or a DM who fudges things to keep player-characters alive. This is a good example of how once you let powergaming and MontyHallism creep in, nothing good happens.

I've played a gamut of species in D&D over the years.  Plenty of the original standards, humans, elves, dwarves, halflings.  But also a dragonborn, a fire genasi, a couple drow, a free-willed skeleton, a human with lycanthropy, and in 3rd ed. Oriental Adventures a rat man samurai named Seamus McSqueakSqueak; it can be fun to go weird as long as it's not disruptive to the game that's being run.  As far as those darn Millennials ruining D&D Adventures nights goes, that sounds more like a bad DM who hasn't done anything to gel new players together as a party rather than a group of complete strangers all out for themselves.  It's hardly a new condition that a newbie D&D player is running around murderhoboing it up; I know that's what I was doing as a kid with AD&D.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1069764His deeds were extraordinary. But as the people who have statted out Gandalf have shown, you don't need to be straights 18s and level 20 to stand out among ordinary men. A level 3 fighter will run through a bunch of 0-level guys like a hot knife through butter, especially if (as in Beowulf) he is wearing mail and they are not.

QuoteI agree.  And for all of the people to enjoy the evening, all of their PCs must matter somehow.  This does not mean super ability scores.   I liked that in the original game, ability scores did not mean all that much.

It's up to the player to make their character matter.

I am just now watching The Last Kingdom, and there's a scene where Uhtred has gone to a town which has changed sides to his enemies. He goes to the inn and eats, expecting the local thane to send for his enemies. The thane gets ambitious and surrounds the inn, demanding Uhtred surrender himself, his men can go. Uhtred offers his men the chance to leave, but he must have high CHA because his men-at-arms loyally stay. He has them bar the doors and he climbs up to the roof, gets an axe and hacks a hole in the ceiling, climbs through, and tosses torches from the fire onto the thatched roofs of the surrounding buildings.

The thane surrenders to Uhtred.

What are Uhtred's stats? Well, as a protagonist he's a pretty good fighter and a (sometimes, between pissing off his lord) lord in his own right. But in this scene it didn't matter. A 0-level commoner with straight 9s in every stat could bar doors, hack a hole in a roof with an axe, and toss torches. It just takes a cunning and ruthless person to think of it.

As I said, my observation is that players rolling poor stats have their characters survive longer than players rolling great stats - because they think more. A player whose fighter has 18/00 STR and 18 CON and has 14 hit points at 1st level along with wearing mail will tend to have him just charge in, and eventually with enough dice rolls against him, some stuff hits and knocks him down. A player whose fighter has 9 STR and CON and 1 hit point and who could only afford leather armour will be more cautious.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Make it necessary for your players to use their wits, rather than just looking down to their character sheet to find the drop-down menu to see which skill to apply. A good game is a game of wits and chance. By giving everyone high stats, you are severely underestimating the intelligence and creativity of your players. Don't insult them, give them the chance to be great, and great by their wits, daring and deeds, not great by some numbers on a piece of paper.

I'd disagree.  A peasant with straight 9's would not have kept his men loyal to him.  A peasant with straight 9's wouldn't know have figured out any plan to escape.  Uthred has at least a 12+ Int, Wis and Cha if not more.  He's not average.  No 'Hero' is.

How little you think of your fellows.

Quote from: EOTB;1069798How little you think of your fellows.

What?  The average person?  Who hates change?  Who would rather hide, than act?  Humans are creatures of habit and patterns.  To want to change, or act, makes one not average.

Wanting change or action is inherently average.  Every day, grifters take advantage of this compelling want possessed by nearly everyone in some fashion.  Completing a change process is an accomplishment, but wanting to change is no mental separation from any other pack on the bell curve.  

However, this isn't a game about any of that.  It's a game about people taking actions.  And here you are saying the ability to take effective action depends on natural talents and abilities.  

Not that the math makes it easier to succeed after taking action if one is talented, but that success means natural talent was obviously present.  Because average people fail if they try, and likely don't even try.  And yet crises after crises shows us that heroes present themselves out of everyday, average people who rise to the moment, or are more worried about someone else than themselves at that moment.

Bitterness never helps man.  It doesn't make anyone stronger or smarter or indicate a higher level of discernment, or cause others to think the bitter person is any wiser.  

It just repels people.

Quote from: EOTB;1069814Wanting change or action is inherently average.

Hunh?  No, it's not.  The average human being is a creature of patterns and habits.

Quote from: EOTB;1069814Every day, grifters take advantage of this compelling want possessed by nearly everyone in some fashion.

Most grifters use fear to motivate their marks to act.  They 'effectively' give people 'adventure coupons' to impel them into action.

Quote from: EOTB;1069814Completing a change process is an accomplishment, but wanting to change is no mental separation from any other pack on the bell curve.

Not sure I understand what you're talking about here?  People HATE change, they prefer the misery they know, and immediately assume that being different is going to lose them whatever social cache they have.  Acceptance by peers is a MASSIVE drive for most people.  Adventurers are not driven by this.

Quote from: EOTB;1069814However, this isn't a game about any of that.  It's a game about people taking actions.

You're right.  People who have impetus to do something.  A drive, if you may.

Quote from: EOTB;1069814And here you are saying the ability to take effective action depends on natural talents and abilities.

No, it's EASIER for people with natural talent, but if someone WANTS to be better than what they are, they can try.  The problem is that D&D, especially early editions, your stats are locked.  Thing is, it doesn't work that way.  You start practicing with a sword, your strength and dexterity (In D&D terms) doesn't stay at 9, it increases, as does your endurance.  Intelligence might be the only stat that tends not to change, although evidence suggests it can decrease.  But in pre-3e D&D, nothing short of magic could increase your stats, no matter how much extra training you claimed to do, you were LOCKED in, permanently.

Quote from: EOTB;1069814Not that the math makes it easier to succeed after taking action if one is talented, but that success means natural talent was obviously present.  Because average people fail if they try, and likely don't even try.  And yet crises after crises shows us that heroes present themselves out of everyday, average people who rise to the moment, or are more worried about someone else than themselves at that moment.

If they were heroes, they were not average.  A situation presented itself and they acted, unlike most people.  In fact, we have a highly skilled and highly motivated group of people who do dangerous things every day, they are not average.  But are they talented or magically gifted?  No, they WORKED for it.  And that's the problem in this argument.  Someone who is going to be an adventurer, especially a fighter type WILL be training bodies and mentally, to be MORE than what they are.  To help them survive.

Quote from: EOTB;1069814Bitterness never helps man.  It doesn't make anyone stronger or smarter or indicate a higher level of discernment, or cause others to think the bitter person is any wiser.

It just repels people.

OK...  So you bitter?  I'm confused.

You know, the fact that people do effectively "train up" in real life what are ability scores in the game is actually a REALLY good point. So good in fact it actually makes me want to rewrite the rules towards that end because D&D is basically 180 degrees backwards on it. In D&D you're naturally really strong so you choose to be a fighter. In real life, you start training to be a fighter and become really strong.

You can train yourself to get stronger (STR), more coordinated (DEX), have better endurance (CON), be better at reading situations (WIS), persuading people (CHA) and even improve your ability to memorize and recall information (INT).

I think random ability scores might be more interesting if they were, say, 1d6+7 but then each class added to those scores based on the scores you'd be training to improve as part of becoming that class (say becoming a fighter gives +5 STR, +2 DEX, +3 CON while becoming a Wizard gives +2 DEX, +5 INT, +3 WIS). Thus, anyone who trains to be a fighter will have at least a 13 STR because they've spent years building up their strength to do the job (but there's only so much you can build up if you're barely over 5 feet tall with a wirey build vs. a 6' 3" broad-shouldered build).

Quote from: Chris24601;1069866I think random ability scores might be more interesting if they were, say, 1d6+7 but then each class added to those scores based on the scores you'd be training to improve as part of becoming that class (say becoming a fighter gives +5 STR, +2 DEX, +3 CON while becoming a Wizard gives +2 DEX, +5 INT, +3 WIS). Thus, anyone who trains to be a fighter will have at least a 13 STR because they've spent years building up their strength to do the job (but there's only so much you can build up if you're barely over 5 feet tall with a wirey build vs. a 6' 3" broad-shouldered build).

This is the way Modiphius does it in (some versions) of their 2d20 system. In Mutant Chronicles 3e, you get some Attribute modifiers for how you grew up, but the big ones come from your education/training and primary career selections.

That's also very similar to how roguelikes such as Moria and Angband handle it: You roll your stats (3 to 18/XX range), then add a bonus for your race, which is generally no more than +/-2 (more for really exotic races). But on top of that, you also get a bonus for your class. Which is typically a similar range (+/-2), except for Strength which is much more variable (warriors get a +5 bonus, mages get a -5 penalty).

Though I also assume the class-based bonuses and penalties are part of an ongoing regimen -- if you start training in another class, or just retire, I'd expect them to gradually switch or fade. A character with two classes should have half the bonuses and penalties of two separate classes, combined (or something in that vicinity). And I also like how it recognizes that not all stats can be trained equally.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1069767Raise Dead is a 5th level spell in AD&D1e, requiring a 7th level cleric. Achieving 7th level from 1st and 3d6 down the line would require a long campaign, and a shitload of luck. I suspect you are talking about starting characters at higher levels than 1st, and/or a DM who fudges things to keep player-characters alive. This is a good example of how once you let powergaming and MontyHallism creep in, nothing good happens.

7th level cleric, 50000 XP, yes. So how many hours do you think cautious players would require to advance one of their number that far? The current 5e standard is 32 hours, which is much too low for original D&D. We started at 1st level, and the DMs did not fudge anything the original books called for, neither to kill players nor to spare them. My guess is that our cautious play gained us an average of 100XP per hour (more as we advanced levels and could more efficiently find good opportunities and avoid bad ones, as well as venturing to richer levels below the first). The campaign lasted perhaps six years from when I started, and was already several years old then. I lost more than half my characters, but character deaths in D&D are usually concentrated in the low levels, at least for cautious play.

If your claim is that it's impossible for a character in OD&D to survive to 7th level unless the game is being played wrong, then I observe that Gary Gygax and company must have been playing it wrong, and it's pointless to say whether low stats or high stats are more likely to survive - everyone dies. And if you extol smart play so much, you can't dismiss cautious play as unacceptable powergaming or Monty Haulism.

Quote from: Chris24601;1069866You know, the fact that people do effectively "train up" in real life what are ability scores in the game is actually a REALLY good point. So good in fact it actually makes me want to rewrite the rules towards that end because D&D is basically 180 degrees backwards on it. In D&D you're naturally really strong so you choose to be a fighter. In real life, you start training to be a fighter and become really strong.

You can train yourself to get stronger (STR), more coordinated (DEX), have better endurance (CON), be better at reading situations (WIS), persuading people (CHA) and even improve your ability to memorize and recall information (INT).

I think random ability scores might be more interesting if they were, say, 1d6+7 but then each class added to those scores based on the scores you'd be training to improve as part of becoming that class (say becoming a fighter gives +5 STR, +2 DEX, +3 CON while becoming a Wizard gives +2 DEX, +5 INT, +3 WIS). Thus, anyone who trains to be a fighter will have at least a 13 STR because they've spent years building up their strength to do the job (but there's only so much you can build up if you're barely over 5 feet tall with a wirey build vs. a 6' 3" broad-shouldered build).

I never actually thought of this.  I've always let my players pick and choose which scores where, if I used random rolls, simply because I know how athletes (and let's face it Adventurers tend to be 'extreme' athletes) need to keep training in their area of focus.  But I like this.  If I run a pre-3e game again, I'll do this.

Quote from: Chris24601;1069866You know, the fact that people do effectively "train up" in real life what are ability scores in the game is actually a REALLY good point. So good in fact it actually makes me want to rewrite the rules towards that end because D&D is basically 180 degrees backwards on it. In D&D you're naturally really strong so you choose to be a fighter. In real life, you start training to be a fighter and become really strong.

This happens in 5e.  A player can raise ability scores at certain intervals, usually 2 points at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th and 19th.  Fighters can do so more frequently.  Or a player can opt for a feat instead.  Given the stronger emphasis on ability scores in D&D since, well, Greyhawk, this particular mechanic was long overdue.  (even it was present in 4e, or even 3e)