3d6 Straight down the line. With point-buy or rigged rolls you never get dumb magic-users, weak fighters, or anyone with a high charisma. Also, I don't feel that "Normal" people would ever become dungeon-crawlers and that they should be a kind of pathetic lot with a lot of low abilities... It's a job that would attract weird losers, drunks, those who couldn't hold real jobs, deserters, disgraced knights, the black sheep and unclaimed bastards of noble families, etc.

For my Mutant Future game I'm considering a system where androids use point-buy and everybody else rolls, so that playing someone who was built has a different feel from playing someone who was born. The real powerful mutations and the possibility of more than one 18 are sacrificed in exchange for getting to play a stable, predicable character in a world of gonzo. The details are still up in the air.

Quote from: 1of3;759672The problem in D&D is the strange roll of ability scores. They do not do anything by themselves and you cannot do your shtick without them. (Usually. You can play a Wizard with Int 8 in 5e, apparently.)

So the ability scores interact with your class choice. That means, if you are a clever player, you will spend your ability scores in such a way that they fit your class.

But then, if de facto all clerics are wise, why do we have an extra stat called Wisdom? It's not very elegant. You could simply have a rule for "stuff my class does".

The only way to make sense of ability scores is when you select them before class. Otherwise they are redundant. - So roll in order it is.

I think another way to look at this, is why aren't there options for strong magic-users, smart fighters, and tough (high Con) thieves, etc...

To some extent we have this with Sorcerer/Wizard, and Fighter/Ranger/Paladin/Barbarian.  But I would be happier with straight rolling if it made a difference other than "you are worse at what you do if you don't roll as well in your prime stat(s)."  After all, a Str 6, Int 16 fighter is still someone who theoretically knows HOW to fight (tactics and strategy as well).

Anyway, just "thinking out loud."

Quote from: 1of3;759672The problem in D&D is the strange roll of ability scores. They do not do anything by themselves and you cannot do your shtick without them. (Usually. You can play a Wizard with Int 8 in 5e, apparently.)

So the ability scores interact with your class choice. That means, if you are a clever player, you will spend your ability scores in such a way that they fit your class.

But then, if de facto all clerics are wise, why do we have an extra stat called Wisdom? It's not very elegant. You could simply have a rule for "stuff my class does".

Not strange at all, generally in life, you select a career in something you are good at, select for the ability. As per the Wis score, it provides granularity, plus it is more elegant than "stuff my class does".

QuoteThe only way to make sense of ability scores is when you select them before class. Otherwise they are redundant. - So roll in order it is.

What? You are saying two different things.

I like shadowrun 2e's mix of prioritization with limited point-buy.

Otherwise my favoured method is character modelling ala fASERIP, i.e., player describes character, GM assigns stats based on description

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;7597783d6 Straight down the line. With point-buy or rigged rolls you never get dumb magic-users, weak fighters, or anyone with a high charisma. Also, I don't feel that "Normal" people would ever become dungeon-crawlers and that they should be a kind of pathetic lot with a lot of low abilities... It's a job that would attract weird losers, drunks, those who couldn't hold real jobs, deserters, disgraced knights, the black sheep and unclaimed bastards of noble families, etc.

For my Mutant Future game I'm considering a system where androids use point-buy and everybody else rolls, so that playing someone who was built has a different feel from playing someone who was born. The real powerful mutations and the possibility of more than one 18 are sacrificed in exchange for getting to play a stable, predicable character in a world of gonzo. The details are still up in the air.

The 'In Order' aspect is what makes this great. Even 4d6 is ok if it is rolled in order.

However, many players seem to hate 'low' stats.

The more highs stats that are out there, the more boring stats become.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;759566I think I like the idea of the "just pick the stats and submit to the table!"  Can you share some example entries you used for the table?

My table is apparently on the computer that's in storage; went digging everywhere else and couldn't find it. But here are some general details:

The table is based on a 3d6 roll, but there are 34 entries, with low results being better. A player can roll all six of their abilities and request a background roll, which gives a number from 3 to 18; they might do this for the chance of getting a magic item or free heirloom-quality armor, which are examples of the lowest rolls.

Or a player can pick one or more ability scores. If you pick just one score and roll the rest, you roll once on the extras table and add the score you picked to the roll. If you pick two scores, you add whichever score is the higher of the two. This gives resullts from 6 to 36. (Yes, it's unlikely that someone will want to pick a score of 3 for one ability and roll for the rest, but hey, who knows what players might do?)

If you pick 3, 4 or 5 of your scores, you get two rolls on the extras table, same modifier on both rolls. If you pick all 6 of your ability scores, you get three rolls on the table.

Only a few of the low rolls are undeniably good. There are some bad results, and a lot of neutral or weird results, but nothing to punish the player. The focus is on creating plot points. One of the top five bad results is "you've been robbed!", which is basically the same as the heirloom result, but you don't have the heirloom; someone took it from you. You can try to track it down or just skip it. There's another result that says you recently got in a fight; you don't lose any hit points, but you have some bruises, which may affect reaction rolls from some NPCs, and you have a potential enemy somewhere out there that you might run into again.

The worst result is "cursed magic ring", which is a standard (useful) magic ring that can't be removed and thus has unwelcome side effects. Finding someone to cast Remove Curse can become a short-term goal. Or, again, you might skip it for a while and just put up with the downside of being permanently invisible, or whatever side effect comes with the curse.

I remember one of the neutral effects was that you have an extra, free backpack that is magically sealed. You don't know what is in it, but you think you saw it move once or twice. It's up to you to decide what you want to do about it: leave it somewhere, try to sell it, find some way of opening it? I think another one was some sort of "cow charisma" that caused cattle to like you very, very much.

Quote from: Brander;759789Anyway, just "thinking out loud."

As per the suggestion upthread; why not just give people an extra stat, called "Class"? Then you can use that stat or another one, for rolls; if it's relevant to your class, use Class (Or another attribute, if higher), else use the other stat.

So now you can have people be good at their class despite having crap stats in it, which lets you make strong wizards or weak fighters or whatever you want, and they can be both roll- and role-play capable.

It's coming at the "Proficiency" concept from another angle, basically.

For TSR D&D: 3d6 straight down, arrange to taste if you just have to have a certain basic class. I love class pre-requisites, especially those "oppressive" multi/dual class restrictions (sometimes I get lost daydreaming even more). Every other class and kit is optional depending on my setting and cruel viking hat whims. Attributes are useful as I have players roll against them often for various things as the game goes along.

For WotC D&D: I don't willingly play most WotC D&D anymore. I realized through play all those improvements I previously wanted before were wrong for me. However 5e playtest is coming along nicely in our play, so there looks to be an exception in the future.

Quote from: Opaopajr;759958For TSR D&D: 3d6 straight down, arrange to taste if you just have to have a certain basic class. I love class pre-requisites, especially those "oppressive" multi/dual class restrictions (sometimes I get lost daydreaming even more). Every other class and kit is optional depending on my setting and cruel viking hat whims. Attributes are useful as I have players roll against them often for various things as the game goes along.

For WotC D&D: I don't willingly play most WotC D&D anymore. I realized through play all those improvements I previously wanted before were wrong for me. However 5e playtest is coming along nicely in our play, so there looks to be an exception in the future.

Be careful it resembles 2e more then 1e (you really prefer good ability scores in your primary/secondary/tertiary, something like 16/15/14 works nicely).

You don't need maximum scores like 3/4e but it does matter like 1/2e.

Quote from: Ladybird;759840As per the suggestion upthread; why not just give people an extra stat, called "Class"? Then you can use that stat or another one, for rolls; if it's relevant to your class, use Class (Or another attribute, if higher), else use the other stat.

So now you can have people be good at their class despite having crap stats in it, which lets you make strong wizards or weak fighters or whatever you want, and they can be both roll- and role-play capable.

It's coming at the "Proficiency" concept from another angle, basically.

And it does open up the game to better supporting the Rincewind and Clouseau tropes as well.

In my view, the only random rolling methods that make sense to me are in order.  Either 3d6 or 4d6 (drop one) in the order of the scores.  That allows you to discover your character and be surprised by it.  It also makes unusual and interesting scores -- maybe the Fighter is a smarty-pants or the rogue is freakishly strong.  

If you are playing a game where character power is driven by scores (*cough* 3rd edition D&D *cough*) then I like elite array.  It is well balanced and it supports playing something that you want to play.  

They can both be fun, but in very different ways.  I am unsure of why you would arrange the order of random rolls.  Mostly that just makes character A > character B, which generally doesn't improve my fun at the table, as people assign the scores in the same pattern, just the amplitude changes.  Giving bonus XP for a high score, like in AD&D, just makes this even worse.

Quote from: talysman;759833My table is apparently on the computer that's in storage; went digging everywhere else and couldn't find it. But here are some general details:

The table is based on a 3d6 roll, but there are 34 entries, with low results being better. A player can roll all six of their abilities and request a background roll, which gives a number from 3 to 18; they might do this for the chance of getting a magic item or free heirloom-quality armor, which are examples of the lowest rolls.

It's like the deadly allure of a Deck of Many Things rolled into character generation. I like it.

Quote from: talysman;759833I remember one of the neutral effects was that you have an extra, free backpack that is magically sealed. You don't know what is in it, but you think you saw it move once or twice. It's up to you to decide what you want to do about it: leave it somewhere, try to sell it, find some way of opening it? I think another one was some sort of "cow charisma" that caused cattle to like you very, very much.

You had me at DoMT character gen, but cow charisma really sealed the deal. When you find the original, please share!

Thanks for giving me the rundown.

Quote from: Brander;759789I think another way to look at this, is why aren't there options for strong magic-users, smart fighters, and tough (high Con) thieves, etc...

To some extent we have this with Sorcerer/Wizard, and Fighter/Ranger/Paladin/Barbarian.  But I would be happier with straight rolling if it made a difference other than "you are worse at what you do if you don't roll as well in your prime stat(s)."  After all, a Str 6, Int 16 fighter is still someone who theoretically knows HOW to fight (tactics and strategy as well).

Anyway, just "thinking out loud."

Well in AD&D and even BX, a MU with a good strength can carry more, and might even hit a little harder in combat. And if the fighter is down and you are in a flooded room. The mage with the 14 STR and currently the strongest character still standing is also the only one who can try to bend those bars and free the group. (7%, but you might have two or so chances depending on creativity or luck)
The smart fighter will make INT checks to see some viable tactic or to remember some bit of lore or even just to know that obscure language.

Quote from: Marleycat;759965Be careful it resembles 2e more then 1e (you really prefer good ability scores in your primary/secondary/tertiary, something like 16/15/14 works nicely).

You don't need maximum scores like 3/4e but it does matter like 1/2e.

In AD&D at least you could get pretty darn far on say a 16. Especially mages since you arent even going to get 9th level spells till level 18 and not that many ever go that far. Or of they do, they have in the interem found a way to likely get those two needed points.

A fighter type can get by with even a 8 STR. They just wont be the pack mule of the group.

In one session my MU was the strongest character in the group with a whopping 14 STR. The fighter rolled a 9 and, but got I think a 17 CON and so played it as it intrigued him. That fighter took absurd levels of punishment and kept on going. My magic user was the group pack mule. heh.

Stats matter. But how they matter is up to individual interpretation.

Quote from: Omega;759997In AD&D at least you could get pretty darn far on say a 16. Especially mages since you arent even going to get 9th level spells till level 18 and not that many ever go that far. Or of they do, they have in the interem found a way to likely get those two needed points.

A fighter type can get by with even a 8 STR. They just wont be the pack mule of the group.

In one session my MU was the strongest character in the group with a whopping 14 STR. The fighter rolled a 9 and, but got I think a 17 CON and so played it as it intrigued him. That fighter took absurd levels of punishment and kept on going. My magic user was the group pack mule. heh.

Stats matter. But how they matter is up to individual interpretation.

True. I was just trying to give you a heads up.