i was banned from TBP for a few weeks for (1) sharing the Man Rider story and uncharitably suggesting that (2) no functioning adult would ever 'suicide' a character who had suboptimal stats, especially as a 'protest' against being forced to roll rather than use a stat array. now i'm wondering: i am actually correct on #2? would any well-adjusted grownup rather commit character suicide ('suicide' should not be a fucking verb) than just play the character?
so: have you ever had a player deliberately run a character into the ground right away to get out of a 'shitty' character w/random stats? do you know people who play this way? what are they like?
the thread's here: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?739281-Sell-me-Unsell-me-Rolling-for-Ability-Scores
I've determined that no one who posts there actually plays rpgs.
I have never had bad stats.
Unless you use 3d6 in order, which was out of fashion by the time I started playing in 1978, you're probably going to have decent stats.
If you use 4d6 drop one in any order, you're probably going to have at least one high score and worst will be around 10.
In fact, the default array usually given is about what you expect to roll. Sometimes you do better, sometimes worse, but I can remember rolling numerous 18s in my life, and I can't recall ever rolling a 3.
No. I did have an Elf in Basic D&D, with really just at low/low-average for everything--except Con. I got upset when he died because I enjoyed him.
I rolled better stats soon after for my nextPC, but the DM then wiped the rest of the party because he chose a monster we couldn't hurt. (+1 Magical weapons were not handed out, vs gargoyles..) Yeah. He retconned the deaths and let us continue but sadly the game died after that.
I've usually just played what I rolled, good or ill. (I usually roll well enough, but it happens to everyone to get bad rolls now and then.)
The Man Rider story??? :confused:
Someone who suicides their PC because they didn't get a stat high enough is acting like a spoiled child. You aren't wrong. But look where you posted it. Their MO is acting like a spoiled child who doesn't get his or her way.
Nothing but a bunch of whiners with entitlement issues.
I once got stuck playing a cleric (random roll) and kinda decided that he oughtta be a bit of a crazed zealot, picking fights and throwing himself into the deep end... mostly because I'd up till then disliked the idea of clerics and I figured he'd die off quick and I'd get to make a new character. But he kept on not dying and pretty soon I started to enjoy playing a cleric after all.
Our current GM keeps having us roll up in different ways. Sometimes it's totally random 3d6 in order... sometimes he gives us a bank of points to allot however we like. Variations of those. But I really like the random roll... it gives me limitations to play off of vs. some blandly competent thing with CHA as a dump stat.
I once played a gully dwarf in a one shot who tried to commit suicide. Well, for him it was suicide --running up and attacking-- but in spite of constantly putting him in danger I couldn't seem to kill him off. The dude was tougher than several other players who didn't survive the evening.
I did keep rolling a d20 every time my turn came up, and that if he rolled more than his Wisdom he decided to bolt and hide. In spite of a 7 Wis, I couldn't seem to roll a higher than that all evening. (I missed every attack, too.)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;791371Someone who suicides their PC because they didn't get a stat high enough is acting like a spoiled child. You aren't wrong. But look where you posted it. Their MO is acting like a spoiled child who doesn't get his or her way.
Nothing but a bunch of whiners with entitlement issues.
Well, now, that's not strictly true. There's still people there, including me, who haven't been banned yet because we look down on entitled whiners. The secret is not pointing out that they are whiners.
For example, in the discussion about suiciding characters (in a thread that's not about suiciding characters at all,) I refrained from criticizing people who would suicide characters, even before the person who brought it up admitted he really *would* suicide his character just to get better stats. Instead, I arguued against his claim that the 5e rules encourage people to do that. Clearly, it's the player's feelings about gaming the system being more important than playing a character. And I didn't even criticize *that*. I don't care if someone wants to play that way, as long as I don't have to play with them. I just want them to admit it's all based on the decisions they've made, not actually part of the rules.
Quote from: stuffis;791362i was banned from TBP for a few weeks for (1) sharing the Man Rider story and uncharitably suggesting that (2) no functioning adult would ever 'suicide' a character who had suboptimal stats, especially as a 'protest' against being forced to roll rather than use a stat array. now i'm wondering: i am actually correct on #2? would any well-adjusted grownup rather commit character suicide ('suicide' should not be a fucking verb) than just play the character?
so: have you ever had a player deliberately run a character into the ground right away to get out of a 'shitty' character w/random stats? do you know people who play this way? what are they like?
the thread's here: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?739281-Sell-me-Unsell-me-Rolling-for-Ability-Scores
No, but I have had some people decline to play when they found out I use 3d6 in order 6 times, no shit no fooling.
Which is okay. Nobody has to play.
Although in our Star Wars d20 game I did take some satisfaction in becoming the greatest of the New Jedi Order even though my character had the shittiest stats. (only 1 stat over 12, using "Roll 3d6 4 times for each stat, keep the best.) Play matters more than stats. If you want to be the greatest Jedi, play like you are the greatest Jedi.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;791371Someone who suicides their PC because they didn't get a stat high enough is acting like a spoiled child. You aren't wrong. But look where you posted it. Their MO is acting like a spoiled child who doesn't get his or her way.
Nothing but a bunch of whiners with entitlement issues.
This has been discussed before; some people just don't want anything bad to ever happen to their character.
Quote from: stuffis;791362i was banned from TBP for a few weeks for (1) sharing the Man Rider story and uncharitably suggesting that (2) no functioning adult would ever 'suicide' a character who had suboptimal stats, especially as a 'protest' against being forced to roll rather than use a stat array. now i'm wondering: i am actually correct on #2? would any well-adjusted grownup rather commit character suicide ('suicide' should not be a fucking verb) than just play the character?
so: have you ever had a player deliberately run a character into the ground right away to get out of a 'shitty' character w/random stats? do you know people who play this way? what are they like?
the thread's here: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?739281-Sell-me-Unsell-me-Rolling-for-Ability-Scores
I now officially hate you for luring me into reading that thread.
Crom's hairy nutsack, even one of the mods is a whiny-ass little crybaby. Actually, that thread is MOSTLY one of the mods being a whiny-ass little crybaby.
Fuck.
Quote from: Brad;791364I've determined that no one who posts there actually plays rpgs.
I disagree. I think that the forum is full of people who play RPGs in which nothing bad ever happens to their entitled characters because that wouldn't be "fun".
Quote from: Old Geezer;791388Crom's hairy nutsack, even one of the mods is a whiny-ass little crybaby. Actually, that thread is MOSTLY one of the mods being a whiny-ass little crybaby.
Fuck.
Mengtzu is busy gaming the system instead of playing the game in that thread.
Quote from: stuffis;791362i was banned from TBP for a few weeks for (1) sharing the Man Rider story and uncharitably suggesting that (2) no functioning adult would ever 'suicide' a character who had suboptimal stats, especially as a 'protest' against being forced to roll rather than use a stat array. now i'm wondering: i am actually correct on #2? would any well-adjusted grownup rather commit character suicide ('suicide' should not be a fucking verb) than just play the character?
so: have you ever had a player deliberately run a character into the ground right away to get out of a 'shitty' character w/random stats? do you know people who play this way? what are they like?
the thread's here: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?739281-Sell-me-Unsell-me-Rolling-for-Ability-Scores
The solution to this is: Don't game with assholes.
Quote from: Spike;791370The Man Rider story??? :confused:
I only vaguely recall this, so if I get the specifics wrong, someone please correct me.
Someone in a FLAILSNAILS game (you know, the OSR multi-campaign, multi-GM shared universe amongst the Google+ OSR crowd) rolled up a goblin PC (which should tell you right out of the gate what kind of player, and what kind of game, we're talking about) and got abysmal stats, and decided he was going to ride a human henchman in combat. Hence, Man Rider.
Man Rider showed up in several different games from different GMs and had a long and storied career that included trucking with gods. Typical "player rolls up suck stats and proceeds to play the character epically."
As for killing off a character because of bad rolls, that's childish, and I agree with the OP's assessment. Unless the player comes up with a
really awesome way to go, in which case I kinda sorta forgive him or her. Generally speaking I feel there are valid reasons for a PC to take suicidal action, but bad stats don't strike me as a good one.
Quote from: Brad;791364I've determined that no one who posts there actually plays rpgs.
If they do, they're ashamed to admit to it and want to force rpgs to be more socially acceptable so they won't be embarrassed if anyone should ever find out.
Now I run rpgs for teenagers on Saturdays and I frequently want to shout obscenities at them for being so whiney. But as I want them to spend money at my store I don't. They grow over time I keep telling myself, but man it's not worth the wait.
I wish they'd give D&D 5e a shot, they're whiners who want to play superheroes who fight hamsters and are rewarded like gods so it should be right up their alley. Though honestly 5e looks far better than I expected it to be. But it does slap a patch on all the contentious rough spots. Personally those rough spots are part of the designs charm but it certainly does pad out low level wizards and low levels in general while nerfing high level everything. It's not bad it's just not necessary and runs against the elegance of the core game. I guess what it tries to do is counter the stackable instance abuse created by exception based design through intelligent restriction of exceptions. Or some shit.
What were we talking about?
Quote from: stuffis;791362so: have you ever had a player deliberately run a character into the ground right away to get out of a 'shitty' character w/random stats? do you know people who play this way? what are they like?
s[/url]
People who do things like that think that they're exploiting the system or turning the system against itself or something else oh so clever... when in fact everyone else is actually laughing at them for being insecure crybabies.
Quote from: The Butcher;791395I only vaguely recall this, so if I get the specifics wrong, someone please correct me.
Someone in a FLAILSNAILS game (you know, the OSR multi-campaign, multi-GM shared universe amongst the Google+ OSR crowd) rolled up a goblin PC (which should tell you right out of the gate what kind of player, and what kind of game, we're talking about) and got abysmal stats, and decided he was going to ride a human henchman in combat. Hence, Man Rider.
Man Rider showed up in several different games from different GMs and had a long and storied career that included trucking with gods. Typical "player rolls up suck stats and proceeds to play the character epically."
Sounds awesome, what was the mods reason for hating on that story? The term "Man-Rider" make too many posters feel emotionally unsafe?
Quote from: The Butcher;791395As for killing off a character because of bad rolls, that's childish, and I agree with the OP's assessment. Unless the player comes up with a really awesome way to go, in which case I kinda sorta forgive him or her. Generally speaking I feel there are valid reasons for a PC to take suicidal action, but bad stats don't strike me as a good one.
A Player who engages in heroic self-sacrifice is not likely one who has his PC suicide over bad rolls.
Quote from: Old Geezer;791387This has been discussed before; some people just don't want anything bad to ever happen to their character.
Did I ever tell you about the time a PC got killed by being punched in the eye by an overweight, half drunk, middle aged man at arms?
It was an astonishing bit of rolling. The player's favorite death ever actually. Then there was the guy who got killed fighting a watch goose.
Then there was the Paladin who got killed while hunting a moose with his war mattock.
Man I love GURPS and Rolemaster :D
Quote from: The Butcher;791395Man Rider showed up in several different games from different GMs and had a long and storied career that included trucking with gods. Typical "player rolls up suck stats and proceeds to play the character epically."
IIRC he was the paladin of this really cool god:
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2013/02/akayle-ozph.html
I've been playing in a 3d6 in order, rolled hit points, dungeon crawl campaign for a year and a half. The characters who survive to level have universally had higher than average stats and higher starting hit point rolls. Even without character suicide, low stats and low hit points are basically a session tax before you die and re-roll anyway.
So I'm not misunderstood - I'm having a great time! I'm willing to take all the above as a part of play. I haven't myself suicided a character. (I did go through about 6 before one "caught" and survived long enough to level, but that was all organic, while trying to survive.) But I also wouldn't judge another player for a Leeroy Jenkins charge with a low-stat character.
I remember someone (edit: Kyle Aaron) once posted a story about the fighter with 1 hit point. The player decided that, since he'd obviously never been hit in his life or he'd be dead, the character believed himself invincible, and played that out as insane bravery. In the event, he just happened to keep rolling well and pulled it off, but if he hadn't, it would have looked like character suicide instead of real-man, old school play.
Quote from: David Johansen;791402Did I ever tell you about the time a PC got killed by being punched in the eye by an overweight, half drunk, middle aged man at arms?
It was an astonishing bit of rolling. The player's favorite death ever actually. Then there was the guy who got killed fighting a watch goose.
Then there was the Paladin who got killed while hunting a moose with his war mattock.
Man I love GURPS and Rolemaster :D
I play an online 3.0 game (using IM only because our DM is a luddite who won't try more advanced options), and for a while I was juggling two characters, a Wizard and a Cleric. The Wizard got offed by a fellow party member who was mind controlled by a harpy. The dude rolled three 20s in a row, basically cutting her head off from behind. I still get pissed about that moment, because I'm still not exactly sure whether he really rolled three 20s, or whether he said he did because he wanted to fuck with the rest of the group a bit. (He had a bit of a history that way.)
That said, I do miss playing MERP.
Quote from: Saladman;791409I remember someone (Old Geezer?) once posted a story about the fighter with 1 hit point. The player decided that, since he'd obviously never been hit in his life or he'd be dead, the character believed himself invincible, and played that out as insane bravery. In the event, he just happened to keep rolling well and pulled it off, but if he hadn't, it would have looked like character suicide instead of real-man, old school play.
That was me who posted that, Colin playing Kag the Fighter.
Ended up wrestling a basilisk, got 1,500gp or so from the adventure's treasure, and decided to retire.
I don't mind if they "suicide" by doing things a character might do anyway. I mean, plenty of players of fighters have them charge in stupidly. Either they die and the player gets to roll up another, or they live and the player comes to love them.
Being stupid-brave is, statistically, a life-saver in D&D. That's because every time you roll there's a chance you fuck up. So if you go around sneaking and checking for traps and secret doors and all the rest, you end up making zillions of dice rolls, and eventually you fuck up and get killed. By charging in stupidly you end up making less dice rolls.
This does not apply with an intelligent DM who handwaves a lot of things that "should" be rolled, and who applies modifiers to the remaining rolls to reflect the intelligence of your plans, etc; but such DMs are rare.
It's worse than you think, guys. Mengtzu's original contention was that he would use rolled chargen and suicide characters even if he had the option of point-buy, because point-buy is capped is capped at 15 before racial adjustments. So it's not even "suicide PC with lousy scores", it's "suicide a PC that got a 14 or 15, repeatedly, until a 16-18 comes up." In a game where bonuses are capped, and the difference between a 15 and an 18 is all of +2 for a limited time before the characters hit the ability cap.
Sigh.
Quote from: Iosue;791413It's worse than you think, guys. Mengtzu's original contention was that he would use rolled chargen and suicide characters even if he had the option of point-buy, because point-buy is capped is capped at 15 before racial adjustments. So it's not even "suicide PC with lousy scores", it's "suicide a PC that got a 14 or 15, repeatedly, until a 16-18 comes up." In a game where bonuses are capped, and the difference between a 15 and an 18 is all of +2 for a limited time before the characters hit the ability cap.
Sigh.
Actually, he said that he wold suicide any character that didn't allow him to start with an 18 because the game wants him to do so (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?739281-Sell-me-Unsell-me-Rolling-for-Ability-Scores&p=18384337#post18384337):
"I would do that, so I could start with a 17 (--> 18 with human bonus), so I could get 20 in my primary stat earlier, so I could take the second feat I wanted earlier. I would expect this within three rolls.
...
It's kind of terrible, and I wouldn't *want* to do it,
but that's what the game tells me to do. It wouldn't be a problem if it didn't give relatively poor stats to point-bought/array characters."
Apparently the game having point buy is a lie, and it is really a sentient being commanding players to kill characters so they can get a starting 18 stat.
I can tell every player who played 4th edition on TBP by how much of a fucking hard on they have for stats and mechanical differentiation for absolutely everything and not catering to them is a flaw and sign of absolute failure.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;791412That was me who posted that, Colin playing Kag the Fighter.
Ended up wrestling a basilisk, got 1,500gp or so from the adventure's treasure, and decided to retire.
My apologies! That one stuck with me cause it was cool though, so thanks for sharing it.
I had a paladin douse himself in holy water and wrestle a wight once. When I said, "You die from life energy drain," he only asked "Did I get him?"
Old Geezer's right to a point when he says, "Don't play with assholes." The problem is that people often are very set in their course by prior gaming experience. I have one friend who wants to find a magic item on every corpse he loots and gets bitchy about it. I really don't miss him at the table. I'm sorry, the kobold only has three copper pieces, a little sack with some scales and a pointy tooth in it, and a condom made of rhinoceros hide because he only left home with the things he thought he'd need on sentry duty.
Quote from: snooggums;791416Actually, he said that he wold suicide any character that didn't allow him to start with an 18 because the game wants him to do so (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?739281-Sell-me-Unsell-me-Rolling-for-Ability-Scores&p=18384337#post18384337):
"I would do that, so I could start with a 17 (--> 18 with human bonus), so I could get 20 in my primary stat earlier, so I could take the second feat I wanted earlier. I would expect this within three rolls.
...
It's kind of terrible, and I wouldn't *want* to do it, but that's what the game tells me to do. It wouldn't be a problem if it didn't give relatively poor stats to point-bought/array characters."
Apparently the game having point buy is a lie, and it is really a sentient being commanding players to kill characters so they can get a starting 18 stat.
I can tell every player who played 4th edition on TBP by how much of a fucking hard on they have for stats and mechanical differentiation for absolutely everything and not catering to them is a flaw and sign of absolute failure.
That is both hilarious and sad. It's alright though, they are the anti-next board and we're picking up the posters who are tired of their shit. :)
Be nice if the hyperbole was ratcheted down a bit, for those of you who revel in your Generic Sneering. This isn't a question of "I don't want to play a character that ever has anything bad happen to it." Cut that crap, can't we? It's a matter of "I don't want to play a character that's permanently handicapped from Day One in a way that none of the other characters are, so that I'm automatically their bitch, and they'll be pissed off that I'm not pulling my weight."
I'm not down with that myself, but the way I handle that is that I refuse to play random-gen games. The way I figure, if you do choose to play in random-gen games, you're accepting that your character might not have stats as good as the other characters, so you've no grounds for whining.
Just as a lark, it'd be interesting to compare and contrast some of the people in that thread who also had plenty to say in that very contentious thread a few years back, where a player was upset that his DM forced him to reroll when he genned a character with stats higher than the DM and the other players liked.
This is something I wrestle with. I understand that a lot of folks have now gotten their start in D&D after 2000. I understand that 3d6 in order was really only the norm in OD&D and BD&D, and that point-buy and standard arrays is the end result of a shift that began with the multiple methods of rolling listed in AD&D.
But man, people playing D&D and hating on random chargen just feels weird. To me, that's just a part of D&D. If you played GURPS, you allocated points for ability scores and skills. If you played a Palladium game you chose from a crapload of classes with preset skills. If you played Traveler you worked out your character's whole pre-game career with a mix of choice and random rolls. And if you played D&D you randomly rolled your stats. Even if you used an alternate method, at least you understood what the point of random stats were.
The idea of suiciding a character because of low stats never occurred to us in all the years I've been playing. There might be an attitude of, "Well, a guy with stats this low is probably going to die early, and I'll make up a new character." There might be an attitude of, "With stats this low, I've got nothing to lose." But trying to get the character killed? That people think like this, or at least that there are more people who think like this, and are still playing D&D instead of finding a game more suited to their tastes...it just makes me feel old.
Quote from: One Horse Town;791420That is both hilarious and sad. It's alright though, they are the anti-next board and we're picking up the posters who are tired of their shit. :)
a lot of posters at rpg.net are really psyched about 5e. the mods don't seem to be, for private reasons which appear too childish to worry about, and the same half-dozen pedantic idiots pop up in every 5e thread to moan about something semi-related to the topic at hand. but the board overall seems to host plenty of making-the-best-of-5e threads.
Quote from: jeff37923;791392I disagree. I think that the forum is full of people who play RPGs in which nothing bad ever happens to their entitled characters because that wouldn't be "fun".
There's a world of difference between not wanting to play a character who's a complete incompetent and "nothing bad ever happens to your character". That's a bullshit canard overused by the Macho Grognard posse (the sort who apparently derive some sense of masculinity and maturity from the way they play games of make-believe, maybe because they don't have any other meaningful ways to do that).
I don't agree with suiciding characters with crap stats, that's a passive-aggressive out rather than being a grown up and simply saying "I don't want to play this character, let's start again". It's also a big waste of everyone's time introducing a character, only to deliberately kill them off and then go through the rigmarole of integrating your next experiment. Cut the crap and fix this in chargen, we don't move into the game until everyone is happy with the characters they have.
Of course I also think 3d6 in order is shit, generating mostly hapless buffoons, except when someone's been cheating while no one was looking, and the odd instance of someone getting lucky. That one set of rolls is more important than any single other. Miss an attack roll, you get another chance at the next opportunity. Roll shit stats, you're stuck with them until the next character.
As a GM, I have no interest in a group of PCs with a wildly varying set of stats, making it impossible to pitch anything at a level where I won't either have some characters completely outmatched, or others enjoying a cakewalk.
Quote from: Kiero;791435Of course I also think 3d6 in order is shit, generating mostly hapless buffoons, except when someone's been cheating while no one was looking, and the odd instance of someone getting lucky.
Yes, but for WHAT game? In OD&D and B/X, 3D6 in order creates perfectly playable characters. In 3.5 or Pathfinder, 3D6 in order is probably a bad idea. Even in AD&D there's really no difference between an 8 and a 15 STR.
To echo Old Geezer from some other thread, stats in D&D aren't everything, but they're not nothing, either. That said, 3D6 in order using random.org:
STR 13
INT 12
WIS 9
DEX 11
CON 9
CHA 11
In B/X, I could make a viable fighter, cleric, thief, dwarf, elf, halfling, or magic-user. So, yeah, your assertion is wrong.
Quote from: Iosue;791413It's worse than you think, guys. Mengtzu's original contention was that he would use rolled chargen and suicide characters even if he had the option of point-buy, because point-buy is capped is capped at 15 before racial adjustments. So it's not even "suicide PC with lousy scores", it's "suicide a PC that got a 14 or 15, repeatedly, until a 16-18 comes up." In a game where bonuses are capped, and the difference between a 15 and an 18 is all of +2 for a limited time before the characters hit the ability cap.
Sigh.
That's the min/max or munchkin crowd playing, right there. I see that sort of behavior all the time in MMO land when theorycrafters are trying to find the best combo of gear and stats for the best damage/healing/tanking.
It is one way to play an RPG, but not the only way. Thank goodness.
Quote from: Brad;791436Yes, but for WHAT game? In OD&D and B/X, 3D6 in order creates perfectly playable characters. In 3.5 or Pathfinder, 3D6 in order is probably a bad idea. Even in AD&D there's really no difference between an 8 and a 15 STR.
To echo Old Geezer from some other thread, stats in D&D aren't everything, but they're not nothing, either. That said, 3D6 in order using random.org:
STR 13
INT 12
WIS 9
DEX 11
CON 9
CHA 11
In B/X, I could make a viable fighter, cleric, thief, dwarf, elf, halfling, or magic-user. So, yeah, your assertion is wrong.
I could see a person playing a fighter who is really a wannabe magic-user, or a magic-user who wanted to avoid getting conscripted into the army. Hell, there are at least a half dozen ways to play those stats.
Quote from: Kiero;791435There's a world of difference between not wanting to play a character who's a complete incompetent and "nothing bad ever happens to your character". That's a bullshit canard overused by the Macho Grognard posse (the sort who apparently derive some sense of masculinity and maturity from the way they play games of make-believe, maybe because they don't have any other meaningful ways to do that).
I don't agree with suiciding characters with crap stats, that's a passive-aggressive out rather than being a grown up and simply saying "I don't want to play this character, let's start again". It's also a big waste of everyone's time introducing a character, only to deliberately kill them off and then go through the rigmarole of integrating your next experiment. Cut the crap and fix this in chargen, we don't move into the game until everyone is happy with the characters they have.
Of course I also think 3d6 in order is shit, generating mostly hapless buffoons, except when someone's been cheating while no one was looking, and the odd instance of someone getting lucky. That one set of rolls is more important than any single other. Miss an attack roll, you get another chance at the next opportunity. Roll shit stats, you're stuck with them until the next character.
As a GM, I have no interest in a group of PCs with a wildly varying set of stats, making it impossible to pitch anything at a level where I won't either have some characters completely outmatched, or others enjoying a cakewalk.
Looks like I struck a nerve.
So, what kind of system do you use for character creation?
Quote from: Ravenswing;791428Be nice if the hyperbole was ratcheted down a bit, for those of you who revel in your Generic Sneering.
As far as I can tell, it serves the same purpose as a lot of the SJW advocacy over at TBP--affirmation of one's moral and intellectual superiority, public demonstration of loyalty to the Revolution, and condemnation of the Enemy.
Quote
This isn't a question of "I don't want to play a character that ever has anything bad happen to it." Cut that crap, can't we?
Ah, but it's got such a fine pedigree, going back to Gygax and his comment about those who 'might be better off playing Candyland with their younger sister'.
Quote
I'm not down with that myself, but the way I handle that is that I refuse to play random-gen games. The way I figure, if you do choose to play in random-gen games, you're accepting that your character might not have stats as good as the other characters, so you've no grounds for whining.
The problem with random generation, IMO, is that it combines 'playing a character who might not be what you expect', which can be a positive or negative, with 'playing a character who's handicapped compared to the rest of the party', which is not universally a negative (some people appear to appreciate the challenge), but is far more difficult to handle in play.
Possible ways to get the first without the second:
1. Random array selection, so you can have randomness without power variation.
2. Simiiarly, the method used in Gamma World '7E', by reports--you get an 18 in your primary stat, a 16 in your secondary, and roll randomly for all the rest.
3. One idea that's been tossed around for 20 years is to flip the XP gain modifiers in OD&D/BX/BECMI, so that characters with lower prime requisites gain
more experience--they have to work harder, so they get more out of an experience if they survive, while characters with higher scores have bonuses but can coast a bit on natural talent.
Quote from: Iosue;791432This is something I wrestle with. I understand that a lot of folks have now gotten their start in D&D after 2000. I understand that 3d6 in order was really only the norm in OD&D and BD&D, and that point-buy and standard arrays is the end result of a shift that began with the multiple methods of rolling listed in AD&D.
Started playing in 1980 with Holmes. Our group shifted to "4d6, drop lowest; arrange all 6 rolls to taste" as soon as we heard about that option and never looked back.
The mindset that can't find enjoyment in playing a character with stats that are lower than the rest of the characters in a party is very similar to the mindset that won't choose a race that doesn't provide optimal stat bonuses for a given class. I find both make me a little sad.
For me, characters are more about what they've experienced than their starting stats, so you can't tell how good a character is going to be until it's in the thick of it.
Similarly, players who have already decided what their character is going to be like 10 levels down the road and tolerate no deviation ( see Sacrosanct's TWF player's rot grub suicide in the 5e death thread) also make sad.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;791449Similarly, players who have already decided what their character is going to be like 10 levels down the road and tolerate no deviation ( see Sacrosanct's TWF player's rot grub suicide in the 5e death thread) also make sad.
FWIW, that case wasn't intentional suicide. He's not a power gamer by any means. He just doesn't think things through lol. He was busy worrying about how his life would suck with only one arm and was frozen by inaction too long. Next thing he knew it was in his chest cavity and too late.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;791452FWIW, that case wasn't intentional suicide. He's not a power gamer by any means. He just doesn't think things through lol. He was busy worrying about how his life would suck with only one arm and was frozen by inaction too long. Next thing he knew it was in his chest cavity and too late.
Heh. We can pin that one on the character's self doubt instead. I probably projected too much of my experience with a few players from the past into him.
Edit: I should probably clarify that I don't find the tolerate-no-deviation attitude a power gamer thing, but the stats thing(s) I do tend to think of as power-gamey.
It's a rebellion against power inequity.
If you insist on random stats in a game where stats matter and stats can vary a lot... you're being a dick expecting one person to just play el schmucko for the campaign.
(I realize people will now pile on with their stories of real manly gaming where you shut up and deal with what you get. It's a pile of crap)
Now, of course, I have the maturity to say 'this sucks, I'm not playing in this set up' and move on.
But at a less mature/examined time, when nobody had really thought things through, it's the kind of reflexive decisions I'd expect.
(I'll note that I never suicided a character. Generally when games sucked like this the game folded for corollary reasons)
What qualifies as low stats? If it's a bunch of 5-9s then fine, re-roll them. If it's not having any 17s (like the numpty quoted in the OP), then you've got a 'special snowflake' problem and should be playing point-buy (and then go on to complain about that not having as high a range as random - heh).
Quote from: snooggums;791416Actually, he said that he wold suicide any character that didn't allow him to start with an 18 because the game wants him to do so (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?739281-Sell-me-Unsell-me-Rolling-for-Ability-Scores&p=18384337#post18384337):
"I would do that, so I could start with a 17 (--> 18 with human bonus), so I could get 20 in my primary stat earlier, so I could take the second feat I wanted earlier. I would expect this within three rolls.
...
It's kind of terrible, and I wouldn't *want* to do it, but that's what the game tells me to do. It wouldn't be a problem if it didn't give relatively poor stats to point-bought/array characters."
Apparently the game having point buy is a lie, and it is really a sentient being commanding players to kill characters so they can get a starting 18 stat.
.
I've played a lot of 5e, and I'm pretty sure I don't recall anywhere in the books where it tells you play that way. I do see a lot of "play however you want to play" stuff though.
I'm getting less and less patience for people who act like douchebags and try to blame the book for their douchbaggery rather than look in the mirror.
But really, it's the same attitude that permeates everything else over there, even the non-RPG related stuff. "It's always someone else's fault and I'm being victimized." Hell, you just had a mod ban someone (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?739410-Infraction-for-orphan81-8%29-One-Month-Ban) for a month for literally not agreeing with his side of an argument.
The good news is it allows me to see red flags of those types of players I never want to play with.
Quote from: Brad;791436Yes, but for WHAT game? In OD&D and B/X, 3D6 in order creates perfectly playable characters. In 3.5 or Pathfinder, 3D6 in order is probably a bad idea. Even in AD&D there's really no difference between an 8 and a 15 STR.
To echo Old Geezer from some other thread, stats in D&D aren't everything, but they're not nothing, either.
The main thing I'm focused on right now is B/X-derived ACKS, which does have 3d6 in order by default, and which I binned immediately. The notion that stats don't matter is bollocks, and is only true of OD&D (and I guess AD&D1) where by design (so far as there was any design) they did little.
In B/X and ACKS the average range is 9-12, stats either side of that matters, because it has a real in-game impact. A Fighter with Str 16 in B/X isn't just getting an XP bonus (which is mostly irrelevant anyway), they're better than the Str 12 Fighter every single time they swing a weapon, hitting more frequently and doing more damage every time. They can also wear heavier armour (without impacting their movement) and carry more loot. That's an arbitrarily created disparity between those two players which never goes away.
That's leaving aside the lack of choice intrinsic to the "in order" part, which is at least as shitty as the low spread. It is, however, a different issue entirely.
Quote from: Brad;791436That said, 3D6 in order using random.org:
STR 13
INT 12
WIS 9
DEX 11
CON 9
CHA 11
In B/X, I could make a viable fighter, cleric, thief, dwarf, elf, halfling, or magic-user. So, yeah, your assertion is wrong.
The only thing of note is that they are stronger than average. Otherwise they're average, and with rather poor health for anyone physically oriented - the moment they get hit with ageing effects, for example, they are on a CON penalty. They're only viable for the very lowest sort of threshold of viability.
Why is this person an adventurer, when they clearly aren't cut out for it? Unless they're going to play spear-carrier to the more competent adventurer. Which is a different issue to disparities between players.
Quote from: jeff37923;791439Looks like I struck a nerve.
Only insofar as it's always the same arguments, with the same canards and straw men each time over.
Quote from: jeff37923;791439So, what kind of system do you use for character creation?
For my game I used a randomised generation of arrays, and anyone could take any array they liked, in a non-exclusive fashion. As it turned out, everyone used the same array, though we got different manifestations in what they did with it.
Generating the array was: Roll 1d6+12, 2d6+6 twice and 3d6 four times. Drop the lowest result from these seven rolls.
You may choose to use either your array, or that of anyone else at the table. Once you have your array, you may arrange them however you like, moving up to 2 points (at a 1:1 ratio) around.
My recent "fix" for rolling stats (and their importance for players, concerns from some players wildly overshadowing others, etc) is to have the group roll stats together, and everyone ends up with the same array. 4d6 take the best, everyone rolls once or twice (depending on the number of players), and then everyone gets to put that set of six rolls onto their sheet, in whatever order they like.
You still get the randomness of that comparatively traditional chargen method, you still get the fun of a swingy high roll making your character great at something (maybe), you still get the risk of a swingy low roll making your character pretty awful at something (maybe), you still get the thunder of the dice and the anticipation as folks wait to see what their stats are gonna be like...but you then also end up with in-group parity, instead of someone being General Eighteen and someone else stuck playing Second Lieutenant Nine.
Quote from: Kiero;791458Why is this person an adventurer, when they clearly aren't cut out for it? Unless they're going to play spear-carrier to the more competent adventurer. Which is a different issue to disparities between players.
Because heroes are heroes because of what they are willing to risk, not because of their competence (not that competence doesn't help). I'm honestly surprised this this question has any legs in fantasy role playing.
Man, if only somebody could come up with an example of an epic fantasy tale about a hero completely unsuited to being an adventurer.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;791462Because heroes are heroes because of what they are willing to risk, not because of their competence (not that competence doesn't help). I'm honestly surprised this this question has any legs in fantasy role playing.
Man, if only somebody could come up with an example of an epic fantasy tale about a hero completely unsuited to being an adventurer.
The Hobbit.EDIT:
The Book of Three by Lloyd Alexander.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;791462Man, if only somebody could come up with an example of an epic fantasy tale about a hero completely unsuited to being an adventurer.
Terry Brooks came up with this unique concept when he wrote Sword of Shannarra ;) :P (yes, I did catch the sarcasm, hence my own)
*Edit* On a related note, I used the Hobbit example in a thread about starting at 1st level with new PCs and people like Paraxis saying that it never happens. "It" being an experienced group of people agreeing to take on an inexperienced one, and therefore, all new PCs should be the same level as the rest of the party.
It's like some people have no idea about the roots of what D&D is based off of and inspired by.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;791465Terry Brooks came up with this unique concept when he wrote Sword of Shannarra ;) :P (yes, I did catch the sarcasm, hence my own)
You and your wacky corner case exceptions!
Quote from: Will;791455If you insist on random stats in a game where stats matter and stats can vary a lot... you're being a dick expecting one person to just play el schmucko for the campaign.
No, you're only being a dick, maybe, if you don't make it clear beforehand that that is how your group does chargen... knowing that many Players have issues with it.
When our GM told us his next go round would be straight six I was excited... it adds potential limitation and variation, but I'm quite happy to play less than optimal PCs. It's not a macho thing... just my taste in characters, where everyone being blandly competent and 'equal' seems less interesting.
Quote from: Simlasa;791468No, you're only being a dick if you don't make it clear beforehand that that is how your group does chargen... knowing that many Players have issues with it.
When our GM told us his next go round would be straight six I was excited... it adds potential limitation and variation, but I'm quite happy to play less than optimal PCs. It's not a macho thing... just my taste in characters, where everyone being blandly competent and 'equal' seems less interesting.
Indeed. I like a game of Fantasy Special Forces/Batman every now and then, but that is too one dimensional for my tastes to be the norm.
Quote from: Critias;791459My recent "fix" for rolling stats (and their importance for players, concerns from some players wildly overshadowing others, etc) is to have the group roll stats together, and everyone ends up with the same array. 4d6 take the best, everyone rolls once or twice (depending on the number of players), and then everyone gets to put that set of six rolls onto their sheet, in whatever order they like.
You still get the randomness of that comparatively traditional chargen method, you still get the fun of a swingy high roll making your character great at something (maybe), you still get the risk of a swingy low roll making your character pretty awful at something (maybe), you still get the thunder of the dice and the anticipation as folks wait to see what their stats are gonna be like...but you then also end up with in-group parity, instead of someone being General Eighteen and someone else stuck playing Second Lieutenant Nine.
That's certainly one way of doing it.
I confess that i've never, ever seen 'dice envy' in a group. In fact, it's so alien to me that it boggles me. I'm not competing against the other players.
I get the impression that many gaming groups have far more jealousy, resentment, and internal competition than mine have. There seems to be a lot of concern that one person will get an 18 and another won't and that might generate ill feelings.
That's sad.
Quote from: One Horse Town;791470That's certainly one way of doing it.
I confess that i've never, ever seen 'dice envy' in a group. In fact, it's so alien to me that it boggles me. I'm not competing against the other players.
I don't see it with adults either. I only see that behavior from children. "how come he got a bigger piece than me" stuff, which essentially is the same thing we're talking about with dice envy
Quote from: One Horse Town;791470That's certainly one way of doing it.
I confess that i've never, ever seen 'dice envy' in a group. In fact, it's so alien to me that it boggles me. I'm not competing against the other players.
It's an issue that I think ties into the hobby's paranoia about class balance, and similar issues. When folks are worried about one class taking the limelight, it's a pretty natural extension to then also obsess over one player's stats overshadowing another's.
*shrug*
Mostly I like it as part of a teambuilding thing in general. Group chargen, group solidarity around rolls, everyone cheering when someone comes through and the whole group gets a sweet 18, that sort of thing. It turns the solo chargen minigame into a group affair, the "balance" stuff is largely secondary to me.
I revel in 3d6 straight down. I'm very good at whipping up something competent from it. Besides, in play nothing matters if you can barely roll higher than a 5 on a d20 (which happens to me a lot, blessed by the dice gods and all).
So might as well go for the flavor!
Quote from: Brad;791436To echo Old Geezer from some other thread, stats in D&D aren't everything, but they're not nothing, either. That said, 3D6 in order using random.org:
STR 13
INT 12
WIS 9
DEX 11
CON 9
CHA 11
Challenge accepted. Basic 5e chargen, go!
Random class, d4. Rolled 2, fighter.
Random background, d6. Rolled 2, criminal.
Ta-dah!
Ephraim
Human Fighter, Criminal Enforcer
Lvl 1, PB +2. Saves: STR, CON. Alignment: ??
HD: d10. HP: 10. AC: 18
STR 14 (+2), DEX 12 (+1), CON 10 (+0), INT 13 (+1), WIS 10 (+0), CHA 12 (+1)
Race: Human — All stats +1.
Lang: Common, +(lang?).
Class:
Fighting Style, Protection — react, Disadv atk v. target 5' from you, must see attacker & wield shield.
Second Wind — bonus act, 1d10+lvl HP. short or long rest recharge.
Skills: Acrobatics +3, Athletics +4, Deception (bkrd) +3, Stealth (bkrd) +3.
Tools: Thieves' Tools. Dice Set.
Background: Criminal. Feature: Criminal Contacts.
Personality: friendly. Ideal: charity. Bond: family man. Flaw: patsy
Gear: crowbar, dark common clothes w/ hood, pouch +15 gp.
Wealth: 15 gp. Spent 13.15 gp. Left 1.85 gp.
Quickstart: a) chain mail, a) lg. sword & shield, a) lt. xbow & 20 bolts, b) explorer's pack.
Armor: Chain Mail - 75 GP, AC 16. Shield - +2 AC.
Weapons:
1x L. Sword - 15 gp. +4 atk. 1d8+2. versatile (1d10).
1x Lt. Xbow - 25 gp. +3 atk. 1d8+1. ammo (rng 80/320), loading, two-handed
20x Bolts
2x Dagger - 2 gp. +4 atk. 1d4+2. light, finesse, thrown, (rng 20/60).
20x Darts - 5 cp. +4 atk. 1d4+2. finesse, thrown, (rng 20/60).
2x Net - 1 gp. +4 atk. special, thrown, (rng 5/ 15).
Gear: Explorer’s Pack - 10 gp (backpack, bedroll, mess kit, tinderbox, 10x torches, 10x rations, water skin, rope hemp 50'), Quiver - 1 gp, Lantern hooded - 5 gp, Dice Set - 1 sp, Signal Whistle - 5 cp.
Trinket: Knucklebone dice, with skulls instead of 6's.
Playstyle: Defensive melee enforcer, getaway man; use Protection often. Also use darts, grab, or shove to control the field. Grab an opponent and use them as 1/2 cover to get +2 AC, reach AC 20; you only need one-hand to grab. Shove them prone or away as necessary with Athletics. Net nastier targets. Ideally lethal force is reserved for last resorts, because who wants to deal with law investigations?
---------
Easy stuff. Still could take this array in other directions, too. Any special requests?
Quote from: Opaopajr;791478I revel in 3d6 straight down. I'm very good at whipping up something competent from it.
Besides which, soooo much of the enjoyment... for me... comes from how I play the character. My current PC in our Pathfinder game has mediocre stats except for a stellar charisma and he's been a boatload of fun.
Maybe a part of the issue is having the imagination to look past what's on the character sheet? (I sometimes wish character sheets would go away)
But I suppose that's edging close to the old role vs. roll argument that folks hate so much.
Yeah, play is what matters. That and a lot of luck. How many of us here have seen the bucket of 18s character die in his first quest out the gate?
High stats are not bowling gutter bumpers, ensuring you'll at least hit some pins. Bad behavior to NPCs & their institutions will still kill you. Bad strategy and tactics will still kill you. Bad luck will still kill you.
They're useful, but not necessary. It's a matter of degree, but it's not that fragile of a difference. However gamers often speak in full throated dichotomies, especially to that ever precious "win!" button. Whateverness.
For my group (5e), I'm going with the following:
Players can choose random rolls, array, or point buy.
They have to roll at the table, 4d6 drop the lowest and assign wherever.
If they don't like the state, they can ask me if they can re-roll and I'm making a completely subjective judgement call on whether I think it is necessary based on how high the top two and lowest two stats are.
All four chose random rolls.
Only one asked for a re-roll because they didn't have a single stat over 13, so they got to re-roll.
Three of the players have at least one negative stat and are cool with it.
The fourth ended up with fairly high stats and no negatives, and the rest don't care.
I also let everyone know that they can repeat this process and switch characters as often as they and the other players wish, because if they don't enjoy playing a character for any reason, they shouldn't have to.
Quote from: Brad;791436To echo Old Geezer from some other thread, stats in D&D aren't everything, but they're not nothing, either. That said, 3D6 in order using random.org:
STR 13
INT 12
WIS 9
DEX 11
CON 9
CHA 11
In B/X, I could make a viable fighter, cleric, thief, dwarf, elf, halfling, or magic-user. So, yeah, your assertion is wrong.
So let me get this straight: you do a SINGLE set of random 3d6 rolls, get a set of NOT crap stats, and declare any degree of fact off of that alone? Remind me never to hire you on to perform any study, dude.
Hell, here's my own set.
STR 10, INT 9, WIS 9, DEX 9, CON 12, CHA 6. (That's seriously what I just rolled.) So yeah,
your assertion is wrong, if we're playing that game. Could I be a viable meat shield with that, does anyone think?
Quote from: Ravenswing;791428 It's a matter of "I don't want to play a character that's permanently handicapped from Day One in a way that none of the other characters are, so that I'm automatically their bitch, and they'll be pissed off that I'm not pulling my weight."
Why would you ever play with people who treated each other like that?
It seems like less a problem you're having with random stats and more a problem with having some psychopaths at your table and/or people who aren't smart enough to realize a character with low stats can pull far more than their weight through cleverness and invention.
And even if they didn't pull their own weight: a game isn't a reality-free zone. You still have to treat your friends with respect.
Quote from: Ravenswing;791513So let me get this straight: you do a SINGLE set of random 3d6 rolls, get a set of NOT crap stats, and declare any degree of fact off of that alone? Remind me never to hire you on to perform any study, dude.
Remind me never to post a simple example on the internet because someone will inevitably insult you for not being fucking detailed enough. Seriously, this is one of the dumbest posts in the thread.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;791457Hell, you just had a mod ban someone (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?739410-Infraction-for-orphan81-8%29-One-Month-Ban) for a month for literally not agreeing with his side of an argument.
Interesting - I like how the SJW are pushing all the well-meaning Lefties off their boat. They're undoing decades of brainwashing at a stroke. In a trivial way it reminds me of the reaction to Islamic State, whose behaviour has horrified many hardline Sunni Muslims and Western Leftists.
It also reminds me of "Are we the baddies? (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQ3ywwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DToKcmnrE5oY&ei=HNM6VLOxBMi07QaqpIDoCQ&usg=AFQjCNF79ApR7BJI-1VEnHM-jEwWjN4eug&sig2=Co_ULVFPD0ulzQu-wZTSjA&bvm=bv.77161500,d.ZGU)" - many Left-Liberals seem to have been under the impression that their side were the Goodies, and GamerGate has showed them the skulls on the caps of many of their comrades.
Quote from: Zak S;791515And even if they didn't pull their own weight: a game isn't a reality-free zone. You still have to treat your friends with respect.
This, this and this. I really wonder what kind of folks people game with when reading some of the threads. Did someone clone Will Ferrell's character from Old School and unleash him on the gaming community because these sound like seriously unhealthy groups if people are being treated with a lack of respect because they didn't roll as high for their abilities.
Getting an 18 and 16 isn't an achievement, it is luck. Anyone who sees having a weak character as some kind of personal failure has issues. Serious issues. I've gamed for years with folks who can handle a wide range of results in the party AND get along. Was just looking at last year's OA campaign and averaging the results against point buy values. Our highest character had like a 36 value character and the lowest a 10 (using 4d6 drop lowest). Yet the group was functional, got a long and I nobody got frustrated at the character with the 10 value stats.
Quote from: Zak S;791515...people who aren't smart enough to realize a character with low stats can pull far more than their weight through cleverness and invention.
The
player brings this, not their character. Which they can do with higher or lower stats. Only with higher stats, they're much more likely to succeed with that.
Quote from: Kiero;791521The player brings this, not their character. Which they can do with higher or lower stats. Only with higher stats, they're much more likely to succeed with that.
A player plays the ball where it lies. The shape of the golf course is part of the game.
Bad stats? Play to win.
Good stats? Play to win. And everyone should expect more of you.
Quote from: Zak S;791522A player plays the ball where it lies. The shape of the golf course is part of the game.
The counterargument is that wide stat variations is like having a tournament where players play on courses of varied shapes and difficulty, but are all being held to the same par.
I think random rolling made more sense/less difference when multiple PCs in a 'stable' arrangement was the norm, and lethality was higher, so the variations tended to even out more over time and sessions. With the newer model of committing to a single PC for the long term, I think a lot of that balancing element is lost.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;791524The counterargument is that wide stat variations is like having a tournament where players play on courses of varied shapes and difficulty, but are all being held to the same par.
If the players were in competition with each other, that analogy would make sense.
But they're not, they're a team working toward a common goal--and if the GM isn't setting things up so good ideas get as much or more spotlight and effectivenes more than to-hit bonuses, you're going to have a shit game anyway and there's no help for you
even if all the players are equal.
Quote from: One Horse Town;791470That's certainly one way of doing it.
I confess that i've never, ever seen 'dice envy' in a group. In fact, it's so alien to me that it boggles me. I'm not competing against the other players.
I'll have to agree, it is quite alien to my experience. I usually combine random roll with a little bit of mercy in the case of truly unwanted character.
I'm playing these games to have fun with friends.
If someone doesn't like their stats, we can work something out, we're all friends here.
If someone thinks they're entitled to high stats just because, they can fuck off, they're being a dick.
Someone like Mengtzu wouldn't be a good fit for my table.
Quote from: Ladybird;791534I'm playing these games to have fun with friends.
If someone doesn't like their stats, we can work something out, we're all friends here.
If someone thinks they're entitled to high stats just because, they can fuck off, they're being a dick.
Someone like Mengtzu wouldn't be a good fit for my table.
I concur absolutely.
Quote from: Will;791455It's a rebellion against power inequity.
If you insist on random stats in a game where stats matter and stats can vary a lot... you're being a dick expecting one person to just play el schmucko for the campaign.
(I realize people will now pile on with their stories of real manly gaming where you shut up and deal with what you get. It's a pile of crap)
It's not manly, but it's not a pile of crap. It's not
manly to make the best of a "crappy" character, it's
creative. The stats only matter if your play is uncreative.
The advantage of roleplaying games over computer games is that even the dumbest GM is smarter than a computer. This means players can try things not on their character sheets on in the rules.
For example:
"A portcullis slides down behind you, trapping the party!"
"Let's bend the bars and get out."
"What's your Strength like?"
"My bend bars/lift gates is 2%."
"Haha, roll."
"I have a crowbar. Surely that helps?"
"Hmmm, the rules don't mention it. Roll under 02."
"If you don't believe in the usefulness of a lever action, the next time you lean back on one of my chairs I can use a gentle shove to push you over onto your arse."
"Oh alright, +10% to the roll."
"It's a five foot crowbar. Can the other guy help?"
"Sure, add both your bend bars/lift gates together, then +10%."
"That makes 15%, better."
For example, in one of my games, players dealt with a mummy in this way. They cast
hold portal on the lid, used a rock drill to make two holes in it, poured in pitch and lit it up.
None of this was covered by the rules. What were their stats? What level were they?
It didn't matter, because they used their brains, they were creative.
The wonderful thing about roleplaying is that you can be creative. And with creativity, numbers become far less important. This isn't "manly", it's very cerebral. The most effeminate cowardly cardigan-wearing vegan academic who spends a lot of time doing cryptic crossword puzzles will do very well in this game.
Since the great thing about roleplaying games is that you can be creative, gaming approaches which encourage creativity are superior. Trying to make sure you have great stats is not creative, any 13 year old playing Diablo hopped up on Red Bull at 3am can do that.
Quote from: Ravenswing;791513STR 10, INT 9, WIS 9, DEX 9, CON 12, CHA 6. (That's seriously what I just rolled.) So yeah, your assertion is wrong, if we're playing that game. Could I be a viable meat shield with that, does anyone think?
That's better than my first character (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=157690&postcount=47).
But I don't think
you could be a viable fighter with those stats, no. You'd be too busy whining to be creative.
Quote from: Ravenswing;791513So let me get this straight: you do a SINGLE set of random 3d6 rolls, get a set of NOT crap stats, and declare any degree of fact off of that alone? Remind me never to hire you on to perform any study, dude.
Hell, here's my own set.
STR 10, INT 9, WIS 9, DEX 9, CON 12, CHA 6. (That's seriously what I just rolled.) So yeah, your assertion is wrong, if we're playing that game. Could I be a viable meat shield with that, does anyone think?
In OD&D or B/X? Sure. 9-12 is Average, with neither bonuses nor penalties; you won't be Party Leader with that Charisma score, but you can do just fine with Sword & Board or hanging back with a bow as a Fighter- and you should, with that totally Average Intelligence and Wisdom score, do fine in picking up basic tactics on your own. With a Magic-User and/or Cleric around to help out, your Fighter will get up to speed faster. Make good use of local features, especially terrain, to best advantage and your man can be viable well into the Domain Lord endgame.
Quote from: jeff37923;791464The Hobbit.
EDIT: The Book of Three by Lloyd Alexander.
That's just crazy talk, sir!
Quote from: Natty Bodak;791551That's just crazy talk, sir!
Well, aren't we constantly being told that "Appendix N is the real source for D&D inspiration!" (and of the books mentioned, only Tolkien is in there, begrudgingly) and "Swords & Sorcery is the real point of the game!" and "D&D isn't about emulating fiction anyway!"
;)
Quote from: Kiero;791458The notion that stats don't matter is bollocks, and is only true of OD&D (and I guess AD&D1) where by design (so far as there was any design) they did little.
(My bold.)
Actually, ability scores are
vitally important in AD&D 1e. The difference between a fighter with 18 (%) strength, and a fighter with 10 strength is enormous. Magic-users with low intelligence cannot learn spells of higher levels, and are less able to learn new spells. Clerics with low wisdom lose out on bonus spells and even (if their wisdom is low enough) have a chance of failure on every spell cast. Thieves receive important boosts to their thief ability percentages based on dexterity. Etc.
It is for this reason that Gygax writes: "...it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a
rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than
two ability characteristics" (PHB, 1e, p. 9).
And it is for this reason that the DMG includes four different methods for generating higher-than-average ability scores for PCs (p.11).
The notion that ability scores were unimportant in 1e AD&D, and that 3d6-in-order was the default method, is a myth. Certainly the game's
author never held such a view.
As for 0e D&D (pre-supplements), yeah, ability scores don't matter much.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;791554Well, aren't we constantly being told that "Appendix N is the real source for D&D inspiration!" (and of the books mentioned, only Tolkien is in there, begrudgingly) and "Swords & Sorcery is the real point of the game!" and "D&D isn't about emulating fiction anyway!"
;)
Why can't the voices in our heads all be on the same page? Is that too much to ask?!
At this point I guess it's been pretty well demonstrated that there's a subset of folks who don't like whatever inequity they perceive in individually randomized stat generation, and/or who don't like the treatment they receive from their game group (or themselves) for having sub-average or sub-optimal stats.
However unflattering I think the psychological analysis of that perspective might be, I think Ladybird's point is solid. Everybody should have fun playing their chosen game.
Where it becomes absurd is when that TBP mod whinges about how the half point disparity in stat averages between point buy and rolling in 5e is making them roll characters and suicide them when they'd rather just point buy instead.
This isn't always a matter of maturity or jealousy.
If you are playing a game of fantasy special forces, and you've managed to roll up Gug the guy too stupid to manage a fork (and is also an asthmatic weakling), then you're probably not going to have a fun time.
As for creative problem solving... that's always possible, even when you don't roll up a weak character.
And, again, system matters. Buffy RPG had a great mechanic where 'normal' characters had a lot of luck to make up for the fact they were weaker and slower than the other types and didn't have any magic.
Fate and similar games have great ways for, say, Lois Lane to hold her own in an adventure next to Superman.
So, personally, part of my solution is to sidestep the basic question and look at what the system allows for and makes sure it has room for "sub-par" characters.
Quote from: stuffis;791362i was banned from TBP for a few weeks for (1) sharing the Man Rider story and uncharitably suggesting that (2) no functioning adult would ever 'suicide' a character who had suboptimal stats, especially as a 'protest' against being forced to roll rather than use a stat array. now i'm wondering: i am actually correct on #2? would any well-adjusted grownup rather commit character suicide ('suicide' should not be a fucking verb) than just play the character?
so: have you ever had a player deliberately run a character into the ground right away to get out of a 'shitty' character w/random stats? do you know people who play this way? what are they like?
the thread's here: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?739281-Sell-me-Unsell-me-Rolling-for-Ability-Scores
Last time I let them roll up a new character, and took the other one for an NPC.
Quote from: Zak S;791515Why would you ever play with people who treated each other like that?
It seems like less a problem you're having with random stats and more a problem with having some psychopaths at your table and/or people who aren't smart enough to realize a character with low stats can pull far more than their weight through cleverness and invention.
And even if they didn't pull their own weight: a game isn't a reality-free zone. You still have to treat your friends with respect.
Agreed. I don't associate with people like that.
I read the first couple of posts of the TBP. Whinging admin has a panic attack about D&D 5E roll/point array and flings shit everywhere.
Get out of there, that place serves no purpose. Roll a few characters, use one you like the look of.
Failing that:
(http://i57.tinypic.com/mkj7f7.png)
There's this commentary about 'what kind of people have a problem with sub-par.'
I'd have to mirror that with why is point buy such a horror show? 'All the characters end up the same.' If you are choosing mature players... why?
You literally can't help yourself from putting points down in a certain way? You can't just roll some dice to see where the points will go this time?
If you can't trust players to be mature with point buy, why are you expecting more maturity with random?
One thing I wondered as I read through that thread is: whatever happened to "I wanted to be a super-strong fighter, and only rolled a 14 Strength, so I guess I will go on a quest to find a girdle of giant strength"?
Time was, if you didn't get what you wanted act character creation in an RPG, that helped define your goals. Didn't get a score you wanted? Look for a way to raise that score. Didn't get Magic Missile when rolling for random spells? quest for spell books, or get enough gold to do some research.
If some people don't like playing characters that don't have everything they want right out of the gate,, what exactly do they do after they get their way? What do they want for their characters? What are their goals? What happens if they are cursed later and have ttheir abiliity scores lowered? Or are these the samme people who complain about "ggrudge" monsters and level drain?
Quote from: Will;791589There's this commentary about 'what kind of people have a problem with sub-par.'
I'd have to mirror that with why is point buy such a horror show? 'All the characters end up the same.' If you are choosing mature players... why?
You literally can't help yourself from putting points down in a certain way? You can't just roll some dice to see where the points will go this time?
If you can't trust players to be mature with point buy, why are you expecting more maturity with random?
There's nothing horrific about point buy, in my book. It tends to make more similar stat blocks due to the mechanics and occasional lack of inspiration, not maturity.
Have your heart set on a concept that can be done within the boundaries of point buy? Rock it.
If you choose it because you can't handle the chance of being subpar in general? That seems inherently sad to me, but again rock it.
If you choose it because of the shit you'd catch for being the group's albatross? That's shitty.
I generally prefer rolling, but also enjoy games where point buy was the rule.
Well, keep in mind that, like most of these discussions, people conflate random and point values.
It's entirely possible to have a point buy system that's random. It's entirely possible to have a rolled system with plenty of choice (rearrange and so on).
I mean, one of my favorite chargen is lifepath, where you generate the elements of a character's history and it has impact on character sheet.
I also love Fate's 'quickstart' rule idea, where you jot down a few values and decide on the others as you go.
I prefer rolling over point buy since you're more likely to get widely varying characters.
In my current RuneQuest 6 game, my PC has a Strength of 6, Constitution of 6, and an Intelligence of 18 (everything else is within the 9-11 range). I can't imagine that I would've chosen to have 6's in both Str & Con were I using point buy. It just incurs too many disadvantages. But having rolled those stats, I'm happy to make them work, and have adapted my character concept accordingly.
That said, life is short, and I don't understand why any GM would want to force a player to play a character that (he/she thinks) sucks, or even was not the kind of character that that player enjoys playing. If a player rolls a crap character, let that player re-roll, for Crom's sake. And if a player really wants to play a cleric, let the player put the character's highest stat in Wisdom. What is the issue?
If it's simple suicide, then I guess that for that player, the character in question falls in the category of "unfit for adventure" that we old-timers would simply leave "at home" while rolling up another.
I don't see a reason to get uptight and force anyone to play figure X. It's not like playing slots in Vegas; whatever stats you start with are (in most games that randomly generate severely below- or above-average individuals) not predictive of what you'll have down the line.
On the other hand, if "suicide" is a euphemism for death-or-glory recklessness, then that can be fun role-playing as well as sensible game strategy.
Random point balanced 3e/5e (I think) system:
15 14 13 12 10 8
Roll 1d6 to figure out where to put the 15. Roll 1d5 to figure out where to put the 14. Etc.
Roll 3d6 down the line. Add up the point value. If it's below 'point balance,' randomly distribute the points back. If it's above, randomly subtract points.
Or whatever. There you go, surprise!
Quote from: Will;791599Well, keep in mind that, like most of these discussions, people conflate random and point values.
It's entirely possible to have a point buy system that's random. It's entirely possible to have a rolled system with plenty of choice (rearrange and so on).
I mean, one of my favorite chargen is lifepath, where you generate the elements of a character's history and it has impact on character sheet.
I also love Fate's 'quickstart' rule idea, where you jot down a few values and decide on the others as you go.
No doubt, but for me this has all been in the context of the TBP nutter's tirade against 5e's roll and point buy methods coexistence. Or whatever the hell they were on about. The thread has admittedly gone somewhat afield.
Oh sure.
Keep in mind that at this point, given the increasing Ideological Purges over the past two years, TBP is mostly comprised of insanely vitriolic nutcases and small enclaves of folks who don't venture far beyond specific subfora.
So, yeah.
What always bugs me about these assholes is how they talk like the rules are paradoxically awful and yet unmutable: like it's their sacred duty to play the game RAW or else. House ruling a game is just a complete impossibility: how dare someone play a game and modify things as they see fit? All of their fucking problems would go away if they just changed something minor, like using a different standard array of 17, 16, 15, 14, 12 and 10.
It's just like the thread full of whiners about the gauntlets of Ogre Strength. Instead of just going "at my table, these magic items do X or Y" they have to stubbornly stick with the rules to prove some kind of passive aggressive point to the internet. They're acting like bleeding heart martyrs for the betrayed 4th edition fans. Jesus CHRIST what a bunch entitled brats.
If they hate this edition so much they should just go back to a different game and stop polluting the web with their holier than thou whining. Yes I'm catching the slight irony of my rant.
Nice to see the Mods over there are still colossal pricks. And *I* agree with Necro, totally. (forgot the pronoun!)
Quote from: Necrozius;791606If they hate this edition so much they should just go back to a different game and stop polluting the web with their holier than thou whining. Yes I'm catching the slight irony of my rant.
If they were actually playing the game they liked, they wouldn't have time to post about how much they hate a game they don't play at all.
While I don't think Castles & Crusades is the best game ever written, I have fun playing it every week, and thus don't feel the need to post about how much it sucks. It's pretty easy to say 5th edition is tripe when you're masturbating furiously to a picture of Ron Edwards. And I don't even know who that is.
It's worth noting that much of this drama clusters around certain games and (especially) certain posters/topics. I mostly stick to 13th Age topics on that forum and don't see anything like this sort of dust-up (even when the same people are involved).
Ironically I've found that random stats results in MORE balanced parties for the same reason that playing War will get you more even result when a bunch of people play it than playing Chess. In general the more random things are the less skill (i.e. minmaxing) matters.
I think most random rolls provide with comparable characters, unless you're rolling 3d6 in order.
I played in a game where I rolled 3d6 in order and my best score was an 11 in Wisdom. My lowest was a 5 in Dex. Now with the game being v3.5 and heavily combat oriented there wasn't much my character was good at, even grabbing a Cleric roll because by 3rd level he would be useless without even 2nd level spells. So I rolled up a Barbarian Gnome and charged everything we faced with a weapon. He died before the party reached level 2.
Now someone might say that it's technically committing character-suicide but there honestly wasn't an angle that appealed to me with such low stats. He died in a blaze of glory and I rolled up something else.
To be blatantly honest, who cares if someone does such a thing?
Roll badly on an attack, you shrug and try again with your next attack.
Roll badly on treasure, you shrug and try again with the next treasure.
Roll badly on a character, you shrug and try again with the next character.
Not all random has equal weight or impact on the game.
Quote from: Will;791629Roll badly on an attack, you shrug and try again with your next attack.
Roll badly on treasure, you shrug and try again with the next treasure.
Roll badly on a character, you shrug and try again with the next character.
Not all random has equal weight or impact on the game.
You keep saying stuff like this, I don't understand.
Do you not get that a lot of people have fun with their characters no matter what their stats are and that there's lots of ways to roll where mechanical superiority is a minor factor?
Quote from: Zak S;791631You keep saying stuff like this, I don't understand.
Do you not get that a lot of people have fun with their characters no matter what their stats are and that there's lots of ways to roll where mechanical superiority is a minor factor?
Sure, but not everyone has that same mentality.
Some people like to have
some advantage in mechanics when it comes to a game that is littered with them. Further, certain editions of the game make some characters nearly worthless if they don't have at a few mechanical backing from their stats.
The question is, was the character's suicide an actual "suicide" attempt (meaning he cut his throat with a dagger or threw himself off a cliff) OR was it "I'm going to play this character recklessly so that he'll die soon and I can re-roll something else."? The former I admit is rather tasteless and somewhat childish while the other is sort of funny, especially when that character lives or it's antics actually pay off.
Quote from: Zak S;791631You keep saying stuff like this, I don't understand.
Do you not get that a lot of people have fun with their characters no matter what their stats are and that there's lots of ways to roll where mechanical superiority is a minor factor?
Yup. There's playing the system and playing the game. The game is more important to some and the system more important to others.
Quote from: Ravenswing;791513So let me get this straight: you do a SINGLE set of random 3d6 rolls, get a set of NOT crap stats, and declare any degree of fact off of that alone? Remind me never to hire you on to perform any study, dude.
Hell, here's my own set.
STR 10, INT 9, WIS 9, DEX 9, CON 12, CHA 6. (That's seriously what I just rolled.) So yeah, your assertion is wrong, if we're playing that game. Could I be a viable meat shield with that, does anyone think?
Challenge accepted! Basic 5e rules, go!
HP bloat, Second Wind bloat, AC + Dodge defense, resists poison, tanks the front, viable skills/tools, background to smooth through social patches.
Donatto Consigliarti, Dwarven Masonic Advisor to the Peaceful Church of Eldath
Hill Dwarf Fighter, Noble Meat Shield
Lvl 1, PB +2. Saves: STR, CON. Alignment: LG
HD: d10. HP: 13. AC: 17. Spd: 25'.
STR 10 (+0), DEX 9 (-1), CON 14 (+2), INT 9 (-1), WIS 10 (0), CHA 6 (-2)
Race: Hill Dwarf - +2 CON, +1 WIS, +1 HP/lvl. Darkvision 60'. Adv v. Poison Saves & Poison Dmg Resistance, Dwarf Weapons, Artisan Tool, Stonecutting.
Lang: Common, Dwarvish, +lang (bkrd).
Class:
Fighting Style, Defense — +1 AC when w/ armor.
Second Wind — bonus act, 1d10+lvl HP. short or long rest recharge.
Skills: Athletics +2, Insight +2, History (bkrd) +1, Persuasion (bkrd) +0.
Tools: Mason's Tools, Dragon Chess.
Background: Noble. Feature: Position of Privilege.
Personality: beloved populist. Ideal: noblesse oblige. Bond: loyalist. Flaw: temper.
Gear: fine clothes, signet ring, scroll of pedigree, +25 gp purse.
Wealth: (5d4 x10) +25 gp (min. = 75 gp). Spent 74.5 gp. Left 0.5+? gp.
Armor: Ring Mail - 30 gp, AC 14. Shield - 10 gp, +2 AC.
Weapons:
1x Handaxe - 5 gp. +2 atk. 1d6+0. light, thrown, (rng 20/60).
20x Darts - 5 cp. +2 atk. 1d4+0. finesse, thrown, (rng 20/60).
5x Net - 1 gp. +2 atk. special, thrown, (rng 5/ 15).
Gear: Dungeoneer's Pack - 10 gp (backpack, crowbar, hammer, 10x pitons, 10x torches, tinderbox, 10x rations, water skin, rope hemp 50'), Quiver (darts) - 1 gp, 4x Ball Bearings - 1 gp, 5x Caltrops - 1 gp, Clothes Traveler - 2 gp, Dragonchess Set - 1 gp, 5x Oil - 1 sp.
Trinket: old chess piece made from glass.
Playstyle: In the front of the fight like any good noble, but prefers not to get his hands too dirty - worships Eldath, God of Peace. Runs to the front and mostly Dodges & Helps. Will use Ball Bearings, Caltrops, Oil, Nets, Grapples, & Shoves to control the field while his entourage mops up. Finds AoO Grapple or Shove upon careless skirmishers hilarious.
His nobility saves him from much privation and his lack of graces, and he knows it. That's why he prefers playing a support role in battle, and offers his services abroad as a masonic advisor. The handaxe is mostly ceremonial, or during late battle necessity. He is the meat shield.
----------
Yay, this is fun! Again, again, again! Want me to make something else with those stats! Or try in 2e?
:cheerleader:
Quote from: Zak S;791515Why would you ever play with people who treated each other like that?
It seems like less a problem you're having with random stats and more a problem with having some psychopaths at your table and/or people who aren't smart enough to realize a character with low stats can pull far more than their weight through cleverness and invention.
And even if they didn't pull their own weight: a game isn't a reality-free zone. You still have to treat your friends with respect.
One would think, but then again a lot of people demonstrably don't play with friends.
Beyond that, this whole thread is dripping with a common forum syndrome: "Whaddaya mean not every gamer out there plays like me?"
Seriously, haven't we all seen -- or, perhaps, played in ... or, perhaps, are in agreement with -- groups whose sole focus is in solving and beating tactical situations? Where roleplaying is an afterthought? Where the sole virtues are in your ability to deliver your share of the mayhem?
This is no more wrong, never mind deserving the characterization of "psychopath," than any other leisure activity in our culture which has competitive people who want to be the best. The Thursday night bowling league might be a bunch of duffers who down more cans of beer than pins, and have a good laugh over it; the Friday night bowling league might be full of driven competitors who won't tolerate third-rate bowlers on their teams. There's nothing wrong with that.
Now I also agree that D&D stat bonuses are badly overestimated in terms of the alleged "edge" they give you: I pulled up a post of mine from that old RPGnet thread, where I decided to pull out an old AD&D and see exactly
how much more of an edge it was, and had a good sneer over the bonuses of a character studded with 18s coming out to be about a single level's worth of difference over a character with no bonuses at all.
But despite the facts, it's obvious that a lot of D&D players don't think that way.
Quote from: Brad;791516Remind me never to post a simple example on the internet because someone will inevitably insult you for not being fucking detailed enough.
Nah, I just insulted you for being enough of an idiot to jeer at someone else for being wrong based on your single set of rolls. Seeing as you're still failing the reading comprehension test, I don't figure my opinion's changing any time soon.
Quote from: Critias;791459My recent "fix" for rolling stats (and their importance for players, concerns from some players wildly overshadowing others, etc) is to have the group roll stats together, and everyone ends up with the same array. 4d6 take the best, everyone rolls once or twice (depending on the number of players), and then everyone gets to put that set of six rolls onto their sheet, in whatever order they like.
our group hasn't encountered those problems -- the only 'powergamer' at the table is the DM, everyone else finds low stats perversely enjoyable i think -- but we still used this method to roll up our next set of 5e characters. anything that brings the group together huddled over some dice, a book, a map, is a very good thing. (our fighter presented the method for a laugh, we went with it for a laugh.)
what i didn't get a chance to say in the TBP thread was that i don't really care what method my players use to generate characters as long as they're not babies about it, by e.g. committing character suicide. if stat-parity were an actual problem, we'd just change the stats at some point. but i can't imagine it being a problem, since this a storygame and not Formula One, and we're adult friends rather than resentful adolescents.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;791603No doubt, but for me this has all been in the context of the TBP nutter's tirade against 5e's roll and point buy methods coexistence. Or whatever the hell they were on about. The thread has admittedly gone somewhat afield.
right, the actual insanity here is someone insisting that his choice to kill off his own character was
forced on him by the system and that 5e's fucked because the only way to get 'good stats' is to randomly roll, but that's too fraught with existential terror, etc., etc., etc.
Quote from: Zak S;791631You keep saying stuff like this, I don't understand.
Do you not get that a lot of people have fun with their characters no matter what their stats are and that there's lots of ways to roll where mechanical superiority is a minor factor?
What do you mean, 'you keep saying stuff like this'?
Of my last 6 posts, one has strongly noted 'this depends a LOT on system, and there are systems where stat values don't matter much, so it doesn't matter.'
Two posts back I point out how you can have random values but equal 'point values.'
I also mention games where there aren't really mechanical superiority elements and 'apparent' power doesn't matter (like Fate, or Buffy RPG).
On the flip side, I've seen people claim 'just roll with it!' for certain games and people end up miserable because it often _isn't fun_ when you're playing Schlomo the Janitor and everyone else is Captain Heroic or Blistering Blaster Barbara.
Schlomo then goes 'you know, this... I'm not really enjoying this.' And then there can be a sense of 'well, you can't just GIVE UP your character, what, are you going to just roll and roll until it's good?' or 'sniff, well, if you want to be a ROLL player.'
Let me back that up... I've BEEN the person totally buying the 'don't worry about the system, do what seems cool!' and having it blow up in my face by making 'bad' system choices.
Nowadays I tend to make characters with system in mind but guided by character ideas.
I am deeply suspicious, from experience, of folks assuring that 'oh, it'll all work out, don't worry.' (Then again, my experience has been that this is generally BS in all walks of life, from gaming to politics to jobs)
Even aside from the disparity between players, which I don't agree with, just as much of an issue is the fact that 3d6 in order gives you no choices.
I don't come to a game, listen to the brief given by the GM on the premise and likely initial situation, then have no idea whatsoever what I'm going to play. Or expect to be "surprised". I form ideas on a concept, then hone them down during contact with the mechanics.
I come up with my character, then go to the system. I don't go to the system, then come up with a character. There are entire swathes of potential character concepts that don't interest me in the slightest, being "surprised" is highly likely to mean being thrust something I don't want to play.
Quote from: Will;791657On the flip side, I've seen people claim 'just roll with it!' for certain games and people end up miserable because it often _isn't fun_ when you're playing Schlomo the Janitor and everyone else is Captain Heroic or Blistering Blaster Barbara.
Schlomo then goes 'you know, this... I'm not really enjoying this.' And then there can be a sense of 'well, you can't just GIVE UP your character, what, are you going to just roll and roll until it's good?' or 'sniff, well, if you want to be a ROLL player.'
I agree in that this is largely system-relevant. In 4E, having stats like Str 10, Con 11, Dex 9, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 6
probably would die in a matter of rounds of that character's 1st encounter. But in that system, higher starting stats and stats in general are required to function as a heroic PC (something the system is designed to strive for). In 5E, having those same stats isn't nearly as penalizing when compared to the over all system's math and things like Bounded Accuracy, so the penalty is far less severe.
Quote from: Kiero;791662Even aside from the disparity between players, which I don't agree with, just as much of an issue is the fact that 3d6 in order gives you no choices.
I don't come to a game, listen to the brief given by the GM on the premise and likely initial situation, then have no idea whatsoever what I'm going to play. Or expect to be "surprised". I form ideas on a concept, then hone them down during contact with the mechanics.
I come up with my character, then go to the system. I don't go to the system, then come up with a character. There are entire swathes of potential character concepts that don't interest me in the slightest, being "surprised" is highly likely to mean being thrust something I don't want to play.
Yea, I think a lot of the older mindsets are based on going into a game with no idea of what your going to play until you get your scores first. While I appreciate the fun this has the potential to bring, I don't think it's something that should be "forced" upon players.
There are a times that I go into a game with zero motivation or any basis of concept. At these moments, rolling for scores will often then help me form the sort of character I want to build. However there are other times when I'm getting inspiration from a movie or video game that I'm playing (we'll take Assassin's Creed for example) and when I got into a new D&D game I want to sort of emulate that sort of style, rolling for stats first is counter-intuitive to that approach.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;791462Because heroes are heroes because of what they are willing to risk, not because of their competence (not that competence doesn't help). I'm honestly surprised this this question has any legs in fantasy role playing.
Man, if only somebody could come up with an example of an epic fantasy tale about a hero completely unsuited to being an adventurer.
Because the author isn't rolling dice to write the story?
Who woulda thunk that storytelling will be used as a defense on this website.
The irony.
Quote from: Zak S;791631You keep saying stuff like this, I don't understand.
Do you not get that a lot of people have fun with their characters no matter what their stats are and that there's lots of ways to roll where mechanical superiority is a minor factor?
Guess it depends on how you go about the hobby.
Quote from: Batman;791665While I appreciate the fun this has the potential to bring, I don't think it's something that should be "forced" upon players.
Who is forcing anyone to play? if you don't like the playstyle of a group go find another.
I don't see straight six as 'one true way', just one option among many that I've come to enjoy. I'm fine with point buy or whatever... I've never generated a character under any system and thought, "There's no way I can enjoy playing this!" based on numbers on a character sheet.
What bugs me is the insistence from some that a GM asking for random rolls is 'being a dick'... Which is just as fallacious as saying someone who doesn't like straight six is a whiny bitch.
What IS being a whiny bitch is pitching a fit at the table or undermining play somehow because you didn't get your way or wanted to punish the GM. Acting as if straight six is inherently faulty rather than just being a matter of taste.
Quote from: Kiero;791662Even aside from the disparity between players, which I don't agree with, just as much of an issue is the fact that 3d6 in order gives you no choices.
DnD5, it isn't 3d6 in order though.
Quote from: Sommerjon;791670Because the author isn't rolling dice to write the story?
Who woulda thunk that storytelling will be used as a defense on this website.
The irony.
Not even close. Since your rebuttal references an author I assume you're referring to my flip comment at the end but not the substance that came before, which was that the unlikely or unsuitable hero/underdog is a very satisfying role to play.
If anything it is using "role play, not roll play" as a defense, which seems to have a, let's say, un-ironic history here.
Quote from: Simlasa;791672Who is forcing anyone to play? if you don't like the playstyle of a group go find another.
Great in theory, much more difficult in practice. Especially when your taking time out of your day to drive to someone's house or event that's far away
just to turn away because the style isn't your cup of tea.
Quote from: Simlasa;791672I don't see straight six as 'one true way', just one option among many that I've come to enjoy.
I never said it was 'one true way' and, in fact, said that there's definitely potential for fun. So, try again.
Quote from: Simlasa;791672What bugs me is the insistence from some that a GM asking for random rolls is 'being a dick'... Which is just as falacious as saying someone who doesn't like straight six is a whiny bitch.
Perhaps it's more prudent to acknowledge that most people are up front about the game they're going to run so? So anyone going into a game already knows what's expected from a character creation stand point. Ultimately this is how I feel the majority of people operate, however it's not the case 100% of the time. If, and when, this occurs perhaps both people can come to a mutual agreement that benefits them both? if someone is new or the DM knows they drove a long way to get to their game and they roll abysmal stats, then perhaps for that specific person, the restriction is lifted because of the special circumstances OR have them roll up two characters and one can be the other's helper, lackey, etc.?
Quote from: Simlasa;791672What IS being a whiny bitch is pitching a fit at the table or undermining play somehow because you didn't get your way or want to punish the GM.
Of course, I don't think anyone here has disputed that. The topic is: committing character suicide because of low rolls. Assuming a player 1) knows about the character generation method and 2) the DMs insistence on keeping stats as-is, IS it whiny for him to roll a poor stats character and then make him a Fighter that rushes head first into danger with the attempt to kill him?
Personally, I don't think it is.
Now if that player instead has his character take a knife and stab it into his throat and bleed out to death, I think it's another story. So which example is the one people are protesting about?
As side questions, what would one consider "low scores" and for which system?
What comes to mind first for me is the preface to Amber Diceless. If I remember correctly, the author said that in one campaign he had been stuck with a set of stats so crappy that the only character race he could play was a gully dwarf (Dragonlance?). He had something like a crappy 3 hit points and happened to not only survive via player wits, but also have fun.
I tried to find the quote online, but did not find anything. Well worth a read.
Quote from: dragoner;791673DnD5, it isn't 3d6 in order though.
Quite. This is about some wally saying that not having a 17 would lead them to kill off that character. 5e is roll 4d6 six times drop worst from each batch of 4, arrange how you like.
Quote from: Ravenswing;791652Nah, I just insulted you for being enough of an idiot to jeer at someone else for being wrong based on your single set of rolls. Seeing as you're still failing the reading comprehension test, I don't figure my opinion's changing any time soon.
I see. So rolling some stats up and saying, "Hey, you can make perfectly viable characters with 3d6 down the line," isn't actually proof of anything. Instead, I must provide some sort of scientific analysis of stat rolls, right? Isn't that what you meant? How about this: millions of characters have been created using 3d6, and millions of people had fun playing them. Just because some people don't like it doesn't make rolling 3d6 for stats stupid. Apparently you missed the part where I specifically stated 3d6 works for SOME D&D-like games, not all. So, reiterating: 3d6 for stats is good for SOME D&D-like games. Not all D&D-like games.
If you want to revel in some sort of perceived "victory" for having "proven me wrong" by rolling up some stats, I guess that's your prerogative, as pathetic as it is.
EDIT: Attached 500 3d6 rolls JUST IN CASE you want to actually do some sort of analysis.
FURTHER EDIT: http://truculent.org/llchar/3d6-characters.php
Quote from: One Horse Town;791681Quite. This is about some wally saying that not having a 17 would lead them to kill off that character. 5e is roll 4d6 six times drop worst from each batch of 4.
If people don't like 3d6 in order, they shouldn't play it that way, but I don't know where it is done like that. It is arguing again from and against an extreme and unrealistic position.
I'll let anyone roll up another character if they don't like them for any reason, it is better to then to have to hear whingeing about it, and I'll take the old one for my NPC file, which is always in need.
I leave it to the player to create the character they want, I'll only limit it if I see a mary sue being made, which that bothers me more than breaking rules. I am expected not to notice? Or is it disrespect for the game and or the other players, all of which are troubling in themselves.
Quote from: Batman;791678Great in theory, much more difficult in practice. Especially when your taking time out of your day to drive to someone's house or event that's far away just to turn away because the style isn't your cup of tea.
If you join a new group without checking out how/what they play then that's your fault. Not that questions will reveal all potential pitfalls... but you might find out how they're doing chargen or whatever bits are must-haves for you.
QuoteI never said it was 'one true way' and, in fact, said that there's definitely potential for fun. So, try again.
You and others have implied it... for instance the 'older mindset' comment, suggesting folks who are stuck in their ways and cannot tolerate any others, vs. it just being a matter of informed preference.
QuotePerhaps it's more prudent to acknowledge that most people are up front about the game they're going to run so? So anyone going into a game already knows what's expected from a character creation stand point.
If it really matters to me that much I'll ask questions. No guarantees we'll get along but it helps.
QuoteUltimately this is how I feel the majority of people operate, however it's not the case 100% of the time. If, and when, this occurs perhaps both people can come to a mutual agreement that benefits them both?
So you don't take the responsibility of checking out the group, making sure your tastes line up... then show up expecting them to compromise to suit you? Or are you suggesting they'd intentionally deceived you when answering your questions?
Quoteif someone is new or the DM knows they drove a long way to get to their game and they roll abysmal stats, then perhaps for that specific person, the restriction is lifted because of the special circumstances
So, again, you're expecting special treatment because you drove the furthest and didn't check beforehand regarding chargen, since it's so important to you?
I have DMed recenttly (the 4th of october) LotFPat a local con in France (at Lyon, to be precise) and I have made the players rolled 3D6 six times, rerolled the lower dice and kept the best roll, un order (so 1st is Charisma and last is Wisdom) and they rolled rather good characters, if I recalled things right (I can check the character shhet, if somebody is interested).
Nobody complained and we all have fun.
For 13th Age/D&D 5, he will let the players roll 4D6 six times, keep the best 3 of 4 and assign ability as they wish.
For a up-coming Phase World one shot (i hope I can make it happens), I will let the players roll 2D6 + 6 6 times (+ 1D6 if they roll 10 or plus on the 2D6) and assign ability as they wish.
As James Raggi suggests I will allow a player if the sum of his/her abilities is zero or less.
I feel if a player is really unhappy about the character he/she just rolled, he/she should be honest about it and stated the reasons of his/her unhappiness. As a matter of coutersy, the GM should allow the player to reroll but also warned the player that it is the second and last time.
So, yeah, do be a dick about ability roll and play the game !
Quote from: Natty Bodak;791676Not even close. Since your rebuttal references an author I assume you're referring to my flip comment at the end but not the substance that came before, which was that the unlikely or unsuitable hero/underdog is a very satisfying role to play.
If anything it is using "role play, not roll play" as a defense, which seems to have a, let's say, un-ironic history here.
I ignored it because from that you get
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;791679What comes to mind first for me is the preface to Amber Diceless. If I remember correctly, the author said that in one campaign he had been stuck with a set of stats so crappy that the only character race he could play was a gully dwarf (Dragonlance?). He had something like a crappy 3 hit points and happened to not only survive via player wits, but also have fun.
This.
I laugh when you hear a 7 intelligence, 8 wisdom character survives via player wits.
If stats mean nothing why bother even rolling them?
Quote from: Simlasa;791685If you join a new group without checking out how/what they play then that's your fault.
Considering that the last 15 years and 3 editions have been 4d6, place where you want or point-buy I don't think it's a bad assumption that this particular style is the one most often used. If someone says: Hey, wanna play D&D (3E, 4E, or 5E) then I'm going to go under that assumption. My initial reactioin isn't going to be 20 question about play-style.
Quote from: Simlasa;791685You and others have implied it... for instance the 'older mindset' comment, suggesting folks who are stuck in their ways and cannot tolerate any others.
I think most people who've started D&D from v3.5 onward have the assumption of 4d6, place where you want or point-buy. Those who've gamed
prior to that can, and sometimes do, have different assumptions regardless of the rule set. It wasn't meant to be a derogatory comment about older gamers or how they're set in their ways. I point it out that they most likely started with D&D that uses that method and for them, it's worked fine so why change it?
Quote from: Simlasa;791685If it really matters to me that much I'll ask questions. No guarantees we'll get along but it helps.
And that's great. I agree that MOST people are up front on things like character creation.
Quote from: Simlasa;791685So you don't take the responsibility of checking out the group, making sure your tastes line up... then show up expecting them to compromise to suit you? Or are you suggesting they'd intentionally deceived you when answering your questions?
Sure, compromises are OK for most adults and especially when getting new people. If I have a new player who's not used to my game and didn't ask question, I wouldn't show him the door because our preferred style clashed with his assumptions.
And most of my players are cool people who don't have problems with someone who maybe doesn't follow the prescribed character generation method because, most likely, they want a co-player who's going to contribute to the game rather than become a hindrance (in terms of stats).
Quote from: Simlasa;791685So, again, you're expecting special treatment because you drove the furthest and didn't check beforehand regarding chargen, since it's so important to you?
I never stated that it was really all that important to me and, in fact, said that it can be fun and help fuel the creative process. So with a theoretical situation in which I go to someone's house brand new, didn't ask questions, and found out that they roll 3d6 in order AND i get bad stats, I'll politely ask if I can get a mulligan. If they say know most likely I wouldn't complain and keep the character. However I might roll up a Fighter, grab armor and a weapon, and approach most combat situations by throwing myself into harms way. Maybe I get killed and maybe I'll get lucky. Is that a bad thing?
Quote from: Sommerjon;791692I ignored it because from that you get
This.
I laugh when you hear a 7 intelligence, 8 wisdom character survives via player wits.
If stats mean nothing why bother even rolling them?
So your rebuttal is to take any position and ratchet it to an extreme as a straw man?
Don't forget your floaties if you venture into the deep end of the pool.
Quote from: One Horse Town;791681Quite. This is about some wally saying that not having a 17 would lead them to kill off that character. 5e is roll 4d6 six times drop worst from each batch of 4, arrange how you like.
Yep.. and to reiterate a point that keeps getting lost in the thread, he was specifically complaining about being given the option of rolling a characcter or using a standard array or possibly point buy when the only way to get a 17+ score would be to roll. We were never talking about characters with extremely low scores across the board, we were talking about a 15 prime ability score being "unplayable" The 3d6 in order examples are only here to show that a more extreme character generation system is and was still playable, so
why on earth woiuld you complain about the 5e system?This is something that happens all the time in these discussions: people against random rolling of characters always hold up the most extreme characters as examples of why we have to have point buy or something else, but in practice what they complain about is characters with nothing higher than a 14 -- or, in this case, nothing higher than a 16. It's patently absurd to suggest that you can't roleplay a character whose high score is 15 and lowest score is 8, and yet that's the argument that's being made ... suggesting that we're really not talking abouty roleplaying, here.
Quote from: Will;791657What do you mean, 'you keep saying stuff like this'?
I mean this:
QuoteOn the flip side, I've seen people claim 'just roll with it!' for certain games and people end up miserable because it often _isn't fun_ when you're playing Schlomo the Janitor and everyone else is Captain Heroic or Blistering Blaster Barbara.
Do you understand that (if this is any edition of D&D) this isn't the fault of the
system, it's the fault of the
group? Perhaps particularly the GM?
If the group says "just roll with it", then they should be making adventures where what's in the players' heads matters more than their stats. This should be possible in any D&D system.
Quote from: talysman;791697It's patently absurd to suggest that you can't roleplay a character whose high score is 15 and lowest score is 8, and yet that's the argument that's being made ... suggesting that we're really not talking abouty roleplaying, here.
Which you can role play a character like that just fine, but it is undeniably better to have one with a 17-18 in the preferred stat. Then if everyone gets their stat boosted mary sue to play superfriends, where do you go from there? I have a tendency to GM a grittier game, not grimdark or anything, but I find it is easier to spread events around a range of everyday, rather than the "big damn heroes" save the universe, which is sort of a one shot.
If that is what makes you happy, fine.
Quote from: talysman;791697Yep.. and to reiterate a point that keeps getting lost in the thread, he was specifically complaining about being given the option of rolling a characcter or using a standard array or possibly point buy when the only way to get a 17+ score would be to roll. We were never talking about characters with extremely low scores across the board, we were talking about a 15 prime ability score being "unplayable" The 3d6 in order examples are only here to show that a more extreme character generation system is and was still playable, so why on earth woiuld you complain about the 5e system?
This is something that happens all the time in these discussions: people against random rolling of characters always hold up the most extreme characters as examples of why we have to have point buy or something else, but in practice what they complain about is characters with nothing higher than a 14 -- or, in this case, nothing higher than a 16. It's patently absurd to suggest that you can't roleplay a character whose high score is 15 and lowest score is 8, and yet that's the argument that's being made ... suggesting that we're really not talking abouty roleplaying, here.
Well said, sir.
Quote from: stuffis;791362so: have you ever had a player deliberately run a character into the ground right away to get out of a 'shitty' character w/random stats? do you know people who play this way? what are they like?
Yes, once. We were 15 years old. playing AD&D. 4d6, drop the low die, arrange in any order. The player was hissy fitting that his first level ranger (!) only had 17 (!!) hit points.
The character didn't make it, but the player grew out of the idiocy. Turned into a fine rpg-er and great human being.
I've seen a few other character suicides that didn't have to do with statgen, but those were all disfunctional comments on a fractured DM-player relationship, all of which had root causes
outside the game.
Quote from: dragoner;791684If people don't like 3d6 in order, they shouldn't play it that way, but I don't know where it is done like that. It is arguing again from and against an extreme and unrealistic position.
I'll let anyone roll up another character if they don't like them for any reason, it is better to then to have to hear whingeing about it, and I'll take the old one for my NPC file, which is always in need.
I leave it to the player to create the character they want, I'll only limit it if I see a mary sue being made, which that bothers me more than breaking rules. I am expected not to notice? Or is it disrespect for the game and or the other players, all of which are troubling in themselves.
3d6 has long been one of the methods but it was only default in 2E I believe (maybe in basic as well, don't remember). 1E, 3E and 5E are all 4d6 drop the lowest as default.
Here is what I don't get: why do people get bent out of shape over how other people are rolling stats? There are like 5 different methods in most editions and they are there for a reason: everyone has different expectations about what kinds of characters should be easily available to players and how much character concept should come before rolls.
If you use point buy. I'm fine with it. If you do 3d6 straight down. Not a problem for me. If you use 4d6 or any of the other methods and combinations to get what your group wants, go for it.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;791603No doubt, but for me this has all been in the context of the TBP nutter's tirade against 5e's roll and point buy methods coexistence. Or whatever the hell they were on about. The thread has admittedly gone somewhat afield.
Quote from: stuffis;791654right, the actual insanity here is someone insisting that his choice to kill off his own character was forced on him by the system and that 5e's fucked because the only way to get 'good stats' is to randomly roll, but that's too fraught with existential terror, etc., etc., etc.
Quote from: One Horse Town;791681Quite. This is about some wally saying that not having a 17 would lead them to kill off that character. 5e is roll 4d6 six times drop worst from each batch of 4, arrange how you like.
Quote from: talysman;791697Yep.. and to reiterate a point that keeps getting lost in the thread, he was specifically complaining about being given the option of rolling a characcter or using a standard array or possibly point buy when the only way to get a 17+ score would be to roll. We were never talking about characters with extremely low scores across the board, we were talking about a 15 prime ability score being "unplayable" The 3d6 in order examples are only here to show that a more extreme character generation system is and was still playable, so why on earth woiuld you complain about the 5e system?
This is something that happens all the time in these discussions: people against random rolling of characters always hold up the most extreme characters as examples of why we have to have point buy or something else, but in practice what they complain about is characters with nothing higher than a 14 -- or, in this case, nothing higher than a 16. It's patently absurd to suggest that you can't roleplay a character whose high score is 15 and lowest score is 8, and yet that's the argument that's being made ... suggesting that we're really not talking abouty roleplaying, here.
THIS has been the topic since the original post. Everything else has been a laughable red herring, even my goofy PC chargens. For everyone here whining about this place being
incapable of coping with different playstyles, do note that this topic is about someone over there
incapable of coping without their easy 18s by RAW, their own playstyle. That means all styles except his own are not acceptable.
The accusations against here are poor reading comprehension, to say the least, disingenuous at worst. Do stay on topic and stop with the bad faith arguments. I now resume my right to be flighty and carefree.
:p
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;7917133d6 has long been one of the methods but it was only default in 2E I believe (maybe in basic as well, don't remember). 1E, 3E and 5E are all 4d6 drop the lowest as default.
Here is what I don't get: why do people get bent out of shape over how other people are rolling stats? There are like 5 different methods in most editions and they are there for a reason: everyone has different expectations about what kinds of characters should be easily available to players and how much character concept should come before rolls.
If you use point buy. I'm fine with it. If you do 3d6 straight down. Not a problem for me. If you use 4d6 or any of the other methods and combinations to get what your group wants, go for it.
Man, it is the Rpgnet Forum ! They cannot be happy with D&D 5 and admit that they enjoy the game since 2 excommunicated apostates had done some consulting for it ! ^_^
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;7917133d6 has long been one of the methods but it was only default in 2E I believe (maybe in basic as well, don't remember). 1E, 3E and 5E are all 4d6 drop the lowest as default.
Here is what I don't get: why do people get bent out of shape over how other people are rolling stats? There are like 5 different methods in most editions and they are there for a reason: everyone has different expectations about what kinds of characters should be easily available to players and how much character concept should come before rolls.
If you use point buy. I'm fine with it. If you do 3d6 straight down. Not a problem for me. If you use 4d6 or any of the other methods and combinations to get what your group wants, go for it.
We played around with various stuff, I owed the AD&D, white box, holmes and expert; for what it all was worth. We still just played what we played and I don't ever remember us playing 3d6 in order, or hearing others do it.
Some people have this sort of image that they want to project, that they play "manly" DnD, which is lame, and BS really.
It is, 3d6 straight down, the default method 1 in 2e. Whether that is more manly... well thank you, I guess. You only really needed a single 9 in one of four of the six stats to have a viable character. Never was such a big deal in practice, IME.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;791713Here is what I don't get: why do people get bent out of shape over how other people are rolling stats?
Tribalism mostly, have you ever seen people here not take the opportunity to talk trash about people who have a different playstyle.
People who are upset about the 5e system are upset because their version of point-buy punishes you for using it.
Quote from: dragoner;791717We played around with various stuff, I owed the AD&D, white box, holmes and expert; for what it all was worth. We still just played what we played and I don't ever remember us playing 3d6 in order, or hearing others do it.
Some people have this sort of image that they want to project, that they play "manly" DnD, which is lame, and BS really.
I use 3d6 when I can, though I do what the group wants. I think 3d6 is something that was mainly a 2E thing. It isn't about manliness, at least that isn't the draw for me. These are just different methods that give different ranges of results. There is no achievement in rolling high and no personal failing in rolling low. what I like about 3d6 down the line honestly is it tends to produce quirky characters and gets me to do things I might not normally do with a concept. So having that 4 in a stat forces me to think what that means for personality and background. Otherwise I'd probably make wizards all the time.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;791719Tribalism mostly, have you ever seen people here not take the opportunity to talk trash about people who have a different playstyle.
People who are upset about the 5e system are upset because their version of point-buy punishes you for using it.
I guess I didn't even realize there was a divide around 5E over the ability score generation method. I'm sure they will put the options in the DMG for the other methods just like they did with 3E (or am I missing something and the issue is they did that and some people don't like the math?).
Quote from: gamerGoyf;791719People who are upset about the 5e system are upset because their version of point-buy punishes you for using it.
Who is punished for using point buy? I've notice a lot of people keep using this term "punished" to complain about something they don't like. No one is being victimized or punished, no matter how much they'd like it to validate their whining.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;791721I guess I didn't even realize there was a divide around 5E over the ability score generation method. I'm sure they will put the options in the DMG for the other methods just like they did with 3E (or am I missing something and the issue is they did that and some people don't like the math?).
It's just some dumbass argument that because you can't start with an 18 using point buy (not even true once you apply modifiers for race), it unfairly rewards people rolling dice.
A legit question I have, not even rhetorical: those people DO know they could simply assign stats as they want, right? Like if the DM said, okay, you get three 18s and and three 16s, that'd be fine? Reading those arguments, I wonder if they're so pedantic the thought never crossed their mind.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;791722Who is punished for using point buy? I've notice a lot of people keep using this term "punished" to complain about something they don't like. No one is being victimized or punished, no matter how much they'd like it to validate their whining.
IIRC the roll method gives 0.5 higher stat average along with the possibility of starting with an 18 (along with < 8) after racial bonuses. So if you go point buy you are being "punished" for gaining compete control of your stats in lieu of the possibility of an uber stat.
It's a creative definition of punishment, to say the least.
Edit: and let us not forget that having the choice is the worst punishment of all!
Quote from: Sacrosanct;791722Who is punished for using point buy? I've notice a lot of people keep using this term "punished" to complain about something they don't like. No one is being victimized or punished, no matter how much they'd like it to validate their whining.
Sometimes I think that people should remember that they are playing a game of cooperation (even between the Dm and the players) with friends or at least lie-minded people for fun and not trading barbs at his most satanic majesty Lucifer's court where weakness is a sin that should be punished ...
I am pretty sure that Mike Mearls do not want to punish anyone for playing a game that I'm sure that he actually enjoys to write and play as anybody who worked on D&D 5 !
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;7917133d6 has long been one of the methods but it was only default in 2E I believe (maybe in basic as well, don't remember). 1E, 3E and 5E are all 4d6 drop the lowest as default.
OD&D, Basic and early 2E use 3d6 in order as the default, although 2E had six different methods in the core books, and the 2E DMG provides the most extensive discussion I can recall of 'here's how alternate methods will change things' (spanning over a page and a half). 4d6 drop the lowest was Method V in 2E, and as the edition went on, seemed to move back into pride of place. The 1997 Ravenloft setting
Domains of Dread contains a character creation appendix, and there they state 'use Method V'.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;791724IIRC the roll method gives 0.5 higher stat average along with the possibility of starting with an 18 (along with < 8) after racial bonuses.
In the world of bounded accuracy having as high a stat as possible as your hitting things stat is incredibly high priority. The point by system caps you at 15 so you are almost statistically guaranteed to to have a worse character if you don't roll for stats.
Which is a punishment the same way a rule that says your character gets +1 to everything for dressing like a clown would punish everyone whose characters aren't wearing silly fake noses.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;791729In the world of bounded accuracy having as high a stat as possible as your hitting things stat is incredibly high priority. The point by system caps you at 15 so you are almost statistically guaranteed to to have a worse character if you don't roll for stats.
Which is a punishment the same way a rule that says your character gets +1 to everything for dressing like a clown would punish everyone whose characters aren't wearing silly fake noses.
What you are missing out, obviously, is that the stats are set up in such a way that you get slightly above average results. So you can gamble and go big, or go home. That's your risk, kiddo.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;791729In the world of bounded accuracy having as high a stat as possible as your hitting things stat is incredibly high priority. The point by system caps you at 15 so you are almost statistically guaranteed to to have a worse character if you don't roll for stats.
Which is a punishment the same way a rule that says your character gets +1 to everything for dressing like a clown would punish everyone whose characters aren't wearing silly fake noses.
0.5 of a stat point is important to some people, i guess.
Not to mention that this same bounded accuracy means you can make up any short-fall if you really are bent out of shape over that 0.5.
My character has stats of 9,10,11,12,13 and 14 after racial adjustments and using the 4d6 method. I'm currently crying my eyes out and will seek his death imminently!
Quote from: dragoner;791717We played around with various stuff, I owed the AD&D, white box, holmes and expert; for what it all was worth. We still just played what we played and I don't ever remember us playing 3d6 in order, or hearing others do it.
Some people have this sort of image that they want to project, that they play "manly" DnD, which is lame, and BS really.
I've played straight 3d6 in order since the beginning and never done anything else.
I don't know if I'd call it "manly," but in the case of OD&D it's playing the rules as written.
Quote from: talysman;791697It's patently absurd to suggest that you can't roleplay a character whose high score is 15 and lowest score is 8, and yet that's the argument that's being made ... suggesting that we're really not talking abouty roleplaying, here.
On the other hand, somebody Over There said "roleplaying should never trump stats."
Which, I guess, is the logical conclusion of the "character build" mentality.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;791720I use 3d6 when I can, though I do what the group wants. I think 3d6 is something that was mainly a 2E thing. It isn't about manliness, at least that isn't the draw for me. These are just different methods that give different ranges of results. There is no achievement in rolling high and no personal failing in rolling low. what I like about 3d6 down the line honestly is it tends to produce quirky characters and gets me to do things I might not normally do with a concept. So having that 4 in a stat forces me to think what that means for personality and background. Otherwise I'd probably make wizards all the time.
I never owned any of the 2e stuff, some of it looked nice, but we were off to Rifts, and sometimes Deadlands using a Tex-arcana vibe. 4 is taking a penalty, and I have seen some phenomenally bad rolls. In my mongoose trav game right now, I go three sets, pick the best one and put them were you like. Pretty similar to the way 5e is doing it. Core rules list "Iron Man" style, plus point buy, I have never heard of anyone saying they play the "Iron Man" style, kinda of embarrassing anyways.
Quote from: Old Geezer;791733On the other hand, somebody Over There said "roleplaying should never trump stats."
Which, I guess, is the logical conclusion of the "character build" mentality.
Player skill ignores stats, such a better way to play:rolleyes:
Quote from: Old Geezer;791732I've played straight 3d6 in order since the beginning and never done anything else.
I don't know if I'd call it "manly," but in the case of OD&D it's playing the rules as written.
There is no manly. I don't see the point of playing 3d6 in order, didn't then, and I didn't see what the point would have been? By "odnd" that's white box? I owned it, but never saw anyone play it, we played the AD&D books, because we had them.
Quote from: Sommerjon;791739Player skill ignores stats, such a better way to play:rolleyes:
Different yes, if you enjoy more participation than just being a meatsack that rolls the dice.
Being able to affect the flow of the game and be an important part of the outcome is important to me as a player, no matter what is on the character sheet.
High numbers on a sheet are not in and of themselves entertaining or engaging.
Quote from: One Horse Town;791731Not to mention that this same bounded accuracy means you can make up any short-fall if you really are bent out of shape over that 0.5
You do realize that the 5e model like the 4e model before it punishes you
more for missing out on bullshit +1 bonuses right.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;791729In the world of bounded accuracy having as high a stat as possible as your hitting things stat is incredibly high priority. The point by system caps you at 15 so you are almost statistically guaranteed to to have a worse character if you don't roll for stats.
.
You are also almost statistically guaranteed to have an ability score lower than the array, as you can't get below an 8 with that method, whereas you can with rolling.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You need to look at everything, both the benefits and drawbacks of each method.
Either way, it's not punishment. You're not forced to do anything, and unless you were guaranteed to have higher stats with rolling vs point buy or array, it's not punishment.
Is a person who uses point buy to get a stat at 15 being punished compared to the person who rolled less lucky and didn't get anything higher than a 14? Of course not. It's a silly position.
It's like saying that the person who invested their money into an IRA with predictable results is getting punished because someone else won the lottery.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;791729In the world of bounded accuracy having as high a stat as possible as your hitting things stat is incredibly high priority. The point by system caps you at 15 so you are almost statistically guaranteed to to have a worse character if you don't roll for stats.
Which is a punishment the same way a rule that says your character gets +1 to everything for dressing like a clown would punish everyone whose characters aren't wearing silly fake noses.
However important having as high of a "hitting things stat" as possible may be in the 5e world of bounded accuracy, it's more important in a world of unbounded accuracy (say, in 4e). So in that dichotomy, it's the bounded accuracy world in which it is less important.
I don't really know what you mean by "statistically guaranteed", but if by that you mean after some arbitrarily large sample of randomly generated stat blocks compared to a set of point buy stat blocks that have 15s in them, then you are going to have randomly rolled characters that are worse than the point buy and randomly rolled characters that are better than the point buy. By about, oh I don't know, maybe an average of 0.5 points? There's absolutely no single data point guarantee at all. Bounded accuracy prevents the perpetual to-hit bonus chasing that permeates unbounded accuracy implementations.
On top of this consider that by 8th level the point buy character can be caught up in their "hitting things stat" if it's so important to them. Then one might complain that the randomly generated ubermensch is always ahead by a feat (which is an optional mechanic), but the randomly generated character that was worse than the point buy is also always behind by a feat. Whatevs.
Again, it's a trade off. Want precise control of your stats? Point buy is the way to go. Want to ride the lightning and roll the dice? Rock on.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;791743You do realize that the 5e model like the 4e model before it punishes you more for missing out on bullshit +1 bonuses right.
That's not what punishment means. Jeezus, look at a freaking dictionary and for the love of God, stop trying to paint one side as victims.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;791746That's not what punishment means. Jeezus, look at a freaking dictionary and for the love of God, stop trying to paint one side as victims.
At the end of the day, all we can do is game on and be grateful that these whiny fucktards are not at our table.
Stop statshaming me?
Quote from: Rincewind1;791750Stop statshaming me?
I'll get right back to you after I finish my application to this Players Rights Activism group.
If you roll high and low, it's easier to move stats around to minimize the impact of a low roll and maximize a high roll toward your interests.
With standard array, you can only 'drive up' the benefit of a high score so much.
From some actual play, it seems 5e's reliance on good stats is higher than previous stuff, perhaps because there are more ways to boost scores previously.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;791745However important having as high of a "hitting things stat" as possible may be in the 5e world of bounded accuracy, it's more important in a world of unbounded accuracy (say, in 4e). So in that dichotomy, it's the bounded accuracy world in which it is less important.
Incorrect, both of those systems are on a treadmill so having one more +1 than you are "expected" to have always has the same value.
QuoteAgain, it's a trade off. Want precise control of your stats? Point buy is the way to go. Want to ride the lightning and roll the dice? Rock on.
It's not a trade off, you only "lose out" from rolling if none of your stats are above 13 which happens less than 1% of the time and you get a "better deal"(one stat 16 or better) more than 60% of the time.
Quote from: Will;791755If you roll high and low, it's easier to move stats around to minimize the impact of a low roll and maximize a high roll toward your interests.
With standard array, you can only 'drive up' the benefit of a high score so much.
From some actual play, it seems 5e's reliance on good stats is higher than previous stuff, perhaps because there are more ways to boost scores previously.
I thought you were a 5e conscientious objector over then PDF issue? Not jabbing, just curious.
However, I can tell you that from my experience that 5e is much less stat dependent than 4e. With respect to other players who might have rolled a better stat, the importance is less because the stat lead in whatever that prime requisite might be can be completely removed by 8th level. Whereas in 4e it was a non-stop plus chase. I didn't play any 3.5 and very little 3.0, so I can't say from personal experience, but I thought there wasn't a stat cap there, and that stat bonus magic items flowed like water from a fountain.
I think other folks have already covered the relative stat dependency for 2e back.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;791741Different yes, if you enjoy more participation than just being a meatsack that rolls the dice.
Being able to affect the flow of the game and be an important part of the outcome is important to me as a player, no matter what is on the character sheet.
High numbers on a sheet are not in and of themselves entertaining or engaging.
What I take from this is a player who's charismatic will be so regardless of what's written on his sheet and that's ok. If he has the capacity to charm the skirt off a nun and it shows in play with his Half-orc Barbarian with a Charisma 8, you don't see a problem here?
How about people role-play to their stats, which actually makes skill like Diplomacy relevant for those who aren't socially gifted.
Quote from: Batman;791759What I take from this is a player who's charismatic will be so regardless of what's written on his sheet and that's ok. If he has the capacity to charm the skirt off a nun and it shows in play with his Half-orc Barbarian with a Charisma 8, you don't see a problem here?
How about people role-play to their stats, which actually makes skill like Diplomacy relevant for those who aren't socially gifted.
I think there is a balance here. On the one hand, you don't want to ignore the stats. On the other you don't want interactions to feel like mechanical procedures (at least that isn't what I am after in a social exchange). I view things like CHR, Diplomacy, etc as levers for the GM to draw on when there is some question about whether the character would be performing better or worse than the player actually is. So the player gives an impassioned speech about why he should be given the passenger list at the airport, but he has a CHR of 6. I can accept that he is saying all those lovely things but something about him naturally puts people off so he is going to need a roll to overcome that hurdle. By the same token if a player isn't saying anything all that great, but he has a CHR of 18, then I'd roll. What I want to avoid though is the roll becoming a substitute for or more impotent than, what is going on in the game between the characters.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;791757Incorrect, both of those systems are on a treadmill so having one more +1 than you are "expected" to have always has the same value.
It's not a trade off, you only "lose out" from rolling if none of your stats are above 13 which happens less than 1% of the time and you get a "better deal"(one stat 16 or better) more than 60% of the time.
Wrong again! Don't worry though, I won't ask you for the math behind your numbers. But you're missing a very important point.
Random rolls are for every ability, not just one. what I mean by this can be illustrated with this example:
With array, you have a range of 8 to 15. One stat at -1, one at 0, three at +1, and one at +2.
With die rolls, maybe I did get a 16. This seems to be where you're stopping your analysis. But I've also got a 7 and 9. That means I have two stats at penalties. Surely, by your logic, that means I'm being punished for choosing to roll my stats? After all, there's no possible way I could have more than one stat with a penalty using array, but can with random die rolling.
The problem with this argument that you and others keep parroting is that you insist on conveniently ignoring the possible drawbacks of random rolling as if they could never exist, but at the same time present the benefits of random die rolling as if they will always exist.
And that kids, is what's called a disingenuous argument.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;791758I thought you were a 5e conscientious objector over then PDF issue? Not jabbing, just curious.
Nah, I ended up going 'fuck it' and buying the PHB. It's a great game and I was getting all excited at the opportunity to play this year (I haven't been able to be in a TT game in a few years)... and then things changed in my life and it looks like I'll have to wait at least another year before getting a chance to play in/run any rpgs. Sigh.
Still, 5e is awesome. Lack of PDF pisses me off, but WotC's business stuff pisses me off less than it did in the past few years, so hey.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;791758However, I can tell you that from my experience that 5e is much less stat dependent than 4e. With respect to other players who might have rolled a better stat, the importance is less because the stat lead in whatever that prime requisite might be can be completely removed by 8th level. Whereas in 4e it was a non-stop plus chase. I didn't play any 3.5 and very little 3.0, so I can't say from personal experience, but I thought there wasn't a stat cap there, and that stat bonus magic items flowed like water from a fountain.
I think other folks have already covered the relative stat dependency for 2e back.
Ah, ok. I had got the opposite impression of 5e, but that 20 stat cap is significant, particularly given how many stat raises some classes get.
I never played 4e, so I wouldn't really get a strong feel for how it played.
I personally like random stats in some cases, and dislkie them in others; I think that is a pretty average notion. At the same time, my experiences seem to indicate that point-buy options or standard arrays (or similar systems to create characters) usually favor cookie-cutter characters I often find comparatively boring. For me, the solution is relatively simple: Players may pick any abilities by their choice, picking them as high as they think is appropriate and as low as possible for still creating an enjoyable character; and in cases where they have no particuar preferences, roll the dice and leave the exact stat to chance. This combination of choice and a few random results mixed in has so far led to some of the most memorable characters I've encountered in RPG games, so I can heartily recommend it.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;791757Incorrect, both of those systems are on a treadmill so having one more +1 than you are "expected" to have always has the same value.
Not at all, because one of these systems' treadmill stops a lot earlier, and at that point you *can't* have one more +1 than you expected. By level 8 that ship has sailed in 5e. Whereas in 4e the stat arms race is stretched out over 20 levels and can take you to 25/+7.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;791757It's not a trade off, you only "lose out" from rolling if none of your stats are above 13 which happens less than 1% of the time and you get a "better deal"(one stat 16 or better) more than 60% of the time.
If your personal measure of a "better" deal is having one stat at 16 or better, and "lose out" is having no stats greater than 13, then that means you don't care how low a character is in any stat other than the prime requisite. That's a measure I don't agree with.
Are you saying you'd happily take a point buy character that could give you an 18 even if that "statistically guaranteed" that all of your other stats would be worse than the randomly rolled character? If that's the case, then why the whinging? Why not go with rolling? Clearly that's not the case for lots of people, so YMMV.
Edit: Also, what Sacrosanct said.
Quote from: Beagle;791764I At the same time, my experiences seem to indicate that point-buy options or standard arrays (or similar systems to create characters) usually favor cookie-cutter characters I often find comparatively boring.
I just don't see how randomizing stats makes characters more interesting. The fact the my character has 2 more points one stat or 1 less another than the "optimum distribution" I'd use if I was divvying up points doesn't strike me as interesting at all.
Quote from: Will;791762Still, 5e is awesome. Lack of PDF pisses me off, but WotC's business stuff pisses me off less than it did in the past few years, so hey.
I'm kinda chapped by the lack of PDF versions as well, but also pleased with the freebie basic PDF, but also chapped at how sketchy cut-and-paste citations are with the basic PDF. I guess we'll see where that goes from here.
And to that point, all of my points to this point (!!!) are subject to the vagaries of whatever will come in the DMG, I suppose.
I just ran 15 scenarios of 4d6. Some are better, some are worse. Funny enough, the people arguing that they are being punished never seem to mention that you could end up with lower stats than an 8, or more than one stat at a penalty by using random rolling. Hmmm....
If you're trying to argue that you're being punished by using array, then I find that pretty silly if you're comparing your array PC to one of the PCs in this chart who got worse stats.
"I got better stats, so I'm being punished." bwuh?
This isn't an argument about punishment at all. It's about risk vs reward. It's about people who bitch when their neighbor hits it big in stocks but don't invest in the market themselves. It's about people wanting to share the benefits when their neighbor hits it big, but are strangely silent when their neighbor loses everything.
(http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=64537&d=1413231613)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;791770IFunny enough, the people arguing that they are being punished never seem to mention that you could end up with lower stats than an 8, or more than one stat at a penalty by using random rolling
Because no one who knows anything cares if they have a 6 or 7 instead of an 8 in their least preferred stat.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;791775Because no one who knows anything cares if they have a 6 or 7 instead of an 8 in their least preferred stat.
You just got done saying that every +1 matter a lot, and now you're saying an extra -1 no one cares about?
Make up your mind.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;791767I just don't see how randomizing stats makes characters more interesting. The fact the my character has 2 more points one stat or 1 less another than the "optimum distribution" I'd use if I was divvying up points doesn't strike me as interesting at all.
Not inherently interesting by the numbers... but fun for me as a jumping off point to see what character I can discern in them... like tea leaves at the bottom of a cup. It's a creative bit of fun of a different flavor than showing up with a concept already in mind (which is also fun and part of why I like GURPS).
Quote from: Sacrosanct;791776You just got done saying that every +1 matter a lot, and now you're saying an extra -1 no one cares about?
If you're puting a 8 in a stat it means you plan to never roll using that stat if possible. An extra +1 in a stat you use every combat round plus trimmings matters, an extra -1 in something you plan never to use doesn't. That is almost literally the first rule of optimization.
Ah, "optimization". I've come to dislike that word.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;791760I think there is a balance here. On the one hand, you don't want to ignore the stats. On the other you don't want interactions to feel like mechanical procedures (at least that isn't what I am after in a social exchange). I view things like CHR, Diplomacy, etc as levers for the GM to draw on when there is some question about whether the character would be performing better or worse than the player actually is. So the player gives an impassioned speech about why he should be given the passenger list at the airport, but he has a CHR of 6. I can accept that he is saying all those lovely things but something about him naturally puts people off so he is going to need a roll to overcome that hurdle. By the same token if a player isn't saying anything all that great, but he has a CHR of 18, then I'd roll. What I want to avoid though is the roll becoming a substitute for or more impotent than, what is going on in the game between the characters.
I agree. The point of rolling on these things is if there's a chance of failure and what that failure represents. If a Bard with Charisma 18 is wowing a crowed I'm not going to really have him roll to "succeed". If he's making a bargain with a King who's already happy with him, again I'll just have him role-play the scenario without the need to roll. If he then tries to make deal with a Pit Fiend, then yea he's gonna roll because there's imminent danger involved. I don't care HOW charismatic the player is, he's going up against a demon and thus, cannot just "wing" it with some fancy words.
Further, the guy who's socially inept or not much of a role-player in terms of speaking in character or addressing people in a 3rd person can still contribute as a Bard-like character with rolls. That doesn't mean he'll roll for
eveything, but important stuff yes he will. In other instances, I'll try to work with him to reach an understanding on how he wants to approach the situations. For example, some people hate talking in 1st person, so then I'll have him narrate what the character is trying to get across as a "3rd person" view.
Quote from: The Ent;791784Ah, "optimization". I've come to dislike that word.
Unfortunately that attitude does more harm than good.
Quote from: Batman;791759What I take from this is a player who's charismatic will be so regardless of what's written on his sheet and that's ok. If he has the capacity to charm the skirt off a nun and it shows in play with his Half-orc Barbarian with a Charisma 8, you don't see a problem here?
How about people role-play to their stats, which actually makes skill like Diplomacy relevant for those who aren't socially gifted.
Character has an 8 CHA? That will be reflected in the reaction roll and in the morale of anyone hired by this character no matter how charming the player is.
Talking with NPCs? The player will have to work harder to overcome probable lukewarm intitial reactions.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;791778If you're puting a 8 in a stat it means you plan to never roll using that stat if possible. An extra +1 in a stat you use every combat round plus trimmings matters, an extra -1 in something you plan never to use doesn't. That is almost literally the first rule of optimization.
Plan never to roll using a stat?
Have you never heard of saving throws? Well I gots me a STR based fighter and heavy armor cancels out DEX penalty so I'll stick my 5 in DEX.
< FIREBALL>
Fuck!!!
Quote from: gamerGoyf;791778If you're putting a 8 in a stat it means you plan to never roll using that stat if possible. An extra +1 in a stat you use every combat round plus trimmings matters, an extra -1 in something you plan never to use doesn't.
Does
planning survive actual gameplay, though? You might not want to make a roll dependent on your PC's 8 WIS or 6 CHA (or pick your dumpstat of choice) ever, but if those circumstances occur during actual-play, then you'll feel that pinch whether you intended to or not.
Quote from: Batman;791786Further, the guy who's socially inept or not much of a role-player in terms of speaking in character or addressing people in a 3rd person can still contribute as a Bard-like character with rolls. That doesn't mean he'll roll for eveything, but important stuff yes he will. In other instances, I'll try to work with him to reach an understanding on how he wants to approach the situations. For example, some people hate talking in 1st person, so then I'll have him narrate what the character is trying to get across as a "3rd person" view.
This is a style thing I think. Some people like speaking in character, some don't. I generally encourage speaking in character at my table. It isn't necessarily constant. There are times when saying I go to the tavern and order a roast duck, is a nice speedy way move through the session when there is a lot to do. I play it by ear I suppose. But when the party is having important interactions, I much prefer things spoken in character. I don't think this is better than any other approach. It just is important enough to me that I really tend to notice when rolls start replacing role-play interaction (which can happen).
Quote from: gamerGoyf;791775Because no one who knows anything cares if they have a 6 or 7 instead of an 8 in their least preferred stat.
I won't even play with an 8 in a stat, never mind a 6 or 7. 10 is as low as I go (in 4e - 9 in ACKS). And no, I don't care if that means I can't have an 18 in my "primary" attribute when using point buy, I don't dump stats.
It was quite funny to see the fulminations of the most ardent optimisers (on message boards, there aren't any in my group) that all my 4e characters had a primary attribute of only 16 at 1st level (not that we ever started at 1st).
Didn't make any difference in play, of course, because the opportunity cost of getting an 18 and having an 8 is quite high. It's not just +1 to your primary and -1 to a dump stat, but also lost bonuses elsewhere. I'd rather have a broader spread of bonuses in other attributes than one that spikes higher and all of them generally lower.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;791791Character has an 8 CHA? That will be reflected in the reaction roll and in the morale of anyone hired by this character no matter how charming the player is.
Talking with NPCs? The player will have to work harder to overcome probable lukewarm intitial reactions.
And it's going to initially be easier for said player because of his natural talent in those scenarios.
Lets take another example:
The DM puts forth a puzzle the PCs need to solve to get a good clue for their investigation. The puzzle is in the form of a roman numeral Sudoku. You have a Player who has a Wizard character with an Intelligence 18. And you have a player who has a Half-Orc Barbarian with an Intelligence of 7. The wizard player hates Sudoku and isn't good at it. The Half-Orc player LOVES Sudoku and can solve the problem in a few minutes. Does it make sense if the Half-Orc moron solves the puzzle over the intelligent-brainy wizard?
Quote from: K Peterson;791792Does planning survive actual gameplay, though? You might not want to make a roll dependent on your PC's 8 WIS or 6 CHA (or pick your dumpstat of choice) ever, but if those circumstances occur during actual-play, then you'll feel that pinch whether you intended to or not.
But you feel the pinch rarely enough to justify leaving those stats low if it means having the stat you use the most as high as possible. That's why they are dump stats.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;791775Because no one who knows anything cares if they have a 6 or 7 instead of an 8 in their least preferred stat.
Unfortunately that attitude does more harm than good.
A game of D&D that utilizes all three pillars shouldn't have a dump stat.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;791798A game of D&D that utilizes all three pillars shouldn't have a dump stat.
I think they will, regardless, especially to those who easily figure out that stats like Intelligence and Charisma rarely directly effect if your character is about to die or not. I'll take a dump stat in Intelligence for my Fighter because it's something that will rarely, if ever, come up in a situation that puts myself or my group at serious risk.
Quote from: Batman;791801I think they will, regardless, especially to those who easily figure out that stats like Intelligence and Charisma rarely directly effect if your character is about to die or not. I'll take a dump stat in Intelligence for my Fighter because it's something that will rarely, if ever, come up in a situation that puts myself or my group at serious risk.
I think the question of rarity for Int and Cha saves is up for debate, based on the campaign setting, but when they do come up it seems that the stakes are pretty high. I'm thinking of Mind Flayers, Intellect Devourers, and Umber Hulks here, and in those cases it is indeed all about whether you are about to die or not.
Quote from: Batman;791801I think they will, regardless, especially to those who easily figure out that stats like Intelligence and Charisma rarely directly effect if your character is about to die or not. I'll take a dump stat in Intelligence for my Fighter because it's something that will rarely, if ever, come up in a situation that puts myself or my group at serious risk.
Your fighter is never subject to magic in your D&D?
To each their own I guess.
It seems weird to me that people complain about cookie cutter with point buy.
I was in a 3e game where we were all elves using standard array. We ended up really different characters, and that's just with basic rules.
In 5e, with even more options (like backgrounds)... I dunno.
I have never really seen this cookie cutter problem in play. I'm not denying it affects some people, but it seems weird to me. It's also easy to fix... randomize and then adjust to point total.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;791804I'm thinking of Mind Flayers, Intellect Devourers, and Umber Hulks here, and in those cases it is indeed all about whether you are about to die or not.
But having 10 Int instead of 6 isn't going to make all the much of a difference in that case, at least not relative to the difference having 18 Str instead of 14 is going to make over the course of your career. Heck having 18 Str could mean the difference between killing the monster before it munches on someones brain and not being able to.
Quote from: The Ent;791784Ah, "optimization". I've come to dislike that word.
Welcome to the world of euphemisms, huh? Whatever happened to "min-maxer," or just plain munchkin?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;791805Your fighter is never subject to magic in your D&D?
To each their own I guess.
Sure they are, except that the vast majority of spells in 5E target Dexterity, Constitution, or Wisdom. I checked through the PDF and I only found 1 spell (maze) that affected Intelligence. Nothing appeared to affect Strength or Charisma, though you could use Strength to get out of a Web.
Maybe your looking at different spells than I am?
Quote from: cranebump;791808Welcome to the world of euphemisms, huh? Whatever happened to "min-maxer," or just plain munchkin?
Indeed!
Quote from: gamerGoyf;791807But having 10 Int instead of 6 isn't going to make all the much of a difference in that case, at least not relative to the difference having 18 Str instead of 14 is going to make over the course of your career. Heck having 18 Str could mean the difference between killing the monster before it munches on someones brain and not being able to.
If the course of your career is charted so that you will be pithed and ridden by an Intellect Devourer, then sure, the 3d6 the ID rolls to beat your Intelligence score is of no concern.
I still think this is going to be campaign dependent.
Dump your stats or don't, but just don't be the guy who exclaims "Dick DM move!" when your character is killed by something you wrote off.
Role-playing can almost always defeat sub-optimal stats.
You have shitty Strength? Think of ways to optimize your slightly better than average Dex, or maybe your Charisma is sufficient to talk others into doing your work for you.
Massive Strength but couldn't hit the broad side of a barn? You armor up and become the imposing block of fear that draws enemies to you first (clearly, you are the biggest threat) while your more competent teammates dance around the edges doing the "heavy lifting".
If everyone is awesome strictly through mechanics, then nobody is. Making yourself awesome through clever ideas and adapting to your strengths/weaknesses is all part of the game .... Role-Playing, if you will.
I always experienced this issue far more in Traveller than D&D or other games. One of my most awesome Trav characters was basically wheelchair-bound (due to massive injuries sustained during his military career), but he was a crack shot with a rifle and a fair tactical genius as well. Kinda like Professor X with an ACR. :)
Quote from: Natty Bodak;791815If the course of your career is charted so that you will be pithed and ridden by an Intellect Devourer, then sure, the 3d6 the ID rolls to beat your Intelligence score is of no concern.
I don't see how you think this is a problem with my argument, losing to intellect devourers 40% of the time is not substantially better to losing to Intellect Devourers 60% of the time. Both are unviable as long term strategies.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;791807But having 10 Int instead of 6 isn't going to make all the much of a difference in that case, at least not relative to the difference having 18 Str instead of 14 is going to make over the course of your career. Heck having 18 Str could mean the difference between killing the monster before it munches on someones brain and not being able to.
I'd call bs on someone playing a ftr w/6 str or any other char they hate for the next 2-3 years "fun". Most would just quit.
Quote from: dragoner;791740There is no manly. I don't see the point of playing 3d6 in order, didn't then, and I didn't see what the point would have been? By "odnd" that's white box? I owned it, but never saw anyone play it, we played the AD&D books, because we had them.
You said "you don't know where it is done like that."
Well, in Huron, SD, it's done like that.
So now you know! And knowing is half the battle!
GI JOE!
Quote from: dragoner;791822I'd call bs on someone playing a ftr w/6 str or any other char they hate for the next 2-3 years "fun". Most would just quit.
In OD&D a fighter with a str 6 suffers an XP bonus, but no other penalty. I know people who don't even care about tracking their XP.
Odd, perhaps, but not unknown.
And I currently have a thief player with an INT of 4, who stuck his hand into something clearly labeled "IDIOT DETECTOR" and lost a finger because he said his character is an idiot.
Now that he's 4th level he can't advance beyond while he's missing a finger. So the other folks at the table said "I guess we're just gonna have to go on a quest to find somebody who can restore his finger. Poor us having to do all that exploration and gain all that gold and XP."
Fun takes many forms.
Quote from: dragoner;791822I'd call bs on someone playing a ftr w/6 str or any other char they hate for the next 2-3 years "fun". Most would just quit.
Well in AD&D that character would be impossible...;)
I don't Think any GM would force anyone into playing that.
Actually I tend to identify "totally brøken hopeless loser PCs" with rpgs other than D&D - RuneQuest being a prime offender (random stats + random background = twice as big a chance to roll a useless guy.* Wich isn't to say I dislike either random stats nor random backgrounds, in the latter case I really like lifepaths frex but, but, the system Must be well-Made!).
*=I've only rolled up a RQ dude with good stats once. Background? Civilized peasant. Figures.
Quote from: Old Geezer;791823You said "you don't know where it is done like that."
Well, in Huron, SD, it's done like that.
Back in the late 70's, it was the Midwest, Chicago and it's environs; don't know much about outer bumpus. Played with people like Dan Lawrence and the people that did Telenguard Dungeon.
Quote from: Old Geezer;791825In OD&D a fighter with a str 6 suffers an XP bonus, but no other penalty.
Fun takes many forms.
It suffers a dual penalty in AD&D. Unfun takes many forms as well, if you want gold and xp, you can spin your wheels and do random encounters. Favorite thing about the white books is that they had some cool tricks and traps tables.
Quote from: The Ent;791827Well in AD&D that character would be impossible...;)
I don't Think any GM would force anyone into playing that.
Because they would be sitting at the table all by their lonesome. I don't recall impossible because, I never saw it happen, I could go pull my AD&D books off the shelf and check. But it wouldn't change anything, I think you would even be losing agency in picking class, just for some extra suck.
Quote from: dragoner;791829It suffers a dual penalty in AD&D. Unfun takes many forms as well, if you want gold and xp, you can spin your wheels and do random encounters. Favorite thing about the white books is that they had some cool tricks and traps tables.
So, since I play OD&D instead of AD&D I'm having Badwrongfun? Not the first time I've been told that.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;791821I don't see how you think this is a problem with my argument, losing to intellect devourers 40% of the time is not substantially better to losing to Intellect Devourers 60% of the time. Both are unviable as long term strategies.
Not meeting 6 on 3d6 happens 4.6%. Not meeting 10 happens 37.5%. If nearly an order of magnitude difference in survival rate doesn't count for you then we are too far apart to ever see eye to eye. I thought it was odd that you would say 10 and 6 weren't different given the monster I happened to use as an example, so that's what I found problematic with your argument.
And it doesn't have to be a long term strategy in my opinion. It's more of a "survive first contact" strategy.
But again, dump your stats or don't. Meta game that choice to whatever degree you like. Just don't be "that guy..."
Quote from: Old Geezer;791825In OD&D a fighter with a str 6 suffers an XP bonus, but no other penalty. I know people who don't even care about tracking their XP.
Yes, but as we've already established, ability scores mean fuck all in OD&D, so it's totally irrelevant.
Quote from: Batman;791810Maybe your looking at different spells than I am?
I imagine he's thinking of traps and monster abilities as well as spells, not that I've looked at those from a quantitative perspective myself.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;791839I imagine he's thinking of traps and monster abilities as well as spells, not that I've looked at those from a quantitative perspective myself.
Neither have I, but he specifically said magic and I just assumed spells.
Quote from: Old Geezer;791833So, since I play OD&D instead of AD&D I'm having Badwrongfun? Not the first time I've been told that.
First sign of senility is imagining people telling you things, ain't that a kick in the teeth.
So you have never looked at an AD&D book? Just played the little white ones? M'kay ...
Quote from: Natty Bodak;791835Not meeting 6 on 3d6 happens 4.6%. Not meeting 10 happens 37.5%.
But you need to fail the Int save in the first place for that to come up, which only happens 60% of the time.
Yeah, it's been said, but system matters. If anything, one of the perils of these arguments is how often people seem to gloss over edition.
My complaints are formed mainly by 3e, which is highly vulnerable to all sorts of optimizing bullshit.
It sounds like OD&D, I would be totally fine with rolling 3d6 in order. Although I'd also be wondering why we're bothering to roll stats.
Quote from: Will;791845Yeah, it's been said, but system matters. If anything, one of the perils of these arguments is how often people seem to gloss over edition.
My complaints are formed mainly by 3e, which is highly vulnerable to all sorts of optimizing bullshit.
It sounds like OD&D, I would be totally fine with rolling 3d6 in order. Although I'd also be wondering why we're bothering to roll stats.
Yep, I don't know how difficult a 4E game would be if the highest stat you had was an 11. That particular version sort of assumed you'd have at least a 16 pre-racial in your main attack stat.
Quote from: Batman;791847Yep, I don't know how difficult a 4E game would be if the highest stat you had was an 11. That particular version sort of assumed you'd have at least a 16 pre-racial in your main attack stat.
I had a player put a 10 in his primary stat in a 4e game. His character sucked and was clobbered to death by an earth elemental.
Quote from: Will;791845It sounds like OD&D, I would be totally fine with rolling 3d6 in order. Although I'd also be wondering why we're bothering to roll stats.
The circle is thus completed.
Quote from: Brad;791852The circle is thus completed.
It's the original storygame.
Quote from: Batman;791795Lets take another example:
The DM puts forth a puzzle the PCs need to solve to get a good clue for their investigation. The puzzle is in the form of a roman numeral Sudoku. You have a Player who has a Wizard character with an Intelligence 18. And you have a player who has a Half-Orc Barbarian with an Intelligence of 7. The wizard player hates Sudoku and isn't good at it. The Half-Orc player LOVES Sudoku and can solve the problem in a few minutes. Does it make sense if the Half-Orc moron solves the puzzle over the intelligent-brainy wizard?
Sure, why not?
The problem here is constrasting theories of ability scores.
"Character Abilities": Abilities determine whether you can do something or not (roll to succeed.)
"Player Skill": Abilities determine how well you do something (speed, chance of something going wrong.)
Example: The sudoku problem you give.
A "Character Abilities" interpretation would require a roll, even if the player knows the answer. But what if (OMG!) the wizard player still fails the roll, but the half--orc player still succeeds? Horror! Better to rule that characters below Int 9 can't solve the problem at all.
A "Player Skill" interpretation says "hey, that half-orc might have a flash of insight!" Maybe low Int characters take twice as long to solve the problem, while high Int characters take half as long. Or the half-orc has a chance of writing the wrong numeral, even though the character
intended to write the correct answer. Or use Elven Numerals, translating the numbers only if the character knows Elvish (more likely for high-Int characters that take that language. )
Or compromise and let the sudoku expert give the wizard player the answer.
The same applies to other abiliities. Roll vs. Strength to open a door, or roll to open it
quickly? Roll vs. Dex to untie a knot, or just let high Dex characters do it
faster?
It applies to Charisma and persuadion as well, but there's a whole bunch of other problems with the way social "skills" are handled. That would be a whole thread of its own.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;791842But you need to fail the Int save in the first place for that to come up, which only happens 60% of the time.
55 or 65% of the time, depending, but let's go with your average of 60%. One of these is pretty much save or die, while the other is much closer to save at least 1 out of 2 or die. Neither is great, but one is clearly better than the other in a non trivial way.
But your core argument is really "I'd rather have another point of strength rather than the 4 points of int" here. More power to you to make your choice based on whatever factors that you like. Others feel differently (Kiero I think weighed in as not ever dumping to the point of avoiding any negatives). For me it depends on my mood at character creation.
Again and again, just don't be the "Dick DM! Guy" if your meta gaming doesn't save you.
Quote from: Will;791845My complaints are formed mainly by 3e, which is highly vulnerable to all sorts of optimizing bullshit.
If you have optimizers, there are only a few things you can ever do:
1. make sure everyone is an optimizer and uses point-buy and so it's a friendly competition for all of them
-or-
2. make sure everyone is ok with that optimizer and realizes that part of that person's fun is something they do all alone before the game starts and pats them on the head and tolerates them and doesn't care and the GM makes adventures that don't actually privilege the optimizer
-or-
3. kick the optimizer out
…that goes for any game, any system. Optimizers, like vegetarians, are a social quirk of the real world. You deal with it the way you'd deal with any social situation--you don't expect the game system to deal with them for you.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;791858Again and again, just don't be the "Dick DM! Guy" if your meta gaming doesn't save you.
Don't be the dick internet guy and put words in people's mouths.
Anyway we've reached the point where you have to argue against a straw lhurgoyf. So I think we're done here.
Quote from: Zak S;791860If you have optimizers, there are only a few things you can ever do:
1. make sure everyone is an optimizer and uses point-buy and so it's a friendly competition for all of them
-or-
2. make sure everyone is ok with that optimizer and realizes that part of that person's fun is something they do all alone before the game starts and pats them on the head and tolerates them and doesn't care and the GM makes adventures that don't actually privilege the optimizer
-or-
3. kick the optimizer out
...that goes for any game, any system. Optimizers, like vegetarians, are a social quirk of the real world. You deal with it the way you'd deal with any social situation--you don't expect the game system to deal with them for you.
A sad irony is that when in mixed company with non-optimizers, they are subjecting the non-opts to the thing they themselves seem to fear the most: quantitative irrelevance. This makes option two an undue burden for the DM.
Zak is like usual wrong, it's certainly possible to make games hold up under optimization better. Often doing so can extremely easy.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;791862Don't be the dick internet guy and put words in people's mouths.
Anyway we've reached the point where you have to argue against a straw lhurgoyf. So I think we're done here.
I'm not putting those words in your mouth, I'm just clarifying what parts matter to me. The original topic of this post was about how the Dick System forced a victim TBP mod to do bad things. And I myself have experienced people who meta game stat dumps and then have decried bad things related to that stat dump that happen to them as Dick DM moves.
But you're right about being done. For me that should have been when you waved the Charop flag up thread.
People focus on intentional bullshit, but it also happens when people aren't trying.
A system with strong optimization paths can easily result with a player ending up in a profoundly unsatisfying place. 'I wanted Fist of the North Star and I can't do much damage in combat. Meh'
AD&D has stat pre-requisites for classes. It was another reason why rolling mattered. The dice helped determine what you got, be it special goody classes or just breadth of options.
However stats were not the be-all-end-all in it. Helpful, even allowed more options, but not mission critical. The threshold for actual play was nowhere near "at least one/many 18!" It just always seemed that way as some people can't handle social games if there's even a hint of failure possible (ref. Monopoly, Pictionary, Trivia Pursuit, Shoots & Ladders, Contract Bridge, etc.).
5e is no different here. 4d6 rearrange OR stat array OR re-costed point buy is not some sort of oppression. Especially since 5e Organized Play is Point Buy only. Which means the complaint leading to this topic is about HOME GAMES — HOME GAMES THAT MUST BE PLAYED RAW, RAW, AND RAW ONLY, YOU HEAR!
It's an unhinged complaint on its face.
What's next? The Quickstart oppression of only a single waterskin in a {Profession} Pack? A waterskin that only holds 1/2 gallon volume, but the necessity for a gallon (sometimes two!) of water a day? Oh gawd, it's like the PHB is plotting to kill players right out of the gate! The system, the system is oppressing me! How ever will I get (or hold) more water?
:rolleyes: <-- emoticon cue for the subtext impaired
Quote from: Will;791866People focus on intentional bullshit, but it also happens when people aren't trying.
A system with strong optimization paths can easily result with a player ending up in a profoundly unsatisfying place. 'I wanted Fist of the North Star and I can't do much damage in combat. Meh'
Are you saying that the staccato, high pitched kiai by itself isn't enough to kill your enemies?! You were robbed, my friend.
Quote from: talysman;791856Sure, why not?
The problem here is constrasting theories of ability scores.
"Character Abilities": Abilities determine whether you can do something or not (roll to succeed.)
"Player Skill": Abilities determine how well you do something (speed, chance of something going wrong.)
Example: The sudoku problem you give.
A "Character Abilities" interpretation would require a roll, even if the player knows the answer. But what if (OMG!) the wizard player still fails the roll, but the half--orc player still succeeds? Horror! Better to rule that characters below Int 9 can't solve the problem at all.
To be honest were I to play the Half-Orc I wouldn't even attempt to roll because looking at a puzzle like that and rolling to see if I succeed isn't what I'd consider role-playing. At that point, why not just have everyone roll? Chances are
someone in the party will get a high enough roll to answer the question.
This became somewhat of a nuisance in our 4E games where anyone can attempt to roll for which ever skill they wanted. And it created really silly situations like the one described above.
Quote from: talysman;791856A "Player Skill" interpretation says "hey, that half-orc might have a flash of insight!" Maybe low Int characters take twice as long to solve the problem, while high Int characters take half as long. Or the half-orc has a chance of writing the wrong numeral, even though the character intended to write the correct answer. Or use Elven Numerals, translating the numbers only if the character knows Elvish (more likely for high-Int characters that take that language. )
Or compromise and let the sudoku expert give the wizard player the answer.
the "flash" of inspiration just seems like a gimme, totally breaking immersion for the group. However I do like the idea of taking twice as long or using Elven numerals, which would pair down how many people can even attempt to solve the riddle.
Quote from: talysman;791856The same applies to other abiliities. Roll vs. Strength to open a door, or roll to open it quickly? Roll vs. Dex to untie a knot, or just let high Dex characters do it faster?
Some of this was answered with 5E, as such certain DCs could be easily overcome by certain scores, but usually when things like imminent danger aren't going on. If a door as a Break DC of 18 and a Character wants to bash it down with an 18 Str, just let him and don't require a roll. Some for other checks, that same mentality applies. I guess it could also apply to the puzzle, but if that's the case then why even bothering putting a puzzle in when you know that the PCs will just by-pass it?
Quote from: talysman;791856It applies to Charisma and persuadion as well, but there's a whole bunch of other problems with the way social "skills" are handled. That would be a whole thread of its own.
Eh, maybe. But looking at it from the perspective of Player ability, if someone is naturally gifted with persuasion and they bring that to every character they have, regardless of what's written on their sheet, I think that's a bad thing.
Quote from: Will;791866People focus on intentional bullshit, but it also happens when people aren't trying.
A system with strong optimization paths can easily result with a player ending up in a profoundly unsatisfying place. 'I wanted Fist of the North Star and I can't do much damage in combat. Meh'
Anyone in any system who thinks they "can't do much in combat" is either wrong or has a shit GM.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;791864Zak is like usual wrong, it's certainly possible to make games hold up under optimization better. Often doing so can extremely easy.
Your comment seems unrelated to any words I actually typed, anonymous troll.
Quote from: Batman;791795And it's going to initially be easier for said player because of his natural talent in those scenarios.
Lets take another example:
The DM puts forth a puzzle the PCs need to solve to get a good clue for their investigation. The puzzle is in the form of a roman numeral Sudoku. You have a Player who has a Wizard character with an Intelligence 18. And you have a player who has a Half-Orc Barbarian with an Intelligence of 7. The wizard player hates Sudoku and isn't good at it. The Half-Orc player LOVES Sudoku and can solve the problem in a few minutes. Does it make sense if the Half-Orc moron solves the puzzle over the intelligent-brainy wizard?
I don't use these kinds of puzzles. I like to have puzzles relate to what is happening in the game so that all players have the same chances to figure it out.
In those cases the puzzles are for the players to figure out. If the wizard player isn't paying attention and the half orc player puts things together first good on the barbarian.
Quote from: JeremyR;791367I have never had bad stats.
Unless you use 3d6 in order, which was out of fashion by the time I started playing in 1978, you're probably going to have decent stats.
If you use 4d6 drop one in any order, you're probably going to have at least one high score and worst will be around 10.
In fact, the default array usually given is about what you expect to roll. Sometimes you do better, sometimes worse, but I can remember rolling numerous 18s in my life, and I can't recall ever rolling a 3.
Unless you are me, hence "Johanna's Rule" in my group...4d6 drop 1 and reroll all 1's just for me. Everyone got fed up watching me mock the laws of probability and know if for some reason I actually roll a really good character it won't matter given I'm introverted by nature or watching the kids or getting the food.
Looks like I'm a little late to the party.
I wouldn't suicide a character with bad stats or who otherwise wasn't working out, that'd be silly, but I'm not gonna lie, I might play the guy with an eye towards a memorable death. :D
Quote from: Zak S;791876Your comment seems unrelated to any words I actually typed, anonymous troll.
Not anonymous at all; he's one of the most polite, most insightful, and most clever of his group.
Quote from: Zak S;791875Anyone in any system who thinks they "can't do much in combat" is either wrong or has a shit GM.
Ever see a 3e Monk?
Basically, it works very well in a way that's utterly nonobvious to folks who aren't dedicated systems tinkerers. Going in expecting 'I punch the shit out of everyone!' will end up with a lot of frustration when you just don't do very well. (one thing I like about Pathfinder is that it really opened up unarmed warriors a lot, with more options for monks, plus decent options for fighter, barbarians, and rangers, so that there are a lot of funky interesting ways to do a concept)
Systems vary in how much the wrinkles and grain of the design will produce different results.
In some systems, these details don't, ultimately, matter much, and it comes down to player creativity. Or character ability is more even. Some stuff might be better than other stuff, but in the end it doesn't end up mattering much.
In other systems, certain paths or goals end up wildly more 'valued' by the system design than others.
Players and GMs can magnify or minimize these, to a point.
This is one reason I tend to shy away from complex systems, because they are more prone to weird gotchas and optimizations I don't really want to worry about.
Sometimes, fuck it, Risus!
Quote from: dragoner;791841First sign of senility is imagining people telling you things, ain't that a kick in the teeth.
.
Quote from: dragoner;791832Because they would be sitting at the table all by their lonesome. I don't recall impossible because, I never saw it happen, I could go pull my AD&D books off the shelf and check. But it wouldn't change anything, I think you would even be losing agency in picking class, just for some extra suck.
:rotfl:
Quote from: Marleycat;791883Unless you are me, hence "Johanna's Rule" in my group...4d6 drop 1 and reroll all 1's just for me. Everyone got fed up watching me mock the laws of probability and know if for some reason I actually roll a really good character it won't matter given I'm introverted by nature or watching the kids or getting the food.
The laws of probability aren't broken. You just roll high when you need low rolls and roll low when you need high rolls but the law of averages still balances.
Quote from: Marleycat;791883Unless you are me, hence "Johanna's Rule" in my group...4d6 drop 1 and reroll all 1's just for me. Everyone got fed up watching me mock the laws of probability and know if for some reason I actually roll a really good character it won't matter given I'm introverted by nature or watching the kids or getting the food.
People are draining, psychic vampires. bleh
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;791541That's better than my first character (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=157690&postcount=47).
But I don't think you could be a viable fighter with those stats, no. You'd be too busy whining to be creative.
It would not be a good character in 3e or 4e D&D I think, especially 4e. It would be fine in other editions, I've seen plenty of viable 1e AD&D and BX characters with similar stats.
In BX the big problem is having a STR penalty at 8 or below; Magic-Users are the only characters who don't suffer badly from -1 to hit & damage. Doesn't make a PC non-viable but does make them notably weaker than everyone else. Although if you play RAW, at 1st level BX combat generally means 'everyone dies', anyway. :p
FWIW, my current approach to stat rolls:
Roll best 3 of 4d6 in order. You can swap any one stat with any one other stat.
This tends to create above-average PCs (if 10.5 is average - not in 4e, where I'd only ever use Point Buy) but with an organic look; it avoids the 'dump stat' situation you get with both 'arrange as desired' and point buy. It tends to make high rolls much less of an advantage since they won't likely fall exactly where you want them, but you can put your highest roll where you want it.
Quote from: Zak S;791876Your comment seems unrelated to any words I actually typed, anonymous troll.
How come blame Zak S. become a thing on rpg-related internet discussions ? It is a kind of preposterous thing !
Quote from: Exploderwizard;791882I don't use these kinds of puzzles. I like to have puzzles relate to what is happening in the game so that all players have the same chances to figure it out.
In those cases the puzzles are for the players to figure out. If the wizard player isn't paying attention and the half orc player puts things together first good on the barbarian.
See, to me that breaks my immersion. It also means that unless the mechanics necessitate a good score in either Intelligence or Charisma, I can just completely dump them and instead rely on my good Player skills to get me through. If any situation comes up that I personally have a focus of knowledge about that I doubt my character would, it instantly becomes viable because I still know about it and use it to the advantage of the character, even if that doesn't make any sense.
If I have a knack for Nautical know-how in RL, even though my wizard is from the desert, it can still use that information when it pertains to situations at sea, regardless if my characters even seen water deeper than 5-ft wading pool at the local oasis. That would really bother me as both a player and DM.
Quote from: Batman;791908See, to me that breaks my immersion. It also means that unless the mechanics necessitate a good score in either Intelligence or Charisma, I can just completely dump them and instead rely on my good Player skills to get me through. If any situation comes up that I personally have a focus of knowledge about that I doubt my character would, it instantly becomes viable because I still know about it and use it to the advantage of the character, even if that doesn't make any sense.
If I have a knack for Nautical know-how in RL, even though my wizard is from the desert, it can still use that information when it pertains to situations at sea, regardless if my characters even seen water deeper than 5-ft wading pool at the local oasis. That would really bother me as both a player and DM.
Then don't act on your RL knowledge if it would spoil your fun?
Quote from: S'mon;791904FWIW, my current approach to stat rolls:
Roll best 3 of 4d6 in order. You can swap any one stat with any one other stat.
This tends to create above-average PCs (if 10.5 is average - not in 4e, where I'd only ever use Point Buy) but with an organic look; it avoids the 'dump stat' situation you get with both 'arrange as desired' and point buy. It tends to make high rolls much less of an advantage since they won't likely fall exactly where you want them, but you can put your highest roll where you want it.
You could still use that method with 4E and I'll bet that you're more than likely to get at least a pre-racial 16 in your Primary AND it might lend you to pick powers and feats that you otherwise might not have chosen. Just from your method I rolled (order Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha): 6, 13, 17, 12, 11, 12. The 6 is definitely hard, but the 17 is nice. A Drow Rogue would work nice with this array, making your stat look like: Str 6, Con 13, Dex 19, Int 12, Wis 11, Cha 14. Works great with either Artful Dodger or Cunning Tactics rogue schemes and just grab exploits that focus on Stealth and adding Charisma to your schtick.
Quote from: AxesnOrcs;791911Then don't act on your RL knowledge if it would spoil your fun?
I was actually speaking about other players doing it that would bother me.
EDIT: By that same token, would it be OK to just pull out the phone and Google information that specifically pertained to the situation at hand and then use that as in-character knowledge? If so, why would people even bother with skills in the first place? Each encounter now becomes "who can google find the solution the quickest?"
The FASERIP solution:
Player describes character, GM assigns stats based on description (with an appropriate period of haggling as necessary).
Quote from: Batman;791913I was actually speaking about other players doing it that would bother me.
EDIT: By that same token, would it be OK to just pull out the phone and Google information that specifically pertained to the situation at hand and then use that as in-character knowledge? If so, why would people even bother with skills in the first place? Each encounter now becomes "who can google find the solution the quickest?"
If it's not fun don't do it seems to a good rule of thumb. I mean sure of the time most rules don't ever directly address metagame knowledge, and there isn't any game I know of that specifically says, "thou must not google."
But seriously sometimes stupid people solve problems of the mind that smart people don't. Or you could ask people to not do things like that, or the gm to not use puzzles that the player playing the genius intellect character can't solve, or let the smart guy use Google or roll the dice.
Quote from: Batman;791913If so, why would people even bother with skills in the first place?
Skills are the worst fucking thing to ever happen to D&D.
Quote from: AxesnOrcs;791915If it's not fun don't do it seems to a good rule of thumb. I mean sure of the time most rules don't ever directly address metagame knowledge, and there isn't any game I know of that specifically says, "thou must not google."
But seriously sometimes stupid people solve problems of the mind that smart people don't. Or you could ask people to not do things like that, or the gm to not use puzzles that the player playing the genius intellect character can't solve, or let the smart guy use Google or roll the dice.
Or juust get rid of the Intelligence stat
Quote from: TristramEvans;791920Or juust get rid of the Intelligence stat
Alternatively, maybe role - play your stats rather than godmode your PCs or make them Maru/Gary Sues?
I mean, if getting 18 Strength was really that worth taking 6 Intelligence, it was your call after all.
I can understand the concern when someone plays the "roll in order" variation, but in that case, as Superchicken said - you know what you were getting into. I've played characters stupider than me, as hard as it is to believe, and I had fun as well. Just got to draw from fun pop - culture not so smart characters, rather than go full retard (remember - never go full retard). Nothing quite beats playing a half - orc barbarian with 6 intelligence and Lobo's approach to life.
Quote from: Rincewind1;791921Alternatively, maybe role - play your stats rather than godmode your PCs or make them Maru/Gary Sues?
Sure, but that doesnt address the roleplaying disassociation of a character with "genius" intelligence played by a player who...isn't a genius. I'm not saying don't roleplay stats, Im saying sometimes that isnt always possible in the strictest sense without mechanical fudging.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;791462Because heroes are heroes because of what they are willing to risk, not because of their competence (not that competence doesn't help). I'm honestly surprised this this question has any legs in fantasy role playing.
Man, if only somebody could come up with an example of an epic fantasy tale about a hero completely unsuited to being an adventurer.
Homer would say otherwise. Competence matters, the inept "hero" is just a wannabe. Possibly a dangerous liability to everyone else as well.
Quote from: jeff37923;791464The Hobbit.
More of Tolkein's dry, dusty, dreary drivel, no thanks.
Quote from: Akrasia;791558(My bold.)
Actually, ability scores are vitally important in AD&D 1e. The difference between a fighter with 18 (%) strength, and a fighter with 10 strength is enormous. Magic-users with low intelligence cannot learn spells of higher levels, and are less able to learn new spells. Clerics with low wisdom lose out on bonus spells and even (if their wisdom is low enough) have a chance of failure on every spell cast. Thieves receive important boosts to their thief ability percentages based on dexterity. Etc.
It is for this reason that Gygax writes: "…it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics" (PHB, 1e, p. 9).
And it is for this reason that the DMG includes four different methods for generating higher-than-average ability scores for PCs (p.11).
The notion that ability scores were unimportant in 1e AD&D, and that 3d6-in-order was the default method, is a myth. Certainly the game's author never held such a view.
As for 0e D&D (pre-supplements), yeah, ability scores don't matter much.
My bad. So it really is just in OD&D that ability scores are irrelevant.
Quote from: Will;791845It sounds like OD&D, I would be totally fine with rolling 3d6 in order. Although I'd also be wondering why we're bothering to roll stats.
This is why whenever anyone raises OD&D in a discussion about how important stats are in wider D&D, I simply ignore them. Because they're spouting irrelevant bollocks.
Yes, in OD&D rolling stats is basically a waste of everyone's time and mean little to the game. In every other edition of D&D, they matter a whole lot more.
Quote from: Zak S;791860If you have optimizers, there are only a few things you can ever do:
1. make sure everyone is an optimizer and uses point-buy and so it's a friendly competition for all of them
-or-
2. make sure everyone is ok with that optimizer and realizes that part of that person's fun is something they do all alone before the game starts and pats them on the head and tolerates them and doesn't care and the GM makes adventures that don't actually privilege the optimizer
-or-
3. kick the optimizer out
…that goes for any game, any system. Optimizers, like vegetarians, are a social quirk of the real world. You deal with it the way you'd deal with any social situation--you don't expect the game system to deal with them for you.
Or 4. Use the talents of the optimiser to make sure everyone has at least a partially-optimised character so the GM doesn't have to deal with a wide disparity in ability. It's also a much better way to shut the optimiser up, by giving them something to do.
Quote from: Batman;791847Yep, I don't know how difficult a 4E game would be if the highest stat you had was an 11. That particular version sort of assumed you'd have at least a 16 pre-racial in your main attack stat.
How difficult? Very. 4e is predicated on very tightly formulated maths for encounters to work. You need at least a 16 in your primary stat in order to be effective in combat (that guarantees you hit 50% of the time). Not only that, your character is going to get hit much more often than is expected, too.
Quote from: Kiero;791923Or 4. Use the talents of the optimiser to make sure everyone has at least a partially-optimised character so the GM doesn't have to deal with a wide disparity in ability. It's also a much better way to shut the optimiser up, by giving them something to do.
This seems to be the best way to deal with the optimiser type of player. They like to share their trade with other players and get grumpy when people do not do the optimizing thing.
Quote from: TristramEvans;791920Or juust get rid of the Intelligence stat
That also works
Quote from: Batman;791908See, to me that breaks my immersion. It also means that unless the mechanics necessitate a good score in either Intelligence or Charisma, I can just completely dump them and instead rely on my good Player skills to get me through. If any situation comes up that I personally have a focus of knowledge about that I doubt my character would, it instantly becomes viable because I still know about it and use it to the advantage of the character, even if that doesn't make any sense.
If you have had any experience with OD&D or AD&D then you know that dumping CHA can be bad. Reactions to your character will be poorer and you will be permitted fewer henchmen who will be less loyal to you. INT for non magic users means less languages you can learn mechanically and thats about it.
Letting the player play the game instead of the character sheet is a separate issue from metagaming. I find the " oh look how clever I am, I rolled a 20" style of problem solving to be dull as dishwater and not very engaging as a player.
" Challenge the character" is the biggest heap of steaming dogshit I have ever heard of related to rpgs. A character is just a collection of traits on a piece of paper. It cannot recognize challenge, or appreciate winning. If it is the character that is challenged, what does the living, thinking human being at the table have to do the whole session? Roll the dice and see how well a particular piece of paper handles challenges, that's what.
Wanna know why players fiddle with their phones and tablets until its time to toss the dice? It is because they have become conditioned that they as players cannot meaningfully impact the game until they roll those dice. So they sit there in their own little worlds not paying attention until they can affect things in play. I don't blame them.
Quote from: Batman;791908If I have a knack for Nautical know-how in RL, even though my wizard is from the desert, it can still use that information when it pertains to situations at sea, regardless if my characters even seen water deeper than 5-ft wading pool at the local oasis. That would really bother me as both a player and DM.
This is no different than a player who memorizes the MM and just knows the traits of every monster. You can choose to do this or not.
Quote from: Batman;791913I was actually speaking about other players doing it that would bother me.
Then tell them to fucking stop.
Quote from: Batman;791913EDIT: By that same token, would it be OK to just pull out the phone and Google information that specifically pertained to the situation at hand and then use that as in-character knowledge? If so, why would people even bother with skills in the first place? Each encounter now becomes "who can google find the solution the quickest?"
If you engage the people at your table instead of trying to challenge pieces of paper, they will be too busy having fun to bother with that shit.
Quote from: Old Geezer;791918Skills are the worst fucking thing to ever happen to D&D.
I will agree and even go so far as to say that skills are clumsy and useless in any class based system. Either use skills or use archetypes. The two mix like oil and water.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;791955If you have had any experience with OD&D or AD&D then you know that dumping CHA can be bad. Reactions to your character will be poorer and you will be permitted fewer henchmen who will be less loyal to you. INT for non magic users means less languages you can learn mechanically and thats about it.
Specifically speaking, I was talking about 5E because unless your class requires Charisma or Intelligence, there aren't that many factors that engage those stats overall besides some skills and one saving throw (ie. Maze spell).
Quote from: Exploderwizard;791955Letting the player play the game instead of the character sheet is a separate issue from metagaming. I find the " oh look how clever I am, I rolled a 20" style of problem solving to be dull as dishwater and not very engaging as a player.
So do I, but that's not what I"m talking about. It specifically is metagaming to use information you (the player knows) that your character most likely wouldn't know. This goes from RL knowledge about specifics to memorizing MM stats.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;791955"Challenge the character" is the biggest heap of steaming dogshit I have ever heard of related to rpgs. A character is just a collection of traits on a piece of paper. It cannot recognize challenge, or appreciate winning. If it is the character that is challenged, what does the living, thinking human being at the table have to do the whole session? Roll the dice and see how well a particular piece of paper handles challenges, that's what.
By that token, why even bother with stats and levels and classes? You might as well just roll for physical traits (because they apparently don't matter) and everything else is just you in Avatar mode. You might as well be role-playing your self out there.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;791955Wanna know why players fiddle with their phones and tablets until its time to toss the dice? It is because they have become conditioned that they as players cannot meaningfully impact the game until they roll those dice. So they sit there in their own little worlds not paying attention until they can affect things in play. I don't blame them.
Yea it's not something I, as the DM, have had very much experience with. Using the phone or other electronic device simply isn't cool at my table unless it's to reference a specific spell or feat or something that's relevant to the game. However, I used it as a point of reference that if knowledge which doesn't derive sensibly from your character is fine, you might as well open the fucking door for everything and anything the players can use to their advantage. Thus each time a puzzle or situation arises the person who's fastest to the answer is the "winner" and screw all those other things like Stats or role-playing.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;791955This is no different than a player who memorizes the MM and just knows the traits of every monster. You can choose to do this or not.
Then tell them to fucking stop.
Yep, I don't do that and I'd be pissed if people did. And I have had to ask someone to stop just once.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;791955If you engage the people at your table instead of trying to challenge pieces of paper, they will be too busy having fun to bother with that shit.
Sure but then why even bother with the whole point of the "role" playing part of the game if who I'm challenging are people with a whole different suite of abilities? You might as well just role-play chess because the game pieces are just an extension of the player rather than the player
being the pieces.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;791955If you have had any experience with OD&D or AD&D then you know that dumping CHA can be bad. Reactions to your character will be poorer and you will be permitted fewer henchmen who will be less loyal to you. INT for non magic users means less languages you can learn mechanically and thats about it.
In my game it was notable that everyone went for a CHA bonus in assigning their scores (15 was the
lowest CHA), it was deemed more important than DEX or WIS for most. Henchmen was the primary reason, everyone went for as big a retinue as they could have. It was also in keeping with the notion of all the PCs being leaders and unit commanders.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;791955I will agree and even go so far as to say that skills are clumsy and useless in any class based system. Either use skills or use archetypes. The two mix like oil and water.
I disagree, Proficiencies in ACKS work brilliantly to both codify what skills a character has, and to add another layer of differentiation between characters.
If I was going to kill my character on purpose, I'd at least make it useful by making it a suicide bombing. Strap on the oil flasks, light a match, and walk cooly into the kobold's lair like a Terminator.
"Hasta la vista, baby. I'll be back...with better stats."
Quote from: Kiero;791923Homer would say otherwise. Competence matters, the inept "hero" is just a wannabe. Possibly a dangerous liability to everyone else as well.
The homeric hero, along with his tragic baggage, is welcome alongside the hobbit as far as I'm concerned. And if there's tension between the characters, that's fertile ground.
Quote from: Kiero;791923Or 4. Use the talents of the optimiser to make sure everyone has at least a partially-optimised character so the GM doesn't have to deal with a wide disparity in ability. It's also a much better way to shut the optimiser up, by giving them something to do.
This solution seems to misapprehend the problem. If the problem were that the non-optimizers couldn't optimize (through ignorance or lack of ability) then this could work. In my experience the problem is between optimizers and folks who don't
want to optimize, and trying to have the optimizer "help" those folks out with character optimization is a recipe for fisticuffs.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;791973This solution seems to misapprehend the problem. If the problem were that the non-optimizers couldn't optimize (through ignorance or lack of ability) then this could work. In my experience the problem is between optimizers and folks who don't want to optimize, and trying to have the optimizer "help" those folks out with character optimization is a recipe for fisticuffs.
Yep, the assumption that I want to optimize but cant... those 'helpful' comments about the best Skill/Feat/Weapon... grrrrr! It really does steam me. Play your own Character and leave mine the fuck alone.
Same thing in combat where guy starts telling me where to stand to get bonuses or activate some Whatsit. Just fuck off.
Quote from: Brad;791516Remind me never to post a simple example on the internet because someone will inevitably insult you for not being fucking detailed enough. Seriously, this is one of the dumbest posts in the thread.
I strongly disagree. What if you had rolled 5, 4, 5, 4, 3, 8? How about a Fighter with just 1hit point? Maybe you'd be cool with all 3s and 1 hp and 30 gp; but maybe somebody else would not find that fun. From a role-playing perspective, even a wisdom score just shy of comatose would still leave the question of why this person - unwanted even by the army - thinks his vocation is dragon slaying.
In my experience, characters with low stats are the survivors. Characters with high stats are usually have a sense of superiority and are quickly killed. Those with lower stats tend to use hirelings and stay in the middle.
If the DM allows all characters to be made at the same level as the rest of the party, the above point is moot.
Quote from: Phillip;792002From a role-playing perspective, even a wisdom score just shy of comatose would still leave the question of why this person - unwanted even by the army - thinks his vocation is dragon slaying.
Well, arguably having a low wisdom makes someone a prime candidate to consider themselves a dragon slayer. ;)
Players ask for a reroll if the stats are really low. They are allowed. I personally like point buy systems a lot better. Better balance. If your character is weak in something it's your own choice.
Quote from: Will;792004Well, arguably having a low wisdom makes someone a prime candidate to consider themselves a dragon slayer. ;)
No, being
delusional is what you're after, and that would be a Sanity roll rather than Wisdom.
(http://memecrunch.com/meme/4L5LA/nothing-goes-over-my-head-my-reflexes-are-too-fast-i-would-catch-it/image.png?w=400&c=1)
Quote from: David Johansen;791890The laws of probability aren't broken. You just roll high when you need low rolls and roll low when you need high rolls but the law of averages still balances.
Taken that way you are in fact correct.:)
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;791969If I was going to kill my character on purpose, I'd at least make it useful by making it a suicide bombing. Strap on the oil flasks, light a match, and walk cooly into the kobold's lair like a Terminator.
"Hasta la vista, baby. I'll be back...with better stats."
Being a dwarf with a big axe and overconfidence works nicely also if you were going to suicide your character of course. Honestly though I have found that the better my characters scores the more likely they will die quicker. I think it has to do with if you have a character that might have a good score or two with a really bad score and another couple that are average you are always thinking outside the box on methods of survival.
The characters I hate and will figure out a way to suicide are the drop dead average ones all scores 9-11 there is nothing for me to hook into or get invested in.
Classic Traveller even had a hint in the character creation section, something like: "If your stats suck, try to get into the scout career. You will most probably die there and can then roll a new character."
The rules encouraged you to try to commit suicide during char gen!
If you're angry enough about bad stats to even think of killing off your character, you should not have agreed to a game with random rolls in the first place.
I've mentioned this before, but when I ran OD&D this year, two players were visibly very upset at the inherent randomness of the system, and were pressuring me for 4d6-drop-low and max HP at first level (amongst other things).
And I solved the problem by coming up to them and saying:
'Guys, you are free not to show up when I'm running OD&D. I release you from any and all obligation you may perceive that you have to show up. I won't think any less of you, and we're still friends, and we're still gaming. But I'm running the game I want to run."
Simple as that.
And voilà, the demons were drama were banished.
Quote from: The Butcher;792094If you're angry enough about bad stats to even think of killing off your character, you should not have agreed to a game with random rolls in the first place.
I've mentioned this before, but when I ran OD&D this year, two players were visibly very upset at the inherent randomness of the system, and were pressuring me for 4d6-drop-low and max HP at first level (amongst other things).
And I solved the problem by coming up to them and saying:
'Guys, you are free not to show up when I'm running OD&D. I release you from any and all obligation you may perceive that you have to show up. I won't think any less of you, and we're still friends, and we're still gaming. But I'm running the game I want to run."
Simple as that.
And voilà, the demons were drama were banished.
While I am certainly of the inclination that the DM runs the type of game the DM wants in the rare occurrences when I am a player, I fail to see how players saying they want to roll up characters in X fashion is inherently more drama than the DM saying s/he wants characters rolled up in Y fashion. As with such a great many things, I suppose it is not what is said, but rather, how it is said that causes the drama.
Quote from: The Butcher;792094If you're angry enough about bad stats to even think of killing off your character, you should not have agreed to a game with random rolls in the first place.
Or the GM could do what I suggested in the thread over on The Banning Place. Give a choice between 3d6 in order or picking whatever stats you want. Only restrictions would be social: want to look like a munchkin? Pick all 18s. Sure, I'd probably require a roll on a random background table for every high score, just so that the player's starting position isn't too predictable, but I wouldn't inflict any punishment.
The way I see it now, if you don't want players to focus the stats, then you can't make a big deal about them. Total freedom to choose anything in the 3 to 18 range minimizes the amount of time spent thinking about stats. Anything else draws attention to stats.
Quote from: Will;792018(http://memecrunch.com/meme/4L5LA/nothing-goes-over-my-head-my-reflexes-are-too-fast-i-would-catch-it/image.png?w=400&c=1)
Huh, that actor kinda of looks like you, y'know. Or at least that image of him looks similar to your avatar pic.
Quote from: Old One Eye;792109As with such a great many things, I suppose it is not what is said, but rather, how it is said that causes the drama.
Indeed. In this case, I filed it under "drama" because it was persistent and disruptive.
In fact, I usually do 4d6-drop-lowest and max HP at 1st level. I was just going for a particularly "hardcore old school" thing with this particular game.
Quote from: The Butcher;792094If you're angry enough about bad stats to even think of killing off your character, you should not have agreed to a game with random rolls in the first place.
I've mentioned this before, but when I ran OD&D this year, two players were visibly very upset at the inherent randomness of the system, and were pressuring me for 4d6-drop-low and max HP at first level (amongst other things).
And I solved the problem by coming up to them and saying:
'Guys, you are free not to show up when I'm running OD&D. I release you from any and all obligation you may perceive that you have to show up. I won't think any less of you, and we're still friends, and we're still gaming. But I'm running the game I want to run."
Simple as that.
And voilà, the demons were drama were banished.
Depends what game or baseline is expected (OD&D, 1-4e or particular setting DS or DL) some I would say cool others I'd say maybe next game like any normal person. And likely either play or run a game I prefer while waiting in the meantime.
Quote from: The Butcher;792094If you're angry enough about bad stats to even think of killing off your character, you should not have agreed to a game with random rolls in the first place.
I've mentioned this before, but when I ran OD&D this year, two players were visibly very upset at the inherent randomness of the system, and were pressuring me for 4d6-drop-low and max HP at first level (amongst other things).
And I solved the problem by coming up to them and saying:
'Guys, you are free not to show up when I'm running OD&D. I release you from any and all obligation you may perceive that you have to show up. I won't think any less of you, and we're still friends, and we're still gaming. But I'm running the game I want to run."
Simple as that.
And voilà, the demons were drama were banished.
That's predicated on a particular social contract for play. My group is not that big (five people) and leaving aside anything to do with obligations or the like, that's basically saying they won't have a game to play for the duration of that campaign.
We don't have a casual "turn up when you feel like it" policy where the game goes on regardless, everyone has to be engaged and committed. Thus everything we play is something everyone has bought into and wants to be part of. Thus compromises are necessary to accomodate the known preferences of all parties.
In the case of ACKS, I was probably the most vehement opponent of 3d6 in order, and I was the GM!
Quote from: TristramEvans;792130Huh, that actor kinda of looks like you, y'know. Or at least that image of him looks similar to your avatar pic.
Yeah, I'm kind of built like Dave Bautista.
If he spent the last decade eating fudge.
Actually, I saw more than a few suicide attempts back in the day.
Funny thing is that they often failed.
Which then led, of all things, to some emotional investment in the character.
And THEN the character died, usually in an utterly random and freakish way.
Quote from: Kiero;792150That's predicated on a particular social contract for play. My group is not that big (five people) and leaving aside anything to do with obligations or the like, that's basically saying they won't have a game to play for the duration of that campaign.
I've seen groups break up permanently based on that; where there are just a few players, then it turned into one on one for them when another player left and we had formed another group, then they wanted to come join but we were full up and they had a fit. Never talked to them again either. /shrug
Quote from: Kiero;792150That's predicated on a particular social contract for play. My group is not that big (five people) and leaving aside anything to do with obligations or the like, that's basically saying they won't have a game to play for the duration of that campaign.
Absolutely. I think of my "group" as the pool of friends from which I draw players for each discrete campaign I'm running. And we usually have two weekday and two weekend games going on at any time.
Late to the party, but here's my two-bits worth:
I haven't seen this happen, at least not that I've known about it, but I've heard third-party accounts of it. It mystifies me a bit, but if a player at my table did this ... well, so long as they weren't being obnoxious about it (such as "my guy doesn't want to live any more, and shoves his dagger in his ear") I wouldn't much care.
I've run a number of level-0 character funnel DCC sessions, and I see the same thing over and over: players look at their set of four characters, pick out the one or two with the best stats, and do their best to protect them. A lot of the time, those characters wind up dead anyways. And that's a large part of what puzzles me with this whole "character suicide" thing: when you finally roll up a character with an 18, there's no guarantee that character will survive the first session.
So if I'm running D&D or an OSR game and a player wants to keep suiciding characters with stats they find unsatisfactory, while watching the other characters accumulate XP and wealth (including whatever the suicide was carrying; waste not want not), with no guarantee that when they finally do get their ideal character they won't just die to the first kobold with a luck roll ... well, fuck, knock yourself out. Just don't be obnoxious about it.
As an aside, my last DCC character had an 8 in his primary stat (soul survivor of my initial four characters), and I had a blast playing him.
Quote from: TristramEvans;791914The FASERIP solution:
Player describes character, GM assigns stats based on description (with an appropriate period of haggling as necessary).
Adopt me as your old child?
Edit: this whole thread is silly. Good stats/bad stats won't save you from stupid. I can give a player 18's across the board... it won't save them from making stupid decisions. Does it help with their die-rolls? Sure. If your game only consists of die-rolling as the only factor in the game, then let me tell you right now: you have bigger problems than stats.
Quote from: TristramEvans;791914The FASERIP solution:
Player describes character, GM assigns stats based on description (with an appropriate period of haggling as necessary).
That's how I've always done it in Marvel Super Heroes, too, but it's nowise peculiar to anything to do with that rules set. Going further, I can leave it to a player who knows the system at hand to generate stats by whatever method may be preferred. Haggling then comes in only if I think changes necessary to make the character appropriate for a given campaign or scenario.
Here's a new development in the thread on The Banning Place. Someone re-addressed Mengtzu's "dilemma". You have a game where you offer a choice: random character ability rolls, or the 5e point buy/standard array option (capped scores.)
A new player comes to your group, looks at the choices, and says they don't like either option, because they would want to reach an 18 in their primary stat as quickly as possible, but without giving up feats. How could you accomodate them?
I figured it wouldn't even pop up if I were running the game, because I've changed my opinions on the best options for character creation:
QuoteAlready answered this way upthread. I'd run the game as 3d6 in order or just pick whatever stats you want. There'd probably be one minute of pointing and laughter at the guy who had to have the highest scores possible, but then we'd get on with the game.
Surprisingly -- oor not -- I'm getting a negative reaction to "pointing and laughter" at someone who can't live without multiple 17s and 18s. That, apparently, is "harsh", even though I said I'd go ahead and let the player play the character, because some people don't want to be "a laughing stock who can never back up their aspirations" and an 18 in at least one stat is the only way "to be competent at
something".
Ignore the fact that I was talking about people choosing multiple extremely high scores. Here we have someone equating
the highest score possible with
being competent. Which means you can't be competent if you have only a 16. You'd be a "laughing stock".
Another fine example of how D&D has gotten screwed up.
Talysman: Seems a refreshing solution to me.
And seeing folks' behavior with it would help lay the groundwork to knowing how people are going to be later in the game.
Quote from: Will;792468Talysman: Seems a refreshing solution to me.
And seeing folks' behavior with it would help lay the groundwork to knowing how people are going to be later in the game.
Haven't had a chance to test it yet (last I game I ran was 3d6 in order only.) But I've been thinking about it for a while, and it seems like if someone's going to object that 3d6 in order because they can't get the scores they want, then the only reasonable solution is just to pick your scores, no limits except the standard 3 to 18 range (and any racial minimums and maximums desired.) Any other creation method is just some overcomplication designed to create an illusory feeling of balance between total freedom and gamie or gameworld-imposed restraint.
I've heard one report from someone who tried "just pick your scores" that said some people restrained themselves and picked a modest 16, then got upset when they saw the player next to them had an 18. Getting upset in that situation just seems ridiculous... you had a choice and picked the score you wanted. Why get mad at someone else for having a higher score?
On the other hand, a brief round of laughter at the insecure player choosing the 18 seems reasonable. But then, move on; let them play with their 18 ability score. No big deal.
Of course, I run OD&D. But I believe you can use sub-18 scores in 5e, 4e or 3e, just as long as the GM doesn't overemphasize the importance of scores and the players think in terms of knowing their limits.
I have one player in the group resistant to r4h3 as they "might get low scores" or "not get high scores". So I pointed out they point buy system and the array and they didnt like those either as you couldnt get high scores that way too.
Was sorely tempted to say "3d6 in order." at one point as it was creeping towards the pedantic side.
To be fair. This player was part of a 3e group at one time and before that in a group with a pretty bad DM and I've had to wean them off alot of preconceptions and ingrained reactions. DM is the enemy, CharOpping, Magic items galore, Dual wielding, yadda yadda.
After some initial grumbling they are playing along well.
Show the player that whatever preconcieved notion they had was wrong and that the game is perfectly playable "sub optimal" (god I despise that term.)
Now if the system all but forces you to go those routes then that is the systems problem. Though as noted above. It can lead to problems in other games when the player carries over what they "learned".
"African Bee Syndrome" as one player put it. Players who have adapted to a hostile environment and then are placed in a much less hostile one.
Quote from: Kiero;792150That's predicated on a particular social contract for play. My group is not that big (five people) and leaving aside anything to do with obligations or the like, that's basically saying they won't have a game to play for the duration of that campaign.
We don't have a casual "turn up when you feel like it" policy where the game goes on regardless, everyone has to be engaged and committed. Thus everything we play is something everyone has bought into and wants to be part of. Thus compromises are necessary to accomodate the known preferences of all parties.
In the case of ACKS, I was probably the most vehement opponent of 3d6 in order, and I was the GM!
Yes, if the social contract is "This is what we 5 friends do on a Friday night" then it's going to have to be negotiated differently from a club environment where a GM offers a game according to his rules, and interested people sign up. D&D started with the latter but evolved more towards the former. I find that 4e D&D design in particular seems oriented to the 'long-term group of friends' model, but it's probably also an underlying assumption in 3e design (the system which works worst for club play IME, due to the munchkinisation element) and in 2e's DMing advice, despite 2e using essentially 1e rules unchanged.
I think I generally prefer club play to the other group-of-friends sort, which I can't think of a great name for - 'social' play maybe? But all TTRPG games are 'social'. Although, my 4e game has naturally evolved much more to group-of-friends paradigm despite being part of the Meetup, and we have social gatherings outside of the game. The option to evolve club games into social games means best of both worlds in my experience. I think having to negotiate everything right from the start would create too much pressure for me to want to GM. As a player I also wouldn't be keen on the social pressure to play the latest game, or to stick with a game I didn't like, or else be seen as a bad friend.
As for the TBP thread, which I am not reading: If players have a psychological need for highest-possible-number in primary stat, and the GM wants to accommodate them, then giving everyone an array which includes that is probably best. 18-16-14-13-12-10, say (some of these players won't stand for an '8' either).
It won't break any version of D&D, although it will be a different experience from random generation. 4e D&D's restricted point buy system (nothing under 8, only 1 8) tends to create very similar arrays anyway. Because of the rampant stat inflation I tend to treat the 4e stats as essentially meaningless-in-world and only pay attention to the d20 modifiers, which go up +1 per 2 levels - eg a starting 1st level PC may have a +5 (from a nominal attribute of 20) in their primary stat; that means they are as good in that stat as a 10th level PC with a nominal attribute of 10. A 1st level PC with STR 20 is as good at strength-related tasks as a 10th level PC with STR 10. The STR 20 PC can be a 100 lb athlete or a 300 lb slab of muscle for all I care, whatever justifies the +5. He's still only as good at doing his thing as the 10th level hero with base STR 10 (+0), no need to make a big deal out of it.
I think with 5e I'll be using organic 3/4d6 in order (& swap 1) character generation, it feels like a game which suits older-school type play. Alternately I'd use the default 5e array, and emphasise that a 16 is a very high score in this system. But I could use a higher array if I wanted to accommodate people used to 3e & 4e.
Recently came across an interesting variant stat gen system in a really ancient RPG that I have not seen anywhere else.
3d6. But you assign the rolls to a stat of your choice as you roll them.
So say I roll a 15 first (which is what I just did). Do I put it in my primary? Or some lesser needed stat and bank on getting better. Next roll is a 14. Wheres that going to go?, a 12, a 7, and so on. (next rolls were 7 and 11.)
Quote from: talysman;792466Here's a new development in the thread on The Banning Place. Someone re-addressed Mengtzu's "dilemma". You have a game where you offer a choice: random character ability rolls, or the 5e point buy/standard array option (capped scores.)
A new player comes to your group, looks at the choices, and says they don't like either option, because they would want to reach an 18 in their primary stat as quickly as possible, but without giving up feats. How could you accomodate them?
I figured it wouldn't even pop up if I were running the game, because I've changed my opinions on the best options for character creation:
Surprisingly -- oor not -- I'm getting a negative reaction to "pointing and laughter" at someone who can't live without multiple 17s and 18s. That, apparently, is "harsh", even though I said I'd go ahead and let the player play the character, because some people don't want to be "a laughing stock who can never back up their aspirations" and an 18 in at least one stat is the only way "to be competent at something".
Ignore the fact that I was talking about people choosing multiple extremely high scores. Here we have someone equating the highest score possible with being competent. Which means you can't be competent if you have only a 16. You'd be a "laughing stock".
Another fine example of how D&D has gotten screwed up.
I'll second the view it would tend to be just "laughing stock" - not a serious imbalance - in most games I've played, which led me back in the '90s (maybe late '80s) to the conclusion that this was more sensible than making an allegation of fudging high scores an allegation of cheating.
The flip side of course is that sometimes high scores actually
are rolled. Either trust people, or don't allow unsupervised roll-ups! And if we're going to mock high scores that for all we know were fairly rolled, then we'll create a pressure to fudge the other way, to conformity with an ideal "reasonable character" (however vaguely defined).
At some point down this road, we narrow the acceptible range so much that a points system is the straightforward solution - which is just what seems to be preferred in the 3e/4e D&D scene.
Quote from: Omega;792540Recently came across an interesting variant stat gen system in a really ancient RPG that I have not seen anywhere else.
3d6. But you assign the rolls to a stat of your choice as you roll them.
So say I roll a 15 first (which is what I just did). Do I put it in my primary? Or some lesser needed stat and bank on getting better. Next roll is a 14. Wheres that going to go?, a 12, a 7, and so on. (next rolls were 7 and 11.)
I've done that, mainly in Tunnels & Trolls. A gambler might hold out for a higher roll that never turns up, and end up with a surprisingly
low score in a priority stat!
Quote from: Phillip;792632I'll second the view it would tend to be just "laughing stock" - not a serious imbalance - in most games I've played, which led me back in the '90s (maybe late '80s) to the conclusion that this was more sensible than making an allegation of fudging high scores an allegation of cheating.
The flip side of course is that sometimes high scores actually are rolled. Either trust people, or don't allow unsupervised roll-ups! And if we're going to mock high scores that for all we know were fairly rolled, then we'll create a pressure to fudge the other way, to conformity with an ideal "reasonable character" (however vaguely defined).
At some point down this road, we narrow the acceptible range so much that a points system is the straightforward solution - which is just what seems to be preferred in the 3e/4e D&D scene.
I'm actually not talking about rolling high scores, but choosing them. The GM says "pick whatever scores you feel you need." No limit, other than the standard range of 3 to 18.
Under that rule, you'd expect someone to pick a 16 for their prime ability, and possibly even a 17 or 18. You'd expect another high score for a particular character concept ("I want a charismatic warrior!") or to meet minimums for races or classes like the TSR era paladin. And you might expect no below-average scores. But if you see someone with 17 or 18 for three or more abilities, odds are it's for reasons that have nothing to do with the character concept.
You gotta laugh at them, just to break the bad habits.
Ok, so serious question - I understand that many people play RPGs to enjoy the inherent superiority of their characters over "normal" humans (in fact, I'm prepping my second session of Exalted for Saturday night, and not only enjoying running it, but my players are loving playing it), but "sub-optimal" stats would seem to be, in a way, MORE conducive to roleplaying, because your character might have to be... oh, I don't know.... a plucky and conniving miscreant who survives on his wits, as opposed to a brute who can smash his way through anything, or an all-powerful mage who can twist reality to make sure things turn out in his favor.
I'm not certain, but I seem to remember a number of famous film, novel, and video game characters who weren't paragons of human (or other racial) perfection, who managed to overcome the odds and perform amazing deeds. In fact, many of the more compelling tales that I can recall seem to involve just such characters.
So if you roll sub-"optimal" stats, you suck it up - look at them closely in relation to the rules of the system, and then figure out a way that your character can not just survive, but possibly thrive.
Then, my son, you have truly begun to Role Play.
Personally, I just don't want to feel like a chump at the game table.
Beyond that, I'll roll with it.
Well, there's way more than one way to feel like a chump at a table, IME.
One of them, for example, is being 'that guy' who thinks his stats will make up for incautious play and general flipping off setting continuity. Once they flub hard, take consequences for their actions, and realize the table is not interested in revolving around their careless shenanigans, they then end up the chump. Unless that person is shameless, deliberately uncooperative (in an explicitly cooperating group), and incapable of learning — and then the rest of the table feels like chumps for playing with that asshole.
Numbers in my experience saves no one. The game is in the table in motion from actual play, not on the theoretical sheets.
Quote from: talysman;792671I'm actually not talking about rolling high scores, but choosing them. The GM says "pick whatever scores you feel you need." No limit, other than the standard range of 3 to 18.
Under that rule, you'd expect someone to pick a 16 for their prime ability, and possibly even a 17 or 18. You'd expect another high score for a particular character concept ("I want a charismatic warrior!") or to meet minimums for races or classes like the TSR era paladin. And you might expect no below-average scores. But if you see someone with 17 or 18 for three or more abilities, odds are it's for reasons that have nothing to do with the character concept.
You gotta laugh at them, just to break the bad habits.
Why is wanting high stats a bad habit?
Quote from: Werekoala;792686Ok, so serious question - I understand that many people play RPGs to enjoy the inherent superiority of their characters over "normal" humans (in fact, I'm prepping my second session of Exalted for Saturday night, and not only enjoying running it, but my players are loving playing it), but "sub-optimal" stats would seem to be, in a way, MORE conducive to roleplaying, because your character might have to be... oh, I don't know.... a plucky and conniving miscreant who survives on his wits, as opposed to a brute who can smash his way through anything, or an all-powerful mage who can twist reality to make sure things turn out in his favor.
I'm not certain, but I seem to remember a number of famous film, novel, and video game characters who weren't paragons of human (or other racial) perfection, who managed to overcome the odds and perform amazing deeds. In fact, many of the more compelling tales that I can recall seem to involve just such characters.
So if you roll sub-"optimal" stats, you suck it up - look at them closely in relation to the rules of the system, and then figure out a way that your character can not just survive, but possibly thrive.
Then, my son, you have truly begun to Role Play.
How does "sub-optimal" stats make you truly begin to Role Play?
Quote from: Sommerjon;792713How does "sub-optimal" stats make you truly begin to Role Play?
Because then you have to be really creative, rather than just rely on the big numbers.
I already said that. Did you not read the thread? No, you didn't.
Walter Sobchak: Were you listening to The Dude's story, Donny?
The Dude: Walter...
Donny: What?
Walter Sobchak: Were you listening to The Dude's story?
Donny: I was bowling.
Walter Sobchak: So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...
Shut the fuck up, Donny.
Quote from: Will;792691Personally, I just don't want to feel like a chump at the game table.
Beyond that, I'll roll with it.
I have never in 42 years seen somebody be a "chump" because they have low stats in a character.
I have seen lots of people be "chumps" because they have their heads up their asses.
Rather interestingly I just started a Call of Cthulhu campaign last weekend. I used following for making attributes:
First players invented back stories (why their characters are in Miscatonic University as students) for their characters together and then I gave out them attribute points based on that.
Then characters get skill points based on their stats and they put it to different kinds of skills depending what they want. After that I look at the stats and make some adjustments (mostly giving out extra points to skills I think character should have).
You know what I've seen? The fact that being great at making a supremely optimal character never means that the Player will be able to play that character successfully in game.
Its not even a guarantee the character will survive the first encounter.
Speaking of chumps, I did play a dwarf fighter in AD&D with stats something like STR 6, DEX 7, CON 9, WIS 5, INT 8, CHA 4. I played him aggressive (with a Wisdom score of 5, he couldn't tell the difference between a good and bad choice) but he just wouldn't die, partly because the DM allowed maximum HP at level 1. He died to a random encounter around level 3 from a giant bird of some sort. He refused to be a chump, even if I wanted him to be.
That's the beauty of randomly generated characters. Sometimes you get the unexpected.
Mechanics aren't going to fix boring, and chargen really becomes a litmus test for how much of a needle dick the GM is (which is a bad thing).
Quote from: Old Geezer;792720I have never in 42 years seen somebody be a "chump" because they have low stats in a character.
I have seen lots of people be "chumps" because they have their heads up their asses.
Well, the games you've typically played diminish the impact of bad stats. Which is cool.
I've played primarily 3e D&D, recently. And a big swing in stats is more noticeable.
Now, back when I played Call of Cthulhu... stats are random. Nobody cared much if they rolled poorly -- it's CoC. High stats aren't going to save you from 'eats 1d6 Investigators per round.'
(Though, notably, the one optimizer worked hard to maximize SAN, and sort of cheesed off at that. We just rolled our eyes and didn't care)
Quote from: Will;792784Well, the games you've typically played diminish the impact of bad stats. Which is cool.
I've played primarily 3e D&D, recently. And a big swing in stats is more noticeable.
Definitely true. 'Best 3 of 4d6 arrange as desired' works ok in most iterations of D&D, but is disastrous with the 3e+ attribute modifiers.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;792714Because then you have to be really creative, rather than just rely on the big numbers.
I already said that. Did you not read the thread? No, you didn't.
Your saying when Kyle Aaron lucks out and gets 'big numbers' Kyle Aaron becomes uncreative?
Why does Kyle Aaron change?
How come it is impossible to have 'big numbers' and be really creative?
Quote from: Will;792784Well, the games you've typically played diminish the impact of bad stats. Which is cool.
I've played primarily 3e D&D, recently. And a big swing in stats is more noticeable.
Now, back when I played Call of Cthulhu... stats are random. Nobody cared much if they rolled poorly -- it's CoC. High stats aren't going to save you from 'eats 1d6 Investigators per round.'
(Though, notably, the one optimizer worked hard to maximize SAN, and sort of cheesed off at that. We just rolled our eyes and didn't care)
I don't think think your experience is universal. It certainly doesn't match mine where I've seen Diplomancers trip over their own tongues in 3E/3.5E/Pathfinder.
Quote from: Sommerjon;792807Your saying when Kyle Aaron lucks out and gets 'big numbers' Kyle Aaron becomes uncreative?
Why does Kyle Aaron change?
How come it is impossible to have 'big numbers' and be really creative?
i'm interested in this as well. :)
Quote from: dragoner;792776Mechanics aren't going to fix boring, and chargen really becomes a litmus test for how much of a needle dick the GM is (which is a bad thing).
It's a litmus test for players, as well.
Quote from: cranebump;792819It's a litmus test for players, as well.
Sure, but it is easier to bump a player and still game on through, in my campaign I'm running it happened and in one that I am a player.
Quote from: Will;792784Well, the games you've typically played diminish the impact of bad stats. Which is cool.
I've played primarily 3e D&D, recently. And a big swing in stats is more noticeable.
I played Star Wars d20 for 3 1/2 years which is closely based of 3e.
My character had the worst stats in the group. The highest stat was a 13.
At the end my character was the most famous of the whole group, renowned throughout the Galaxy as the "greatest of the New Jedi," and asked by Luke Skywalker to teach at his new Jedi Academy.
Because I PLAYED like I was the most badass Jedi in the galaxy.
My preferred D&D editions are OD&D and 4e. In my OD&D, I use the -1/0/+1 stat chart via S&W:WB and we roll 3D6 down the line. Since the biggest penalty is -1 and the biggest bonus is +1, I don't get any issues from players.
In 4e, I use point buy because that's most sensible for 4e, although I've had some great success with using the Gamma World option where you get an 18 and a 16 and then 3D6 roll the other 4 stats. Players have been really happy with that one, even when the other rolls are terrible.
Quote from: Old Geezer;792830My character had the worst stats in the group. The highest stat was a 13.
You had a character with a 13? Oh you are so damned lucky.
Why in my day we routinely played character's whose best stat was a 7, made our own miniature out of dirt and spit, and carved our dice out of dog bones with our teeth, and we liked it that way.
Quote from: Bren;792840You had a character with a 13? Oh you are so damned lucky.
Why in my day we routinely played character's whose best stat was a 7, made our own miniature out of dirt and spit, and carved our dice out of dog bones with our teeth, and we liked it that way.
Heh.
This was a 3.0 Ed era game run by somebody who cut his teeth on it.
Character rolling was "Roll 3d6, roll 4 times for each stat, take the highest."
Yeah. So I rolled 3d6 a total of 24 times, and got one roll over a 12.
And became a great Jedi. "Size matters not."
Quote from: Sommerjon;792807Your saying when Kyle Aaron lucks out and gets 'big numbers' Kyle Aaron becomes uncreative?
Why does Kyle Aaron change?
How come it is impossible to have 'big numbers' and be really creative?
Yeah. This doesnt really jibe with the current tangental discussion which is about players obsessed with high stats, rather than the effect of high stats since you can randomly roll high stats right out the gate.
The rolls themselves are irrelevant. It is the problem of some players being unable to think inside the box that is the problem. Or in some cases, they can not even see the box.
For one player an 8 Wisdom means the character makes slightly poor choices now and then. For another player an 8 WIS means that the player thinks themselves a font of wisdom, but they really arent. Someone else is going to see "-1 save vs magic". Another is going to see the character as "likely to fail Wisdom checks". and so on.
And the exact same for an 18 Wisdom. The character rarely makes poor choices, or the character sounds stupid but there are uncanny gems in their babbling, or +3 saves, or "likely to succeed checks." and so on.
Even a player who only sees the bonuses, penalties and mechanics can still play and participate with low stats.
It is the player that overfocuses on the stats and "must have" a certain range that the problem shows up. And this can just as easily be a overfocus on magic items, NPC followers, or even the very RP itself.
It was either here or BGG/RPGG where a DM recounted a player who had a little laundry list mostly RP related of things that had to be in the sessions.
Honestly: I haven't seen a character suicide since I was 14 or so, and even then it wasn't so much about 'bad stats' as it was a passive aggressive way to quit the game.
Then again, I've never, not ever, seen a GM or table so hard ass as to force a player to play the first possible character they rolled up, no exceptions. That is to say, if someone rolls up a shit character and doesn't like it, I've never seen a group so broken as to force the player to play 'that guy'.
Then again: Most groups I've played with preferred players to show up with their characters ready to go, rather than spending the first session fighting over books.
But then: I've been a GM far more than I've been a player over the last decade plus, and playing mommy to a bunch of grown men, making sure they didn't fudge or cheat or even make a simple mistake is hardly my idea of a good time.
Besides: My players know that the rocket launcher is always fired first at the PC most likely to survive it.
Well, yeah. I'm about the most hardass about "3d6 in order six times" as it gets, and even I have the rule "If your average of the 3d6 six times is less than 9, you can reroll."
It's happened a couple times.
I wonder if "roll 18 dice and divide the total as you like between stats, following racial minimums/maximums" would work? I mean, I guess it would be a minmaxer's (sorry "character optimizer") dream, but I dont play with those sorts.
Quote from: TristramEvans;792883I wonder if "roll 18 dice and divide the total as you like between stats, following racial minimums/maximums" would work? I mean, I guess it would be a minmaxer's (sorry "character optimizer") dream, but I dont play with those sorts.
I doubt it, that's just 3d6, 6 times, assign as you like. There's nothing spectacular about it at all, the only thing you've done is remove the "in order" stipulation. Still highly likely to get a shit array.
The common 4d6, drop lowest, assign as you like, is better. Or in this scheme it would be rol 24 dice, drop the lowest 6, assign as you like".
Quote from: Kiero;792885I doubt it, that's just 3d6, 6 times, assign as you like. There's nothing spectacular about it at all, the only thing you've done is remove the "in order" stipulation. Still highly likely to get a shit array.
The common 4d6, drop lowest, assign as you like, is better. Or in this scheme it would be rol 24 dice, drop the lowest 6, assign as you like".
Um, no, I mean roll 18d6 and take the TOTAL as a pool of points to distribute
Quote from: TristramEvans;792887Um, no, I mean roll 18d6 and take the TOTAL as a pool of points to distribute
Again, totally unimpressive. You've just got a more freeform version of 3d6 in order, since you've got the same range. That's a change in allocation, not in spectrum/magnitude.
If you want something that would actually appeal to the min-maxer, it should be roll 24d6, drop the lowest 6 dice and take the total as a pool of points. Which once again is really just a completely free allocation version of 4d6, drop lowest, assign as you like.
Quote from: TristramEvans;792883I wonder if "roll 18 dice and divide the total as you like between stats, following racial minimums/maximums" would work? I mean, I guess it would be a minmaxer's (sorry "character optimizer") dream, but I dont play with those sorts.
Unearthed arcanna had that interesting system where you rolled more dice based on your primary and kept the highest 3. It was actually a fairly neet idea buried in the hodgepodge of good and bad of UA.
Roll 3 diice, treat a 1 on a die as 2:
-- minimum possible = 6
-- average ca. 12, I think
-- scores above 14 no more common
Quote from: Old Geezer;792882Well, yeah. I'm about the most hardass about "3d6 in order six times" as it gets, and even I have the rule "If your average of the 3d6 six times is less than 9, you can reroll."
It's happened a couple times.
See, that's the kind of house rule that normally obviates suicide (substituting gm-approved euthanasia).
When the bar for the game is lower than the bar acceptable to a given player, there's a mismatch between game and player. There could be various reasons the player does not head for the door immediately, but my guess is usually both parties are acting immaturely and like myopic, fetish-mongering nerds.
Quote from: Kiero;792889Again, totally unimpressive. You've just got a more freeform version of 3d6 in order, since you've got the same range. That's a change in allocation, not in spectrum/magnitude.
Thats the intention.
QuoteIf you want something that would actually appeal to the min-maxer
I don't.
Here's a 'points conserved' random system:
Write the following on coins or chits or something:
1 (3 times)
2 (4 times)
3 (4 times)
4 (5 times)
5 (3 times)
6 (3 times)
Draw three for each stat. Bam. Random but point balanced. It's still possibly to get any score from 3 - 18.
Alternately, you could draw 6 chits, and you draw 2 chits per stat, and may select one of the pool of chits you pulled first. Still fairly random but you have a little control.
Quote from: TristramEvans;792900Thats the intention.
To answer the question you asked at the start, it will work, and no it won't be "a min-maxer's dream".
Quote from: Kiero;792885I doubt it, that's just 3d6, 6 times, assign as you like. There's nothing spectacular about it at all, the only thing you've done is remove the "in order" stipulation. Still highly likely to get a shit array.
The common 4d6, drop lowest, assign as you like, is better. Or in this scheme it would be rol 24 dice, drop the lowest 6, assign as you like".
It is different, because you can almost always get an 18 (as long as you roll more than 32 total), so it's much easier to get extreme characters with a huge difference between the highest and lowest characteristics, even if the average characteristic value is still 10.5.
Slightly less extreme would be to group the 18 dice into sets of three as you choose; you could still get high and low values if you wanted (you'd need at least three 6's to get an 18). (That is what I first read the suggestion as, but rereading I think the suggestion was to total and then divide up.)
Quote from: Phillip;792897See, that's the kind of house rule that normally obviates suicide (substituting gm-approved euthanasia).
When the bar for the game is lower than the bar acceptable to a given player, there's a mismatch between game and player. There could be various reasons the player does not head for the door immediately, but my guess is usually both parties are acting immaturely and like myopic, fetish-mongering nerds.
Yeah. I feel that a "Captain Average" character -- everything between 9 and 12 -- is perfectly viable. But if you don't at least average a 9 on your stats that's pretty sad.
Quote from: Omega;792861Yeah. This doesnt really jibe with the current tangental discussion which is about players obsessed with high stats, rather than the effect of high stats since you can randomly roll high stats right out the gate.
The rolls themselves are irrelevant. It is the problem of some players being unable to think inside the box that is the problem. Or in some cases, they can not even see the box.
For one player an 8 Wisdom means the character makes slightly poor choices now and then. For another player an 8 WIS means that the player thinks themselves a font of wisdom, but they really arent. Someone else is going to see "-1 save vs magic". Another is going to see the character as "likely to fail Wisdom checks". and so on.
And the exact same for an 18 Wisdom. The character rarely makes poor choices, or the character sounds stupid but there are uncanny gems in their babbling, or +3 saves, or "likely to succeed checks." and so on.
Even a player who only sees the bonuses, penalties and mechanics can still play and participate with low stats.
It is the player that overfocuses on the stats and "must have" a certain range that the problem shows up. And this can just as easily be a overfocus on magic items, NPC followers, or even the very RP itself.
It was either here or BGG/RPGG where a DM recounted a player who had a little laundry list mostly RP related of things that had to be in the sessions.
I think the biggest issue with this is there are multiple editions of D&D and never any clear indicator on which edition is being spoken about.
When there is a clear indication on which edition, people who play other editions take those words put them into their edition of choice and make threads like this.
I'm of the school that the rolls are relevant, they define the box. Have all the enjoyment you can within that box, step out too many times and we'll have a little talk.
Why in my games
"Captain Average" character will never be
the most famous of the whole group, renowned throughout the Galaxy as the "greatest of the New Jedi," and asked by Luke Skywalker to teach at his new Jedi Academy.
Quote from: Old Geezer;792967Yeah. I feel that a "Captain Average" character -- everything between 9 and 12 -- is perfectly viable. But if you don't at least average a 9 on your stats that's pretty sad.
That's been my approach. But even with best 3 of 4d6 I've been seeing players roll characters (in my current Labyrinth Lord game, best 3 of 4d6 in order, swap any one stat with any other stat) that are below average, in BX/LL that means the sum total of their attribute mods is negative. I let those guys reroll.
Quote from: Sommerjon;792807Your saying when Kyle Aaron lucks out and gets 'big numbers' Kyle Aaron becomes uncreative?
Why does Kyle Aaron change?
I become less creative, yes. I give in to the urge to munchkin out with a hackfest. Our circumstances do not determine us, but they do influence us.
It's like asking why I was better at budgeting my cash when I was on the dole than when I'm full-time employed. Necessity is the mother of invention, and in a game, shitty stats create a lot of necessity.
QuoteHow come it is impossible to have 'big numbers' and be really creative?
I didn't say it was impossible, I said it was a tendency.
Discussions always work better when you contend with what a person's actually said, rather than some shit you made up. If you want to talk to yourself and nobody else, write a journal.
I have been thinking this over and came up with following idea concerning the role of attributes and skills.
I am assuming that game has both Attributes and Skills.
1) Skills would be used by character when she does something or decides to do (or try to do) something. They are active.
2) Attributes would be passive levels that would describe if character registers something that world does to them. They are passive.
Thus perception, knowledge and charisma are ratings that describe if character notices (gets additional secret information) when seeing a new location, new type of problem/situation or new person. Thus they would describe how well character observes the world and gets information from GM. Beyond those they would have no direct advantage or disadvantage to player's rolls.
Similarly the strength, endurance, dexterity and agility would be levels that would describe how well character would survive this or that phenomena character faces (for example avoiding getting problems in potential accident).
GM would do a roll that might affect attribute in question for entire group and thus one with high agility would be one surviving a sudden flash flood while those with low agility would be caught.
I think that it would not hurt immersion as layer would retain her free will and it would not affect resources. At the same time I think it would give players a clear idea what their characters are.
Funny how in a brutal, old-school game, in which characters are meant to be disposable, the ones with the low stats are most likely to die first. Funny how less-skilled players aren't always able to keep them alive. I wonder how many players have been libeled as having deliberately killed off characters.
Quote from: AteTheHeckUp;793004Funny how in a brutal, old-school game, in which characters are meant to be disposable, the ones with the low stats are most likely to die first. Funny how less-skilled players aren't always able to keep them alive. I wonder how many players have been libeled as having deliberately killed off characters.
I'm going to guess zero, because death is expected.
Quote from: Spike;792866Then again, I've never, not ever, seen a GM or table so hard ass as to force a player to play the first possible character they rolled up, no exceptions. That is to say, if someone rolls up a shit character and doesn't like it, I've never seen a group so broken as to force the player to play 'that guy'.
You mean you didn't play 3d6-10 in order he-man style with a loaded revolver on the table? You WUSS! :p
Quote from: AteTheHeckUp;793004Funny how in a brutal, old-school game, in which characters are meant to be disposable, the ones with the low stats are most likely to die first. Funny how less-skilled players aren't always able to keep them alive. I wonder how many players have been libeled as having deliberately killed off characters.
Low or at least average stats in AD&D wont necessarily get you killed more often than someone with lots of higher end stats.
Low HP on the other hand. Can get anyone dead fast. Or not. A fighter with 18 CON can still end up with 5hp at start, 10 at second, and so on.
That more than the stats can be a hurdle. Or a challenge. See my comments in older threads on my luckless magic user who had around 5 HP at level 5. But he survived to level 5!
Quote from: AteTheHeckUp;793004Funny how in a brutal, old-school game, in which characters are meant to be disposable, the ones with the low stats are most likely to die first.
I don't think this is the case. Low level characters, especially 1st level in various D&D's are fairly vulnerable, no matter their stats.
QuoteFunny how less-skilled players aren't always able to keep them alive.
It's reflection of player skill and system skill as well as some luck. Luck favours the skilled though, in the sense that you make your own luck in may cases.
QuoteI wonder how many players have been libeled as having deliberately killed off characters.
I bet very few. And "libelled", really? Deliberate suicide is pretty noticeable.
Quote from: AteTheHeckUp;793004Funny how in a brutal, old-school game, in which characters are meant to be disposable, the ones with the low stats are most likely to die first. Funny how less-skilled players aren't always able to keep them alive. I wonder how many players have been libeled as having deliberately killed off characters.
The only
skill I want at my table is the
skill of playing within the constraints of the character.
Quote from: saskganesh;793037I don't think this is the case. Low level characters, especially 1st level in various D&D's are fairly vulnerable, no matter their stats.
Bing! Pretty much. And the further back you go, the fewer inherent safeguards are built into the system. You DO have to play more cautiously in order to survive. You may not have much of anything resembling "character skill," so player choice is the primary arbiter of your fate (well, outside "save versus random death").:-)
Quote from: AteTheHeckUp;793004Funny how in a brutal, old-school game, in which characters are meant to be disposable, the ones with the low stats are most likely to die first.
What crack of your ass did you pull that out of?
When the only difference between a fighter with Str 8 and Str 18 is a 20% xp difference, how do you figure characters with low stats die first?
Is this blather in the wrong thread or something, because it's an utter non sequitur here.
Quote from: Old Geezer;793080What crack of your ass did you pull that out of?
When the only difference between a fighter with Str 8 and Str 18 is a 20% xp difference, how do you figure characters with low stats die first?
Is this blather in the wrong thread or something, because it's an utter non sequitur here.
In OD&D. Meanwhile, in
every other edition of the game, it matters a hell of a lot more.
In B/X the Str 8 Fighter is at -1 to hit and damage, whereas the Str 18 Fighter is at +3 to hit and damage. Which will be apparent every single time they have to make an attack or damage roll.
Quote from: Kiero;793081In OD&D. Meanwhile, in every other edition of the game, it matters a hell of a lot more.
In B/X the Str 8 Fighter is at -1 to hit and damage, whereas the Str 18 Fighter is at +3 to hit and damage. Which will be apparent every single time they have to make an attack or damage roll.
Yep. One of the things I like about the old D&D style is that stats seemed to matter less. And yet they matter some or why bother?
And a character with really low stats across the board will have penalties to a lot of actions, and so might tend to die sooner. Not sure why that truth touches a nerve.
Quote from: AteTheHeckUp;793088Yep. One of the things I like about the old D&D style is that stats seemed to matter less. And yet they matter some or why bother?
And a character with really low stats across the board will have penalties to a lot of actions, and so might tend to die sooner. Not sure why that truth touches a nerve.
Okay, I don't know any version other than "OD&D" and in that version stats don't have bonuses or penalties, except to experience.
The lack of clear nomenclature to differentiate between all the early versions of D&D is a pain in the ass.
Quote from: Old Geezer;793091Okay, I don't know any version other than "OD&D" and in that version stats don't have bonuses or penalties, except to experience.
The lack of clear nomenclature to differentiate between all the early versions of D&D is a pain in the ass.
In BX the difference is pretty small overall and there arent any real huge perks for uber stats.
3d6 in order, but you could shuffle a few points around after within specific limits.
Why so many of us like BX. Stats were nice to be sure. But werent the be-all-and-end-all. And stats werent tied to classes. Another boon.
13-15 was a +1 usually, 6-8 was a -1 and so on. +3 at 18, -3 at 3.
Really low stat in a classes prime was though a -20% exp. But then why did you take a fighter with a 3 STR?
Quote from: Old Geezer;793091Okay, I don't know any version other than "OD&D" and in that version stats don't have bonuses or penalties, except to experience.
The lack of clear nomenclature to differentiate between all the early versions of D&D is a pain in the ass.
Yeah, that's painfully obvious every time you open your mouth on the topic. So how about you stop spouting off about D&D in general, when you're really just talking about OD&D?
Quote from: Omega;793116In BX the difference is pretty small overall and there arent any real huge perks for uber stats.
3d6 in order, but you could shuffle a few points around after within specific limits.
Why so many of us like BX. Stats were nice to be sure. But werent the be-all-and-end-all. And stats werent tied to classes. Another boon.
13-15 was a +1 usually, 6-8 was a -1 and so on. +3 at 18, -3 at 3.
Really low stat in a classes prime was though a -20% exp. But then why did you take a fighter with a 3 STR?
I'd hardly call 20% more likely to hit,
every single attack roll, and an additional 4 points of damage, on
each and every successful hit, "pretty small overall".
That's without getting into the other benefits of Str 18 compared to Str 8. Greater carrying capacity, meaning the character could wear heavier armour with less impediment. And carry more loot. And be better at forcing doors and other applications of muscle.
Stats matter in B/X, they're only pointless in OD&D.
Quote from: Kiero;793125I'd hardly call 20% more likely to hit, every single attack roll, and an additional 4 points of damage, on each and every successful hit, "pretty small overall".
It's pretty small. Consider that every edition WotC has put out would give that kind of advantage to characters with STR 18 compared to STR 11. The STR 9 guy would be even further behind. With the ability to further increase ability scores, as well, for even greater bonuses.
Since abilities stay static in B/X, the lion share of combat effectiveness as far as STR goes is taken up by level. When you're Level 1, that +4 difference is pretty big. When you're Level 10, not so much. Dex effects AC, but penalties can be offset with armor and magic items, so again, it's not such a big deal. It has absolutely no effect on Thieves Skills at all. And of course, Wis gives a highly situational bonus to everybody, but a Cleric with Wis -9 is not any less a Cleric than one with Wis 18, and Int doesn't matter at all as far as combat goes, and don't provide magic-users with any special bonuses.
QuoteThat's without getting into the other benefits of Str 18 compared to Str 8. Greater carrying capacity, meaning the character could wear heavier armour with less impediment. And carry more loot. And be better at forcing doors and other applications of muscle.
Stats matter in B/X, they're only pointless in OD&D.
Stat's don't have any say on encumbrance in B/X. Stats matter to a small degree more in B/X than in OD&D, but not as much as in AD&D, and certainly not
nearly as much as in 3e, 4e, or 5e.
Quote from: Old Geezer;793091Okay, I don't know any version other than "OD&D" and in that version stats don't have bonuses or penalties, except to experience.
Here's the short version: Ignorance is not always a valid excuse.
Here's the longer version: OD&D was published in 1974. The Greyhawk supplement, which introduced some significant bonuses for stats, especially STR, was published in 1975. Presumably Gary et al play tested the STR bonuses for a month or two before publishing the rules. So it's not like stat bonuses are some weird addition soley restricted to the later phases of D&D. In fact, significant stat bonuses have been around for over 97% of the published history of D&D.
And at the point at which your version of D&D has been restricted solely to what is contained in the original brown books, I'd say it is really incumbent upon you to clarify that your D&D is unusually restricted in scope.
Quote from: Bren;793150Here's the short version: Ignorance is not always a valid excuse.
Here's the longer version: OD&D was published in 1974. The Greyhawk supplement, which introduced some significant bonuses for stats, especially STR, was published in 1975. Presumably Gary et al play tested the STR bonuses for a month or two before publishing the rules. So it's not like stat bonuses are some weird addition soley restricted to the later phases of D&D. In fact, significant stat bonuses have been around for over 97% of the published history of D&D.
And at the point at which your version of D&D has been restricted solely to what is contained in the original brown books, I'd say it is really incumbent upon you to clarify that your D&D is unusually restricted in scope.
You're right; ignorance is not always a valid excuse.
For example, Old Geezer is listed as a playtester for the Greyhawk supplement. So, surely, he must have known about the Greyhawk modifications and played some characters with those ability bonuses in play?
It's almost like Old Geezer and the others iwho responded to this bit of trolling:
Quote from: AteTheHeckUp;793004Funny how in a brutal, old-school game, in which characters are meant to be disposable, the ones with the low stats are most likely to die first. Funny how less-skilled players aren't always able to keep them alive. I wonder how many players have been libeled as having deliberately killed off characters.
... were not arguing the point about whether there were ever abiliity score bonuses, but were arguing against the idea that characters with low stats would die first?
Nah, he's probably not disagreeing with that statement at all. I mean, where's the evidence?
Quote from: Old Geezer;793080What crack of your ass did you pull that out of?
When the only difference between a fighter with Str 8 and Str 18 is a 20% xp difference, how do you figure characters with low stats die first?
Oh yeah, that.
See, if you are playing old school plus stat-related bonuses, a -1 to melee damage means you don't rely on melee damage to solve your problems. A -1 to hit with ranged weapons means you don't rely on ranged weapons. A -1 to hit points per hit die means you don't rely on being able to take damage and survive. A -1 to reactions means you don't try to take the lead in negotiations. A low Int means you don't get extra languages. And a low Wisdom means nothing.
So what does a low ability score character do? Avoid stuff they're no good at. Don't travel alone, don't rush into combat, and if they have to kill an opponent, try to use methods that are neither melee combat nor ranged attacks. Lure monsters into traps, start rockf slides, collapse tunnels, use gas bombs. Flaming oil is a cliche for a reason.
I have not seen any pattern of death related to experience scores. I have seen that the characters who take the greatest risks are the most likely to die; frequently, those are the characters with average to good scores, because those players feel more confident. That seems to contradict this BS about abiliity scores affecting survivability all that much.
Quote from: talysman;793203You're right; ignorance is not always a valid excuse.
Nice you agree.
QuoteSee, if you are playing old school
I have not seen any pattern of death related to experience scores.
You have reframed the question to ignore ability score bonuses. You could have just skipped over everything you wrote and started here.
QuoteI have seen that the characters who take the greatest risks are the most likely to die;
Yes I have seen that as well.
QuoteI frequently, those are the characters with average to good scores, because those players feel more confident. That seems to contradict this BS about abiliity scores affecting survivability all that much.
Hey I'll play anecdata poker too.
I do not see what you claim to see frequently. I find there is little correlation to PC scores - high or low, but a strong correlation to player play style. And player play style tends to be somewhat invariant across ability scores. Risky averse players are risk averse with high or low stats. Risk prone or risk seeking characters are risk prone or risk seeking with low or high ability scores.
What high ability scores do provide is an additional margin of survival success - no matter the play style - with the marginal affect being stronger at first level where the bonus provides a much higher relative advantage than it does at higher levels.
Quote from: talysman;793203It's almost like Old Geezer and the others iwho responded to this bit of trolling:
No, it's almost as if Old Geezer is banging on about OD&D as if it was in any way representative of all editions there have ever been. Again.
AD&D 2e is nowhere near so dependent on ability scores like WotC D&D (no, it really isn't. your STR 18 (00) outlier was nowhere near necessary, stop sounding ridiculous). And of WotC D&Ds, 5e is looking to be the least stat dependent.
Which brings us back — again — to the original topic that has been languishing under a rotting pile of red herring: someone incapable of functioning in Home Games without the RAW explicitly endorsing writing in that point buy 18 (or 18s) wanted at the start.
Please, do keep up. Your fish mongering is getting old. And we know what happens to out of date fish...
Quote from: Bren;793211QuoteSee, if you are playing old school
I have not seen any pattern of death related to experience scores.
You have reframed the question to ignore ability score bonuses. You could have just skipped over everything you wrote and started here.
No, I havee not. I mistakenly typed "experience" instead of "ability", but I was clearly still talking about ability score bonuses, as
the parts of my post you cut out reveal:
Quote from: talysman;793203See, if you are playing old school plus stat-related bonuses, a -1 to melee damage means you don't rely on melee damage to solve your problems. A -1 to hit with ranged weapons means you don't rely on ranged weapons. A -1 to hit points per hit die means you don't rely on being able to take damage and survive. A -1 to reactions means you don't try to take the lead in negotiations. A low Int means you don't get extra languages. And a low Wisdom means nothing.
So what does a low ability score character do? Avoid stuff they're no good at. Don't travel alone, don't rush into combat, and if they have to kill an opponent, try to use methods that are neither melee combat nor ranged attacks. Lure monsters into traps, start rockf slides, collapse tunnels, use gas bombs. Flaming oil is a cliche for a reason.
I have not seen any pattern of death related to experience scores. I have seen that the characters who take the greatest risks are the most likely to die; frequently, those are the characters with average to good scores, because those players feel more confident. That seems to contradict this BS about abiliity scores affecting survivability all that much.
Emphasis added to the parts you chose to ignore.
What did you think I was talking about when I said "a -1 to melee damage", if not an ability score bonus?
Quote from: Bren;793211I do not see what you claim to see frequently. I find there is little correlation to PC scores - high or low, but a strong correlation to player play style. And player play style tends to be somewhat invariant across ability scores. Risky averse players are risk averse with high or low stats. Risk prone or risk seeking characters are risk prone or risk seeking with low or high ability scores.
What high ability scores do provide is an additional margin of survival success - no matter the play style - with the marginal affect being stronger at first level where the bonus provides a much higher relative advantage than it does at higher levels.
Agree with the first paragraph -- hey, it's what I said, but you pretend to disagree -- but don't agree with the second. There's no additional margin of success regardless of play style. At best, there's a margin of success for one specific play style -- the one that relies heavily on just directly engaging every challenge, preferably with force. And even then, there's not much of a margin of success for the bonuses in B/X or AD&D, which is why tables dominated by that play style either house-ruled higher stat bonuses or waited for an edition with higher bonuses.
THAT is what "AteTheHeckUp" and others who bring up the "supreme importance of high ability scores" fail to mention, every time: it has nothing to do with the scores, but with the way people play the game, and the way the GM responds to players. THAT is why I mentioned not personally witnessing this low survivability that "AteTheHeckUp" claims is universal: the fact that it doesn't always happen across all play groups is proof that it has nothing to do with mechanics.
Lots of correct all over the place, to wit:
*Stats are less important in games with low stat bonuses, or systems where power comes more through straight leveling than ability rolls, feat-adds and specific, codified power gains. Less on the PC sheet means it's more about what players choose to do. Hello OD&D.
*The modern game effectively makes it impossible to ignore your stats by folding them in with power growth. Stats start higher and end higher, while level bonuses stay flatter over time. The PC is chock full of stuff, so what's on that sheet is damn well a big part of what players do. Hello every edition from 2E on (if you consider splats and options and such).
As for the whole RISK discussion, all I'll say on that is: I'[m a lot more likely to pursue risks when I have to fail 3 death saves before dying than I am if I'm dead at 0 HP's. The modern game encourages riskier behavior in that sense. Of course, if you're a bag of HP's, and you can buff yourself to do +Gajillion in one swing, then why wouldn't you carve every roast? Risk is effectively 0.
Quote from: talysman;793203See, if you are playing old school plus stat-related bonuses, a -1 to melee damage means you don't rely on melee damage to solve your problems. A -1 to hit with ranged weapons means you don't rely on ranged weapons. A -1 to hit points per hit die means you don't rely on being able to take damage and survive. A -1 to reactions means you don't try to take the lead in negotiations. A low Int means you don't get extra languages. And a low Wisdom means nothing.
So what does a low ability score character do? Avoid stuff they're no good at. Don't travel alone, don't rush into combat, and if they have to kill an opponent, try to use methods that are neither melee combat nor ranged attacks. Lure monsters into traps, start rockf slides, collapse tunnels, use gas bombs. Flaming oil is a cliche for a reason.
Right, so the appropriate response to having a character with shitty stats is to avoid the settled rules where possible and try to game the GM instead? It makes me laugh the way "old schoolers" pour scorn on metagaming, handwaving and GM fiat, yet the first recourse to deal with the crap you get handed by 3d6 in order is to pitch at handwaved GM rulings.
That's leaving aside the fact that if you're playing a low Int/low Wis character, there's no way someone as dumb as a box of rocks is going to come up with all these innovative ways to alter the odds in their favour. So we have a player metagaming and using their character as avatar for their own ideas.
Ability scores aren't just prescriptive in terms of the game impact, they are also descriptive in terms of defining the character too. There's no way your Str 8 Fighter is a hulking tower of muscle, they're weaker than average and especially if that's paired with a not terribly stellar Con, then they're likely puny or otherwise unimpressive. A low Wis doesn't mean nothing, it means the character has a deficit in their perceptive or observational acuity, and may be rather slow on the uptake. Low Cha doesn't just mean you can't be the face of the group, it also means you get fewer henchmen and they're less loyal to you.
Quote from: Kiero;793240Right, so the appropriate response to having a character with shitty stats is to avoid the settled rules where possible and try to game the GM instead?
Game the world. Or "the fiction" to borrow from DW.
Not the GM.
And yes, this implies trusting the GM to be even-handed in his rulings.
Quote from: talysman;793225No, I havee not. I mistakenly typed "experience" instead of "ability", but I was clearly still talking about ability score bonuses
You were nowhere near as clear as you think you were.
QuoteAgree with the first paragraph -- hey, it's what I said, but you pretend to disagree –
I guess you must be miss typing again. Because you just said you agree with me when I said that
player style does not change based on having higher or lower stats. This contradicts what you said here:
"...frequently, [characters who take the greatest risks] are the characters with average to good scores, because those players feel more confident."
The most reasonable reading of what you said seems to be that average and above stats cause players to play in a more risky fashion, i.e. to change their play style based on stats. If that's not what you meant then please clarify what you are saying.
QuoteThere's no additional margin of success regardless of play style.
Of course there is an additional margin of success. If one fighter has +2 Hit Points at first level based on CON, they have a better chance of surviving a hit. If a fighter has +2 to hit and +2 to damage, they have a better chance of hitting an killing an enemy (say an orc) before they are hit and killed than a fighter with no bonus or a minus. This is so obvious it beggars the imagination that you claim to deny it. Is a bonus (or penalty) more important than tactics or often than sheer luck. Not usually. Nor did I say it was. But is the PC with +2 Hits at first level and/or +2 to hit and +2 to damage more likely to live to see second level than a PC with no bonus, all else being equal. Of course they are.
Quote... the fact that it doesn't always happen across all play groups is proof that it has nothing to do with mechanics.
No it proves that survival is not solely defined by mechanics. It does not prove that survival is unrelated to mechanics. You don't appear to understand that correlation and certainty mean different things.
Quote from: Kiero;793240That's leaving aside the fact that if you're playing a low Int/low Wis character, there's no way someone as dumb as a box of rocks is going to come up with all these innovative ways to alter the odds in their favour. So we have a player metagaming and using their character as avatar for their own ideas.
I don't know what hobby horse you are wanting to ride here, but in my experience and that of everyone I played with in the 1970s that was in fact the standard play style in OD&D.
QuoteAbility scores aren't just prescriptive in terms of the game impact, they are also descriptive in terms of defining the character too
That tended to be true of physical stats but not of mental stats. Which did not impact tactical acumen or puzzle solving. Such things were based solely on player ability.
There's nothing wrong with wanting high rolls for ability scores, just as there's nothing wrong with wanting high rolls for starting hit points and/or gold. If I'm playing a fighter, hit points and gold are every bit as important for a new PC as the other stats, if not more so. Being stuck with studded armor at 1st level can be just as much of a challenge as being stuck with mediocre stats.
Personally, I often prefer starting a new PC who isn't maxed out in stats and equipment, who doesn't get his first choice in classes or armor and weapons. I can also content myself with playing a PC in a lesser role (hell, I've even had fun playing henchmen, men-at-arms, NPCs and in some cases, monsters recruited into the party). Simply put, I don't have to be the star of the show.
However, whether it's having a PC lacking money, hit points or high scores, you really are a whiny ass titty baby (WATB) if you start mewling that your mediocre PC is unplayable, or that it's just sooooooooo unfair that Ralph's fighter has better skills and better stuff than yours. In games, in fiction, in life itself -not everyone is going to be equal in everything!
I have noticed for a very long time that those who obsess over having 17s and 18s are almost always piss-poor players for whom high stats are a crutch -a crutch that usually doesn't save their PCs anyway. In other words, if you need high scores to play a character then you suck as a player. Every time I've heard a player whining that he "only" has a couple of 17s, he has turned out to be a shitty player. Luckily, some can be saved from their own shittiness. I've asked this question before to those who feel entitled to high stats: "What do you do if your PC loses points during the campaign? Do you just give up and quit?"
Apparently the loser described in the OP does just that.
I do have a minor quibble with those ascribing this loser mentality to the new generation of players. See, when I made these same points on a grogtard site a few years ago, I got banned from the site. So it's not just these spoiled whippersnappers who are afflicted with this kind of stupidity. Quite a few of the old timers are WATB too.
Quote from: Kiero;793240Right, so the appropriate response to having a character with shitty stats is to avoid the settled rules where possible and try to game the GM instead? It makes me laugh the way "old schoolers" pour scorn on metagaming, handwaving and GM fiat, yet the first recourse to deal with the crap you get handed by 3d6 in order is to pitch at handwaved GM rulings.
No, Numbnuts -the solution is to be a better player. Using cover and concealment is in the "settled rules". Luring enemies into traps and ambushes is in the rules. Letting the more charismatic PC do the talking is in the rules. Smart players usually try to play to their characters' strengths and cover their weaknesses.
The fact that you can't grasp what should be plain as day explains why you suck as a player.
QuoteThat's leaving aside the fact that if you're playing a low Int/low Wis character, there's no way someone as dumb as a box of rocks is going to come up with all these innovative ways to alter the odds in their favour. So we have a player metagaming and using their character as avatar for their own ideas.
Bullshit. Animals hide and take cover. They also try to avoid fighting if they think they're overmatched, or they try a sneak attack. If animals can figure this out, people can too.
True. Demand for top end stats is nothing new.
As said upthread. Some only see that +3(+15%) or +4(+20%).
Some ignore the fact that you can make up for low stats in various ways. Particularly magic items. Even easier in 5th ed where you not only get some free stat points every few levels, there are also now more small stat boosting items to be had.
Quote from: Elfdart;793266No, Numbnuts -the solution is to be a better player. Using cover and concealment is in the "settled rules". Luring enemies into traps and ambushes is in the rules. Letting the more charismatic PC do the talking is in the rules. Smart players usually try to play to their characters' strengths and cover their weaknesses.
The fact that you can't grasp what should be plain as day explains why you suck as a player.
Bullshit. Animals hide and take cover. They also try to avoid fighting if they think they're overmatched, or they try a sneak attack. If animals can figure this out, people can too.
:D:popcorn::D:popcorn::D:popcorn::D:popcorn::D
We handled this shit back in high school. If somebody really couldn't handle 3D6 down the line, then they distributed 63 points, got razzed for being wimps and then we got back to the IMPORTANT part of the game involving us being elves exploring dungeons.
Which brings up the question of what these gingerbread snowflakes do when it comes to race.
Quote from: The Butcher;793246Game the world. Or "the fiction" to borrow from DW.
Not the GM.
And yes, this implies trusting the GM to be even-handed in his rulings.
Sorry, but you've completely missed my point. Which had nothing to do with the quality or consistency of the GM's rulings, or whether you had trust in them.
But that it was a strategy entirely couched in avoiding the combat rules and pitching at getting GM rulings instead. It's trying to circumvent the game rules and in the most extreme examples looking for corner cases.
The implication is that old school play is essentially about playing the man, not the ball, to use a sporting analogy.
Quote from: Bren;793249I don’t know what hobby horse you are wanting to ride here, but in my experience and that of everyone I played with in the 1970s that was in fact the standard play style in OD&D.
So the "standard play style in OD&D" was to metagame the player's own knowledge? What happened to keeping a clear separation between player and character?
To be clear, I don't really give a toss whether that's what people are doing, but given most proponents of old school claim to disavow this sort of thing it's rather hypocritical.
Quote from: Bren;793249That tended to be true of physical stats but not of mental stats. Which did not impact tactical acumen or puzzle solving. Such things were based solely on player ability.
In other words, people aren't playing their characters, they are channeling themselves through their character as avatar.
If you were actually playing a low Int/low Wis character, they shouldn't have the acumen to come up with these sorts of things. You should be filtering your ideas through the lens of your character's stats. Unless you're suggesting them to the players of the smarter characters to come up with as though they were their own ideas.
Quote from: Elfdart;793266No, Numbnuts -the solution is to be a better player. Using cover and concealment is in the "settled rules". Luring enemies into traps and ambushes is in the rules. Letting the more charismatic PC do the talking is in the rules. Smart players usually try to play to their characters' strengths and cover their weaknesses.
The fact that you can't grasp what should be plain as day explains why you suck as a player.
If you have a character with nothing above average (or worse still, below average mental stats),
what strengths?
And once again, "be a better player" sounds suspiciously like using your own knowledge, not playing what your character would actually know. So metagaming is just fine in old school, apparently.
I can grasp it just fine, thanks, what I'm not grasping is how many proponents of old school aren't full of shit. Course that also explains why some people are so averse to skills. As soon as you start to define what the character can do (thus also by implication what they can't), you reduce the player's ability to make up stuff their character couldn't possibly know how to do.
Quote from: Elfdart;793266Bullshit. Animals hide and take cover. They also try to avoid fighting if they think they're overmatched, or they try a sneak attack. If animals can figure this out, people can too.
I'd love to hear of examples where animals have used fire and burning oil, collapsed tunnels and set mechanical traps.
Unless the character is smart enough to be able to improvise this sort of thing, and/or has some experience of doing so, where did they pull it out of?
Quote from: Kiero;793308I'd love to hear of examples where animals have used fire and burning oil, collapsed tunnels and set mechanical traps.
Unless the character is smart enough to be able to improvise this sort of thing, and/or has some experience of doing so, where did they pull it out of?
Ants, mice and other burrowing critters can and do sometimes create earthen blockades to divert invaders and predators.
Theres a BBC special, (two now I believe) on the ingenuity of Squirrels in decipering and defeating all manner of puzzles to get to a prize.
A number of birds use simple tools to solve problems. Sticks and stones.
Hell, my cats knew what a door and a doorknob was and how they worked. And worked them. (The doorknob not so well. But not for lack of trying!)
As for a not very smart character. Depends on the table. Some might play it as describe then roll. A good idea, but it wont pan out unless they make an INT roll. Or they might never come up with good strategies. But with at least a so-so wisdom will at least know some instinctual things perhaps.
Lots of ways it can play out.
Personally I'm not keen on low low INT characters being played as brilliant. Even BX lays down that at the lower end the character can barely string together sentences.
I've learned a while ago to just let go of my mental division between a character's stats and a player's... uh... stats.
I don't penalize a player for playing their dumb character "smart", but I'll reward them for playing their character according to their stats, especially if it is to their detriment (playing a dumb character making dumb decisions because it makes the game more interesting and/or entertaining for everyone at the table). But they don't HAVE to.
I'm just starting to get tired of getting angry and stressed over this hobby. I really need to take a chill pill.
Quote from: Necrozius;793310I'm just starting to get tired of getting angry and stressed over this hobby. I really need to take a chill pill.
The adrenalin is merely a sign of passion. It is good to retain attachments to the world, unless seeking arhat status. The only issue is how you release your disapproval.
:)
This is why the heavens invented "bad words." :p
Quote from: Elfdart;793262I do have a minor quibble with those ascribing this loser mentality to the new generation of players. See, when I made these same points on a grogtard site a few years ago, I got banned from the site. So it's not just these spoiled whippersnappers who are afflicted with this kind of stupidity. Quite a few of the old timers are WATB too.
We are not! We are no-o-o-o-oooot! (wipes tears)
Have to agree, on the whole. I do think, though, the current iteration of D&D reinforces stat primacy, if only because flat proficiency isn't all that large. There's no distinction in the base to hit between a mage and a fighter. The fighter creates the class disparity with higher stats in the combat area,more HP's, and the ability to use higher damage weapons. This disregards inherent powers and feats. Which makes me think, hmmmmm....wonder if I could just play 5E without any powers, feats or skills....?
This player-character discussion is interesting, mostly because before I started reading internet forums, I (and the guys I played with) never cared out it. Well, not in the sense being expressed by some posters, at least. The idea that player skill has no place in roleplaying games is as alien to me as saying player skill has no place in chess or poker. There's a difference between the DM telling you your character "wouldn't know that" when some point of game-fact crops up (the name of a baron or whatever) and acting a fool in combat because your INT 6 fighter doesn't have a firm grasp of advanced tactics. First of all, that is completely moronic, anyway. I can train a monkey to use tactics; surely someone who fights all the time can be clever in combat, regardless of overall intellect.
Further, suppose a player comes up with a brilliant plan but his character has an INT of 4. So what? Dumb people have good ideas all the time. And if it bothers you THAT MUCH, just say the INT 18 magic-user is the one who really came up with the plan because it's a team, not singular dudes.
Thinking about it, what about trolls? How do you kill a troll with burning oil unless your character already knows about it? And how could they possibly know about it unless they already encountered a troll? Or heard about a troll and knew exactly what to ask? Does this mean every time I play a new D&D character I have to figure out the oil/acid trick? Every single time? Doesn't player skill count for something? Etc., etc.
Nowadays, instead of telling a player "your character wouldn't know that", I tell them "normally your character wouldn't know that: we should come up with a clever or interesting explanation for why they do!". Sort of a Slumdog Millionaire situation. Anything to add richness to character backgrounds as well as further developing the setting's fluff: and it's more fun too.
Quote from: Necrozius;793332Nowadays, instead of telling a player "your character wouldn't know that", I tell them "normally your character wouldn't know that: we should come up with a clever or interesting explanation for why they do!". Sort of a Slumdog Millionaire situation. Anything to add richness to character backgrounds as well as further developing the setting's fluff: and it's more fun too.
That's just more rope they can use to hang themselves, so I'm all for it.
One example that comes to mind about character skills was an AD&D game I ran a few years back. Most of the players were coming from 3.X, so had that mindset. The party captured some goblins and ranger wanted to tie one up for questioning. I said, "Okay, he's tied up." The player asked if he had to roll a skill check, "No, your character is pretty good at that sort of thing." And that was it because I figured a ranger of all people should be able to use a fucking rope to tie up a goblin. I definitely prefer the Amber way of handling skills: write down whatever the hell you want. It's boring, anyway, so who cares? I'm 100% positive Corwin could tied up a goblin if he wanted to, even though his character sheet says nothing about Use Rope.
I have no problem with a degree of meta handwaving.
My approach to gaming is generally a sort of improv storyish thing with a lot of game blended in. Sort of a 'mushy middle' style.
So if the guy is playing an Int 5 orc warrior? Well, sorry, that's what you chose to play (or 'them's the breaks'). But I have no problem with meta plans that get 'played out' by the brilliant tactician... to a point.
I've also found sometimes certain players start demanding their help on other folks, and that can get old. Just a matter of reading the situation.
Indeed. For some the stats act as a character guideline. for others the stats are pretty much ignored and the player plays themself.
As DM I warn the players that I expect them to make at least some effort to play within their stat limits.
If its a point buy system then I flat out warn them that if they have a 3 in something Im sure as hell enforcing it.
Quote from: Omega;793309Ants, mice and other burrowing critters can and do sometimes create earthen blockades to divert invaders and predators.
Theres a BBC special, (two now I believe) on the ingenuity of Squirrels in decipering and defeating all manner of puzzles to get to a prize.
A number of birds use simple tools to solve problems. Sticks and stones.
Hell, my cats knew what a door and a doorknob was and how they worked. And worked them. (The doorknob not so well. But not for lack of trying!)
At best you've got the first (and even then, their workings aren't as complex as the simplest mines).
Squirrels don't build or set traps, which was what I was asking. Birds don't set traps either, I was quite clear about what specific behaviours were relevant, not merely negotiating "puzzles" but engaging in the sorts of tactics that are common.
Your last proves my point, a cat can't even manage a doorknob, hardly a complicated mechanism. And once again, significantly simpler than making a trap.
Nothing on fire, either.
Quote from: Omega;793309As for a not very smart character. Depends on the table. Some might play it as describe then roll. A good idea, but it wont pan out unless they make an INT roll. Or they might never come up with good strategies. But with at least a so-so wisdom will at least know some instinctual things perhaps.
Lots of ways it can play out.
Personally I'm not keen on low low INT characters being played as brilliant. Even BX lays down that at the lower end the character can barely string together sentences.
The implication seems pretty strong that at many "old school" tables what you roll for mental stats is completely irrevelant. Which once again goes back to my original point that it's easy to be sanguine about low stats when they don't actually have any meaningful application to the game (as is the case with almost all of them in OD&D).
Quote from: Brad;793329This player-character discussion is interesting, mostly because before I started reading internet forums, I (and the guys I played with) never cared out it. Well, not in the sense being expressed by some posters, at least. The idea that player skill has no place in roleplaying games is as alien to me as saying player skill has no place in chess or poker. There's a difference between the DM telling you your character "wouldn't know that" when some point of game-fact crops up (the name of a baron or whatever) and acting a fool in combat because your INT 6 fighter doesn't have a firm grasp of advanced tactics.
Regardless of whether that's what you rolled, or that's what you chose, if you're playing an Int 6 character, surely it behooves you to
actually play your character?
I don't think it's for the GM or other players to tell that player how to play their character, but it is for the player of the character to be honest about their character's faculties. Which means coming up with appropriate plans for their intelligence, or else supplying others playing smarter characters with ideas.
Quote from: Brad;793329First of all, that is completely moronic, anyway. I can train a monkey to use tactics; surely someone who fights all the time can be clever in combat, regardless of overall intellect.
You can't train a monkey to read a chaotic combat situation and come up with appropriate tactics. Hell, it's hard to train
people to do that, especially when you factor in the pressure of the situation and the psychological impacts it has.
The Int 6 character's experience of fighting is likely to be "face the enemy, hit anyone who gets close, listen to that guy who seems to know what he's doing".
Quote from: Brad;793329Further, suppose a player comes up with a brilliant plan but his character has an INT of 4. So what? Dumb people have good ideas all the time. And if it bothers you THAT MUCH, just say the INT 18 magic-user is the one who really came up with the plan because it's a team, not singular dudes.
Isn't that metagaming, which is surely anathema to old school play? Dumb people don't have good ideas all the time, they're dumb. They often don't have any ideas at all.
Quote from: Brad;793329Thinking about it, what about trolls? How do you kill a troll with burning oil unless your character already knows about it? And how could they possibly know about it unless they already encountered a troll? Or heard about a troll and knew exactly what to ask? Does this mean every time I play a new D&D character I have to figure out the oil/acid trick? Every single time? Doesn't player skill count for something? Etc., etc.
Yep, every time you play someone who has no justification for knowing a troll's weakness, you shouldn't be abusing your own knowledge as a player to leverage that. Otherwise we enter the realms of the player who's read the Monster Manual, or equivalent, and is incapable of separating what they know from what their character knows. Thus their novice character mysteriously knows what everything is and how to counter them.
Player skill is leveraging the things your character might actually know, filtering your ideas through their capabilities and applying accordingly. Not metagaming whatever you've picked up from any and every source to apply directly to what you see before you.
I had a go at a 3d6 in order character, rolling thus (http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/4688247/):
Str 10 (+0) Int 8 (-1) Wis 10 (+0) Dex 16 (+2) Con 8 (-1) Cha 10 (+0)
So we have someone who excels in only one area - Dexterity and is both dumber than average (Int) and unfit/unhealthy (Con). They'd make a good Rogue, I suppose, though one lacking either guile or charm, and no more cunning than the average person.
Not someone I'd be expecting to come up with intricate plans or schemes.
Here's a second one, rolling (http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/4688588/)these:
Str 12 (+0) Int 14 (+1) Wis 12 (+0) Dex 11 (+0) Con 10 (+0) Cha 9 (+0)
I suppose we have a Wizard, who is a bit smarter than average, but otherwise unexceptional.
And one last one, rolling this (http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/4688593/):
Str 8 (-1) Int 13 (+1) Wis 12 (+0) Dex 4 (-2) Con 12 (+0) Cha 14 (+1)
Not sure what you'd do with this character, they seem to have some sort of physical handicap given the Str and Dex, but they are smarter and more articulate than average.
Quote from: Kiero;793353I had a go at a 3d6 in order character, rolling thus (http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/4688247/):
Str 10 (+0) Int 8 (-1) Wis 10 (+0) Dex 16 (+2) Con 8 (-1) Cha 10 (+0)
So we have someone who excels in only one area - Dexterity and is both dumber than average (Int) and unfit/unhealthy (Con). They'd make a good Rogue, I suppose, though one lacking either guile or charm, and no more cunning than the average person.
Not someone I'd be expecting to come up with intricate plans or schemes.
Dude, and 8 isn't an idiot. It's just slightly less than average. It's not nearly as bad as you're making it out to be.
Sometimes I think the best thing for this hobby would be for people to get out of this "If I don't rock, I must suck!" There is a ton of middle ground being excluded there, and frankly, IMO, it just screams of entitlement.
Quote from: Brad;793329Thinking about it, what about trolls? How do you kill a troll with burning oil unless your character already knows about it? And how could they possibly know about it unless they already encountered a troll? Or heard about a troll and knew exactly what to ask? Does this mean every time I play a new D&D character I have to figure out the oil/acid trick? Every single time? Doesn't player skill count for something? Etc., etc.
Yes you do. Every single time and no unless YOUR character has that or something logically relatable to that skill you're not playing Brad the guy with all sorts of modern skills, hobbies, interests access to the internet which allows one to get at least a basic...understanding of any field with little effort.
You are playing your character Bob the Fighter which means Wis 5/Int 6 will cause you serious issues with basic interpersonal interaction let alone military tactics. Why should Bob know a thing about trolls when he never saw, heard, read about one just because Brad already played multiple fighters previously in the same game system/world with the same baseline assumptions and conceits?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;793354Dude, and 8 isn't an idiot. It's just slightly less than average. It's not nearly as bad as you're making it out to be.
Sometimes I think the best thing for this hobby would be for people to get out of this "If I don't rock, I must suck!" There is a ton of middle ground being excluded there, and frankly, IMO, it just screams of entitlement.
I didn't say they were an idiot, just dumber than average. Which isn't a terribly high bar to begin with. The combination of Int and Con suggests perhaps they're lazy, mentally and physically, which I suppose is the start of a characterisation to hang the portrayal on.
Quote from: Kiero;793351The Int 6 character's experience of fighting is likely to be "face the enemy, hit anyone who gets close, listen to that guy who seems to know what he's doing".
So what you're saying is it's impossible for a stupid person to actually do anything beyond act like a trained circus animal. Got it.
Quote from: Marleycat;793355You are playing your character Bob the Fighter which means Wis 5/Int 6 will cause you serious issues with basic interpersonal interaction let alone military tactics. Why should Bob know a thing about trolls when he never saw, heard, read about one just because Brad already played multiple fighters previously in the same game system/world with the same baseline assumptions and conceits?
Because I'm playing a game, not engaging in improvisational theater.
Quote from: Kiero;793353I had a go at a 3d6 in order character, rolling thus (http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/4688247/):
Str 10 (+0) Int 8 (-1) Wis 10 (+0) Dex 16 (+2) Con 8 (-1) Cha 10 (+0)
So we have someone who excels in only one area - Dexterity and is both dumber than average (Int) and unfit/unhealthy (Con). They'd make a good Rogue, I suppose, though one lacking either guile or charm, and no more cunning than the average person.
Not someone I'd be expecting to come up with intricate plans or schemes.
Here's a second one, rolling (http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/4688588/)these:
Str 12 (+0) Int 14 (+1) Wis 12 (+0) Dex 11 (+0) Con 10 (+0) Cha 9 (+0)
I suppose we have a Wizard, who is a bit smarter than average, but otherwise unexceptional.
And one last one, rolling this (http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/4688593/):
Str 8 (-1) Int 13 (+1) Wis 12 (+0) Dex 4 (-2) Con 12 (+0) Cha 14 (+1)
Not sure what you'd do with this character, they seem to have some sort of physical handicap given the Str and Dex, but they are smarter and more articulate than average.
First one is a Rogue the second is a Wizard of the
two choices I dislike the first stat line more because it's too bog average in too many spots.
Quote from: Brad;793357So what you're saying is it's impossible for a stupid person to actually do anything beyond act like a trained circus animal. Got it.
You rolled/chose Int 6, so you play it. That's someone with notably less mental acuity than average, though they're still capable of a lot more than even a well-trained circus animal. Because once again, look at the training for combat situations, that's beyond most animals.
Quote from: Brad;793358Because I'm playing a game, not engaging in improvisational theater.
Right, so this justifies side-stepping the real complications the stats you rolled/chose should be generating for your character?
Playing a game usually means abiding by the constraints of the game; what you rolled/chose is one such constraint. Though of course it isn't if you choose to ignore it, and use your own knowledge that your character wouldn't have any means to have learned.
My game piece is a hat how in the fuck can a hat possibly buy real estate I should embrace hat-ness and look for a good head to settle down upon!
Quote from: Brad;793361My game piece is a hat how in the fuck can a hat possibly buy real estate I should embrace hat-ness and look for a good head to settle down upon!
Roleplaying games aren't Monopoly, try again with a better analogy.
Quote from: Kiero;793363Roleplaying games aren't Monopoly, try again with a better analogy.
Roleplaying games are, in fact, games. Oddly enough. Stop pretending they're not.
Quote from: Brad;793369Roleplaying games are, in fact, games. Oddly enough. Stop pretending they're not.
They're nothing like Monopoly. Not unless you use a meaninglessly broad definition of game, in which case anything can apply.
In Monopoly you don't get to move a different amount than what you rolled, just because you feel like it. Which is effectively what you're doing by ignoring the strictures placed upon you by your ability scores.
Quote from: Brad;793358Because I'm playing a game, not engaging in improvisational theater.
No you are playing YOU you totally ignore the game. Go for it given that is what old school demands. Nothing actually matters on the sheet because it's all "player skill" ie. code for YOU and whatever tactics YOU come up with with YOUR personal skillset because the character sheet doesn't have anything that really matters or impacts the game beyond YOUR actions and decisions.
If you actually played someone with mental scores of 6 or below you cannot justify being a clever person full of innovative off the wall tactics because you wouldn't be capable of even thinking that way ever. For instance Int 10 is average (IQ 100) while Int 18 is genius level (IQ 180). Int 6 is (IQ 60). The latter isn't pretty especially coupled with low wisdom and/or charisma. You are IN FACT seriously slow on the uptake, unable to think or process your environment beyond the obvious, possibly not able to multitask well or only with severe limits and likely unable to be well liked or articulate the few good ideas and qualities you do have to most people in any typical social situation. Not fun at all unless you say fuck it and use player skill your character has no right even knowing let alone using like some genius Myguyver type.
Quote from: Kiero;793353I had a go at a 3d6 in order character, rolling thus (http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/4688247/):
Str 10 (+0) Int 8 (-1) Wis 10 (+0) Dex 16 (+2) Con 8 (-1) Cha 10 (+0)
So we have someone who excels in only one area - Dexterity and is both dumber than average (Int) and unfit/unhealthy (Con). They'd make a good Rogue, I suppose, though one lacking either guile or charm, and no more cunning than the average person.
Not someone I'd be expecting to come up with intricate plans or schemes.
Here's a second one, rolling (http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/4688588/)these:
Str 12 (+0) Int 14 (+1) Wis 12 (+0) Dex 11 (+0) Con 10 (+0) Cha 9 (+0)
I suppose we have a Wizard, who is a bit smarter than average, but otherwise unexceptional.
And one last one, rolling this (http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/4688593/):
Str 8 (-1) Int 13 (+1) Wis 12 (+0) Dex 4 (-2) Con 12 (+0) Cha 14 (+1)
Not sure what you'd do with this character, they seem to have some sort of physical handicap given the Str and Dex, but they are smarter and more articulate than average.
That last one="Hugo the Exceptional, Cleric of Gask, God of Masks, Keeper of the Palmstone." Hugo is a somewhat portly fellow, with a broad, expressive smile and engaging demeanor. He is a popular fellow, sharp-witted and sharp-tongued (though a tad lazy, drinks a bit too much, and has let himself get somewhat out of shape). Friends of Hugo find his endurance surprising, considering the flab he hefts.
Quote from: Marleycat;793372No you are playing YOU you totally ignore the game. Go for it given that is what old school demands. Nothing actually matters on the sheet because it's all "player skill" ie. code for YOU and whatever tactics YOU come up with with YOUR personal skillset because the character sheet doesn't have anything that really matters or impacts the game beyond YOUR actions and decisions.
If you actually played someone with mental scores of 6 or below you cannot justify being a clever person full of innovative off the wall tactics because you wouldn't be capable of even thinking that way ever. For instance Int 10 is average (IQ 100) while Int 18 is genius level (IQ 180). Int 6 is (IQ 60). The latter isn't pretty especially coupled with low wisdom and/or charisma. You are IN FACT seriously slow on the uptake, unable to think or process your environment beyond the obvious, possibly not able to multitask well or only with severe limits and likely unable to be well liked or articulate the few good ideas and qualities you do have to most people in any typical social situation. Not fun at all unless you say fuck it and use player skill your character has no right even knowing let alone using like some genius Myguyver type.
Do you honestly believe this bullshit, or is this some sort of troll? A slow person can NEVER come up with a clever idea? Someone below average is INCAPABLE of being innovative? Like, can never ever happen?
Okay
Quote from: Kiero;793371They're nothing like Monopoly. Not unless you use a meaninglessly broad definition of game, in which case anything can apply.
In Monopoly you don't get to move a different amount than what you rolled, just because you feel like it. Which is effectively what you're doing by ignoring the strictures placed upon you by your ability scores.
Poker isn't like Monopoly, either. No one would ever say using player skill to gain an advantage in either was bad. So why say the same thing about rpgs? They're not magically exempt.
Quote from: Brad;793379Poker isn't like Monopoly, either. No one would ever say using player skill to gain an advantage in either was bad. So why say the same thing about rpgs? They're not magically exempt.
Using knowledge you, the player, gained elsewhere that your character could have no way of having gleaned is not "player skill". Nor for that matter is using ideas your character isn't smart enough to have come up with. That's abusing the separation between player and character.
Neither Poker nor Monopoly involve playing a role, nor do they give you broad leeway in important aspects of playing the game. Which is why they really aren't like RPGs at all.
Quote from: Kiero;793240Right, so the appropriate response to having a character with shitty stats is to avoid the settled rules where possible and try to game the GM instead?
Yes, you're supposed to play the GM, not the rules. The rules are supposed to be there as an adjudication aid for the GM, not as a shield to protect the players from the GM. The game is in the GM's head, not in the rulebooks.
If the rules lead to shitty results, change the rules.
Oh hey, point buy.
Quote from: S'mon;793387Yes, you're supposed to play the GM, not the rules. The rules are supposed to be there as an adjudication aid for the GM, not as a shield to protect the players from the GM. The game is in the GM's head, not in the rulebooks.
Sounds like storygaming to me. I thought old-schoolers hated that theatre of the mind stuff?
Quote from: Kiero;793308So the "standard play style in OD&D" was to metagame the player's own knowledge?
Yes. That is exactly what I said. That is exactly how many people did in fact play back in 1974-79.
QuoteWhat happened to keeping a clear separation between player and character?
In my experience separating player and character, tended to be something that arose later on as a variation in play style. We saw that more in the 1980s when we played Runequest, Pendragon, and Call of Cthulhu. Especially when we played Pendragon.
QuoteTo be clear, I don't really give a toss whether that's what people are doing, but given most proponents of old school claim to disavow this sort of thing it's rather hypocritical.
The amount you are writing about this belies your comment that you don't really give a toss.
Regarding hypocrisy, I can only speak based on my experience. The fact that I say that
back in the 1970s we played predominantly based on player knowledge not on character knowledge and someone else who is not me, says that
player knowledge should be separate from character knowledge is not hypocrisy. It is two different people with two different points of view. Which is life.
QuoteIn other words, people aren't playing their characters, they are channeling themselves through their character as avatar.
Yes that would be another way to describe how some people did (and still do) in fact play RPGs. The characters is a sort of avatar for the player.
QuoteIf you were actually playing a low Int/low Wis character, they shouldn't have the acumen to come up with these sorts of things. You should be filtering your ideas through the lens of your character's stats. Unless you're suggesting them to the players of the smarter characters to come up with as though they were their own ideas.
Nowadays I typically make a roll on a relevant skill or attribute for a character with a low INT (or whatever the relevant stat is) to see if the dumb PC came up with the clever idea I came up with. If I fail the roll then I hand the idea off to some PC with the tactics skill or the high INT or whatever the relevant skill or attribute is. Or if it seems more fun/cool for the other character to think up the plan then I don't bother to roll and we agree that the smart PC came up with the smart idea.
But now we are discussing how I play now with my gaming friends now, which is differerent than how I played with my gaming friends back then.
Quote from: Brad;793378Do you honestly believe this bullshit, or is this some sort of troll? A slow person can NEVER come up with a clever idea? Someone below average is INCAPABLE of being innovative? Like, can never ever happen?
Okay
Of course they can but not on a regular basis or in the way that you're defining it. Because if you actually were playing to what that number is supposed to mean you wouldn't be in the mindset of coming up with a clever idea you would be thinking in straight lines and more obvious or typical solutions.
That's why it's not good if you have extremely low scores in any iteration of DnD (or many other games) except OD&D which makes all scores irrelevant and doesn't even have skills. It's just "hey I do this!" Who the heck cares if a certain character class with a particular score in a relevant ability could never actually do such a thing? Because it's not about anything but YOU playing YOU through some kind of wish fullfillment avatar. It's a playstyle I don't prefer and and can't buy into but it's a valid one for some people.
What is buyable is that said less then intelligent character does his best Horshack impression trying to get the attention of the smart guy and attempt to explain their idea to them (if circumstances allow and he can be articulate enough which may be arguable if you have CHR 4 coupled with INT 6 but that's a whole other issue). Even then it's only buyable if it's an idea that is obviously something that character might think of not the player. Personally I would make the player roll with some penalty which may be quite severe if I know it's something directly from player knowledge not character knowledge.
Quote from: Bren;793398Yes. That is exactly what I said. That is exactly how many people did in fact play back in 1974-79.
In my experience separating player and character, tended to be something that arose later on as a variation in play style. We saw that more in the 1980s when we played Runequest, Pendragon, and Call of Cthulhu. Especially when we played Pendragon.
Interesting. I was going to ask, from the perspective of someone who was there, when this more strict adherence to separation between player and character appeared, but you pre-empted me. Because the impression I get from the most vocal proponents of old school (some of whom weren't there) was that it was always thus.
I had a suspicion that it was a 90s thing, as so often seems to be the case, but it turns out it was an 80s thing.
Quote from: Bren;793398The amount you are writing about this belies your comment that you don't really give a toss.
Regarding hypocrisy, I can only speak based on my experience. The fact that I say that back in the 1970s we played predominantly based on player knowledge not on character knowledge and someone else who is not me, says that player knowledge should be separate from character knowledge is not hypocrisy. It is two different people with two different points of view. Which is life.
Yes that would be another way to describe how some people did (and still do) in fact play RPGs. The characters is a sort of avatar for the player.
Nowadays I typically make a roll on a relevant skill or attribute for a character with a low INT (or whatever the relevant stat is) to see if the dumb PC came up with the clever idea I came up with. If I fail the roll then I hand the idea off to some PC with the tactics skill or the high INT or whatever the relevant skill or attribute is. Or if it seems more fun/cool for the other character to think up the plan then I don't bother to roll and we agree that the smart PC came up with the smart idea.
But now we are discussing how I play now with my gaming friends now, which is differerent than how I played with my gaming friends back then.
It's the hypocrisy, not the metagaming that gets me. If someone is honest about what they are doing (as you have been, talking about how you played and the changes you observed over time), I don't really have an issue. That character-as-player-avatar style isn't one I enjoy playing alongside, but as long as someone isn't trying to sell it as something other than what it is (like Brad with his "player skill" smokescreen), I can deal.
The interesting question to me, is that Int/equivalent roll something you do for yourself, or a more generalised rule your whole group adheres to? One of the players in my group likes to use those sorts of prompts to decide if his character knows something that he, the player does.
Quote from: Kiero;793391Sounds like storygaming to me. I thought old-schoolers hated that theatre of the mind stuff?
You clearly have no understanding of storygaming.
FWIW: Storygames typically share authority among all the players, who share in the joint enterprise of creating a story together. If there is a GM he is just
primus inter pares. Old-school RPGs by contrast typically focus on player exploration of a GM-created and GM-adjudicated environment. In old-school play the GM is in charge and the game rests on his judgement.
I've done both; I like old-school RPGs a lot better, but storygames can be quite good fun too as an occasional pastime.
Quote from: Kiero;793407Interesting. I was going to ask, from the perspective of someone who was there, when this more strict adherence to separation between player and character appeared, but you pre-empted me. Because the impression I get from the most vocal proponents of old school (some of whom weren't there) was that it was always thus.
I had a suspicion that it was a 90s thing, as so often seems to be the case, but it turns out it was an 80s thing.
It might have been an '80s thing, but in games like Call of Cthulu and maybe Runequest. Never in D&D, in my experience. The PC was always an avatar. The idea that a GM could ban a low-Int PC's player from having a clever idea would have seemed grotesque. The PCs stats were/are resources for the player to use, not limiters.
Edit: I remember a lot of silver age (ca '84-'89) sneering about unrealistic D&D games, alongside the complaints of munchkinism etc. Lack of player/PC separation might have occasioned some sneers, but I don't recall it ever being mentioned.
Quote from: Kiero;793391I thought old-schoolers...
You seem to be misunderstanding this aspect of how many (not all) so-called Old School guys play.
You keep saying "You old school guys do [That Thing],
so then why aren't you doing [That Thing]?!?"
Er, ...maybe because we don't actually do that and you've picked up a mistaken impression somewhere?
Quote from: Marleycat;793372For instance Int 10 is average (IQ 100) while Int 18 is genius level (IQ 180). Int 6 is (IQ 60).
With 3d6, one in 216 people have an 18 Int. One in 216 people do not have IQ 180. I think this means that 18 Int does not equal IQ 180.
I would put it more in the ballpark of:
Int 18 = IQ 130
Int 3 = IQ 70
Good point about IQ. I often find people VASTLY overestimate what various stats mean.
As for the current argument... why are you guys arguing? I mean, really... what are you hoping to achieve?
Quote from: Kiero;793391Sounds like storygaming to me. I thought old-schoolers hated that theatre of the mind stuff?
Wtf? I've been playing D&D since 79 and the thing that got me most excited about 5E is the default assumption that you can play it theatre of the mind. Because that's how I have always played (besides a brief experimentation with 4E) The game very much exists in the imagination of the DM, and the DM - not the fricking rulebook - serves as the interface between the players and the game world.
Quote from: Enlightened;793416With 3d6, one in 216 people have an 18 Int. One in 216 people do not have IQ 180. I think this means that 18 Int does not equal IQ 180.
I would put it more in the ballpark of:
Int 18 = IQ 130
Int 3 = IQ 70
Good point and a valid interpretation given RPG's can rarely be really granular especially DnD. (1-18 isn't a large amount of numbers).
I've had many arguments about this, since standardized tests make me Int 18 fairly reliably.
Now, whether standardized tests are worth anything, I dunno, but arguably the types of stuff they favor also tend to be the sorts of skills tied to Int.
(Although 'white guy' isn't normally a bonus to Int skills in most games)
Quote from: Will;793421I've had many arguments about this, since standardized tests make me Int 18 fairly reliably.
Now, whether standardized tests are worth anything, I dunno, but arguably the types of stuff they favor also tend to be the sorts of skills tied to Int.
(Although 'white guy' isn't normally a bonus to Int skills in most games)
If it was east-Asian normed (eg a Samurai Japan game) then being a white guy you should be taking an INT penalty. :p
Quote from: Crabbyapples;792774Speaking of chumps, I did play a dwarf fighter in AD&D with stats something like STR 6, DEX 7, CON 9, WIS 5, INT 8, CHA 4. I played him aggressive (with a Wisdom score of 5, he couldn't tell the difference between a good and bad choice) but he just wouldn't die, partly because the DM allowed maximum HP at level 1. He died to a random encounter around level 3 from a giant bird of some sort. He refused to be a chump, even if I wanted him to be.
That's the beauty of randomly generated characters. Sometimes you get the unexpected.
Yeah. I once played a magic-user in AD&D whose highest stat was an Int of 9.
He eventually retired from adventuring at 5th level because the death of his familiar left him with only four hit points.
I've also had a similar experience in Rolemaster. That game has ten stats rolled on a d%, and I once managed to roll a character with no stat higher than a 30. That character died at first level though - but then that Rolemaster campaign was a bit of a meat grinder, so having higher stats probably wouldn't have helped anyway.
Quote from: Kiero;793407The interesting question to me, is that Int/equivalent roll something you do for yourself, or a more generalised rule your whole group adheres to? One of the players in my group likes to use those sorts of prompts to decide if his character knows something that he, the player does.
First I game to have fun. So hard and fast rules often work against that. Some sort of Idea roll has been in use by me and the people I game with for about 30 years now. It's more a tool than a roll.
As a player I frequently manage the rolling on my own. I might mention that I rolled such-and-such to justify why my not so bright PC came up with a clever plan. I might add some color like, Gaston suggests we set up our formation with our strongest fighters on the left and our weaker fighters to their right and behind them in echelon because he saw formations in echelon used to good effect by the Spanish at the Battle of White Mountain.
As the GM, I might call for an INT roll (or Idea roll as Call of Cthulhu names it) if I thought the player was playing well outside the capabilities of their PC and was not attributing or passing off the smart ideas to someone else's smart PC. I try not to call for rolls all the time as some players enjoy having their dumb PC do dumb things while other players don't. So if I call for rolls too often the players who don't find playing dumb to be fun get annoyed with my (in effect) overruling their character choices and the players who enjoy playing dumb are already doing that on their own anyway and don't typically need me to enforce a roll. Some of my players will make their own Idea rolls if they think that their idea is questionable.
We have used Idea rolls as a player benefit since we started playing Call of Cthulhu in the mid 1980s as a Save vs. Stupid or Save vs. Forgetful roll for PCs or to give the player information that their PC would know that the player might not know (or perhaps forgot or overlooked).
We also freqently use a 2D6 roll for randomly determining whether or not PCs like or dislike some new food or drink that they are exposed to. Personally that seems the most reasonable and the most entertaining way to figure out if a PC likes something unfamiliar like sand prawns in Star Trek, Mandolorean Narcolethe in Star Wars, or coffee in 1623 Venice.
Quote from: Enlightened;793416I would put it more in the ballpark of:
Int 18 = IQ 130
Int 3 = IQ 70
1) You are assuming the 1/216 stat roll is representative of the human population as a whole rather than applying only to adventurers who may have higher than average scores. I suspect a lot of people presume adventurers are above the norm for their species.
2) But given that assumption, your estimate seems low
INT 18 = IQ 140 (give or take (http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx)).
Quote from: Will;793418As for the current argument... why are you guys arguing? I mean, really... what are you hoping to achieve?
Well, sometimes arguing (or debating as I might rather describe it) is fun. So it may be an end in itself. On the other hand, sometimes debating is a way of sharing and learning about other points of view, which is sometimes informative. So it may be a means to an end. Bit of both in this case I would say.
Why are you still in the thread? (EDIT: That was intended to be a curious question, not a hostile question. On re-reading it sounded more snarky than I meant it.)
Quote from: Will;793421I've had many arguments about this, since standardized tests make me Int 18 fairly reliably.
Maybe you aren't as smart as you think. Many standardized tests, e.g. SAT, ACT aren't very good at distinguishing differences above the 99th percentile which includes both a 17 and 18 INT. So you might only be INT 17. ;)
Quote from: Enlightened;793416With 3d6, one in 216 people have an 18 Int. One in 216 people do not have IQ 180. I think this means that 18 Int does not equal IQ 180.
I would put it more in the ballpark of:
Int 18 = IQ 130
Int 3 = IQ 70
One of the worst things to happen to RPGs was the concept of equating ability scores to real-world measurements. Especially equating INT x 10 to IQ. If you
were going to equate IQ -- a measurement that really only has meaning when talking about children, not adults -- it should be more like what you say: a range of +/- 30 IQ points, if that. Hell, there are plenty of people in real life who speak way more languages than are allowed for Int 18 characters in any edition, and even mentally retarded people can be bilingual, so what does that say about Int 10 characters, who in many editions can only speak one language?
And Strength doesn't translate directly into lifting power in the original game. Originally, it didn't affect maximum load at all, and Open Doors was only affected by size, not Strength.
Really, abilities are only an abstract comparison between characters. Int is mental speed + recall; that doesn't mean that low Int characters can't come up with an idea or know some obscure fact, only that they probably won't get an idea or recall a fact as quickly as someone with high Int. Strength should affect speed of exhaustion or speed of bending bars, that sort of thing. Dex should be reaction time (Initiative,) not some absolute measure of grace vs. clumsiness.
Quote from: Bren;793427Why are you still in the thread? (EDIT: That was intended to be a curious question, not a hostile question. On re-reading it sounded more snarky than I meant it.)
No worries. ;) Sometimes I get my Irish up, but I don't tend to hold grudges.
I'm still in the thread because there are some interesting anecdotes about people's experiences, some reflection on the purpose of stats and game design, and some ideas on how to approach gaming.
When discussion has sidelined into trying to score points, it's gone to rot, IMO.
Quote from: Bren;793427Maybe you aren't as smart as you think. Many standardized tests, e.g. SAT, ACT aren't very good at distinguishing differences above the 99th percentile which includes both a 17 and 18 INT. So you might only be INT 17. ;)
I never said I thought I was smart, hee hee. And yeah. (I used to teach SAT prep, and am well aware of how ... squirrely measuring intelligence is)
Quote from: Kiero;793308Sorry, but you've completely missed my point. Which had nothing to do with the quality or consistency of the GM's rulings, or whether you had trust in them.
But that it was a strategy entirely couched in avoiding the combat rules and pitching at getting GM rulings instead. It's trying to circumvent the game rules and in the most extreme examples looking for corner cases.
The implication is that old school play is essentially about playing the man, not the ball, to use a sporting analogy.
Thanks for clarifying.
Why do you feel "circumventing the rules" is a bad thing?
Quote from: Will;793421Now, whether standardized tests are worth anything, I dunno
Outside of rpg games, standardized tests aren't much more than easy weed-out mechanisms for sorting through a large number of applications. Nobody wants to read through several hundred (or thousands) of such applications. (Such as applications for college, law school, medical school, etc ...).
The only other cases I can think of offhand, where standardized tests are actually worth anything, is if one is involved with high IQ organizations like Mensa.
Quote from: ggroy;793434The only other cases I can think of offhand, where standardized tests are actually worth anything, is if one is involved with high IQ organizations like Mensa.
The IQ test for Mensa is only "worth anything" because that is the method they have chosen to provide membership selectivity.
Quote from: talysman;793429One of the worst things to happen to RPGs was the concept of equating ability scores to real-world measurements.
Generally agreed. I've toyed with the idea of redefining Int and Wis as Knowledge and Resolve, and treating them purely as casting stats, skill/knowledge modifiers and morale modifiers, and emphasizing Charisma as applying to initial reactions
only.
As for encumbrance, I don't particularly care for the styles of games where encumbrance matters that much and would rather just use common and dramatic sense. :)
Quote from: Will;793432I never said I thought I was smart, hee hee. And yeah. (I used to teach SAT prep, and am well aware of how ... squirrely measuring intelligence is)
ETS tests do a great job of measuring how well you do on ETS tests. :D
As an example, my % scores for the PSAT, SAT, GRE, and GMAT are very consistent (within the measurement accuracy of the test) across multiple instruments (i.e. different tests) over the thirty year time period spanning the first and last ETS test I took.
Quote from: S'mon;793411It might have been an '80s thing, but in games like Call of Cthulu and maybe Runequest. Never in D&D, in my experience. The PC was always an avatar. The idea that a GM could ban a low-Int PC's player from having a clever idea would have seemed grotesque. The PCs stats were/are resources for the player to use, not limiters.
Edit: I remember a lot of silver age (ca '84-'89) sneering about unrealistic D&D games, alongside the complaints of munchkinism etc. Lack of player/PC separation might have occasioned some sneers, but I don't recall it ever being mentioned.
As I said, less GM banning them and more an expectation that the player of a low-Int/low-Wis character would self-censor.
Quote from: Enlightened;793413You seem to be misunderstanding this aspect of how many (not all) so-called Old School guys play.
You keep saying "You old school guys do [That Thing], so then why aren't you doing [That Thing]?!?"
Er, ...maybe because we don't actually do that and you've picked up a mistaken impression somewhere?
Maybe I have; I'm going by things the loudest proponents have said repeatedly over the years about it.
Quote from: Haffrung;793419Wtf? I've been playing D&D since 79 and the thing that got me most excited about 5E is the default assumption that you can play it theatre of the mind. Because that's how I have always played (besides a brief experimentation with 4E) The game very much exists in the imagination of the DM, and the DM - not the fricking rulebook - serves as the interface between the players and the game world.
Given the absence of telepathy, expecting what's in my head to match up with what's in someone else's head is a fool's gambit. The whole point of the rules is to give us a common framework and language to at least try to get those things to vaguely line up (or at least be pointing in the same general direction) as best we can.
That's why I'm less than enamoured with the notion that the GM is the only window onto the game world. Not as some people like to belabour, because I have an issue with trust.
Quote from: Bren;793426First I game to have fun. So hard and fast rules often work against that. Some sort of Idea roll has been in use by me and the people I game with for about 30 years now. It's more a tool than a roll.
As a player I frequently manage the rolling on my own. I might mention that I rolled such-and-such to justify why my not so bright PC came up with a clever plan. I might add some color like, Gaston suggests we set up our formation with our strongest fighters on the left and our weaker fighters to their right and behind them in echelon because he saw formations in echelon used to good effect by the Spanish at the Battle of White Mountain.
As the GM, I might call for an INT roll (or Idea roll as Call of Cthulhu names it) if I thought the player was playing well outside the capabilities of their PC and was not attributing or passing off the smart ideas to someone else's smart PC. I try not to call for rolls all the time as some players enjoy having their dumb PC do dumb things while other players don't. So if I call for rolls too often the players who don't find playing dumb to be fun get annoyed with my (in effect) overruling their character choices and the players who enjoy playing dumb are already doing that on their own anyway and don't typically need me to enforce a roll. Some of my players will make their own Idea rolls if they think that their idea is questionable.
We have used Idea rolls as a player benefit since we started playing Call of Cthulhu in the mid 1980s as a Save vs. Stupid or Save vs. Forgetful roll for PCs or to give the player information that their PC would know that the player might not know (or perhaps forgot or overlooked).
We also freqently use a 2D6 roll for randomly determining whether or not PCs like or dislike some new food or drink that they are exposed to. Personally that seems the most reasonable and the most entertaining way to figure out if a PC likes something unfamiliar like sand prawns in Star Trek, Mandolorean Narcolethe in Star Wars, or coffee in 1623 Venice.
Cool, thanks for that.
Quote from: The Butcher;793433Thanks for clarifying.
Why do you feel "circumventing the rules" is a bad thing?
As above, if we can't even use the damned rules we've chosen as a means of ensuring we at least start on the same page, what's the point in having them at all?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;793354Sometimes I think the best thing for this hobby would be for people to get out of this "If I don't rock, I must suck!" There is a ton of middle ground being excluded there, and frankly, IMO, it just screams of entitlement.
I'm cool with that if I also get to stop hearing "If you don't suck, you can't rock!"
I didn't come to RPGs from war-games: ambushes and traps and molotov cocktails/flaming oil and all that effective combat/asymmetrical warfare stuff wasn't my bag. I was hitting D&D from the perspective of Tolkien and Howard and Lloyd Alexander and Ursula K. Le Guin and Star Wars. So I actually do want a game that makes my avatar more impressive from the get-go; I want more dependability in the system to convey that sense of heroic resilience and robustness.
Playing a one-eyed, mentally-challenged gong farmer is fun in DCC or Warhammer. There are versions of D&D where it's also fun. But playing the versions of D&D where I get to be something other than a zero at start doesn't make me a special snowflake wanting entitlement.
EDIT: Which is why, thank gods, we now live in the best of all worlds, one in which all these different games co-exist and allow for different play styles—provided that we do what Old Geezer says and be adults about communicating our expectations and preferences.
Quote from: Bren;793438The IQ test for Mensa is only "worth anything" because that is the method they have chosen to provide membership selectivity.
I never understood the point of Mensa. My ex-wife was into all that Mensa stuff.
The few times she dragged me along to a meetup, it seemed like a group of boring individuals into various geeky/nerdy topics. We had very little (or nothing) to talk about, other than boring stuff like education background, career, etc ...
My impression of Mensa is that it is a singles mixer for pretentious geeks...
When I taught SAT prep we were told to be very up front about it. 'This test measures nothing but how well you do on this test, and is subject to a lot of bullshit variables. But hey, sparky, guess what? Your education's riding on it, so let's learn how to do the test.'
Paraphrasing a little.
Quote from: Will;793446My impression of Mensa is that it is a singles mixer for pretentious geeks...
Yup. I went to one meeting with a friend of mine and we both came away somewhat annoyed by the people there.
It's one of those things you join so you can tell other people you've joined it.
Quote from: Kiero;793442As above, if we can't even use the damned rules we've chosen as a means of ensuring we at least start on the same page, what's the point in having them at all?
As I said, the rules in (eg) pre-3 D&D are there to aid the GM in easy adjudication. They are not there "as a means of ensuring we at least start on the same page" - the way to be on the same page as the GM is to listen to what the GM is saying, and ask questions.
Some people don't like this approach, hence 3e D&D.
Whereas I like structured, coherent rules because it provides an easy reference for everyone, GM included, to avoid contradictions or painting yourself into weird corners.
If everything is up to the GM, it can be very easy for the GM to go 'fuuuck, X that I said last month contradicts Y that I said 5 months ago, and now... fuck fuck fuckity.'
Really, a coherent/structured game system can be a huge benefit for a GM, keep everyone on the same page, and let the GM focus on other stuff rather than trying to remember a pile of case judgements.
Maybe I come from a very direction than many of you. My first several GM experiences, I ran games almost entirely freeform. People declared actions, I thought about an appropriate/fun result. Sometimes I'd use a randomizer, but not very often.
It worked well... but it was EXHAUSTING. (I also started using maps at this point, because confusion about what the layout was and where people were would lead to player frustration)
Now, in retrospect, I think 3e made a number of critical mistakes, but many of them were only obvious in hindsight. My interest in 5e stems from a game that seems to strike a good balance.
Quote from: Kiero;793442As above, if we can't even use the damned rules we've chosen as a means of ensuring we at least start on the same page, what's the point in having them at all?
I'm not sure I understand how the use of GM rulings precludes, rather than complements, the application of the underlying ruleset.
Quote from: Kiero;793308If you have a character with nothing above average (or worse still, below average mental stats), what strengths?
Let's assume a PC is below average across the board: Every ability score is 8.
STR: can bend bars/lift gates 2% of the time and open doors on a 1-2. Not very good, but still a chance to succeed.
INT: Gains one extra language/skill slot
WIS, DEX, CON: No bonuses, but no penalties
CHA: Can employ up to three henchmen, with a minor (-5%) debit in loyalty
Putting aside that such a mediocre set of stats is pretty rare with 4d6-drop lowest (the most common roll-up method used), this can be a playable PC IF the player can make the most of what little this PC has to offer.
Fighter is the best option, in my opinion. What can a mediocre fighter do? Everything the ones with higher scores can, only not as well. If he rolls high HP and/or starting money, he'll have a big advantage. If not, he can still fight, carry treasure, equipment or wounded comrades, recruit henchmen and just about all the other tasks so-called "useless" characters can do.
QuoteAnd once again, "be a better player" sounds suspiciously like using your own knowledge, not playing what your character would actually know. So metagaming is just fine in old school, apparently.
Oh fuck off already.
As a player, I notice something fishy in the DM's description of a merchant offering to sell a magic sword to my PC. Since even the dumbest people can sense a bullshitter in action (conversely, quite a few smart and shrewd people get taken to the cleaners by bullshitters), it's entirely reasonable for me to assert that my PC smells a rat and thus won't buy the magic sword.
Now I wouldn't hesitate to call bullshit on a player asserting that because HE knows how to make gunpowder in real life, that his PC can too. But that's entirely different from even a dumb PC showing some measure of guile.
QuoteI can grasp it just fine, thanks, what I'm not grasping is how many proponents of old school aren't full of shit. Course that also explains why some people are so averse to skills. As soon as you start to define what the character can do (thus also by implication what they can't), you reduce the player's ability to make up stuff their character couldn't possibly know how to do.
:rolleyes:
Old Geezer covered this stupidity long ago.
QuoteI'd love to hear of examples where animals have used fire and burning oil, collapsed tunnels and set mechanical traps.
Are you really this fucking stupid? I point out that animals are often smart enough to use stealth and avoid fights they can't afford to lose (so even low-IQ PCs should be able to do likewise and your response is that coyotes don't set their enemies on fire or set mechanical traps? How do you tie your own shoelaces?
QuoteUnless the character is smart enough to be able to improvise this sort of thing, and/or has some experience of doing so, where did they pull it out of?
Apparently you are under the impression that the typical 1st level PC is just out of the womb and knows nothing. The rule books say otherwise: A 1st level fighter is listed as a
Veteran, which is to say, someone with martial arts training AND fighting experience. It's reasonable to assume that the more experienced fighter(s) who trained our new fighting man taught him more than just "The pointy end goes in the other guy".
Quote from: Necrozius;793332Nowadays, instead of telling a player "your character wouldn't know that", I tell them "normally your character wouldn't know that: we should come up with a clever or interesting explanation for why they do!". Sort of a Slumdog Millionaire situation. Anything to add richness to character backgrounds as well as further developing the setting's fluff: and it's more fun too.
Since almost all my games are group efforts, if player running Bronk the Retarded Barbarian (INT 5) comes up with an idea that requires way more intellect than Bronk can possibly muster, I give the credit to a PC in the group who does have the knowledge or wisdom to think of something so clever, like Ferdy the Apprentice Wizard. Not only does this keep SoD in order, but it encourages the players and their characters to act as a team.
Which reminds me, being a team player and a team PC is often the ultimate contribution a player character can make. As for prima donnas who think they have to be the star of the show, Mike Singletary said it best:
LINK (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB5-yJM3vJc)
Quote from: Enlightened;793416With 3d6, one in 216 people have an 18 Int. One in 216 people do not have IQ 180. I think this means that 18 Int does not equal IQ 180.
I would put it more in the ballpark of:
Int 18 = IQ 130
Int 3 = IQ 70
BX D&D had this entry in INT.
3 = Has trouble speaking. Cannot read or write.
4-5 = Cannot read or write.
6-8 = can write simple common words.
9-12 = Reads and writes native languages (2)
and so on.
Interestingly BX strength score is separate from their actual carrying capacity. In fact the 3 STR wizard can carry as much as the 18 STR fighter.
Quote from: Elfdart;793474I point out that animals are often smart enough to use stealth and avoid fights they can't afford to lose (so even low-IQ PCs should be able to do likewise and your response is that coyotes don't set their enemies on fire or set mechanical traps?
(http://earlyrecovery.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/wile-e-coyote.jpg)
Quote from: Will;793451Maybe I come from a very direction than many of you. My first several GM experiences, I ran games almost entirely freeform. People declared actions, I thought about an appropriate/fun result. Sometimes I'd use a randomizer, but not very often.
It worked well... but it was EXHAUSTING.
Yes, as I said, the rules (in old school D&D) are there to aid adjudication and thus help prevent this exhaustion. Personally I find that just declaring odds on a d6 free kriegsspiel style - "3 in 6 X succeeds" - and then rolling works fine to prevent the exhaustion you get if you try to determine everything.
I also find overly complex rules system exhausting to try to remember and apply consistently; 3e/PF is a major offender. 4e D&D doesn't have this problem to anything like the same extent; I've only played not GM'd 5e but it looks like being a lot easier to run, too.
Quote from: Omega;793496BX D&D had this entry in INT.
3 = Has trouble speaking. Cannot read or write.
4-5 = Cannot read or write.
6-8 = can write simple common words.
9-12 = Reads and writes native languages (2)
and so on.
Yes. It should be clear that the bell curve of stat distribution you get from 3d6 is not intended to be the distribution of stats in the general population. Gygax in the 1e DMG talks about generating stats for normal people: You roll 3d6 but count 1s as 2s and 6s as 5s, giving a range of 6-15. So you can consider that the normal range of non-crippled and non-exceptional attributes. That said, on 1 INT = 10 IQ that would give many more IQ 150 people than you get in reality. But INT 18 is intended to be genius level IQ, not 1 in 216.
Quote from: S'mon;793449As I said, the rules in (eg) pre-3 D&D are there to aid the GM in easy adjudication. They are not there "as a means of ensuring we at least start on the same page" - the way to be on the same page as the GM is to listen to what the GM is saying, and ask questions.
Some people don't like this approach, hence 3e D&D.
I think 3.x is an excessive over-reaction to the problem I see of people not using the rules they already have. Take the Moldvay Expert Set for example. That is chock-full of useful rules covering loads of outdoors-related stuff and situations you're likely to encounter. I was actually rather surprised by this when I read it a couple of years ago, because I didn't remember any of this from my early D&D days.
Yet there's a tendency, exacerbated by the reported fact in many groups that no one by the GM has even read the rules, to just make shit up on the spot. Which means we fail to realise the ease with which we
could use the rules to get everyone at least starting on the same page.
Quote from: Will;793451Whereas I like structured, coherent rules because it provides an easy reference for everyone, GM included, to avoid contradictions or painting yourself into weird corners.
If everything is up to the GM, it can be very easy for the GM to go 'fuuuck, X that I said last month contradicts Y that I said 5 months ago, and now... fuck fuck fuckity.'
Really, a coherent/structured game system can be a huge benefit for a GM, keep everyone on the same page, and let the GM focus on other stuff rather than trying to remember a pile of case judgements.
Maybe I come from a very direction than many of you. My first several GM experiences, I ran games almost entirely freeform. People declared actions, I thought about an appropriate/fun result. Sometimes I'd use a randomizer, but not very often.
It worked well... but it was EXHAUSTING. (I also started using maps at this point, because confusion about what the layout was and where people were would lead to player frustration)
Now, in retrospect, I think 3e made a number of critical mistakes, but many of them were only obvious in hindsight. My interest in 5e stems from a game that seems to strike a good balance.
This, all of this. It's easier on everyone if we have a common understanding, starting from the rules of the game we are ostensibly playing.
Quote from: The Butcher;793461I'm not sure I understand how the use of GM rulings precludes, rather than complements, the application of the underlying ruleset.
As above, because it undermines the potential for a common, shared understanding that comes from using the rules as a starting point, rather than thing you occasionally reference when you can't make something up on the spot.
Quote from: Elfdart;793474Let's assume a PC is below average across the board: Every ability score is 8.
STR: can bend bars/lift gates 2% of the time and open doors on a 1-2. Not very good, but still a chance to succeed.
INT: Gains one extra language/skill slot
WIS, DEX, CON: No bonuses, but no penalties
CHA: Can employ up to three henchmen, with a minor (-5%) debit in loyalty
Sorry, I've been talking about B/X (or indeed almost any later edition) all the way along, not OD&D. I'm really not interesting in discussing OD&D in this context, as we've already established, it makes ability scores irrelevant, making it a completely meaningless data point. In B/X an 8 in every score is a -1 penalty to every roll involving those ability scores.
Quote from: Elfdart;793474Putting aside that such a mediocre set of stats is pretty rare with 4d6-drop lowest (the most common roll-up method used), this can be a playable PC IF the player can make the most of what little this PC has to offer.
Fighter is the best option, in my opinion. What can a mediocre fighter do? Everything the ones with higher scores can, only not as well. If he rolls high HP and/or starting money, he'll have a big advantage. If not, he can still fight, carry treasure, equipment or wounded comrades, recruit henchmen and just about all the other tasks so-called "useless" characters can do.
Yet again, you're shifting the goalposts. The standard we've been talking about is 3d6 in order, not 4d6-drop lowest.
Wow, what an exciting time being able to do "everything...only not as well" promises! I'm sure he'll be a good sidekick to the PCs who rolled better.
He'll have to roll high for HP given he's going to have a penalty, and starting money means largely fuck all when he's going to have issues wearing the heaviest armour.
Quote from: Elfdart;793474Oh fuck off already.
As a player, I notice something fishy in the DM's description of a merchant offering to sell a magic sword to my PC. Since even the dumbest people can sense a bullshitter in action (conversely, quite a few smart and shrewd people get taken to the cleaners by bullshitters), it's entirely reasonable for me to assert that my PC smells a rat and thus won't buy the magic sword.
Now I wouldn't hesitate to call bullshit on a player asserting that because HE knows how to make gunpowder in real life, that his PC can too. But that's entirely different from even a dumb PC showing some measure of guile.
As Bren said, metagaming was exactly how they did play back in the day. Just be honest enough to admit that's what you're talking about.
Quote from: Elfdart;793474:rolleyes:
Old Geezer covered this stupidity long ago.
Old Geezer is full of shit, evidently so are you.
Quote from: Elfdart;793474Are you really this fucking stupid? I point out that animals are often smart enough to use stealth and avoid fights they can't afford to lose (so even low-IQ PCs should be able to do likewise and your response is that coyotes don't set their enemies on fire or set mechanical traps? How do you tie your own shoelaces?
Is reading comprehension beyond you? I didn't ask if animals can use stealth and avoidance, I asked if they can use the tactics commonly prescribed as "smart play". The assertion was that animals can be taught to/actually use these tactics. Yet the moment I pressed for evidence, most have backpedalled to talking about stealth/avoidance.
Who gives a fuck if animals can sneak around, that wasn't the question. But dodging the questions and shifting the goalposts is a recurring theme in this conversation.
Quote from: Elfdart;793474Apparently you are under the impression that the typical 1st level PC is just out of the womb and knows nothing. The rule books say otherwise: A 1st level fighter is listed as a Veteran, which is to say, someone with martial arts training AND fighting experience. It's reasonable to assume that the more experienced fighter(s) who trained our new fighting man taught him more than just "The pointy end goes in the other guy".
Yeah, right. Your pre-4th edition 1st level character is a mewling incompetent, not a hardened veteran. At best they're someone just out of basic training who knows which end is sharp. Someone with only a little more experience than a 0th level/Normal Man levy.
Quote from: Kiero;793505I think 3.x is an excessive over-reaction to the problem I see of people not using the rules they already have. Take the Moldvay Expert Set for example. That is chock-full of useful rules covering loads of outdoors-related stuff and situations you're likely to encounter. I was actually rather surprised by this when I read it a couple of years ago, because I didn't remember any of this from my early D&D days.
Yet there's a tendency, exacerbated by the reported fact in many groups that no one by the GM has even read the rules, to just make shit up on the spot. Which means we fail to realise the ease with which we could use the rules to get everyone at least starting on the same page.
I certainly agree that there are a lot of brilliant rules in Moldvay and Cook/Marsh which can help the GM run a better game. All the ones I can think of are very much aids to GM adjudication:
The Reaction Table.
The Evasion rules.
Rules for finding traps & secret doors, and the chances traps go off.
The encounter tables.
The treasure tables.
Procedural dungeon generation in Moldvay, especially the room contents. The list of dungeon/adventure types is great, too.
Cook/Marsh wilderness exploration, especially the rules for getting lost, and the sailing/navigation and weather rules - I used these in an Isle of Dread campaign and was gobsmacked how much it added to the travel-to-the-Isle start of the campaign.
3e is notably deficient in nearly all of those. The only version of 3e I know with decent encounter & treasure tables is the Pathfinder Beginner Box, and that still lacks procedural dungeon generation as well as the other elements listed above.
Quote from: Kiero;793505Yeah, right. Your pre-4th edition 1st level character is a mewling incompetent, not a hardened veteran. At best they're someone just out of basic training who knows which end is sharp. Someone with only a little more experience than a 0th level/Normal Man levy.
1st level power vs 0th level/NM power depends a lot on the edition.
In Moldvay Basic the Normal Man has 1-4 hp and THAC0 20; the 1st level Veteran has 1d8 hp and THAC0 19. In Mentzer Basic the Veteran is unchanged but Normal Man now has 1-7 hp, suddenly the gap is pretty slim.
In AD&D the 0th level Fighter has 1-6 hp (Monster Manual) or up to 4-7 hp (DMG Man-at-Arms), and THAC0 21. The 1e AD&D PHB Fighter-1 has 1d10 hp and THAC0 20. But the 1e Unearthed Arcana Fighter-1 has at least 6 hp, probably stat bonuses, and can x2 weapon spec for +3/+3 ATT 3/2, about three times as good as the F0. The 1e PHB-only F1 is arguably not much better than the 1e F0; until he gets to 2nd level, suddenly gets 2 atts/round (1/level) vs 0th level foes, and turns into John Carter.
Quote from: S'mon;793508I certainly agree that there are a lot of brilliant rules in Moldvay and Cook/Marsh which can help the GM run a better game. All the ones I can think of are very much aids to GM adjudication:
The Reaction Table.
The Evasion rules.
Rules for finding traps & secret doors, and the chances traps go off.
The encounter tables.
The treasure tables.
Procedural dungeon generation in Moldvay, especially the room contents. The list of dungeon/adventure types is great, too.
Cook/Marsh wilderness exploration, especially the rules for getting lost, and the sailing/navigation and weather rules - I used these in an Isle of Dread campaign and was gobsmacked how much it added to the travel-to-the-Isle start of the campaign.
3e is notably deficient in nearly all of those. The only version of 3e I know with decent encounter & treasure tables is the Pathfinder Beginner Box, and that still lacks procedural dungeon generation as well as the other elements listed above.
It's funny you say that, you've highlighted the initial problem I had with 3e when it first appeared, having put AD&D2e down a couple of years before that: it didn't "fix" any of the issues I had with the previous edition. Instead it was someone completely rewriting a whole bunch of stuff that, to my mind, didn't need to be amended, while ignoring all the stuff that did need looking at. Plus they completely unslipped casters from all the restraints they'd been operating under, because what could possibly go wrong with that?
It was so focused on combat (and to a lesser degree magic, where it interacted with combat) that it omitted everything else. And as you say, dropped all the really useful content that aided the GM that had appeared before.
Quote from: Kiero;793505Sorry, I've been talking about B/X (or indeed almost any later edition) all the way along, not OD&D. I'm really not interesting in discussing OD&D in this context, as we've already established, it makes ability scores irrelevant, making it a completely meaningless data point. In B/X an 8 in every score is a -1 penalty to every roll involving those ability scores.
In BX an 8 in every score just means you have a -1. No more, no less.
That is the crux of some folks argument here.
So Ive got a below average strength of 8? and a -1 on to-hit, damage, and doors? So what? The fighter with 16 STR can deal with it. Need a scroll read in some obscure dialect? Well it likely isnt the fighter with the 8 intelligence. Its going to be me with the 16 INT. And we both with our measly 8 wisdom are -1 on saves? Oh boo-hoo-hoo! I must kill my character in shame! Not. I'll turn to the cleric for sage advice on how to deal with something and get on with zapping monsters. Who the hell cares if I've got a -1 on saves? etc-etc-etc.
Dont treat a negative modifier as an instant death sentence. Because it isnt. even a -3 isnt a guaranteed killer. Hinderance? Sure. I dont think anyone is arguing that really low stats can be a hinderance. But these are things that can be lived with, lessened or even negated by various means.
A simple +1 Dagger and my -1 combat penalty is gone. Ring of Protection +1 and the save problem is gone. And so on. Or I might not give a damn and just keep on truckin. BX was great for that and 5e has some of that feel again.
As for how players view stats and how they play with them or not as guidelines. As with all else in RPGing. Its going to vary absolutely and it has since the very start right up to today.
A better question might be. "When did players start overfocussing on the bonuses and penalties to the point they cant see anything else?" According to one account by Geezer - since nearly the start - though in a rather minour way and not over stats.
Personal guess is the more mainstream inception was when someone had a character with low stats who died, or several, and they started associating low stat/penalty=death=something to avoid. Simmilar to how some freak out over house rules after some incident and thereafter ALL house rules are evil and must be stifled to save everyone.
Make of it what you will.
Quote from: Kiero;793505Is reading comprehension beyond you? I didn't ask if animals can use stealth and avoidance, I asked if they can use the tactics commonly prescribed as "smart play". The assertion was that animals can be taught to/actually use these tactics. Yet the moment I pressed for evidence, most have backpedalled to talking about stealth/avoidance.
Who gives a fuck if animals can sneak around, that wasn't the question. But dodging the questions and shifting the goalposts is a recurring theme in this conversation.
Animals use a variety of tactics. A number of which they learn over time on their own or from others. If I recall correctly, some basic tactics people use were learned from observing animals using them. Wolves, Lions, Ants, Birds even.
And something to consider. The average human being hasnt a damn clue how to start a simple fire or bring down a tunnel. Or bring down a tunnel without killing themselves too. Most dont know how to make even simple snares and if they caught an animal theyd have no clue what to do with it even if they had a knife. And they are doubly screwed if they dont have even that.
Now all that said. A dim person may still be good at outdorsy stuff. Things that are more the purview of wisdom than intellect. Note that alot of the animals on 5th ed have rather high wisdom scores.
A Tyrannosaurus as a WIS of 12. In fact alot of the listed animals have WIS scores ranging 10-12. The Deer has a WIS of 14!
Quote from: Omega;793520A Tyrannosaurus as a WIS of 12. In fact alot of the listed animals have WIS scores ranging 10-12. The Deer has a WIS of 14!
Ha, i hadn't taken any notice of that. A T-Rex has 3 more points of wisdom than my fighter, and a deer 5!
I rolled up my first 5e character the other night and i got wildly differing stats, that make him quite interesting IMO. After race, class, feat etc he's got 2 18s. then it's 10, 9, 8, 8.
So i went balls-to-the-wall, heavy-armour expert 2 handed-hammer swinging fighter, who is fine in a fight, but needs constant prompting out of it otherwise he loses interest and focus.
Quote from: Vargold;793443I didn't come to RPGs from war-games: ambushes and traps and molotov cocktails/flaming oil and all that effective combat/asymmetrical warfare stuff wasn't my bag. I was hitting D&D from the perspective of Tolkien and Howard and Lloyd Alexander and Ursula K. Le Guin and Star Wars. So I actually do want a game that makes my avatar more impressive from the get-go; I want more dependability in the system to convey that sense of heroic resilience and robustness.
That was well and fairly said.
While I have played both ways, I tend to enjoy playing characters who are more impressive than normal people but who still make (non-fatal) mistakes that are based on their character and attributes a lot more than a game where any mistake may be fatal and greased stairs leading into a pit-trip, with a molotov cocktail chaser, followed by pincushioning any survivors with arrows and quarrels is the standard operating procedure.
Quote from: Kiero;793442Cool, thanks for that.
You are welcome.
Quote from: ggroy;793444I never understood the point of Mensa.
As a couple of others have said, I suppose it is a social club for people who are intelligent (for the definition of intelligent that IQ tests measure). I've never had any difficulty finding people who are intelligent or who have nerdy interests. So the point of joining MENSA kind of escapes me. But the point of golf also escapes me.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;793498(http://earlyrecovery.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/wile-e-coyote.jpg)
This thread really needed Wile E. Coyote. Thanks Blacky.
Quote from: Omega;793516In BX an 8 in every score just means you have a -1. No more, no less.
That is the crux of some folks argument here.
So Ive got a below average strength of 8? and a -1 on to-hit, damage, and doors? So what? The fighter with 16 STR can deal with it. Need a scroll read in some obscure dialect? Well it likely isnt the fighter with the 8 intelligence. Its going to be me with the 16 INT. And we both with our measly 8 wisdom are -1 on saves? Oh boo-hoo-hoo! I must kill my character in shame! Not. I'll turn to the cleric for sage advice on how to deal with something and get on with zapping monsters. Who the hell cares if I've got a -1 on saves? etc-etc-etc.
Dont treat a negative modifier as an instant death sentence. Because it isnt. even a -3 isnt a guaranteed killer. Hinderance? Sure. I dont think anyone is arguing that really low stats can be a hinderance. But these are things that can be lived with, lessened or even negated by various means.
A simple +1 Dagger and my -1 combat penalty is gone. Ring of Protection +1 and the save problem is gone. And so on. Or I might not give a damn and just keep on truckin. BX was great for that and 5e has some of that feel again.
As for how players view stats and how they play with them or not as guidelines. As with all else in RPGing. Its going to vary absolutely and it has since the very start right up to today.
A better question might be. "When did players start overfocussing on the bonuses and penalties to the point they cant see anything else?" According to one account by Geezer - since nearly the start - though in a rather minour way and not over stats.
Personal guess is the more mainstream inception was when someone had a character with low stats who died, or several, and they started associating low stat/penalty=death=something to avoid. Simmilar to how some freak out over house rules after some incident and thereafter ALL house rules are evil and must be stifled to save everyone.
Make of it what you will.
There's two problems I have with the low stats character, and I recognise the "all 8s" example is an extreme one.
Firstly, this character is hapless, they are good at nothing, a perpetual sidekick and supporter by dint of never having something they are able to shine at.
It's not just that they have a penalty to everything - this combines with the fact that the characters who are actually good at something have a bonus in that, making the gulf of capability pretty big (especially at lower levels). The best you could hope for is being able to contribute in some way to the success of the specialist, unless your efforts were more likely to impede them, in which case you're relegated to spectator.
Secondly, as I said stats aren't just prescriptive, they are also descriptive. Someone quoted one of the tables from B/X giving guidance on how to play various levels of Int. Same goes for the other scores. We have someone who is literally less capable than any average person at
everything. That's not someone with strengths and weaknesses, it's someone who just sucks. No it's not a death sentence, it's worse, it's a promise of repeated failure.
Equipment is a band aid at best, once again someone who's actually good at something will be pushed even further ahead of you by getting something appropriate, where you won't even be where they were pre-augmentation. At best it's mitigation, not solution to having crap stats.
Lastly, I discount anything Old Geezer has to say on the topic; he's talking about OD&D which is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
Quote from: Omega;793520Animals use a variety of tactics. A number of which they learn over time on their own or from others. If I recall correctly, some basic tactics people use were learned from observing animals using them. Wolves, Lions, Ants, Birds even.
None of which are the "smart tactics" that everyone is supposed to use to "even the odds".
Quote from: Omega;793520And something to consider. The average human being hasnt a damn clue how to start a simple fire or bring down a tunnel. Or bring down a tunnel without killing themselves too. Most dont know how to make even simple snares and if they caught an animal theyd have no clue what to do with it even if they had a knife. And they are doubly screwed if they dont have even that.
This further support of my assertion that the dumbass character with low Int/low Wis has little justification in originating said "smart tactics". If someone of average Int/Wis is unlikely to know how to do it, why would a dumbass be able to spontaneously innovate a novel way to use those tactics in the chaotic situation in front of them?
Though you're in danger of equating the average
contemporary human with the average historical/fantasy human in the last instance. They'd be much more familiar with butchering animals for themselves than your average modern urbanite.
Quote from: Omega;793520Now all that said. A dim person may still be good at outdorsy stuff. Things that are more the purview of wisdom than intellect. Note that alot of the animals on 5th ed have rather high wisdom scores.
A Tyrannosaurus as a WIS of 12. In fact alot of the listed animals have WIS scores ranging 10-12. The Deer has a WIS of 14!
I've no familiarity with 5e at all, but don't disagree with you, most senses-related stuff is Wisdom, not Intelligence. But the character we've been talking about wasn't above average in either Intelligence or Wisdom. It's fairly cliche in the non-random generation methods for someone playing a Fighter-type to "dump" one or both so they can be better at fighting.
I really liked 3e when it came out because I HIGHLY value coherent rules (it makes it easier to modify and remember).
But, yeah, 3e has a 'rules load' a bit higher than I'm happy with (heck, I run toward FAE and Risus), and good points about older rule stuff the game set by the wayside.
I have happy memories of opening AD&D DMG and looking at wacky tables of this or that and it stirring my imagination. I hazily remember a table of herbs and their associations with various things (like anger, or soothing, or whatever).
Another rules subsystem I appreciated about 3e was the notion of encounter design. It's the one new(ish?) thing that I found helpful (even with the limitations and problems it had).
Quote from: Kiero;793353I had a go at a 3d6 in order character, rolling thus (http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/4688247/):
Str 10 (+0) Int 8 (-1) Wis 10 (+0) Dex 16 (+2) Con 8 (-1) Cha 10 (+0)
So we have someone who excels in only one area - Dexterity and is both dumber than average (Int) and unfit/unhealthy (Con). They'd make a good Rogue, I suppose, though one lacking either guile or charm, and no more cunning than the average person.
Not someone I'd be expecting to come up with intricate plans or schemes.
Here's a second one, rolling (http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/4688588/)these:
Str 12 (+0) Int 14 (+1) Wis 12 (+0) Dex 11 (+0) Con 10 (+0) Cha 9 (+0)
I suppose we have a Wizard, who is a bit smarter than average, but otherwise unexceptional.
And one last one, rolling this (http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/4688593/):
Str 8 (-1) Int 13 (+1) Wis 12 (+0) Dex 4 (-2) Con 12 (+0) Cha 14 (+1)
Not sure what you'd do with this character, they seem to have some sort of physical handicap given the Str and Dex, but they are smarter and more articulate than average.
May I? Does anyone else call dibs? /bats eyes
Duel terms are 5e and Basic .pdf? Or 2e?
And I'm definitely in the "thespy" side of play style. So yes, low stats will have a noticeable effect, and no I will make every effort to not metagame.
However, it is also a class-based game, and I also roleplay out the expected training from that as well. Just because my character is not bright has no bearing on my *trained fighter* unable to know basic-to-moderate strategy and tactics -- and how to follow through on orders. Same applies to rogue, wizard, etc.; they should know their stuff.
That and 2e NWP are professional level stuff. 5e background is "immersed in an entire lifestyle stuff." It's tapping into the well reserve of PC already lived experience. However, I also ask the GM whether such knowledge would be within my race/class/profession/background experience before I enact it.
Yes, you can be a "thespy" and still bust down doors, kick ass, and take names. Sometimes even better, because the GM might gladly volunteer more PC-assumed experiential knowledge which might lead to new quests, non-metagaming setting knowledge (GM can always lie to me, too, as hearsay is expected too), and potential NPC contacts through greater setting immersion.
Keep talking my "six senses to the world" (GM), give me more info, I'll stay completely in character the whole time. Fear not, I will listen with baited breath to every word you say. And also take notes.
Quote from: Omega;793520The Deer has a WIS of 14!
Deer are clearly the druids of the animal kingdom.
I subscribe to the method of a character can do whatever they want, and the stats represent how well they can handle a situation when it counts (when rolls are required).
A character with a 8 charisma and character with an 18 charisma can give the same speech word for word, but the second one will have more success with the audience. A character with an 8 dex can walk a tightrope during training, but won't be as reliable when doing so in a stressful situation. A character with 8 int can memorize anything, but may not recall it when the pressure is on.
Quote from: Will;793421I've had many arguments about this, since standardized tests make me Int 18 fairly reliably.
And yet, you're posting on here...
Actually, it just means your WIS is in the single digits. I figure anyone who posts to rpg message boards cannot have a WIS higher than 7.
Maybe a mental disad?
Funny how RPG message boards are full of geniuses, martial arts experts, and origami masters. Ok, scratch that, that's just this thread...
OHT, they're definitely full of people with poor reading comprehension.
Wot you said?
̘͕̱̦̹T̸̤̤y̜g̦̦͈e̬r̦̺̹̮͓͟ ̢T͚̰̬͈́y̝̠̞͢ger̻̣͚͝,̕ ̛̩̖͇̖̫̜̱b̺͚̩͖̮͝u̯̦͎͢r̛̟n͍̻̙̙̪͍̦i̧n҉g̴͙ ͘b̳̞̲͔̜̣r̸̲i̲̗͔g̲̞̦ͅͅh̶͉̩̮t̷͖̯̰̯,͇̯̳̘͕̟̪ ̡͇͚̳
҉̮͎̪I̗̝̦͎͎̮̖n̤ ̧͕th̷̙̞̩͎̗e̷̘̦ ̞͓f̩͓̼̦͕or̬̮̻͓͓̬ẹ̠̥̱̱͉s̠͕ţs͎͉̥̜͔͍̜̀ ̶̫̱̱̟o͎͍͖͉̰͚͠f̰̹͇̘̯ ̙̥̝th͇̝͚̺ͅe̡̙͉̦͖̻ ͔̲͕͚̩͘n̷̳̳̲͖͔͙i̞͈̼͙̩͞ͅg͙̦h̶̲̲̝̪͇̮̫t͇͖̗̲̣; ̯͙͚̮͙̮͖
̤͚̮̹W͜h̶̟̦͇a̵͇t̶͚͖͓̣ ̷i̳̩͠m̕m͖͖̞̻͚o̵̲͔̝ṟ̥̪͜ț̲̝̙̹̳̹a̘͝l̙̗͉̥̦͡ ̻̳͇͉͔͎ha̡ṉ̹̺͉d̥͎̭ ̝̘̯͔̘͇o͉̲̳͈̦͕̪r͚̲̩̺̠͝ ̥̣͈e̹̳͍̲͍̣ỵ̵̳̞̭e,́ ͓͔
̼͈C͇̖o̲u̠͍̬ld̨̲͍ ̡̘͖̱f̖͔̝̪̲̤ra̮̬m̲͙͎e͎͚̯̯̲̬̝ t͖̣͓̲̦̞̹h͉̱̗̭̘̜̬y ̶̝̳̺̯̯̱f̞͇̰e̲͕̫̘̯̳ͅa̷͍̣̱̭̮̥͓r̩̠̩̜fu͏̮̲͕̳̟l̷̜̹͓̭͔ͅ s̡̭̣̺̝͍ym̠͕m͏̤̥̞e̛̻̝̦̭t͔͕͉̘̝͎ŕ̜̲̺y͙̩͍?̶
̹̼̟͕͔͙̞
͚̹̟̤ͅI̢̩̤͙̪̩ṉ̺͜ ̳̗̙́w͏̯ha̙̞̩̞͈͈t̖̼̼ ̞̙d̥̩͉̘͇̣̩͡i̢͍s͈̣̘̭t̘̭̜a̹̻n͎͔̫̥̙͇͎t̨͍͚ ͉͓̖̩̳͘d̵̦͉e̖ę̼͖p͚͙̻͈s̢ ̬̩͉o͎͍̭̺̲ͅr̲͇̦̗͇̗͠ͅ ̹s̮̪͇k̖̺͢ͅi̙̜̖e̶̫̹̮s̡͎.̖ ҉̗̩̱͍̭̣͍
̷̲̫̟̘̝̟B͇̣̥͓͝u̹r̼̜̯̱̟̗n̪̻̟t̟ ͙̗͈̟̰ͅt͕̗͖͢ͅh͎̕ḛ̀ ̀f̶i̫͖͉̲͈̭̰ṟ̯̦͔̤e ̳̟ó̘̦̮̱͍͇͓f̧͉ ̵͇̲͇̟ṯ̸̖̦̰h̷͔̘̹̠i̭̣n͔͎̖e̘͘ ͇̞̙͙e̟̹͍͙̯ͅy̗̖̲̟̭̻ͅe̞͖̦s͙?̱͞
̺͉̙̬͖O̫̝̙̥̘͖̹͞n̘̜̰̹̣̻͟ ̣̣̰̞w̢̜ha̻̝̲t̹̹͉̬̮̦ ̣w͍͎̬̞̝͝i͏̬̤͕̞̜ͅn͠g̨̣̦͇͓s̙ ̬͓̭̝̙͚ͅd͏a̟̳̭̲̯ŗe̯̼͖͓͙͝ͅ ̴͖̘͈̞h̻̬̤̖̭̖e͈͙̬̺ ͎͕͎͔̟̙a͙͓̦͖̘s̺pi̯̻̠͕͉͖ͅr͕̳̯e͍̻̬͈̕ͅ?̫̰̱̻̹
̺W̺̹̬̥̮̱͞h̦͍͟a̩̙̝̭̦͇̕t̸̳ ̛̻͖͉̟t̛̪̖͇h̪͔̥͇̼͇e̜̙̳̖ h̖̲̮a̷̲ņḏ̨͈,̡̱̫̝ ̢̙̲d͟a͓͖̺͓r̥̜̖̗̖̜͎e̦ ̖͎͖̳s͕̗̼̠̝e͎͔͍͠i̡z̮̘͇̰̙̘̝e͍̱̬̩͉̻̲ ̱̟̭͚͡t͇̤̥͔͍ḩ̬͔̮̥e̮͍ f͈i̫̻̝͇̙̭͖r͕̯̞e̢?̨̤
̖
̵͖̝A̳̟n̞̟͢d͢ ̗̦̼̦͔͇̳w̫͖h̶̹at̤͇̰̜̖̖̰́ ̵̦̱̩s̶̗̭̜̙h̹̯̤͢ó̝͙͖̩̯̹̠u͏̻̫͍͈̹̱̥l̯̗͚̪͔͍̯d̨͈̻̻͓̦̣̲e͓͞r̛̘̟̣̝̥̼ͅ,̻̰͖͘ ̪͈̱̭͟&̧̳ ̴͈̳̮̥̼w͎̝̰̪̟̦h̡at͏̫͙̖͈̙̬ ͖̤̖̩a̺̩͓̖̹ͅr͍̫̱͘t,̩
̰̱̖̗͈̤͍͝C̢͍o͚ú̪͎͔͉̟ͅl̳̝͎͙̮̪̹d͚ t̗̦w̺͉̦̝ͅi҉s͖̫̮̱t͔̯ ͙ṭ̪̤̰̥̦̯h̰͕̦̗̩e͏ ̪̀s̛͙i̢ṋ̘̠e̞͙̱̕w̗̳̳͕̮̞ͅs̪͔͔̜̝̞ ̱̯̼̱ͅo̦͖̭f̴͎̱̦ ͔̫̞̣̖t̝̜͈̹͞ḥ̪̪̞̞̬̪y̵̳̖͖͈͕̯ ̝̜͍̪ḥ͇͎̪e͉͓͕̺͡a̕rt̘̖?͕̕
̵͈͎͓A̺͍̮̰ṇ̼͔̫͞d͙̝̙̭̱̻̥͘ ̡͈̼̟̹͈̝͓w̡̩̘̻͈h̦̝e̘͉̪̞̜n̴ t͓̳̦́h̹́y͖ ̮̘̤̻h͈̗̖ḛ̥͍a̢̼̭̮r̮ṭ͉̟̺ͅ ̴̠̜̠͙̰͚b̘̗͕̺e̠̦͇͎̠g͏͈a̧n̩̤̹̪̲͔͖ ҉̪̠͚͙̲ͅt̷̗͎ọ̭̜͓͓͜ ̤̤͙͎͜b͎͈̳̳̺̘e͉͍̰̤a͙̗͙͡t̵͈̠̲̻̻̥̠,̹
̥͞W̳̻̯̪͚͙͉h͉̩a̯̣̖̳̺̮̼͠t͇̪̣͇̦̖ ̹̜d̟̠̩̩̗r̀ea̳̠͉͇ͅd̳͇͓̦͚͚̙͡ ̥͕̱h̢͚̥̟͈͚̪̻a͔̦̻̝̲n̨̰̺͎̙d̟?̯̭̠̖̱̭ ̥̼̻̕&̞̜̺͕̰̼ͅ ̥ẁ͓̫͉̮͎h͕͉͚̀a̲̣̺͉t̺ ̱͖̼d̘̘͉̺̲̩ṟ̛͓e͍̞̗̥͎͔͍͡a̫̦̱̜̤ͅd̖̮̬̳͡ ̜͉̱͔͘f̜͇͔͉e̲e̛͖t?̟
͓
͍̺̖́W͟h͚̼̮͚̬͔̕a̲̳͎̗t͚ ͙̟̹̪̰̮t҉͉̦̦̼͕͍̮h̻͇͙̝̯e̜̟ ͚̩͕̜̬͔̦h̨͈͚a̗m͈̕m͎͘e̗̖̞̦r͏̖?̯̗̭͕̭̟ ͓̻̹̝w̟͕h͓͕̮̟̗̩ͅa͇̺̼̙̫̺t̶̬̺̭̹̼ ̴̜̥̘t͓h̼͇̗̼͖e̜͚̖ ̥͈̥̩̬c̴̱͖̟̺̬̟̳ẖ̸͓a̪i̱̖͖̬̯̣̟͡n,̜̘̺
̮I̢̤͙̼̹̲n̵̞̲̳͔͈̼̙ ̪̞͔̫̲w͈̪h̘a̰͢t̢̰̝̼ ̺͔̲̖̩͢f̝̞̲̝̳̜ṳ̢̼̘r͏̣̱̬na͉c͠e͚ ̗̮͍̯̖̺w̭̥̻̳as̛̹̱̮͉̝͚ t̲h̨͚̳̱y͕̜̝̲ ͍̫br̪̤̹̝͎̰͟a̟͔̫͕̪̹͈i͏͈n̢?̡̯̤̖̯̫
̢W҉̗̝͕̭̗̘̼h͈̟̱̞̼̻̙͘ą̞t̪̹͇̞̟̀ ̨t̛̳̝ͅh̞̬͓̗e̛ ̷͍̼͔̗a̩͉̤̠̦̯n̸̖͇̦̫̪̺v͏͖̟i̪͇̼̬̲͓̠l҉̺̩̫͓̬̟̝? ͏̬̝̬w̙̗̼̻̱̫ͅh̼̫a̹̥͇̯̩̥͞t҉̱ͅ ̖̗̀d̙re҉͓̩̝͔a͚̻̳d͔̺̕ ̶̩g͚̲͘r̴̙a̻̲̟̼͜s̲̬͎͙̬͓ͅp,̷͚ ̡̱̲
̹̙̬D͓͎̞̩͘ͅa͉̺̖̝̭r̼̣ẹ̟̖̖̻̪͠ ̧̱ị̜͈̠̠̙t͍͍̥͙̪͇̠s ̜̞͇͡d͚̠͡e͇͖͚͔̣̙̘a̢̳̺dl͙y̳ ̫̪͟ṭ͈e͏̜̰̲̱ͅrr̹͎͞o̴̲̰̰r͇̦̬̰̼s ̹̖̝̼͔̝͈c͠l̘̥͔̙as̢̠̫̰̫̤͇͚p̣̝͙̹! ̲̬̘̭ͅ
͏̘
͖͎̪͎͉̖͡ͅW̞̮͕̱̼h̖̻̬̺e̙͇̤̺͉͖n̢ ̸̝ţ͔̜̘͉̣̹͓h̢̖͍̱̹̥̠e̞̪̺̘͔͝ ҉̩̥̯͇ͅs̭t̵ar͇̩͝ş̠͓̬̻̳ ͍͙͉t̼̭̺̖͉͖̞h͍͍̙͍̜͝r̴̼̟e͖̠̦͈̰͙ͅw̝̭̬͚̟ͅ ͉d̞̻̦̣o̬̥w̢̥n̦̞̣̟̳̻ ̷̯͎͚͇̰̗t̙͔͔͚͓̙̰h̘͜e҉̮͈̝̠i̩̼͉͡r̡͓̤̮͓̞ ̹̯̱͚͕͎͎s̹͉p̤e҉͉̟̝̱̟͖ar̳̟͙̼s͡ ̝̺͙͔̖̟͟
͏̥̮̗͙̪̮A͖͎̬ǹd͎͖̣͇ ̳͕͠w̤͖̼̯̞͘at҉ȩ̳̺͓̥r͎̞̻'̡͍̫̮̩̲d͍̀ ̹̀h̙̯̦̲͙ḙ͓͡a̯͇͙͕͓̰v̟̺̙e̸̜n̸̠̲̺ ̮w͚͙i͕̝̜̖̼t̟̠̜̻͇͚͍͟h̟̜̼̺ ̬͚͇̪͇̰t̞̭̼̣̤̤̻͠h͚̯̦͕̰͓̻͜e̖͖͈͝i͈͈͎̜̲̲͎r̢̖̬ ̧͇̞̩͍̪̬t̞̥͙͖̦̘e̖͔͓͈̙à͓̗̺r̼̙̩̤͘ṣ̢͎̜̣̘:
D̷͓̬̼̠̘i̠͞d̗ ̘̬h̼̖͈̰̼̹̀e̫͔͖̥̺͕̦͘ ̸̙̝̻̰s͖̥̩͖̪͖͢m̸͚iͅl͉͖͍̣͕̬̰ę̪̖̗̩̼̝͕ ̮͇̻ḥ̷̗̖̲͎ͅi̢̘̞̜̬̩s͚͕̗̺͜ ͈͚͔wo̵̞̗̹͉̯͖̗r͉̭k̨̩͕̜̗ ̫̞͓̘ṱ̮͙̬̮o ͙̗̰̦̘̣̹̀s̱̦̀e̹̬͍e͖̺͕̖̱̥͡ͅ?͎͍̪͖͈̭̹
̧̺̦̻D͇̙̱͢i͙͙̜͞d̛̥̬̺̝̳̯ ̯̤͖͚̩̙h̻e ̤͠wh̹̮͇͞o̹̪̯ ̖͉̖̥̪̺m̧̲̘̭̭̼a͖̥d̺̲̮͖͘e̹͠ t̸̜̝͚̮̗̖ẖ̻̝̭͍̪e̝͖̹͉̰̕ͅ ̡̫̭̬̻̼Là͖̠͎͔̠m̞͇͠b̮̮̗̻ ̦͎m̩̯̹͚a̴͔̹̝̣̤̱k͙̥͔͈͕͕̩e̠̞ͅ ̹̤͓̣̙̭̖t͍̼͡h̜̱̳ḙ̸̹̜̩̺̟e͖͇͟?̠͞ͅ
̷͔͓̙
͔̗̺̪T̶̬̤̮̘̥y̛̝͓̟̝̘͓̬g̟̜̪̱e̼̖̖r͈̩͝ ̬̺͍̬͙̞̜T͇̣̺͚y̮̱̩͘gè̳͕̻̮̬̭r̹̗ ̨̜͓͔͖̘b̺̻͎̘̝u̗̫͚ṛ̠̼͕͇̬͢n̠̻̫ị͍̦̪͙͇n̠̜g̠͖̩̟̲̤ ̷͔̞̖̟̬ͅb̛͎͙̼͖r҉̠̻͙̭i̷g̵h͇t̝,̰̟̪ͅ ̗
̸̩͖̹̼In͏̼̯̲̠͍͙ ͙̲͍͓̠̼t͕̰h̢̰̙̠̙̫̦̬e ͝f̣̦̥̰̯͞o̬̣̟̼r͈͕̣͈̹e͓̖͕s̺͕̗̝̪͇̠t͈̗̱̤̪̺̞͡s̗̥̖̤̯̰̮ ̝̩͖of͟ ̷̯̗̦̝̖̝̝t̰̙h̨e̬͕͉̬̹͓ ͈̥̞̙͔͜n̗̲̤̝̠̰͔i̖̜̣̱̞ͅg͙͇̬͝h͍̰͇̘̳͡ț̡͎:͏̖͚͓ ̠̪͝
͈̖W̘͔h̹̱̹̗̦͇͠a̸̞̬̦͕̹͙͇ṭ̯̥ ̴̰͚i̭̳ͅm̼͚͇̞m̬͔̠͚̟ͅo͈͢r̡̬̦͕̱t̜̹̦a̢̰̼͎l̛̗͖ͅ ̮̜͍͔̠̙͎ha̴n̥d͈̰̘͕̭ ͔͈͓̳͕̤̖o̗͉̹͍̼͓͟r̸̲̺̭ ̪͎͕͍e̡̪̤̮̣y̵̤e̴̩̯͕̫,̲̱̼͓̱͙
̨̣̜ͅD̰͙a̝̮̪̥̰̫͇r̺̬̣̹̕ͅe̯͝ ̮̼̥͙̘fr̜̬̲a̡̖̼̼̩̭̳̹m͇͖̜̘͚̦͙e̱͉̟̠̠ ̣̦͞t͏h̘y̠͉̼͚ ͎͖͕̟̘͚f̙͚͓̠͔͓̲e̻̠̲̳̲a̸͕̞͎̪r̻̮͈̤͍̼͢f̵u̺̥͈̫̫̭̲l̘̩͖̩ ̥͖̞̣͖͓̮͜s̨̥̜͎ͅy̗m̟̙ͅm̖̮͕͈̲̪̘͠e̸͈̞̝͉̘͚͎t͈̪̞͇͉̠̫͡r̲̗y͖̥͙͉͉̦?̞̳͓̳
͡
This first one is just dirt easy in 5e. Guile, charm, cunning, and training in execution of intricate plans & schemes (social monster, disguises, cat burglary skills, & illusions as icing on the cake). Also has background social framework (Criminal Contacts) to up his game, if all of the below is somehow "inadequate."
Quote from: Kiero;793353I had a go at a 3d6 in order character, rolling thus (http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/4688247/):
Str 10 (+0) Int 8 (-1) Wis 10 (+0) Dex 16 (+2) Con 8 (-1) Cha 10 (+0)
So we have someone who excels in only one area - Dexterity and is both dumber than average (Int) and unfit/unhealthy (Con). They'd make a good Rogue, I suppose, though one lacking either guile or charm, and no more cunning than the average person.
Not someone I'd be expecting to come up with intricate plans or schemes.
High Elf Rogue Criminal
Lvl 1, Prof +2. Saves: DEX, INT. Alg: ??
HD: d8. HP: 7. AC: 16.
STR 10 (0), DEX 18 (4), CON 8 (-1), INT 8 (-1), WIS 10 (0), CHA 10 (0)
race: elf & high elf stuff.
background: criminal contacts.
lang: common, elvish, dwarvish.
armor: light.
weapon: rogue's, s. swd, l. swd, s. bow, l. bow.
tools: thieves', disguise kit.
skills: acrobatics (bkrd wild) +6, deception (exp) +4, insight (bkrd wild) +2, perception (race) +2, persuasion (exp) +4, sleight of hand +6, stealth +6
(because I took deception, stealth, and have thieves' tools, and Criminal background is redundant, I get two wild card skills and one wild card tool.)
Cantrip: Minor Illusion
Wealth: Adventure League starting max GP. Rogue = 4d4 x10gp = 160 gp. Spent 156 gp. Left 9 gp.
Armor: Studded - 45 gp. 12+DEX = 16.
Weapon:
2x S. Swd - 10 gp. +6 atk. 1d6+4. light, finesse.
20x Darts - 5 cp. +6 atk. 1d4+4. finesse, thrown (20/60).
Gear: Thieves' Tools - 25 gp. Disguise Kit - 25 gp. Explorer's Pack - 10 gp, Burglar's Pack - 16 gp. 3x Caltrops - 1 gp. Lantern hooded - 5 gp.
@1 gp (bucket, chalk, ladder, 3x Oil, parchment, pole 10', pouch, 8x sack, signal whistle, soap, 3x flour fine, etc.)
Bio: Any particular advice desired on how to play him or her?
Quote from: Opaopajr;793536However, it is also a class-based game, and I also roleplay out the expected training from that as well. Just because my character is not bright has no bearing on my *trained fighter* unable to know basic-to-moderate strategy and tactics -- and how to follow through on orders. Same applies to rogue, wizard, etc.; they should know their stuff.
That's one of the problems with a class-based game. These characters wouldn't have made it through the training, but since it's a game and class based...
One of the things Ive never liked about D&D , any edition, is that the stats dont have any sort of real-world equivilancies hardwired into the system. It makes it so much easier.
It wouldnt even have to be exacting like GURPs, just:
-2 - Well below human average
-1 - slightly below human average
0 - Human average
+1 - above average
+2 - peak human
Each player then has default 0 in all stats (if human), but can subtract from one to add to another, and gets an extra point towards one of the prime requisits of thier class.
But then Ive just made another game I guess...
Quote from: Sommerjon;793600That's one of the problems with a class-based game. These characters wouldn't have made it through the training, but since it's a game and class based...
As Seinfeld said about doctors,
someone is graduating from the bottom of the class.
And that's okay. Not all of us are born great, some of us have to work on it - and most won't make it.
Audie Murphy was initially turned down from all three branches of the military for being underweight and underage, and when he finally got into the Army he passed out during parade ground drill, his company commander tried to have his skinny 112lb arse transferred to a non-combat unit. Audie wanted to fight. Went on to win the Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star with clasp, Bronze Star, etc. I'd be surprised if he was even Strength 9, and he was only semi-literate (which caused him to initially refuse his commission, but his commander got someone else to do the paperwork) so probably not even Int 9, but despite his poor stats he seems to have made a pretty good fighter.
I'm sure a lot of other Str 9 fighters were left lying dead on the beaches of southern France. But so were a lot of Str 18 ones.
Quote from: Kiero;793505Sorry, I've been talking about B/X (or indeed almost any later edition) all the way along, not OD&D. I'm really not interesting in discussing OD&D in this context, as we've already established, it makes ability scores irrelevant, making it a completely meaningless data point. In B/X an 8 in every score is a -1 penalty to every roll involving those ability scores.
I'm referring to 1E AD&D, though in any edition of the game, stats at the low end of average aren't exactly crippling. A -1 penalty in B/X? Oh the HORROR!
QuoteWow, what an exciting time being able to do "everything...only not as well" promises! I'm sure he'll be a good sidekick to the PCs who rolled better.
And what's wrong with that? Not everyone is a prima donna. You must suck just as much in team sports as you do in gaming.
QuoteHe'll have to roll high for HP given he's going to have a penalty, and starting money means largely fuck all when he's going to have issues wearing the heaviest armour.
He doesn't have to have the heaviest armor (something 1st level PCs can't afford anyway), but let's say he rolls very well for money. He'll be able to buy chainmail and his choice of melee weapons and/or a composite bow. But even if his money and hit points are just as mediocre as his other stats, he's still a playable character for any player who likes a challenge, and has at minimum, the resourcefulness of a cow.
QuoteAs Bren said, metagaming was exactly how they did play back in the day. Just be honest enough to admit that's what you're talking about.
Define "metagaming". I have the sneaking suspicion that you use the term to describe any character played with cunning equal to or greater than that of a cow.
QuoteIs reading comprehension beyond you? I didn't ask if animals can use stealth and avoidance, I asked if they can use the tactics commonly prescribed as "smart play".
In many respects, yes they can. Doing their best to fight on favorable terms, and avoiding combat on unfavorable terms is something even dumb animals can do. Using caution in unknown and suspicious circumstances is also commonplace among animals. Obviously you like to play characters with less intelligence and guile than a cow. Says a lot about your shortcomings as a player, doesn't it?
QuoteThe assertion was that animals can be taught to/actually use these tactics. Yet the moment I pressed for evidence, most have backpedalled to talking about stealth/avoidance.
Stop lying. I didn't write about teaching animals anything.
QuoteWho gives a fuck if animals can sneak around, that wasn't the question. But dodging the questions and shifting the goalposts is a recurring theme in this conversation.
Stop lying, asshole. Here's what you wrote:
QuoteThat's leaving aside the fact that if you're playing a low Int/low Wis character, there's no way someone as dumb as a box of rocks is going to come up with all these innovative ways to alter the odds in their favour. So we have a player metagaming and using their character as avatar for their own ideas.
Here are the "innovations" that you think are totally beyond the mental faculties of a low-INT PC:
Don't travel alone, don't rush into combat, and if they have to kill an opponent, try to use methods that are neither melee combat nor ranged attacks. Lure monsters into traps, start rockf slides, collapse tunnels, use gas bombs. Flaming oil is a cliche for a reason.Maybe I gave you credit for intelligence you clearly don't have. It should be obvious that I wasn't claiming that animals could use gas bombs and flaming oil, but rather that they can work as a team, use traps and ambushes, etc...
AND that if animals can do those things, then even dumb humans can do all that and much more.
QuoteYeah, right. Your pre-4th edition 1st level character is a mewling incompetent, not a hardened veteran. At best they're someone just out of basic training who knows which end is sharp. Someone with only a little more experience than a 0th level/Normal Man levy.
For the record, a 1st level fighter has a better HD, better THAC0, better combat tables, better saving throws and most importantly of all, potential for advancement. If you think that makes him only a little better than a normal person (i.e. 0-level NPC) then no wonder your PCs have the knowledge and shrewdness of -what else?- a cow.
I get the impression that just about any PC you play will be a "mewling incompetent" which, by your standards, would count as "metagaming".
The great stats debate only ends when all characters have the same sized penis!(er, metaphorically, of course).
The modern game--it's double-plus good!
This thread has taught me that animals are completely incapable of using tactics (http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/wolves_gray_hunting). Fucking education system was wrong!
Quote from: Elfdart;793687I'm referring to 1E AD&D, though in any edition of the game, stats at the low end of average aren't exactly crippling. A -1 penalty in B/X? Oh the HORROR!
It's significant compared to the bonuses at the high end. Even in the original three books, charisma bonus ranged from -2 to +4, and that was on 2d6 reaction rolls. (The DM could assign large modifiers and negate that, but to never succeed at hiring a reasonably neutral NPC would require -9 for the character with 18 charisma.)
Quote from: Kiero;793505Someone with only a little more experience than a 0th level/Normal Man levy.
QuoteFor the record, a 1st level fighter has a better HD, better THAC0, better combat tables, better saving throws and most importantly of all, potential for advancement.
From the Greyhawk supplement on, very high characteristics for a 1st level fighter got at least the same quality of improvements (some better, some worse, some that increasing level alone can't fix) compared to a merely average 1st level fighter. (That's even ignoring the ranger class from Strategic Review, who was effectively 2nd level at the start but needed good characteristics to qualify for.) So shouldn't the people convinced that there's no basis for complaint if your character averages below 10 be playing 0th level characters (albeit able to advance) to start with? Walking to the dungeon uphill both ways?
You have to draw the line somewhere. But let's not pretend that the difference is not significant or that any lower line can always be compensated for by better roleplaying. Sometimes yes, sometimes no; and it can be tedious rather than fun to compensate even when it works.
Kiero, show us on the doll where the Str 9 fighter touched you in a bad way.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;793666As Seinfeld said about doctors, someone is graduating from the bottom of the class.
And that's okay. Not all of us are born great, some of us have to work on it - and most won't make it.
Audie Murphy was initially turned down from all three branches of the military for being underweight and underage, and when he finally got into the Army he passed out during parade ground drill, his company commander tried to have his skinny 112lb arse transferred to a non-combat unit. Audie wanted to fight. Went on to win the Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star with clasp, Bronze Star, etc. I'd be surprised if he was even Strength 9, and he was only semi-literate (which caused him to initially refuse his commission, but his commander got someone else to do the paperwork) so probably not even Int 9, but despite his poor stats he seems to have made a pretty good fighter.
I'm sure a lot of other Str 9 fighters were left lying dead on the beaches of southern France. But so were a lot of Str 18 ones.
Your justification is be a special snowflake?
Quote from: Elfdart;793687I'm referring to 1E AD&D, though in any edition of the game, stats at the low end of average aren't exactly crippling. A -1 penalty in B/X? Oh the HORROR!
The most successful PC in my current Labyrinth Lord game is a Cleric with STR 8. He's notably less effective in combat, but this hasn't stopped him being the most effective and now most experienced (Clr-3!) character, while many with higher stats have bit the dust.
I've been thinking about this thread since I first saw it, a couple of weeks ago. I can't imagine having a character suicide because of low stats. I can foresee however not playing with a GM that told me there was one and only one way of generating stats and it was random. I would see that as a clear indication of two very different gaming philosophies. Mine and their's would not be matching.
I realize that there are players that love a challenge. That no matter what, they will be game to play any character. I applaud them. I am not that player. Real life is random enough. We are stuck with situations well beyond our control. I play games to escape that, not revel in it. As a player I get to do one thing, play my character. I want that character to be as close to exactly what I want as possible. And random stat generation is not likely to give me that. It is also going to create a party with vastly different levels of power from character to character. I don't see that as fun nor fair. Give me point buy or stat arrays any day of the week.
Repeating something I suggested early in the thread, I think it's most often a sign of unexamined young gaming/gamers.
That is, folks early in their 'career,' a new person joins, the group says 'hey, 3d6 in order!' The new person shrugs and goes 'ok!'
And then gets a crappy result, because the person hasn't considered or doesn't really know what that will mean. New person gets frustrated.
The group, similarly failing to really consider how this is going to play out, refuse to let the new person reroll or change anything.
Now, let me reiterate that I don't think doing stats this way is ALWAYS a bad idea, or that people never considered it's place in the game.
I think, rather, that when the system doesn't work well for it (like, say, 3e or 4e), and when people haven't really thought about it, you are most likely to create the situation where people jump on traps and whatnot to get a chance to reroll.
Quote from: Will;793790That is, folks early in their 'career,' a new person joins, the group says 'hey, 3d6 in order!' The new person shrugs and goes 'ok!'
And then gets a crappy result, because the person hasn't considered or doesn't really know what that will mean. New person gets frustrated.
The group, similarly failing to really consider how this is going to play out, refuse to let the new person reroll or change anything.
I dont think its that quite. A young new player wont know the system so is alot less likely to care overall pro or con to stats in and of themselves.
I think its when you have low stats and associate it with dead character, or high stats with success that the mindset may set in. And its a very tenuous may. But I believe its not just the low stats/high stats alone that are the trigger.
Its like how some people come to be rabidly against house rules, or random rolling even. They associate one thing with a bad (or good) experience and forever after are 100% convinced that this one thing is bad for everyone and any accounts otherwise are lies, self deception, or you somehow arent playing the same way and thus your account is magically invalidated.
Then they wonder why the rest of the gaming community treats them like nut cases.
Quote from: Omega;793797I dont think its that quite. A young new player wont know the system so is alot less likely to care overall pro or con to stats in and of themselves.
Not in my experience?
It doesn't take system mastery to go '3d6, and none of my rolls were over 12' and be unhappy.
Also, a newbie is perhaps more likely to buy assurances that 'it'll work out' and then get pissed when it doesn't.
Which is what's happened to me about a lot of balance issues, and why I actually care about character balance nowadays. You know, I'd rather have a mostly on-par character AND inject a lot of cool solving, characterization, and roleplay, rather than feel that I'm somehow more of a man if I do a lot with a crappy character in everyone's shadow.
And I'm not talking about one experience but many.
Quote from: Simlasa;793448Yup. I went to one meeting with a friend of mine and we both came away somewhat annoyed by the people there.
It's one of those things you join so you can tell other people you've joined it.
The strangest case I ever came across at a Mensa meetup, was an individual who was a wannabe theoretical physicist, who didn't have a background in physics or math (or even engineering for that matter). This person was talking about their own crazy theories, which sounded like the sort of run-of-the-mill crankish crackpot theory stuff all over the net.
It seemed like nobody else at that particular Mensa meetup wanted to talk to this person. (Probably nobody could figure out what this person was talking about).
Most of the members which showed up at various meetups (that my ex-wife dragged me to), didn't have a technical background (ie. hard science, engineering, math, etc ...). From what I was able to figure out, most were either just high school graduates, or they majored in a liberal arts or social science in college.
Quote from: ggroy;793813The strangest case I ever came across at a Mensa meetup, was an individual who was a wannabe theoretical physicist, who didn't have a background in physics or math (or even engineering for that matter).
Welcome to the world, most people don't understand science, or good logic; the philosophy of science is about methodology.
It gets better, not being an aerospace engineer, but occasionally having a pint with some, I mentioned to someone online, what they said about a Mars mission, at which point that person became enraged and has stalked me across the internet for years.
Been busy of late, much 5e Adventure League, however this one I couldn't resist. In fact, it is so deliciously appropriate for an acquaintance NPC I already introduced, I'm stealing this statline for my Livonia's Lament 5e RAW PbP game here. Thank you, by sheer good fortune this 3d6 straight down fits into my campaign perfectly. (The end result for my NPC will be quite different from here though.)
Basically this one is so good I'm gonna use it twice, and one build in an actual game right now. Thanks!
Quote from: Kiero;793353And one last one, rolling this (http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/4688593/):
Str 8 (-1) Int 13 (+1) Wis 12 (+0) Dex 4 (-2) Con 12 (+0) Cha 14 (+1)
Not sure what you'd do with this character, they seem to have some sort of physical handicap given the Str and Dex, but they are smarter and more articulate than average.
original stats: STR 8, DEX 4, CON 12, INT 13, WIS 12, CHA 14
Lambic Artois
Hill Dwarf Cleric, Noble w/ Brewery
Lvl 1, Prof +2. Saves: WIS, CHA. Alg: ??
HD: d8. HP: 11. AC: 16 (18 w/ shield). Spd. 25'
STR 8 (-1), DEX 4 (-3), CON 14 (2), INT 13 (1), WIS 13 (1), CHA 14 (2)
Lang: Common, Dwarvish, Halfling
Race: Dwarf
Spd - your speed is not reduced by heavy armor. Darkvision, 60'. Dwarf Combat Training. Dwarf Artisan - Brewer. Stonecutting. Toughness - HP +1 at start & each lvl.
Class
Armor: light, medium, heavy (domn), shield.
Weapons: all simple.
Tools: Brewers, Chess Set
Skills: Deception +4, History (bkrd) +3, Insight +3, Persuade (bkrd) +4.
Life Domain:
Bonus Prof - heavy armor. Bonus Prepared - 1st. Bless, Cure Wounds.
Disciple of Life - Heal spells 1st+ lvl, add 2+spell lvl HP.
Spells DC: 11. Spell Atk: +3. Ritual Cast - need prepped. Spell Focus.
Slots: at-will/2. Prep: 2+Domain {Bless (30', conc 1 min), Cure Wounds}.
Cantrips - Guidance (conc 1 min), Sacred Flame (60', DEX save v. 1d8 radiant), Thaumaturgy (30', up to 1 min).
1st - usually in non-hostile Detect Magic (conc 10 min) & Sanctuary (bonus, 30', 1 min); or in hostile Heal Word (bonus, 60') & Shield of Faith (bonus, 60', conc 10 min).
Background
Feature: Position of Privilege
Pers: Warm. Ideal: Cozy Life. Bond: Brewery Reputation. Flaw: Beer Snob.
Gear: Fine clothes, Signet ring, Scroll of pedigree, belt pouch +25 gp.
Wealth : Start 25 gp. Spent -3 gp. Left 22 gp.
Armor: Chain Mail - AC 16. Shield - AC +2.
Weapon:
Warhammer +2 atk, 1d8 b. versatile 1d10.
Spear +2 atk, 1d6 p. thrown (20/60), versatile 1d8.
Gear: Explorer's Pack (backpack, bedroll, mess kit, tinderbox, 10x torches, 10x rations, water skin, rope hemp 50'), Holy Symbol (Emblem).
5x Pitons - 5 cp, 5x Candles - 1 cp, 5x Sacks - 1 cp, Signal Whistle - 5 cp, Bucket - 5 cp, Jug - 2 cp, Soap - 2 cp, Chalk - 1 cp, Pouch - 5 sp, Waterskin - 2 sp, 3x Oil - 1 sp, Common Clothes (olive) - 5 sp.
Bio: Normally fights with Sacred Flame, as it also gets around cover's +2/+5 on DEX saves. However, against high DEX opponents will lapse back to melee weapons. Knows he's much better at the business table for another kind of warfare, but has enough AC & HP to make him still a board threat.
Quote from: Tetsubo;793788I've been thinking about this thread since I first saw it, a couple of weeks ago. I can't imagine having a character suicide because of low stats. I can foresee however not playing with a GM that told me there was one and only one way of generating stats and it was random. I would see that as a clear indication of two very different gaming philosophies. Mine and their's would not be matching.
The only case of PC suicide I ever heard of was in Gary Alan Fine's book, where an entire group committed suicide as a sanction of the referee. That seems rude and immature. But if you tell me I can do anything and then the character I roll is only suited to being a shopkeeper, then shopkeeper it is; if you want me playing an adventurer, then I'm going to have to roll another character.
People being unhappy with bad rolls, especially when there are huge benefits from good rolls that can never be matched (not just high bonuses but the chance to play interesting or unusual classes), seems all but inevitable. I played one really bad character as a cleric (too stupid to realize that shopkeeper paid better, I guess) and it went OK, but he retired at 2nd level.
Quote from: Sommerjon;793745Your justification is be a special snowflake?
His justification was that Audie Murphy overcame his limitations through bravery, grit and determination. Not sure why you would to intentionally miss the point there. By the way, IRL, we're all special snowflakes.
Quote from: cranebump;793921His justification was that Audie Murphy overcame his limitations through bravery, grit and determination. Not sure why you would to intentionally miss the point there. By the way, IRL, we're all special snowflakes.
Sure, whatever you need.
I find it amusing that you can have your special snowflakes, as long as they are done in the 'proper' way.
There is some tension amongst military personnel around Murphy.
Quote from: S'mon;793746The most successful PC in my current Labyrinth Lord game is a Cleric with STR 8. He's notably less effective in combat, but this hasn't stopped him being the most effective and now most experienced (Clr-3!) character, while many with higher stats have bit the dust.
This sounds like the perfect type of game in which to commit character suicide. With many characters dieing before hitting mere third level, it should not make any difference if a few deaths were suicidal.
Kudos, sir, for showing us the type of game where the OP's lamantation is irrelevant. Game on!
Quote from: Sommerjon;793959I find it amusing that you can have your special snowflakes, as long as they are done in the 'proper' way.
If you are against people's achievements from hard work and courage being recognised, then you pretty much reject the entire premise of a level-based roleplaying game, since that's what experience points are about. Which is fine, lots of people play games without xp, but it makes me wonder what the fuck you're doing in a thread about D&D.
This is just contrasting ideas of what a "hero" is. The old Greek epic ideal was that a hero was just born awesome, typically one parent a god. The more British ideal is "the ordinary person who does extraordinary things."
One of the virtues of a game like D&D is that it can accommodate either approach, you just roll up your characters differently.
In neither case can the game accommodate Kiero.
Quote from: Old One Eye;793968This sounds like the perfect type of game in which to commit character suicide. With many characters dieing before hitting mere third level, it should not make any difference if a few deaths were suicidal.
Kudos, sir, for showing us the type of game where the OP's lamantation is irrelevant. Game on!
You might be right, except that it is only a 6 session Halls of Tizun Thane mini-campaign, and losing at least a session's worth of XP & starting over at 0 is a major penalty. After 5 sessions, with the finale on Tuesday, the most successful characters are:
#2 The Thief-3, who has high stats, aggressive approach, had the good fortune to be absent for the near-TPK in session 4, when most of the group were wiped out by Sega Thane and his plate-armoured skeletons.
#1 The Cleric-3, who has STR 8 and lowish overall stats, who has been played with dogged determination through every session and eventually retreated during the Sega Thane massacre after his Turn Undead attempt failed and the situation became hopeless.
Quote from: Sommerjon;793959Sure, whatever you need.
I find it amusing that you can have your special snowflakes, as long as they are done in the 'proper' way.
There is some tension amongst military personnel around Murphy.
This piece is called "Portrait of a Defeated Troll." Numbered prints are available as you exit through the gift shop.
Quote from: Sommerjon;793959Sure, whatever you need.
I find it amusing that you can have your special snowflakes, as long as they are done in the 'proper' way.
There is some tension amongst military personnel around Murphy.
I was in the military. Army. 8 years. What is this tension about exactly...? Iconoclasts exist everywhere, of course, so...I suppose there's something.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;794016This piece is called "Portrait of a Defeated Troll." Numbered prints are available as you exit through the gift shop.
:rotfl:
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;793666Audie Murphy was ... underweight and underage, and ... passed out during parade ground drill ...
I'd be surprised if he was even Strength 9, and he was only semi-literate ... so probably not even Int 9, but despite his poor stats he seems to have made a pretty good fighter.
Does his career as a film star mean he had an 18 charisma? I'd venture that his player character statistics would be measured from the end of basic and advanced infantry training, and so his strength and constitution may well have been better. Since in 1940 most of the adult population had no more than elementary education, and INT is not exclusively education (he ended at 5th grade from circumstances, not aptitude), I'd disagree with that assessment. But even so, two 9's and an 18 doesn't seem like a bad character for 3d6 in order.
I've seen his films, he doesn't seem like he had Cha 18. That's more like Al Pacino or someone like that.
He was just a regular guy who was very brave, and his bravery got him some recognition which he was able to turn into a media career.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;794175He was just a regular guy who was very brave, and his bravery got him some recognition which he was able to turn into a media career.
So it all came down to Player skill and a bit of luck?
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;794175I've seen his films, he doesn't seem like he had Cha 18. That's more like Al Pacino or someone like that.
He was just a regular guy who was very brave, and his bravery got him some recognition which he was able to turn into a media career.
That might explain playing himself in the movie of his war experiences, but not his fairly sustained acting career; past recognition isn't going to keep producing unrelated starring roles. How many regular guys get stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame? IMDB reports that in 1995 he was chosen by Empire magazine as 55th sexiest star in film history; soft spot for war heroes or actual charisma? An 18 charisma is only 1 in 216, after all.
And with three Purple Hearts and not being incapacitated by his PTSD, he probably had a good constitution score. "During the mid-1960s, he recognized his dependence on Placidyl, and locked himself alone in a hotel room for a week to successfully break the addiction" -- both parts of that say high wisdom score to me. That seems just as valid as your suppositions about his intelligence (strength is one of the few characteristics that's objectively measurable, and probably not that relevant to a WWII soldier as long as it was in the normal range -- 9 strength was no penalty in D&D versions that used 3d6 generation).
You would do as well to assert that Thomas Edison must have had a very low intelligence score because one of his teachers called him addlepated and retarded; so, IQ below 70, which given the distribution of IQ scores would be a 4 intelligence or less. He of course overcame this and rose to the level of Wizard (of Menlo Park).
Quote from: rawma;794182You would do as well to assert that Thomas Edison must have had a very low intelligence score because one of his teachers called him addlepated and retarded; so, IQ below 70, which given the distribution of IQ scores would be a 4 intelligence or less. He of course overcame this and rose to the level of Wizard (of Menlo Park).
Wonder what INT scores would be assigned to individuals like Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, J Robert Oppenheimer, etc ...
Or is the D&D notion of "INT" too imprecise for real world people?
One circular argument I've liked to use with D&D is 'Intelligence is what makes you good at remembering spells and a bit better at Int skills.'
So, functionally, you can define Int as some general ability to do the stuff Int score benefits.
In that sense, it doesn't MATTER what we decide RL intelligence 'ought' to be linked to... D&D Int is what D&D Int does.
Quote from: Will;794189In that sense, it doesn't MATTER what we decide RL intelligence 'ought' to be linked to... D&D Int is what D&D Int does.
Hence it should be ditched altogether. Disassociative mechanic.
Quote from: rawma;794182You would do as well to assert that Thomas Edison must have had a very low intelligence score because one of his teachers called him addlepated and retarded; so, IQ below 70, which given the distribution of IQ scores would be a 4 intelligence or less. He of course overcame this and rose to the level of Wizard (of Menlo Park).
Edison invented very little himself. He ran a science sweat-shop and profiteered off the work of others. Also shot down competition, sometimes with false evidence such as his feud with Tesla. In D&D/BX terms he had a good charisma score.
As for mapping D&D scores to real world. Keep in mind that average in O, BX and 2nd ed is 10-11. 3 and 18 are relatively rare and that 3 in many D&D iterations is the threshold of higher animal intelligence.
Worse. BX strength doesnt map to the real world AT ALL.
Quote from: Elfdart;793687I'm referring to 1E AD&D, though in any edition of the game, stats at the low end of average aren't exactly crippling. A -1 penalty in B/X? Oh the HORROR!
A penalty in everything, when anyone else acting in their area of specialism will have a (likely significant) bonus.
Quote from: Elfdart;793687And what's wrong with that? Not everyone is a prima donna. You must suck just as much in team sports as you do in gaming.
I don't play RPGs to be the sidekick to another player, just because they happen to have been luckier on a single set of rolls at the start. Maybe you like being someone else's minion in real life, so it isn't an issue for you, I don't know.
Funny that your arguments are so weak you have to resort to poorly-aimed
ad hominem attacks.
Quote from: Elfdart;793687He doesn't have to have the heaviest armor (something 1st level PCs can't afford anyway), but let's say he rolls very well for money. He'll be able to buy chainmail and his choice of melee weapons and/or a composite bow. But even if his money and hit points are just as mediocre as his other stats, he's still a playable character for any player who likes a challenge, and has at minimum, the resourcefulness of a cow.
And if the player who rolled better stats also rolls well for money, this "advantage" vanishes and we're back to shitty stats. Starting money is meaningless.
Quote from: Elfdart;793687Define "metagaming". I have the sneaking suspicion that you use the term to describe any character played with cunning equal to or greater than that of a cow.
I've used a consistent definition throughout this thread, if you were capable of basic reading comprehension. That is a player using their own knowledge in lieu of things their character could actually know.
Quote from: Elfdart;793687In many respects, yes they can. Doing their best to fight on favorable terms, and avoiding combat on unfavorable terms is something even dumb animals can do. Using caution in unknown and suspicious circumstances is also commonplace among animals. Obviously you like to play characters with less intelligence and guile than a cow. Says a lot about your shortcomings as a player, doesn't it?
Except none of that is actually relevant to the question I asked. I said this right back in Post #366 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=793308&postcount=366). Says a lot about your shortcomings in basic reading comprehension that this is apparently a difficult line of argument to follow.
Quote from: Elfdart;793687Stop lying. I didn't write about teaching animals anything.
I'm not lying you ignorant twat, see Post #366 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=793308&postcount=366) where Brad said this and you've continued the irrelevant tangent about animals.
Quote from: Elfdart;793687Stop lying, asshole. Here's what you wrote:
Post #366 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=793308&postcount=366) you stupid fuck.
Quote from: Elfdart;793687Here are the "innovations" that you think are totally beyond the mental faculties of a low-INT PC:
Don't travel alone, don't rush into combat, and if they have to kill an opponent, try to use methods that are neither melee combat nor ranged attacks. Lure monsters into traps, start rockf slides, collapse tunnels, use gas bombs. Flaming oil is a cliche for a reason.
Maybe I gave you credit for intelligence you clearly don't have. It should be obvious that I wasn't claiming that animals could use gas bombs and flaming oil, but rather that they can work as a team, use traps and ambushes, etc...
AND that if animals can do those things, then even dumb humans can do all that and much more.
Yes, they're beyond the low Int/low Wis character. They're also way beyond animals, which is the comparator you and other people were using, including you, to establish that in fact a dumb PC would be capable of it. Animals cannot do any of those things, which are the cliche "smart tactics". Basic stealth and evasion were never at issue, as I queried back in post #366 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=793308&postcount=366) the first time this came up.
So no, animals can't do these things, and nor can stupid people.
Quote from: Elfdart;793687For the record, a 1st level fighter has a better HD, better THAC0, better combat tables, better saving throws and most importantly of all, potential for advancement. If you think that makes him only a little better than a normal person (i.e. 0-level NPC) then no wonder your PCs have the knowledge and shrewdness of -what else?- a cow.
I get the impression that just about any PC you play will be a "mewling incompetent" which, by your standards, would count as "metagaming".
They have trivially more of those things, all of which would be invalidated in the instance of the hapless all-8s character.
Quote from: Brad;793700This thread has taught me that animals are completely incapable of using tactics (http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/wolves_gray_hunting). Fucking education system was wrong!
This thread has taught me that you evidently fail at reading comprehension. Go back to post #366 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=793308&postcount=366).
Quote from: Old Geezer;793741Kiero, show us on the doll where the Str 9 fighter touched you in a bad way.
Go back to eating your popcorn, you have nothing of value to contribute here.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;793971If you are against people's achievements from hard work and courage being recognised, then you pretty much reject the entire premise of a level-based roleplaying game, since that's what experience points are about. Which is fine, lots of people play games without xp, but it makes me wonder what the fuck you're doing in a thread about D&D.
This is just contrasting ideas of what a "hero" is. The old Greek epic ideal was that a hero was just born awesome, typically one parent a god. The more British ideal is "the ordinary person who does extraordinary things."
One of the virtues of a game like D&D is that it can accommodate either approach, you just roll up your characters differently.
In neither case can the game accommodate Kiero.
It feels like we're arguing on RPGnet back in 2003. Did you never move on? I've played D&D4e and D&D-derived ACKS and 13th Age recently. So it looks like it can accomodate me just fine, thanks for asking.
Last one! Toys all gone. Johnny No. 5 needs more input, inpuuuuut!
Quote from: Kiero;793353Here's a second one, rolling (http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/4688588/)these:
Str 12 (+0) Int 14 (+1) Wis 12 (+0) Dex 11 (+0) Con 10 (+0) Cha 9 (+0)
I suppose we have a Wizard, who is a bit smarter than average, but otherwise unexceptional.
Roland Lossarian
Human Fighter, Acolyte Reliquarian
Lvl 1, PB +2. Saves: STR, CON. Alignment: NG
HD: d10. HP: 10. AC: 17 (19 w/ shield). Spd: 30' (20' w/ chain mail)
STR 12 (1), DEX 12 (1), CON 10 (0), INT 14 (2), WIS 12 (1), CHA 10 (0)
Lang: Common, lang x3
Race: Human var. — Two different stats +1. One skill prof. One feat.
Feat: ?? got no PHB. I'm thinking something fun, like Linguist, Lucky, or Healer! But peer pressure many would most likely choose Heavy Armor Master, or Heavily Armored, or Mobile.
Class
Armor: All armor & Shields.
Weapons: All simple & martial.
Tools: none
Skills: Arcana +4, History +4, Insight (bkrd) +3, Investigation +4, Religion (bkrd) +4.
Fighting Style, Defense — +1 AC when w/ armor.
Second Wind — bonus act, regain 1d10+lvl HP; recharge Short or Long rest.
Background
Deity: Kelemvor. Feature: Shelter the Faithful.
Personality: idolize faith's heroes. Ideal: aspiration.
Bond: recover lost ancient relic. Flaw: goal obsessed.
Gear: Holy Symbol, Scripture, 5x Incense, Vestments, Common Clothes, pouch +15 gp.
Wealth: 15 gp. Spent -3 gp. Left 12 gp.
Armor: Chain Mail - 75 GP, AC 16. Shield - +2 AC.
Weapons:
Warhammer - 15 gp. +3 atk. 1d8+1 b. versatile (1d10).
Lt. Xbow - 25 gp. +3 atk, 1d8+1 p. ammo (rng 80/320), load, two-hand.
20x Bolts.
20x Darts - 5 cp. +5 atk. 1d4+1. finesse, thrown, (rng 20/60).
Gear: Explorer’s Pack (backpack, bedroll, mess kit, tinderbox, 10x torches, 10x rations, water skin, rope hemp 50').
5x Pitons - 5 cp, 5x Candles - 1 cp, 5x Sacks - 1 cp, Signal Whistle - 5 cp, Bucket - 5 cp, Jug - 2 cp, Soap - 2 cp, Chalk - 1 cp, Pouch - 5 sp, Waterskin - 2 sp, 3x Oil - 1 sp, Common Clothes (navy) - 5 sp.
Bio: Tours pilgrimage sites with fellow seminarians to tend to the relics. Also seeks to record testimony from the laity of any further miracles. Aspires to one day find a lost ancient relic for his church.
Quote from: Opaopajr;794216Last one! Toys all gone. Johnny No. 5 needs more input, inpuuuuut!
5e definitely makes lower stats more viable than B/X, given the threshold for average is slightly narrower. Quite a novel idea going for the "smart" Fighter.
Here's another (http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/4692644/):
Str 13 (+1) Int 10 (+0) Wis 12 (+0) Dex 7 (-1) Con 12 (+0) Cha 11 (+0)
And one more (http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/4692648/) to keep you going:
Str 11 (+0) Int 14 (+1) Wis 12 (+0) Dex 12 (+0) Con 10 (+0) Cha 10 (+0)
To be honest, I've only really noticed a build challenge to stat inflation from 3e, and especially 4e (it gets worse as you go on, as gear bonuses were also a factored in expectation). AD&D, at least 2e assuredly from my experience, was way more forgiving as there was such a wide spread of average. It is interesting how similar 5e is to this AD&D (0D&D?) aesthetic.
Those stats were also pretty solid for 2e. I'd whip something up with them if you like.
Anyway, Yay, more toys!
Quote from: ggroy;794186Wonder what INT scores would be assigned to individuals like Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, J Robert Oppenheimer, etc ...
Or is the D&D notion of "INT" too imprecise for real world people?
Consult Stephen Jay Gould,
The Mismeasure of Man. Even strength, which is probably easiest to measure on a linear scale, is vague: lift the most relative to body weight, or the most in absolute terms? upper body strength versus overall? ability to generate power rapidly but briefly or steadily?
Quote from: TristramEvans;794204Hence it should be ditched altogether. Disassociative mechanic.
(It being intelligence.)
Then how do you decide if someone is good at being a magic-user?
Back in the late 70s, I liked 3d6 in order, even with the significant bonuses and penalties added in the Greyhawk supplement, because it gave an inkblot to look at and find a character in. Now I prefer to create the character I want, and add strengths or weaknesses where appropriate to the character, and sometimes roll randomly where I haven't formed an opinion on some aspect. No preference between point buy and random generation (as long as you can rearrange the results, and quickly retire an uninteresting character).
I don't view it as disassociative because the thing being described has pretty much no consensus definition; 'What is Intelligence?' is a question that hasn't been answered after a century+ of debate.
The thing is, at some point the granularity of '6 descriptors' is going to have to be arbitrary.
Strength is actually highly variable, between parts of the body, time-scale (fast vs. slow trigger muscles), and so on. Some of them loosely associate, many of them don't.
But, it's a game. Draw a circle around stuff that look roughly right and call it a day.
So, IMO, 'stuff smart people do' isn't necessarily accurate, but most people can go 'eh, I see what you mean,' and 'smart guy' is an identifiable trope, so go with it.
Intelligence in D&D has something to do with understanding and recall of facts/bodies of lore (Knowledge, spells perhaps), also applying lore and discernment (Appraise, Decipher Script, Search).
There's a blurry edge with Wisdom that is best teased out with things like Search vs. Spot -- both are 'perception,' but Search involves more analysis while Spot is more intuitive/instinctual.
Another interesting one is Charisma, which is best understood by looking at what it affects (essentially, social facility)
The worst of the ability scores is Dexterity; lumping hand-eye co-ordination with full-body agility is a non-sensical kludge. The two things don't really have much correlation between them at all.
There's a point of diminishing returns with too many characteristics; if they have narrow enough applicability you might as well have skills instead which augment or counteract the bonus from a single general characteristic. Very narrowly applicable characteristics are more likely to represent trainable qualities, and therefore more appropriately skills. Adding skills will probably work out better than adding the same number of characteristics.
Otherwise, say for manual dexterity versus agility; if you want a character with just one of these high, point buy or roll a good dexterity but decline or reduce the bonus for the aspect you don't want to be as good. (Just don't whine when you don't get extra points elsewhere in compensation.) Or simply declare that the character is good at one and not the other, even though the bonus is the same for both.
After decades of thinking about this, my current view is that if you are going to have a fixed list of stats, it almost doesn't matter as long as people generally know what you mean and you can hang concepts on it.
But also embrace how arbitrary it is. D&D style, or maybe have stats of Couth, Cool, Rage, Clever, Smoothtalky, Valor. Whatever.
Also, as an aside, one thing I really like about open descriptor systems like Fate is that you essentially can _create_ whichever 'stat' you want as it matters to your character. If you are good with your hands but not acrobatic, you can easily make a character like that. Or someone who is a good runner. Or someone who is a power lifter. Or whatever.
Quote from: rawma;794227Consult Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man.
Fraudulent Marxists tend not to be a great source of reliable info, no matter what your University professor told you.
Quote from: rawma;794233(It being intelligence.)
Then how do you decide if someone is good at being a magic-user?
The same way you decide if they're good at being a blacksmith, I guess.
Quote from: rawma;794233(It being intelligence.)
Then how do you decide if someone is good at being a magic-user?
Redefine the stat as "Knowledge" or "Magical Power" and use it just for those purposes?
I actually was doing just that in my first fantasy heartbreaker when I was 13 (never got beyond a few classes and spell lists in a spiral-bound notebook), and it's been adopted by some JRPGs as well.
Quote from: S'mon;794277Fraudulent Marxists tend not to be a great source of reliable info, no matter what your University professor told you.
A lot of pushback from people with their own axes to grind; it's still a discussion of attempts to quantify intelligence and as good as many sources used for RPGs. If you consult Gould, you should probably read about the criticisms as well; they're not that hard to find.
Helpful tip: any RPG that has Intelligence bonuses for groups corresponding to some real world "races" should be avoided.
Quote from: TristramEvans;794296The same way you decide if they're good at being a blacksmith, I guess.
Well, we did this (for things that weren't particularly significant for adventuring) back in the 70s by rolling a characteristic made up on the spot (Bowling ability? Roll 3d6. Dwarves got +3, just because. Harmless for something as silly and irrelevant. If it had come up, I probably would have done the same for blacksmiths, depending on how much benefit being a good blacksmith would confer.) So for magic-users, we just reinvented the Intelligence characteristic, except it's probably a poorly thought out snap judgement by the GM that will turn out to be broken later. Might as well keep the original characteristic.
In general, I would expect the determination to be random (so effectively another characteristic), or based on other characteristics (so effectively making some combination of characteristics into the Blacksmith Aptitude characteristic), or based on level or through some character generation or advancement currency (skills, feats, proficiencies, expertises, etc.), or just because the player decides the character is a good blacksmith (but then being less likely to grant the same decision for later professions or hobbies -- "you didn't have time to pursue both blacksmithing and neurosurgery, sorry").
So how do you do that (the blacksmith thing, I mean)? And then how would it work for magic-users?
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;794301Redefine the stat as "Knowledge" or "Magical Power" and use it just for those purposes?
I actually was doing just that in my first fantasy heartbreaker when I was 13 (never got beyond a few classes and spell lists in a spiral-bound notebook), and it's been adopted by some JRPGs as well.
DragonQuest (an SPI game, from 1980, discussed in the first thread I posted to; it seems like only last week but was actually two weeks ago) had Magical Aptitude for this and explicitly stated that "If the character must exercise his intelligence or wisdom (to name a few facets of his personality not included in characteristics), the player must provide the action or conversation for his character."
An excellent solution; although my question was somewhat facetious. Perhaps the poster I was responding to would like to change "ditched" to "renamed".
To participate meaningfully in that shared imaginary universe the PC needs to have some defined facets for which we have a set relationship. Stuff like how much imaginary gold can my PC lift or how many imaginary languages can they speak.
You can do that in may ways varying from "well how much actual gold can you actualy lift and how many fantasy languages can you actually speak" to having a lifting capacity in gold peices computed from a range of other primary and secondary stats. The important thing is that all the PCs in the world follow the same mapping paradigm.
Now there are a certain minimum number of things we need to establish the shape of a thing, a certain number of characteristics. If we remove all of those from a PC then the tendancy is for the player to assume the PC is analagous to themselves. In a simple text based computer game whn the text said "you walk down a long passage' most players imagine themselves walking down a long passage. Most games choose to define a number of these characteristics so as better to define the shape of the PC and the various ways in can interact with the game world. We could have 60 "Attributes" but it bogs us down so most games have 3 - 12 stats that define the most important interfaces between the character and the imaginary world they inhabit. Typically things the PC does a lot will be well defined and things the PC does less often will be less well defined. Personally I would say that improvements here have been one of the few places where games have actually evolved (1st generation games not having rules for basic common stuff like how far you can jump are just oversights in design not a testimony to the genius of their designers).
As you get more into the roleplay side of the game there is a desire to try and define more of their personality and not just their physical aspects. These interact with the game world typically only where they interact with a rule and so you might get old school players who would say that "Intelligence" just means the ability to memorise spells and languages as that is the only point that stat interacts with the rules. So they can play a Int 3 fighter like a tactical and theoretical genius who just can't remember spells or learn languages. Most 2nd generation players, when the roleplay started to outweigh the game, would want more than that. They would want a low intelligence fighter to play like they were pretty stupid. The bottom 1/2% of the population. This then extends into Wisdom and Charisma so we start to see games with a richer diversity of stats and psychology etc get introduced so we try to make the definition of the character's interactions with the game world more like a fully fleshed out personality.
Skills and powers additionally help to define the PC and the move from levels and classes to skill based games might be viewed as a move from Game to Roleplay in some lights.
In the end you need to decide how well formed and separate from the player you want the PC to be. Very experienced roleplayers can create fully formed PCs with no stats, good GMs do it all the time. Most players can't do that and when your success at the game is heavily dependent on the character, deliberately making the PC weak and ineffectual at key areas is a difficult thing to ask players to do.
Quote from: S'mon;794277Fraudulent Marxists tend not to be a great source of reliable info, no matter what your University professor told you.
What the fuck are you babbling about?
Quote from: Kiero;794244The worst of the ability scores is Dexterity; lumping hand-eye co-ordination with full-body agility is a non-sensical kludge. The two things don't really have much correlation between them at all.
This.
Dexterity now affects armor class, most saving throws, to hit, damage, and initiative in 5e.
That's um, too much, and even a fraudulent marxist would agree.
Quote from: Elfdart;794585What the fuck are you babbling about?
Gould was a fraud, in the service of political ends (Marxism). He lied about the cranial measurements thing, for instance. You could go look it up.
I saw this quote on Badass of the week and instantly thought of this thread...
"If I cared for my life, I'd have lost it long ago. Wanting to lose it, I can't throw it away."
Quote from: rawma;793712It's significant compared to the bonuses at the high end. Even in the original three books, charisma bonus ranged from -2 to +4, and that was on 2d6 reaction rolls.
I don't think that was stipulated, but a factor applied to 3d6 Loyalty rolls was; I don't have the books handy.
Quote(The DM could assign large modifiers and negate that, but to never succeed at hiring a reasonably neutral NPC would require -9 for the character with 18 charisma.)
From the Greyhawk supplement on, very high characteristics for a 1st level fighter got at least the same quality of improvements (some better, some worse, some that increasing level alone can't fix) compared to a merely average 1st level fighter. (That's even ignoring the ranger class from Strategic Review, who was effectively 2nd level at the start but needed good characteristics to qualify for.) So shouldn't the people convinced that there's no basis for complaint if your character averages below 10 be playing 0th level characters (albeit able to advance) to start with? Walking to the dungeon uphill both ways?
You have to draw the line somewhere. But let's not pretend that the difference is not significant or that any lower line can always be compensated for by better roleplaying. Sometimes yes, sometimes no; and it can be tedious rather than fun to compensate even when it works.
Different people find different things fun. To turn this into a fierce controversy is a matter of insisting on imposing one's own preference on others. That's being an asshole, but the internet displays everyone's asshole aspect sooner or later.
Quote from: S'mon;794622Gould was a fraud, in the service of political ends (Marxism). He lied about the cranial measurements thing, for instance. You could go look it up.
I have looked it up. Gould went by the figures Morton gave about cranial capacity and made the case that Morton's figures were in part based on his own biases. Almost a decade after Gould died, some other researchers measured half of Morton's skull collection and decided that Gould (who was going by Morton's original numbers) had somehow gone back in time and falsified Morton's own numbers.
By the way, I didn't realize that for a scientist to oppose pseudo-scientific bullshit like phrenology and white supremacy was "Marxism". But then, I'm not a racist fuckwit who drinks whatever snake oil is being bandied about.
Quote from: Kiero;794212A penalty in everything, when anyone else acting in their area of specialism will have a (likely significant) bonus.
Or maybe they won't. Or maybe the player whose character isn't as talented will try to make up for it in other ways. That +3 bonus to AC that Mogo the Mighty has for high DEX isn't half as good as the +7 bonus Sven the Average gets by taking 75% cover behind that tree, marble column or dead pack mule.
I mean, the difference between a character with a -1 to his rolls and a PC with +1 to his is the same as the difference between the PC with +1 to his rolls and a character with +3 to his. Does this mean the PC with "only" +1 is now hamstrung by having less talent than the one with +3?
Or is all this sniveling about ability scores a smokescreen to hide the real problem: Shitty players using mediocre scores as an alibi for their own shitty play OR Shitty players trying to use high scores as a crutch for their own shitty play?
QuoteI don't play RPGs to be the sidekick to another player, just because they happen to have been luckier on a single set of rolls at the start. Maybe you like being someone else's minion in real life, so it isn't an issue for you, I don't know.
So you admit to being a prima donna. I guess team sports were never your thing, since you assume that just because one member of a team isn't as talented as another, he's that teammate's flunky.
Not that it matters: There's nothing wrong with playing the follower of another PC. In campaigns where the DM lets the players run henchmen and hirelings, players do that already. The only difference is that in this case, the lead character is controlled by another player.
Yes, I know,
you have to be the belle of the ball...
QuoteAnd if the player who rolled better stats also rolls well for money, this "advantage" vanishes and we're back to shitty stats. Starting money is meaningless.
Yeah, having only 30 or 50 g.p. (the minimum, depending on edition) at first level as opposed to 180 or 200 g.p. is "meaningless".
QuoteI've used a consistent definition throughout this thread, if you were capable of basic reading comprehension. That is a player using their own knowledge in lieu of things their character could actually know.
Such as?
QuoteExcept none of that is actually relevant to the question I asked. I said this right back in Post #366 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=793308&postcount=366). Says a lot about your shortcomings in basic reading comprehension that this is apparently a difficult line of argument to follow.
I'm not lying you ignorant twat, see Post #366 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=793308&postcount=366) where Brad said this and you've continued the irrelevant tangent about animals.
Yes, you are lying -and you really need to stop. None of the tactics described earlier requires much intellect. Even
retards have been known to set things on fire, pour hazardous chemicals on scary things, run away from danger, hide from enemies, sneak about when they fear being caught and even trying to disguise their voices to confuse an antagonist. Now, being retards, their chances of success are often not very good, but it doesn't take a tactical genius like General Giapp to at least try them. It's not like a PC with low intelligence is doing calculus successfully.
But this is all a side issue anyway, since in most games you have the polar opposite: PCs with high INT or WIS scores doing things that are incredibly fucking stupid.
QuoteYes, they're beyond the low Int/low Wis character. They're also way beyond animals, which is the comparator you and other people were using, including you, to establish that in fact a dumb PC would be capable of it. Animals cannot do any of those things, which are the cliche "smart tactics". Basic stealth and evasion were never at issue, as I queried back in post #366 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=793308&postcount=366) the first time this came up.
So no, animals can't do these things, and nor can stupid people.
So animals and stupid people can't work in groups and can't ambush their victims? Stupid people can't set things on fire? :rotfl:
Holy christ you are a retard!
QuoteThey have trivially more of those things, all of which would be invalidated in the instance of the hapless all-8s character.
The ability to advance to 2nd level is invalidated by having below average scores?
:rotfl:
Dear sweet baby Jesus it must suck to play in your group!
Quote from: Elfdart;794702I have looked it up. Gould went by the figures Morton gave about cranial capacity and made the case that Morton's figures were in part based on his own biases. Almost a decade after Gould died, some other researchers measured half of Morton's skull collection and decided that Gould (who was going by Morton's original numbers) had somehow gone back in time and falsified Morton's own numbers.
By the way, I didn't realize that for a scientist to oppose pseudo-scientific bullshit like phrenology and white supremacy was "Marxism". But then, I'm not a racist fuckwit who drinks whatever snake oil is being bandied about.
If you are claiming Gould wasn't a Marxist, I think that possibly makes you a fuckwit. I don't think you can be a liar, liars are smarter than that. Admittedly a lot of Americans are incredibly ignorant about Marxism so if you are an American I can somewhat forgive that. I have to sit through a lot of "as Marx teaches us..." academic seminars so I'm under no illusions how widespread Marxism is in academia; and Gould was a strong Marxist as is well known. I don't think he ever denied it, but US left-liberals treat the M-word like it's a bogeyman.
Gould didn't measure Morton's skulls at all. He didn't falsify the numbers; he falsely claimed that Morton's numbers were biased & inaccurate, with no real evidence, just his own prejudice. When the skulls were remeasured the (small) bias was found to be the opposite of what Gould claimed, ie the differences were somewhat bigger than Morton had thought. Gould's behaviour is a classic example of political bias causing someone to see what they want to see - the very phenomena he claimed to be exposing.
Shut up with the Marxist tangent. In case anyone was wondering this is still a board about RPGs, although judging by the energy some people are putting into the gamer-gate thread, you wouldn't be able to guess.
Quote from: S'mon;794745If you are claiming Gould wasn't a Marxist, I think that possibly makes you a fuckwit. I don't think you can be a liar, liars are smarter than that. Admittedly a lot of Americans are incredibly ignorant about Marxism so if you are an American I can somewhat forgive that. I have to sit through a lot of "as Marx teaches us..." academic seminars so I'm under no illusions how widespread Marxism is in academia; and Gould was a strong Marxist as is well known. I don't think he ever denied it, but US left-liberals treat the M-word like it's a bogeyman.
If he was a "strong Marxist" he had a strange way of showing it, since Marx doesn't really come up in his books. As for his personal beliefs, the only mention of Marxism I can find is where Gould talks about his father being a Marxist.
QuoteGould didn't measure Morton's skulls at all. He didn't falsify the numbers; he falsely claimed that Morton's numbers were biased & inaccurate, with no real evidence, just his own prejudice. When the skulls were remeasured the (small) bias was found to be the opposite of what Gould claimed, ie the differences were somewhat bigger than Morton had thought. Gould's behaviour is a classic example of political bias causing someone to see what they want to see - the very phenomena he claimed to be exposing.
They measured fewer than half of Morton's skull collection, skewing the results:
Scientific American (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/06/24/defending-stephen-jay-goulds-crusade-against-biological-determinism/)QuoteSome caveats are in order here. First of all, Holloway and his colleagues analyzed fewer than half of the skulls in Morton's collection. Second, their analysis, far from being "straightforward," was highly technical and based on many judgment calls, as were those of Gould and Morton. The divergent results depend in part on whether to include or exclude certain skulls that could unduly skew estimates of brain sizes. Third, neither Morton nor Holloway et al. corrected their measurements for age, gender or stature, all of which are correlated with brain size.
Finally, at least one of the PLoS authors, Holloway, is obviously biased against Gould. The Times quoted Holloway saying: "I just didn't trust Gould. I had the feeling that his ideological stance was supreme." Holloway faulted Gould because he "never even bothered to mention" a 1988 paper by John S. Michael that found Morton's conclusions to be "reasonably accurate." But Holloway and his co-authors stated that the paper by Michael, written when he was an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania, "has multiple significant flaws rendering it uninformative."
Fail.
Quote from: One Horse Town;794757Shut up with the Marxist tangent. In case anyone was wondering this is still a board about RPGs, although judging by the energy some people are putting into the gamer-gate thread, you wouldn't be able to guess.
Ah shit -sorry, I didn't see your post til after I did mine. Anyway you're right: enough already.
Quote from: Phillip;794676I don't think that was stipulated, but a factor applied to 3d6 Loyalty rolls was; I don't have the books handy.
From Men & Magic: "The monster will react, with appropriate plusses or minuses, according to the offer, the referee rolling two six-sided dice and adjusting for charisma:", right before the rather specific reaction chart. Two separate groups I played with added the bonus under Loyalty Base there; OD&D was often confusingly and contradictorily expressed, but why such a specific chart and not instead mentioning charisma with the offer as part of the "appropriate plusses and minuses" if that wasn't intended? In support of this interpretation, I note that AD&D 1e PHB had separate columns for loyalty base and reaction modifier, but they were pretty close to each other (sometimes one higher, sometimes the other, which in hindsight is odd) so if it were not intended in OD&D, Gary Gygax essentially adopted it for AD&D. The two Basic D&D books I could dig out did not clarify the matter at all.
In fairness, The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures has a slightly more compressed 2d6 reaction chart that at best includes charisma under "etc.": "additions and subtractions for such things as bribes offered, fear, alignment of the parties concerned, etc."
But most of my point would still stand, even if it's only for loyalty on a scale nearly as wide as d20; the loyalty bonus has a wider range in OD&D than almost any bonus in Supplement I: Greyhawk (only damage bonus for strength is that wide, and then only if you're including 18 with percentiles for fighters as the top end). So it's not true that high and low characteristics had almost no effect in OD&D (original three booklets only).
(Hey, I got to poke through another old box! Life is good!)
QuoteDifferent people find different things fun. To turn this into a fierce controversy is a matter of insisting on imposing one's own preference on others. That's being an asshole, but the internet displays everyone's asshole aspect sooner or later.
I'm a very tolerant person; I see that some people like playing challenging characters, and some don't care if their characters are weaker than other people's, and some prefer random characters, and some prefer the character they envision with no randomly created obstacles to realizing that character, and some people have other preferences for their own games. I'm OK with all of those. And I did say that it
can be tedious rather than fun, not that it had to be.
But I don't care much for people who get all macho about how crappy
their characters were, or insist that some magical compensation of roleplaying will ensue from crappy characteristics but remain unavailable if the characteristics are not crappy, or don't even seem to get why anyone might disagree with them about character generation; those people are ones who are pretty much in the "sooner" camp. Occasionally they threaten to draw me into the "later" camp, although I really do try to resist it.
Quote from: One Horse Town;794757Shut up with the Marxist tangent. In case anyone was wondering this is still a board about RPGs, although judging by the energy some people are putting into the gamer-gate thread, you wouldn't be able to guess.
Maybe we can seque into a discussion of game systems with character classes versus ones without classes.
I'm very, very sorry I mentioned Gould's book. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
I had an interesting revelation a while back, that class systems do a nice job evoking the mood of a fantasy game while point systems are more evocative of a modern (or scifi) mindset.
Jungian archetypes and functional 'he's John the Smith' elements of identity in older societies, people ARE what they do. We can quibble about whether that's really what's going on, I don't think it matters. What matters is that a fantasy culture is likely to conflate identity/job/birth/etc.
On the other hand, the modern mindset is more about freedom to grow in any way. You might have advantages (or disadvantages) due to upbringing or folks' attitudes toward you or some starting talents, but after that? Learn Nuclear Engineering! Or Basket-weaving! And then Zero-G fighting and Capoeira! WEEE!
One problem I see with D&D is that I think at times the Devs haven't had a strong grasp of what the underlying principle is with classes. D20 Modern did poorly, I think, because it treated classes as 'point bundles' almost -- they would have done better, IMO, by sticking to archetypes or moving to some actual d20-compatible point system. (Like M&M or something)
Multiclassing is another tricky one. It's appealing but it moves in a more modernist viewpoint, and can ruin the conceptual integrity (and consistency) of the core system.
Better, IMO, is the move toward wiggle room within a class, and well-staked-out subclasses (like some of Pathfinder and 5e's approach).
When a fantasy game uses a point system, I'm naturally inclined to view it as a modern-minded gritty fantasy, where everyone is ultimately an adventurer in a tavern hoping to knife someone for cash. This is obviously not always the case, but that's the direction that feels most natural to me, and I THINK it might be a more common skew (though I am TOTALLY speculating here)
When a modern/scifi game uses a class system, I'm inclined to think the reverse -- space opera or pulp.
That's a good insight, Will.
Quote from: Will;794783I had an interesting revelation a while back, that class systems do a nice job evoking the mood of a fantasy game while point systems are more evocative of a modern (or scifi) mindset.
Jungian archetypes and functional 'he's John the Smith' elements of identity in older societies, people ARE what they do. We can quibble about whether that's really what's going on, I don't think it matters. What matters is that a fantasy culture is likely to conflate identity/job/birth/etc.
On the other hand, the modern mindset is more about freedom to grow in any way. You might have advantages (or disadvantages) due to upbringing or folks' attitudes toward you or some starting talents, but after that? Learn Nuclear Engineering! Or Basket-weaving! And then Zero-G fighting and Capoeira! WEEE!
I see the sense in this. But although I much prefer fantasy to SF, I like fluidity in my characters' roles; my favorite and most successful D&D characters were all split class or multiclass characters, and many of them transitioned significantly in social position. And I always resisted the "medieval" setting of D&D; it's a really unappealing period for me, and I think mostly for the excessively static social order (and D&D doesn't exactly do it justice).
Ultimately, I think I prefer systems with character classes just because it makes for a more interesting game, not because it promotes the feel of the genre I prefer. Classless systems lead to almost nobody playing extreme characters or committing to anything in character development. But clearly I have a history of trying to bend or break the class systems; probably I'm best with classes with flexible add-ons that span much less than the distance between classes--as you suggest is done with 5e's various options within a class (where my current character is a Sorcerer who seems to spend more time fighting with two daggers than casting spells).
I shall ponder and attempt to [STRIKE]heighten[/STRIKE] explore the contradictions further in a later post.
Quote from: JeremyR;791367I have never had bad stats.
Unless you use 3d6 in order, which was out of fashion by the time I started playing in 1978, you're probably going to have decent stats.
If you use 4d6 drop one in any order, you're probably going to have at least one high score and worst will be around 10.
In fact, the default array usually given is about what you expect to roll. Sometimes you do better, sometimes worse, but I can remember rolling numerous 18s in my life, and I can't recall ever rolling a 3.
Let's run an experiment...I roll ALL your future PC's and you roll mine 3d6 in order or switch per RC rules betcha you will understand why character suicide is attempted regularly.:)
I'll even make it half fair and do 4d6_d1 with actual dice just to watch your brain explode and eyes bleed. The thing is I love random roll but usually play array or point based games purely because I will get something playable.
I especially love White Wolf and Shadowrun for their modified point buy/scheme methods or Fantasy Flight Warhammer/Rolemaster lifepath/point schemes.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;794790That's a good insight, Will.
Yeah, good post Will.
I agree that classes in sf work well for a pulp/space opera feel; the 'templates' in WEG d6 Star Wars were fantastic for this. Points-based fantasy systems like Runequest feel very modernist by comparison, as you say.
Quote from: Doom;794588This.
Dexterity now affects armor class, most saving throws, to hit, damage, and initiative in 5e..
Man, is that true. I think they could solve this problem by eliminating DEX melee altogether, and allow INT to be the INISH stat (quick min=quick reactions). You end up with DEX being the province of lightly armored ranged specialists. Could also use DEX as a penalty mitigator for two-weapon fighting, applying it to a flat -2/-4 penalty (with best case reduction to 0/0). Then DEX would be integral to TWF proficiency, but you'd still need STR to press the advantage fully.
Yeah, let me be clear that I quite happily play point systems in any period/style as well as class systems.
On a different axis, I see point systems as connoting more 'realism' (or verisimilitude or whatever term you prefer) vs. class systems being more 'cinematic' or... symbolic?
I think you can create interesting effects by playing up or down these connotations or using tension between ideas.
A class-based, very cinematic scifi game is a cool idea. A gritty skill-focused fantasy game is a cool idea.
etc.
Quote from: Will;794783I had an interesting revelation a while back, that class systems do a nice job evoking the mood of a fantasy game while point systems are more evocative of a modern (or scifi) mindset.
How much is this to do with your first impressions of gaming?
I think I first encountered RPGs with D&D sometime between 1979 and 1983 (I clearly remember a red box, but I don't know if that was the first thing I looked at).
I also remember being excited about Deities and Demigods when it first came out and being crushed when I didn't see Lankhmar and Cthulhu stuff in the book I finally got my hands on (mutter).
The above revelation happened in the last 10 years or so.
Between the two events, I've played GURPS, Champions, Call of Cthulhu (BRP), Delta Green, TFOS, Rifts, Beyond the Supernatural, Fate, and probably a bunch of other games I can't recall.
So I'm guessing not very.
I've experimented with using open point systems for fantasy. It often seems a good idea to me (like M&M).
But it's often felt... unsatisfying, and my comments above might be why.
Quote from: Will;794887Yeah, let me be clear that I quite happily play point systems in any period/style as well as class systems.
On a different axis, I see point systems as connoting more 'realism' (or verisimilitude or whatever term you prefer) vs. class systems being more 'cinematic' or... symbolic?
I think you can create interesting effects by playing up or down these connotations or using tension between ideas.
One idea I seldom see is concept where there are no classes but characters learn skills which are essentially professions learned. For example sea captain or navigator or artisan. SPI's DragonQuest used this method for some of its skills.
I've thought of a microlite 5e D&D where certain class things are professions/skills unlocked.
I usually flounder a bit at making a good microlite magic system that doesn't involve a bazillion spells, though.
Quote from: Nikita;794929One idea I seldom see is concept where there are no classes but characters learn skills which are essentially professions learned. For example sea captain or navigator or artisan. SPI's DragonQuest used this method for some of its skills.
Honor+Intrigue and BoL use careers like Sailor, Pirate, Thief, Soldier, Alchemist, Physician that cover a broad and undefined set of skills.
Quote from: Will;794783I had an interesting revelation a while back, that class systems do a nice job evoking the mood of a fantasy game while point systems are more evocative of a modern (or scifi) mindset.
Jungian archetypes and functional 'he's John the Smith' elements of identity in older societies, people ARE what they do. We can quibble about whether that's really what's going on, I don't think it matters. What matters is that a fantasy culture is likely to conflate identity/job/birth/etc.
On the other hand, the modern mindset is more about freedom to grow in any way. You might have advantages (or disadvantages) due to upbringing or folks' attitudes toward you or some starting talents, but after that? Learn Nuclear Engineering! Or Basket-weaving! And then Zero-G fighting and Capoeira! WEEE!
While there is a sense that
social class is fixed in historical societies, I don't think this corresponds well to
professional class like fighter vs. ranger, or rogue vs. fighter. A historical class is
who you are, not
what you do for a living.
Actually, I think professions are more modern than historical. In historical societies, there was generally less job specialization. Most people were farmers and weavers and brewers and soldiers and more, based on what was needed at the time.
When I run historical or pseudo-historical games, I tend to prefer something like RuneQuest that has different backgrounds but doesn't have professional classes. Often, the party isn't one of each profession (like one fighter, one cleric, one burglar), but rather a group of similar people with different distinctive features (like five knights - a strong knight and a holy knight and a well-spoken knight etc.).
Quote from: jhkim;794946While there is a sense that social class is fixed in historical societies,
Will wrote about fantasy vs modern/science fiction settings; genre expectations are often at odds with history.
QuoteI don't think this corresponds well to professional class like fighter vs. ranger, or rogue vs. fighter. A historical class is who you are, not what you do for a living.
Actually, I think professions are more modern than historical. In historical societies, there was generally less job specialization. Most people were farmers and weavers and brewers and soldiers and more, based on what was needed at the time.
But that's much less true where there's significant knowledge needed for a profession; then you'd likely need an apprenticeship and a certain measure of "wax on, wax off"" drudgery while the master decides if you're talented enough or trustworthy enough to learn his secrets.
I can see the boundaries between fighter and rogue being more fluid, especially if you're in a period without professional soldiers; but magic and church ritual and scholarship and artisanry aren't going to be something that anyone can turn to.
Quote from: jhkim;794946Actually, I think professions are more modern than historical. In historical societies, there was generally less job specialization. Most people were farmers and weavers and brewers and soldiers and more, based on what was needed at the time.
In rural communities in Europe, yes. But you've got emerging merchant guilds by the 1200s and craft guilds being regulated into existence after the Black Death as a means of controlling labor. The clergy had their own longstanding specializations, something the wizards would probably replicate if they were public entities as opposed to esoteric secret societies.
Quote from: Marleycat;794795I'll even make it half fair and do 4d6_d1 with actual dice just to watch your brain explode and eyes bleed. The thing is I love random roll but usually play array or point based games purely because I will get something playable
That's why in the 80s we had the rule you could either roll 3D6 down the line or spend 63 points for D&D characters. Most people choose the 3D6 because we're optimistic gamblers (do you feel lucky punk?), but the players whose dice hated them smartly went with the points.
Quote from: Spinachcat;795016That's why in the 80s we had the rule you could either roll 3D6 down the line or spend 63 points for D&D characters. Most people choose the 3D6 because we're optimistic gamblers (do you feel lucky punk?), but the players whose dice hated them smartly went with the points.
If given that choice I went with the points usually with negotiations ie. 69-72 points and no floor for abilities with straight point swaps.:)
I played 2/3e where ability scores matter big time. Otherwise I'd roll until either the DM/group got fed up or one of them would roll a set of arrays for me to pick from so we could actually play.:)
63 points works fine for 0-1e but rarely played them and never RAW. Given all the nonsensical limitations.
When it comes to stats in D&D, they've pretty much made it where you can't play a character with stats below 14 (hell, maybe even 16, and a pair of them). Inevitable, once the game went to the (STAT-10)/2 route. Too much differentiation between average (10) and everything else. I guess it's all relative--everyone's stats are inflated, so what's "average" just moves to the right on the number line.
Quote from: Nikita;794929One idea I seldom see is concept where there are no classes but characters learn skills which are essentially professions learned. For example sea captain or navigator or artisan. SPI's DragonQuest used this method for some of its skills.
A sufficiently short skill list is in effect a class. Put another way, a class is a collection of related but unlisted skills, eg a "fighter" in AD&D1e is assumed to know about tactics, maintaining weapons and armour, etc.
We discovered this in playtest for GAMERS, which is a skill-based system, a sort of son rather than clone of
Traveller.
200+ skills and you get that annoying thing where someone who normally uses a longsword gets a shortsword and the GM says, "no, you have no idea how to use it," or where you assume your chosen skill will cover the situation but there's some skill you never heard of that does it.
I tried a variation with 36 skills, but in any campaign only about half the skills will be useful, and half of them are the ones that come up every session, the other half a few times in the campaign. So in effect only 9 skills really mattered, and another 9 sort of mattered. So it was a class system.
We found the sweet spot was somewhere in the middle, 50-100. This was enough that a skill was narrower in coverage than a class, but broad enough not to cause stupid "but surely that's covered by..." effects.
Quote from: Will;794922I think I first encountered RPGs with D&D sometime between 1979 and 1983 (I clearly remember a red box, but I don't know if that was the first thing I looked at).
I also remember being excited about Deities and Demigods when it first came out and being crushed when I didn't see Lankhmar and Cthulhu stuff in the book I finally got my hands on (mutter).
The above revelation happened in the last 10 years or so.
Between the two events, I've played GURPS, Champions, Call of Cthulhu (BRP), Delta Green, TFOS, Rifts, Beyond the Supernatural, Fate, and probably a bunch of other games I can't recall.
So I'm guessing not very.
I've experimented with using open point systems for fantasy. It often seems a good idea to me (like M&M).
But it's often felt... unsatisfying, and my comments above might be why.
They felt unsatisfying has no relation to your initial years of exposure to a class based fantasy system?
To me it would hold more weight of your initial exposure was to open point systems for fantasy then you changed your mind and thought a class based system was better for fantasy.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;795047A sufficiently short skill list is in effect a class. Put another way, a class is a collection of related but unlisted skills, eg a "fighter" in AD&D1e is assumed to know about tactics, maintaining weapons and armour, etc.
We discovered this in playtest for GAMERS, which is a skill-based system, a sort of son rather than clone of Traveller.
200+ skills and you get that annoying thing where someone who normally uses a longsword gets a shortsword and the GM says, "no, you have no idea how to use it," or where you assume your chosen skill will cover the situation but there's some skill you never heard of that does it.
I tried a variation with 36 skills, but in any campaign only about half the skills will be useful, and half of them are the ones that come up every session, the other half a few times in the campaign. So in effect only 9 skills really mattered, and another 9 sort of mattered. So it was a class system.
We found the sweet spot was somewhere in the middle, 50-100. This was enough that a skill was narrower in coverage than a class, but broad enough not to cause stupid "but surely that's covered by..." effects.
My Amber skill system has 3 skills categories.
Generic
Broad
Specific
So Science = Generic ; Physics = Broad ; M-theory = Specific
Amber is a funny fish as its all genres and skills can't cover stuff that is part of the attributes.
Also since all PCs are imortal there is no upper limit for skills...
But porting it all into a standard game....
Skills stack
3 points in Science and 1 point in physics and 1 point in M-theory gives you 5 points for M-theory checks
All rolls are against a specific thing and your level at a specific is 1 less than you level at the next step up.
So a question on thermodynamics and our Science nerd here would have 3 skill. (science 3 + phys 1 = 4 then -1 )
So this means a non-supported generic skill has to be at least 3 ranks to be of any use.
Costs are
Specific 1 point
Broad 2 points
Generic 4 points
There is no skill list you can have any skills you can think of.
If you call a skill stealth I would rule that was a broad skill as it allowed you to move silently, hide in shadows, camouflage a jeep, etc.
Means skill lists can get quite interesting especially as people seek out interesting Generic categories eg Soldier, Socialising, Gaming etc . Also the final skill lists at the specific level cover everything and more from coin magic to play tennis, to fish morphology and play harpsichord
In a non amber game I would level the ranks off at 5 being the top
You can do the opposite as well and have a list of broad skills and allow specialism as people get higher rank . I think WoD use to do something similar? I have certainly used a variant in WoD engined games I have run (a police procedural where investigation specialisms, one at 4 ranks 2 more at 5 ranks, were stuff like ballistics, forensic pathology, Soco, graphology etc...
Quote from: Marleycat;794795Let's run an experiment...I roll ALL your future PC's and you roll mine 3d6 in order or switch per RC rules betcha you will understand why character suicide is attempted regularly.:)
I'll even make it half fair and do 4d6_d1 with actual dice just to watch your brain explode and eyes bleed. The thing is I love random roll but usually play array or point based games purely because I will get something playable.
I especially love White Wolf and Shadowrun for their modified point buy/scheme methods or Fantasy Flight Warhammer/Rolemaster lifepath/point schemes.
You do roll impressively bad, I must attest. It's almost as bad as me. (Except for when I GM and it will screw everything up. Then I amble among the blessed.) Spent around 75% majority of 5e Starter Set die rolls rolling 5 or less... for the whole campaign. But I still made myself useful in spite of it. I know my luck, I know where my strengths lie — doing stuff that doesn't rely on dice.
Quote from: Sommerjon;795068They felt unsatisfying has no relation to your initial years of exposure to a class based fantasy system?
To me it would hold more weight of your initial exposure was to open point systems for fantasy then you changed your mind and thought a class based system was better for fantasy.
Hey, here's a thought, sparky, why don't you engage with the idea and discuss it if you want, or ignore it if you don't, instead of trying to dissect my game history and motives and reasons why I might suck therefore my ideas suck?
Just a thought.
And as for 'weight,' it's an interesting idea I'm tossing into a discussion about gaming, not a holy treatise, sheesh.
Quote from: Marleycat;795032If given that choice I went with the points usually with negotiations ie. 69-72 points and no floor for abilities with straight point swaps.:)
I played 2/3e where ability scores matter big time. Otherwise I'd roll until either the DM/group got fed up or one of them would roll a set of arrays for me to pick from so we could actually play.:)
63 points works fine for 0-1e but rarely played them and never RAW. Given all the nonsensical limitations.
Though quick and easy, would be to let you keep rolling until you got something you liked or were satisfied with. That is fair, and how it is for everyone else; forcing a player to play a character they don't like is stupid, and will usually lose that player from the game.
Quote from: dragoner;795127Though quick and easy, would be to let you keep rolling until you got something you liked or were satisfied with. That is fair, and how it is for everyone else; forcing a player to play a character they don't like is stupid, and will usually lose that player from the game.
The other factor isn't really about if my ability numbers are good be that without some accommodation the characters I roll are too weak to the point of detracting from the group's enjoyment because what's a challenge for their characters is autodeath for mine unless everything is focused on pulling me along or playing it like 0e which isn't my or their preferred playstyle. It's like playing 5-6 levels behind with no chance of closing the gap or having the mitigator of dual or multi classing. It drags everyone down.
Quote from: Marleycat;795138The other factor isn't really about if my ability numbers are good be that without some accommodation the characters I roll are too weak to the point of detracting from the group's enjoyment because what's a challenge for their characters is autodeath for mine unless everything is focused on pulling me along or playing it like 0e which isn't my or their preferred playstyle. It's like playing 5-6 levels behind with no chance of closing the gap or having the mitigator of dual or multi classing. It drags everyone down.
Oh no, did you just bring up character balance? :p
Yes, I think this is where the experience of actually playing shows vs the endless theory-crafting people. It is better to let the players create the characters that they want to play, and try to get people motivated that way. One size fits all usually doesn't, often it doesn't fit anybody.
What I've usually said to people who extoll the virtues of playing the weak sidekick is why not choose that? If it's so fun... choose to be the pageboy.
If you need it to be random, YOU can elect to flip a coin -- heads, generate a balanced character, tails, make a character on 1d50% less points.
I started a separate thread for the class-based and skill-based branch, as I think it is totally separate from the character suicide / low-stats topic.
Is class-based better for fantasy? (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=30930)
Roll the fucking dice and play your guy (or gal).
Quote from: dragoner;795144Oh no, did you just bring up character balance? :p
Yes, I think this is where the experience of actually playing shows vs the endless theory-crafting people. It is better to let the players create the characters that they want to play, and try to get people motivated that way. One size fits all usually doesn't, often it doesn't fit anybody.
Not character balance really but more like playing a Vampire in a Mage game. You don't fit and will be outclassed unless certain conceits or accommodation is made because you should be playing a mage not a vampire in the first place. Basically you're correct that the best solution is to let the player play whatever is satisfactory.
Quote from: Marleycat;795152Not character balance really but more like playing a Vampire in a Mage game. You don't fit and will be outclassed unless certain conceits or accommodation is made because you should be playing a mage not a vampire in the first place. Basically you're correct that the best solution is to let the player play whatever is satisfactory.
I was kidding (mostly) about the character balance thing. If there was a disadvantage in playing the Vampire, as long as the player knows it, and still wants to go ahead, that's fine. It is not wrong as a GM to adjust the game to the player's expectations; it's about fun, not a holy railroad as written. That's where I get annoyed, when the GM decides to punish your character because it isn't the character
they want you to play.
Quote from: dragoner;795155I was kidding (mostly) about the character balance thing. If there was a disadvantage in playing the Vampire, as long as the player knows it, and still wants to go ahead, that's fine. It is not wrong as a GM to adjust the game to the player's expectations; it's about fun, not a holy railroad as written. That's where I get annoyed, when the GM decides to punish your character because it isn't the character they want you to play.
Totally agree. If a person is good with playing an objectively inferior character or something that isn't exactly meant for the setting (like a Drow in a typical bog standard DnD game) and accept the ramifications go for it.
A few thoughts and a minor rant.
(1) Some people really want their character to not be weaker than other characters. I don't think it is useful or polite to speculate about their psychological motivations for wanting their character not to be weaker than other characters. Better I think to just consider that a matter of taste. Also see (4) below.
(2) I think a game where the PCs are not balanced is more interesting and fun for me. Both as a player and as a GM. Again this is a matter of taste and explaining why I like what I like is a bit like explaining why I like Bushmills better than Canadian Club or Aloo Gobi better than Thai curry. Again see (4) below.
(3) Because of my preference in (2) players who are really concerned that their character is not weaker than others are not a really good fit for me as a GM. Fortunately no one I've played with in the last 30 years has cared enough about the issue for it to be a problem in the games and settings I run. If it ever becomes a problem than we'll to figure out what to do about it, but until then I'm not going to change my game based on hypotheticals.
As a player, I'm OK with playing in an everyone starts out the same game. But I am eventually going to enjoy the game less if everyone stays in lock step forever.
(4) Nothing useful is accomplished by labeling people who prefer (1) as whiners, whingers, or immature babies. Similarly nothing useful is accomplished by criticizing GMs or others who prefer (2) using the rhetoric of Rousseau, John Brown, or various Marxist revolutionaries. No one is being oppressed or kept down by "the man" just because some one in the party is lower level or less powerful than someone else. For those that can seem to stop with the labeling and criticizing - try reminding yourself that it is just a game. Or maybe just grow the fuck up!
Wrapping up my earlier thoughts on the topic, at least in part, to me, is the game 'purpose.'
If the players are like a special forces team fixing (or causing) problems and doing ... whatever, then competence is highly valued.
Being schlub boy who is great at crochet and boot-blacking both makes you feel like a waste of space and can cause the other players to be unthrilled at your appearances.
If the players are a bunch of folks just... doing shit (oh hey, we found the lost orphans, oh hey, we planted daisies for the king), then players are more likely to be happy so long as they can ... go do something fun. Feeling useful takes on a different dimension that doesn't have to comport with high stats.
Some systems don't value stats so much, so obviously low stats don't bother as much.
Some systems are so fucking deadly, who cares? (Call of Cthulhu, 'Eat 1d6 Investigators per round')
Quote from: Bren;795192(4) Nothing useful is accomplished by labeling people who prefer (1) as whiners, whingers, or immature babies. Similarly nothing useful is accomplished by criticizing GMs or others who prefer (2) using the rhetoric of Rousseau, John Brown, or various Marxist revolutionaries. No one is being oppressed or kept down by "the man" just because some one in the party is lower level or less powerful than someone else. For those that can seem to stop with the labeling and criticizing - try reminding yourself that it is just a game. Or maybe just grow the fuck up!
Is this more of an online thing?
I rarely came across this type of rhetoric in my previous offline tabletop rpg games.
The few times I did come across it offline, it was typically from individuals who admitted to spending a lot of their time reading online rpg message boards, and/or they had a "serious business" mentality about D&D and other tabletop rpg games.
Quote from: ggroy;795197Is this more of an online thing?
Yes.
In part because, there are very few people who act as much of an ass in person as they do on line.
Quote from: Will;795195If the players are like a special forces team fixing (or causing) problems and doing ... whatever, then competence is highly valued.
Being schlub boy who is great at crochet and boot-blacking both makes you feel like a waste of space and can cause the other players to be unthrilled at your appearances.
I don't mind people being less competent if they're happy, except when I have to modify my choices to compensate for their character's weaknesses. Then the annoyance is not at their appearances, but what I had to do in focusing and optimizing my character to compensate for them. So, I'd be just as annoyed with them if they stop showing up because that effort would have been wasted. But if they show up, I can at least feel there was a point to it and enjoy my guardian role.
Or I could just embrace the thread theme, choose an equally whimsical character concept, and shrug when all our characters are killed.
You know, a term I haven't heard in ages... beer and pretzels games.
Sometimes you just want a bunch of characters and go do goofy stuff, talk in silly voices, and laugh at stupid jokes.
There was an old idea I heard (circa early 90s) called something like Space Bagel.
Everyone made a character in their favorite system... and played them together. The GM would say what happens, and then people would work out how that works in their system.
Quote from: Will;795113Hey, here's a thought, sparky, why don't you engage with the idea and discuss it if you want, or ignore it if you don't, instead of trying to dissect my game history and motives and reasons why I might suck therefore my ideas suck?
Just a thought.
And as for 'weight,' it's an interesting idea I'm tossing into a discussion about gaming, not a holy treatise, sheesh.
Hey, here's a thought, whiny, if you don't want people to challenge your hypothesis, then don't fucking write it.
Quote from: Bren;795201Yes.
In part because, there are very few people who act as much of an ass in person as they do on line.
When I was interviewed for "Dungeons & Dragons: A Documentary" one of the comments I made was "When did sitting around a table with friends drinking beer and pretending to be an elf become SERIOUS BUSINESS???"
Quote from: Old Geezer;795248When I was interviewed for "Dungeons & Dragons: A Documentary" one of the comments I made was "When did sitting around a table with friends drinking beer and pretending to be an elf become SERIOUS BUSINESS???"
Around 1989 or so.;)
Things really started changing from what you consider DnD with 2e and the whole hobby realized women existed soon after with the advent of White Wolf, Vampire, LARP and related cosplay friendly games.
Quote from: Old Geezer;795248When I was interviewed for "Dungeons & Dragons: A Documentary" one of the comments I made was "When did sitting around a table with friends drinking beer and pretending to be an elf become SERIOUS BUSINESS???"
[/B]
No kidding. Reminds me when comics went all dark and serious in the 90s. Of course, I think that was also when Vampire and the like came out, so...
Quote from: Old Geezer;795248When I was interviewed for "Dungeons & Dragons: A Documentary" one of the comments I made was "When did sitting around a table with friends drinking beer and pretending to be an elf become SERIOUS BUSINESS???"
I'm guessing as soon as some of the people playing them neglected to get real jobs, start families, and do interesting things outside of the game world.
Quote from: Marleycat;795253Around 1989 or so.;)
Things really started changing from what you consider DnD with 2e and the whole hobby realized women existed soon after with the advent of White Wolf, Vampire, LARP and related cosplay friendly games.
Naw. More likely what you are observing is a generational thing.
I've had about as many women players as men (if not more) since 1981. And none of us played White Wolf, Vampire, LARP, or cosplay before playing games that have been around since the early 1980s. All it took was asking some women to play and running something they enjoyed playing.
Quote from: Will;793790Repeating something I suggested early in the thread, I think it's most often a sign of unexamined young gaming/gamers.
That is, folks early in their 'career,' a new person joins, the group says 'hey, 3d6 in order!' The new person shrugs and goes 'ok!'
And then gets a crappy result, because the person hasn't considered or doesn't really know what that will mean. New person gets frustrated.
The group, similarly failing to really consider how this is going to play out, refuse to let the new person reroll or change anything.
In the case of novice players, I ditch stats altogether until they get the hang of the game. It makes it easier for them to learn the ropes and if necessary, to replace a dead character. Funny thing is, I've noticed over 35 years of gaming that newbies (especially kids) aren't as hung up on stats or getting PCs killed as the more experienced players. They also tend to be more creative in how they overcome obstacles in the game.
Quote from: Tetsubo;793788I've been thinking about this thread since I first saw it, a couple of weeks ago. I can't imagine having a character suicide because of low stats. I can foresee however not playing with a GM that told me there was one and only one way of generating stats and it was random. I would see that as a clear indication of two very different gaming philosophies. Mine and their's would not be matching.
I realize that there are players that love a challenge. That no matter what, they will be game to play any character. I applaud them. I am not that player. Real life is random enough. We are stuck with situations well beyond our control. I play games to escape that, not revel in it. As a player I get to do one thing, play my character. I want that character to be as close to exactly what I want as possible. And random stat generation is not likely to give me that. It is also going to create a party with vastly different levels of power from character to character. I don't see that as fun nor fair. Give me point buy or stat arrays any day of the week.
I appreciate your honesty. I am curious though: Do you play other games or sports this way?
Quote from: Will;795145What I've usually said to people who extoll the virtues of playing the weak sidekick is why not choose that? If it's so fun... choose to be the pageboy.
Because randomness breaks up the monotony. In most cases where a player demands high stats, it's because they want to play a particular type of PC and nothing else. Screw that!
And yes, I have chosen to play henchmen and followers of other PCs for a variety of reasons:
- I want other players to take "center stage"
- My regular PC(s) are out of action
- It's a role I think the group needs, but the other players have chosen differently
QuoteIf you need it to be random, YOU can elect to flip a coin -- heads, generate a balanced character, tails, make a character on 1d50% less points.
I did something similar in Phoenix Command: Playing one of the disposable redshirts with little if any special skills. It was fun.
Quote from: One Horse Town;795149Roll the fucking dice and play your guy (or gal).
Thank you for writing this so now I don't have to.
Quote from: Will;795195Wrapping up my earlier thoughts on the topic, at least in part, to me, is the game 'purpose.'
If the players are like a special forces team fixing (or causing) problems and doing ... whatever, then competence is highly valued.
Being schlub boy who is great at crochet and boot-blacking both makes you feel like a waste of space and can cause the other players to be unthrilled at your appearances.
It kinda depends on how much effort Schlub Boy is putting into helping the group succeed. If he's doing his best and just isn't good (or lucky) enough, I'd like to think the other PCs (and players) will be understanding. Now if Schlub Boy is being an uncooperative dumbass, then his comrades are justified in being annoyed at him.
Quote from: cranebump;795262No kidding. Reminds me when comics went all dark and serious in the 90s. Of course, I think that was also when Vampire and the like came out, so...
In 1998, Superman was going to have relationship therapy (http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/movies/superman-in-relationship-therapy-tim-burtons-vision-revealed-20141031-11euga.html).
This seems relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw
Quote from: Bren;795263Naw. More likely what you are observing is a generational thing.
I've had about as many women players as men (if not more) since 1981. And none of us played White Wolf, Vampire, LARP, or cosplay before playing games that have been around since the early 1980s. All it took was asking some women to play and running something they enjoyed playing.
Yeah.
There was a woman in the first session I played with Gygax in 1972. I met my first wife gaming in 1974. There were a number of women in the U of MN gaming group in the 70s.
I suspect this "Women entered roleplaying when Vampire came out" is more related to the age of the women involved, exactly as you said.
But the whole "there were no women in gaming before White Wolf" makes my fat old hairy ass tired.
Quote from: Elfdart;794717Or maybe they won't. Or maybe the player whose character isn't as talented will try to make up for it in other ways. That +3 bonus to AC that Mogo the Mighty has for high DEX isn't half as good as the +7 bonus Sven the Average gets by taking 75% cover behind that tree, marble column or dead pack mule.
I mean, the difference between a character with a -1 to his rolls and a PC with +1 to his is the same as the difference between the PC with +1 to his rolls and a character with +3 to his. Does this mean the PC with "only" +1 is now hamstrung by having less talent than the one with +3?
The comparison was someone with -1 to everything, against someone in their area of specialism. Which is highly likely to be +3, so we're not dealing with a tiny difference, but a big one. One that remains regardless of level.
But yet again, like the dishonest shit that you are, you've tried to move the goalposts again.
Quote from: Elfdart;794717Or is all this sniveling about ability scores a smokescreen to hide the real problem: Shitty players using mediocre scores as an alibi for their own shitty play OR Shitty players trying to use high scores as a crutch for their own shitty play?
Low scores doesn't make a good player. That a good player can mitigate shitty scores does not mean having shitty scores makes you a good player. You've got the causality the wrong way around. Good players make good players. Which they can do just as easily with high or low scores. Your vaunted "player skill" is completely orthogonal to the stats.
Quote from: Elfdart;794717So you admit to being a prima donna. I guess team sports were never your thing, since you assume that just because one member of a team isn't as talented as another, he's that teammate's flunky.
All these ad hominem attacks do little more than highlight the weakness of your arguments, as well as how ignorant you are about me. I'm quite good at team sports, thanks for asking.
How I approach them has precisely nothing whatsoever to do with how I play RPGs, because I'm not a one-track moron who can't distinguish between different activities and their variant dynamics and rules.
Quote from: Elfdart;794717Not that it matters: There's nothing wrong with playing the follower of another PC. In campaigns where the DM lets the players run henchmen and hirelings, players do that already. The only difference is that in this case, the lead character is controlled by another player.
Yes, I know, you have to be the belle of the ball...
There's everything wrong with it when that wasn't even the agreed premise of the game. Instead of making a choice to do that, it's been foisted on the player by a quirk of fate.
Quote from: Elfdart;794717Yeah, having only 30 or 50 g.p. (the minimum, depending on edition) at first level as opposed to 180 or 200 g.p. is "meaningless".
Equipment, especially the sort you can buy with such small amounts, means fuck all.
Quote from: Elfdart;794717Such as?
Go back and read the post I linked before.
Quote from: Elfdart;794717Yes, you are lying -and you really need to stop. None of the tactics described earlier requires much intellect. Even retards have been known to set things on fire, pour hazardous chemicals on scary things, run away from danger, hide from enemies, sneak about when they fear being caught and even trying to disguise their voices to confuse an antagonist. Now, being retards, their chances of success are often not very good, but it doesn't take a tactical genius like General Giapp to at least try them. It's not like a PC with low intelligence is doing calculus successfully.
But this is all a side issue anyway, since in most games you have the polar opposite: PCs with high INT or WIS scores doing things that are incredibly fucking stupid.
Dear gods, it's like trying to debate with a child.
I don't give a flying fuck about stealth and ambushing, that wasn't the question I asked in post #366. Go back and answer the question I asked, or go fuck yourself if it's just too difficult for you.
Quote from: Elfdart;794717So animals and stupid people can't work in groups and can't ambush their victims? Stupid people can't set things on fire? :rotfl:
Holy christ you are a retard!
Answer the question you, instead of dodging it yet again.
Quote from: Elfdart;794717The ability to advance to 2nd level is invalidated by having below average scores?
:rotfl:
Dear sweet baby Jesus it must suck to play in your group!
What the fuck has that got to do with anything we've been discussing? Yet another dodge.
Quote from: Elfdart;795264I appreciate your honesty. I am curious though: Do you play other games or sports this way?
Why would you? RPGs are nothing like other games and certainly nothing like sports whatsoever. Unless you're a complete moron, it's possible to apply different criteria to different activities.
Quote from: Elfdart;795265Because randomness breaks up the monotony. In most cases where a player demands high stats, it's because they want to play a particular type of PC and nothing else. Screw that!
There's only a monotony to break up when you play with boring people. As you evidently do.
Quote from: Elfdart;795265It kinda depends on how much effort Schlub Boy is putting into helping the group succeed. If he's doing his best and just isn't good (or lucky) enough, I'd like to think the other PCs (and players) will be understanding. Now if Schlub Boy is being an uncooperative dumbass, then his comrades are justified in being annoyed at him.
If you're playing Fantasy Special Forces, it doesn't make any difference how much "effort" Schlub Boy is putting in. He shouldn't even be in the team in the first place, he'd never make the cut.
The SAS are an elite because they have a rigorous selection process that most soldiers (never mind most people) aren't up to passing. They don't let people in who can't hack it just because they try hard.
Quote from: Kiero;795411The comparison was someone with -1 to everything, against someone in their area of specialism. Which is highly likely to be +3, so we're not dealing with a tiny difference, but a big one. One that remains regardless of level.
Specialism?
The point, which sailed way over your empty head, is that seldom do all the PCs have equal stats. If a PC with mediocre/below average stats is going to be considered unplayable, then one with average stats is now substandard, good stats are average and great numbers are good. If that's how the game was meant to be played, then the ability scores wouldn't have a spread from 3-18, now would they?
QuoteLow scores doesn't make a good player.
I never said they did, so take your little strawman and stick him as far as possible up your ass.
QuoteAll these ad hominem attacks do little more than highlight the weakness of your arguments, as well as how ignorant you are about me. I'm quite good at team sports, thanks for asking.
I doubt it.
QuoteHow I approach them has precisely nothing whatsoever to do with how I play RPGs, because I'm not a one-track moron who can't distinguish between different activities and their variant dynamics and rules.
So you're a prima donna while playing D&D, but a team player in other games and sports?
:rolleyes:
QuoteThere's everything wrong with it when that wasn't even the agreed premise of the game. Instead of making a choice to do that, it's been foisted on the player by a quirk of fate.
Stop lying. Nobody is having a role "foisted" upon them. I merely suggested a role a PC with weak stats could play alongside other PCs with better stats, more experience, etc.
QuoteEquipment, especially the sort you can buy with such small amounts, means fuck all.
For a player as shitty as you are, I don't doubt it. For reasonably competent players, having enough starting money for chainmail instead of leather armor can mean the difference between life and death.
QuoteGo back and read the post I linked before.
I'm not really interested in sifting through your bullshit again. Once was more than enough.
You believe that humans in a FRPG who are slightly below average in intelligence are too stupid to use basic, simple tactics -which tells me all I need to know about your faculties. When called on your moronic assertion, you keep bringing up post #366, where you try to nitpick the argument in the most dishonest, fucktarded manner possible.
QuoteAnswer the question you, instead of dodging it yet again.
I'm not dodging anything, fucktard. I never suggested animals could use flaming oil, so this is a red herring on your part.
QuoteWhat the fuck has that got to do with anything we've been discussing? Yet another dodge.
You claim the 1st level fighter is only marginally better than a 0-level man-at-arms. Except for the fact that the fighter (who is already better in every way) can improve.
QuoteWhy would you? RPGs are nothing like other games and certainly nothing like sports whatsoever.
This statement alone shows why you suck as a player.
QuoteIf you're playing Fantasy Special Forces, it doesn't make any difference how much "effort" Schlub Boy is putting in. He shouldn't even be in the team in the first place, he'd never make the cut.
I don't play Fantasy Special Forces. I play D&D, the game being discussed.
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
Quote from: Elfdart;795645Specialism?
The point, which sailed way over your empty head, is that seldom do all the PCs have equal stats. If a PC with mediocre/below average stats is going to be considered unplayable, then one with average stats is now substandard, good stats are average and great numbers are good. If that's how the game was meant to be played, then the ability scores wouldn't have a spread from 3-18, now would they?
Actually, in my experience PCs have the "same" stats (or at least equal resources to allocate) all the time. Whether by point buy, arrays, or some other means of equalising random, such as everyone being able to use anyone else's stats.
Not only are mediocre stats unplayable, most of the editions have a note about re-rolling if you end up with a character who's net modifiers are lower than 0.
Quote from: Elfdart;795645I never said they did, so take your little strawman and stick him as far as possible up your ass.
That was your implication, and that which recurs throughout this thread about how low stats mean you're a Real Roleplayer. So go take your own advice.
Quote from: Elfdart;795645I doubt it.
I couldn't give a fuck what you think.
Quote from: Elfdart;795645So you're a prima donna while playing D&D, but a team player in other games and sports?
:rolleyes:
No, I'm not some retard who thinks all games are alike.
Quote from: Elfdart;795645Stop lying. Nobody is having a role "foisted" upon them. I merely suggested a role a PC with weak stats could play alongside other PCs with better stats, more experience, etc.
When your character is little better than a drag on the rest of the group as a result of what you happen to have rolled, you're having that foisted on you.
Quote from: Elfdart;795645For a player as shitty as you are, I don't doubt it. For reasonably competent players, having enough starting money for chainmail instead of leather armor can mean the difference between life and death.
I'm not really interested in sifting through your bullshit again. Once was more than enough.
You believe that humans in a FRPG who are slightly below average in intelligence are too stupid to use basic, simple tactics -which tells me all I need to know about your faculties. When called on your moronic assertion, you keep bringing up post #366, where you try to nitpick the argument in the most dishonest, fucktarded manner possible.
I'm not dodging anything, fucktard. I never suggested animals could use flaming oil, so this is a red herring on your part.
You claim the 1st level fighter is only marginally better than a 0-level man-at-arms. Except for the fact that the fighter (who is already better in every way) can improve.
If you can't engage the matter actually at hand, shut the fuck up.
Quote from: Elfdart;795645This statement alone shows why you suck as a player.
*yawn*
Quote from: Elfdart;795645I don't play Fantasy Special Forces. I play D&D, the game being discussed.
You really are a moron, aren't you. Go back and read Will's quote, you know the one you replied to, but evidently didn't read very carefully. That was the premise he was talking about, playing D&D as Fantasy Special Forces.
Quote from: Old Geezer;795658:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
How about you go make yourself useful by tonguing your own pee-hole or something.
Ironically enough, "low stats make you a better roleplayer" was part of the paean of the
"ROLEplaying not ROLLplaying" back in the 90s before the OSR lot adopted it :D
Quote from: Kiero;795715How about you go make yourself useful by tonguing your own pee-hole or something.
He can't do that, his epic-level neckbeard gets in the way :D
Quote from: The Ent;795720Ironically enough, "low stats make you a better roleplayer" was part of the paean of the "ROLEplaying not ROLLplaying" back in the 90s before the OSR lot adopted it :D
Purely on efficiency grounds, a lot of the posts to this thread could have been replaced with that slogan.
Quote from: The Ent;795720Ironically enough, "low stats make you a better roleplayer" was part of the paean of the "ROLEplaying not ROLLplaying" back in the 90s before the OSR lot adopted it :D
He can't do that, his epic-level neckbeard gets in the way :D
A. I think it's just an excuse for a bunch of nerds to act superior when they are playacting something they have no actual idea about.
B. Yeah that neckbeard is an issue isn't it? (Take that in any way you wish):D
Quote from: The Ent;795720He can't do that, his epic-level neckbeard gets in the way :D
Not to mention that if I were that flexible my lonely teenage years would have been less melancholy...
Quote from: old geezer;795793not to mention that if i were that flexible my lonely teenage years would have been less melancholy...
I know what you mean :D
Quote from: Marleycat;795776A. I think it's just an excuse for a bunch of nerds to act superior when they are playacting something they have no actual idea about.
That's the way of things (eg., agreed).
Quote from: Elfdart;795645Posture strut posture.
Quote from: Kiero;795715Posture strut posture
This is what happens when people have different views on RPGs.
Quote from: Sommerjon;795880This is what happens when people have different views on RPGs.
"Posture Strut Posture"?
Ballet happens?
Quote from: TristramEvans;795881"Posture Strut Posture"? Ballet happens?
Sure.
(http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs50/f/2009/323/d/2/A__Disgustingly__Cute_Dream_by_jaggudada.jpg)
Will wins the freakin thread :rotfl:
You promised you wouldn't show anybody that picture!
* runs away crying *
I've never had a character with really low stats other than a couple of Traveller characters I generated for fun. The lowest I've had was a set of Pathfinder Organized Play characters, which were designed using the point-buy system that they use for it. And there's ways of making characters with a couple good stats that way.
If I were to run I'd let the players reroll a couple of bad stats in order to not have the issue, within reason. But that's for wanting the game to be, you know, "fun."
Quote from: Old Geezer;795290Yeah.
There was a woman in the first session I played with Gygax in 1972. I met my first wife gaming in 1974. There were a number of women in the U of MN gaming group in the 70s.
I suspect this "Women entered roleplaying when Vampire came out" is more related to the age of the women involved, exactly as you said.
But the whole "there were no women in gaming before White Wolf" makes my fat old hairy ass tired.
My fiancée is a gamer. She got into gaming through an exboyfriend, and her guy before me was a gamer (and a published one!). She stayed from liking gaming, not from wanting a guy. And we've had a few women in our groups (none stayed but this was from The Real Life Lobstrosity (tm)).
Even though I began with Marvel, it wasn't until I got to playing MERP where the low-stat problem came into my games. In previous ones, we used premade or modelled stats, and each game between the stats weren't pivotal. In MERP, mediocre stats were noticeable beside a character with high stats. My brother (this was a household game) rolled like a fiend, and scored most of his stats above 75, and at least two in the 90s.
But we played on with our characters, and used his beefy Rohirric knight as the front runner for a lot of combats. In a later RoleMaster game with my friends, the GM in that game would look stats over and nudge them up if they felt too low for the kind of game he wanted to run.
It was always an understanding in those games that if you really didn't like the character, a drink could spill on them, and you'd be forced to roll up a new one. We just didn't make people play a character they didn't like, period - what was the point? This being said, we had to roll characters under an understanding of "don't cheat", and most of us found it fun to roll up a set of stats and see what we got.
Quote from: Coffee Zombie;797008most of us found it fun to roll up a set of stats and see what we got.
This. Crom's hairy nutsack, this.
Quote from: Old Geezer;797134This. Crom's hairy nutsack, this.
I would rather be in control of the only thing I as a player get to do, play my character. Would you rather buy a car that suits your tastes, budget and needs or be handed the keys to a random vehicle? I prefer the former rather than the latter.
Quote from: Tetsubo;797228I would rather be in control of the only thing I as a player get to do, play my character. Would you rather buy a car that suits your tastes, budget and needs or be handed the keys to a random vehicle? I prefer the former rather than the latter.
Things that are good choices in real life are not necessary the most fun in a game.
Rolling for my real life car isn't fun.
Rolling for my characters stats in a game is fun.
Different methods for different situations.
Quote from: Tetsubo;797228I would rather be in control of the only thing I as a player get to do, play my character. Would you rather buy a car that suits your tastes, budget and needs or be handed the keys to a random vehicle? I prefer the former rather than the latter.
If a character costs me $20,000 then yes I want to customise it.
Quote from: Enlightened;797229Things that are good choices in real life are not necessary the most fun in a game.
Rolling for my real life car isn't fun.
Rolling for my characters stats in a game is fun.
Different methods for different situations.
For *you* that is more fun. Being handed a random character is decidedly unfun for me. Life has enough random aspects. I didn't ask for any of them. I want more from my entertainment than to emulate the random aspects of life that I have no control over. We use dice in most games. That is enough 'random' for me.
One of the most fun games we ever had was the WFRP 2e campaign where, even given the option of choosing, my players agreed among themselves to roll on every table during character generation. We ended up with a Jailer, a Burgher, a Bounty Hunter and a Rogue. We rolled Career, name, place of birth, number of siblings and distinguishing marks.
And this wasn't a beer-and-pretzels one-shot thing, it was an actual fricking campaign that went on for the better part of a year.
One of them commented that it felt "lifelike" to roll for these things, since people don't always get to choose their lot in life — especially in a medieval society.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;797230If a character costs me $20,000 then yes I want to customise it.
An emotional investment is still an investment. I put effort and creativity into a character. I craft a back story. I want my character to be my choice, not the random outcome of the dice. Not to mention a party could end up with a set of characters completely unsuited to a campaign or adventure. The players could be borked before they ever started. Choosing a party mix is like choosing the equipment for an expedition. Choose wrong and you don't come home. I don't want someone handing me a random mix of gear if I am going to be climbing K-9. I want to choose *exactly* the gear I know will give me the best chance to succeed and return home.
Quote from: The Butcher;797242One of the most fun games we ever had was the WFRP 2e campaign where, even given the option of choosing, my players agreed among themselves to roll on every table during character generation. We ended up with a Jailer, a Burgher, a Bounty Hunter and a Rogue. We rolled Career, name, place of birth, number of siblings and distinguishing marks.
And this wasn't a beer-and-pretzels one-shot thing, it was an actual fricking campaign that went on for the better part of a year.
One of them commented that it felt "lifelike" to roll for these things, since people don't always get to choose their lot in life — especially in a medieval society.
In our long-running WFPR2e game, we chose our starting careers.
Quote from: Tetsubo;797243An emotional investment is still an investment. I put effort and creativity into a character. I craft a back story. I want my character to be my choice, not the random outcome of the dice. Not to mention a party could end up with a set of characters completely unsuited to a campaign or adventure. The players could be borked before they ever started. Choosing a party mix is like choosing the equipment for an expedition. Choose wrong and you don't come home. I don't want someone handing me a random mix of gear if I am going to be climbing K-9. I want to choose *exactly* the gear I know will give me the best chance to succeed and return home.
Party composition does not bother me as much because IME player coherence and party cooperation matters more. People who wanna fuck around and watch everyone flail about and die are going to get what they want regardless. Stats, skills, and class mean nothing in comparison. However people who are on the same page in goals — and coordinated in good strategy & tactics for their composition — will often do swimmingly well.
Finding players and PCs of such caliber is the challenge. All the more reason to have a stable of characters. Then players can swap out PCs that would be more compatible and know how to cooperate.
Your other way just takes so much more time, and is dependent on so many other uncontrollable factors...
:)
Quote from: Tetsubo;797228I would rather be in control of the only thing I as a player get to do, play my character. Would you rather buy a car that suits your tastes, budget and needs or be handed the keys to a random vehicle? I prefer the former rather than the latter.
Then play any of the myriad games that do not use random stat rolling.
There, wasn't that easy?
Quote from: Tetsubo;797243An emotional investment is still an investment. I put effort and creativity into a character. I craft a back story. I want my character to be my choice, not the random outcome of the dice. Not to mention a party could end up with a set of characters completely unsuited to a campaign or adventure. The players could be borked before they ever started. Choosing a party mix is like choosing the equipment for an expedition. Choose wrong and you don't come home. I don't want someone handing me a random mix of gear if I am going to be climbing K-9. I want to choose *exactly* the gear I know will give me the best chance to succeed and return home.
Then how the hell did we play solo and survive? Gosh.
Quote from: Old Geezer;797255Then play any of the myriad games that do not use random stat rolling.
There, wasn't that easy?
If you like everything about D&D except random stat rolling... you're going to want to not use random stat rolling in D&D.
It's not like the entire system comes crashing down if you don't.
Also, again, why do people keep glossing over the fact that Random Stat Rolling doesn't have to be the same as Random Stat Total?
You can totally have one of a number of 'my character is random' generation systems that doesn't end up with 'my highest stat is 10' and 'my lowest stat is 14.'
You can easily make a system that is random for people who want it, or nonrandom for people who don't, and people end up with the same magnitude of stuff (or you could allow a small range, or... whatever)
Quote from: Will;797266You can easily make a system that is random for people who want it, or nonrandom for people who don't, and people end up with the same magnitude of stuff (or you could allow a small range, or... whatever)
They did. Repeatedly. Since TSR.
It is just the yahoo who started this whole bitchfest can't cope without an auto 18 option built-in
because he or she believes home games are strictly RAW affairs only.Literally. ludicrous. argument. on. its. face.
Quote from: Old Geezer;797256Then how the hell did we play solo and survive? Gosh.
Cuz you used squelch oil, checkered paint, and/or left-handed smoke shifters?
Quote from: Tetsubo;797240For *you* that is more fun. Being handed a random character is decidedly unfun for me. Life has enough random aspects. I didn't ask for any of them. I want more from my entertainment than to emulate the random aspects of life that I have no control over. We use dice in most games. That is enough 'random' for me.
Then don't roll.
None (or almost none or at least none that I can see) of the people who advocate for rolling are saying they think people other than themselves should be rolling.
There has been at least one recent post along the lines of 'at my table we roll, if you don't like it, gtfo' or, more commonly, 'if you don't roll straight we laugh at you.'
Again, perfectly valid way to play.
But I just want to reiterate that random doesn't have to be random power level.
Quote from: The Butcher;797242One of the most fun games we ever had was the WFRP 2e campaign where, even given the option of choosing, my players agreed among themselves to roll on every table during character generation. We ended up with a Jailer, a Burgher, a Bounty Hunter and a Rogue. We rolled Career, name, place of birth, number of siblings and distinguishing marks.
And this wasn't a beer-and-pretzels one-shot thing, it was an actual fricking campaign that went on for the better part of a year.
One of them commented that it felt "lifelike" to roll for these things, since people don't always get to choose their lot in life — especially in a medieval society.
Yeah playing WFRP I always have people roll for everything, even race. For some reason, people always fucking love it. The "likes social characters" guy gets a Pit Fighter, the "likes fighters and rangers" gal gets a Merchant, they're both happy.
It's the magic of WFRP.
Quote from: Old Geezer;797256Then how the hell did we play solo and survive? Gosh.
Sometimes solo
is the best party mix.
Quote from: rawma;797302Sometimes solo is the best party mix.
Me, Myself, and I.
I still prefer BXs system of controlled random.
3d6 in order. Then you can shuffle points based on what class you took, for a 1 for 2 cost. They way if you really wanted those extra 2 points in Strength for the Fighter or 2 Dexterity for the Halfling, then 4 points is coming out of Intelligence and/or Wisdom. Allowing for little tweaks. Id occasionally consider using it to bump up Intelligence from say 15 to 16 for the extra language option since I was usually the groups mediator. But didnt opt for it as it was not really needed. I've seen the groups fighter or cleric do a little swapping now and then. Others never did and just played what they got.
There if you want it, but not integral.
Quote from: Will;797266If you like everything about D&D except random stat rolling... you're going to want to not use random stat rolling in D&D.
It's not like the entire system comes crashing down if you don't.
Sure. Ever since AD&D 1st there's been a zabillion ways of creating stats other than 3d6 six times in order. Hell, if it meant that much to somebody I'd say "Okay, you have 18s for all stats." But I doubt that would happen because I'm pretty clear that my version of the game ain't about the stats.
Quote from: Old Geezer;797342Sure. Ever since AD&D 1st there's been a zabillion ways of creating stats other than 3d6 six times in order. Hell, if it meant that much to somebody I'd say "Okay, you have 18s for all stats." But I doubt that would happen because I'm pretty clear that my version of the game ain't about the stats.
I think one PC with 18s for all their stats mixed with a party of roll 3d6 down the board, hard scrabble PCs could be a real kick.
- Either Kronan the super stat PC ("supes" for short) does really well and all the other hard scrabble average 10.5 stat PCs get to tell stories in bars for free drinks during their retirement about how they were there with good old supes way back when before he became known as Kronan the Great and before he became Emperor of Shond Dekar or sat on the Opal Throne or trod the dust of the world beneath his bejeweled sandaled feet - the first time supes ever entered a dungeon as a lowly man at arms.
- Or (and more likely the case) they all get a laugh as supes' player forgets to have old supes check for traps and he dies impaled on a set of stone spikes in a pit trap that is home to ochre jelly or a rust monster or supes gets knocked over by an ogre with a big club and the bandoleer of oil flasks he is wearing break and spill all over him just as he knocks over a lit candelabra and goes up in a puff of super smoke.
well killing yourself to get out of low stats is pretty immature but then again why the hell does anybody still roll for stats its a pretty stupid thing to do
that said i would say that normaly killing yourself so you can reroll (i assume thats why he did it i will read the post in a moment) would be pitiful i would give you a pass if you go out in some sort of blaze of glory to save the rest of your team or something that would be pretty cool
The funny thing is, offing the character may not solve anything as you are just as likely to roll badly again as you are to roll good.
Quote from: tuypo1;797386why the hell does anybody still roll for stats its a pretty stupid thing to do
I still roll for stats.
I like it.
Go fuck yourself with a broken beer bottle.
but i dont even like beer
although i guess that just makes it even more unplesent which is of course the aim
Quote from: Bren;797367I think one PC with 18s for all their stats mixed with a party of roll 3d6 down the board, hard scrabble PCs could be a real kick.
- Either Kronan the super stat PC ("supes" for short) does really well and all the other hard scrabble average 10.5 stat PCs get to tell stories in bars for free drinks during their retirement about how they were there with good old supes way back when before he became known as Kronan the Great and before he became Emperor of Shond Dekar or sat on the Opal Throne or trod the dust of the world beneath his bejeweled sandaled feet - the first time supes ever entered a dungeon as a lowly man at arms.
- Or (and more likely the case) they all get a laugh as supes' player forgets to have old supes check for traps and he dies impaled on a set of stone spikes in a pit trap that is home to ochre jelly or a rust monster or supes gets knocked over by an ogre with a big club and the bandoleer of oil flasks he is wearing break and spill all over him just as he knocks over a lit candelabra and goes up in a puff of super smoke.
I've done it. Usually the latter happens. For some weird reason the dice gods have a hate on for people all happy about their bucket of 18s characters. It's uncanny. That, and the lapse of better judgment because they think the stats will save them, tends to be the killer.
It's one of the reasons I never got the appeal. Not much personality to work with in "straight 18s" and other ridiculously fortunate characters, tends to give false confidence, and just tempts fate for some reason. In my experience I find it a weird thing to attach so desperately onto.
Quote from: Opaopajr;797404For some weird reason the dice gods have a hate on for people all happy about their bucket of 18s characters. It's uncanny. That, and the lapse of better judgment because they think the stats will save them, tends to be the killer.
I'd guess that it is several things.
As you said the lapse in judgement due to overconfidence is a big part. Not being superstitious, rather than a conspiracy by the Dice Gods, I suspect that the GM is less likely to pull any punches and more likely to look for challenges or opportunities for dramatic irony with Mr. All 18s than with a normal PC. Plus the fact that many people root for the underdog means that we are likely to remember the times that Supes gets his comeuppance - so a bit of confirmation bias added on to the other issues.
Regarding high stats characters being more likely to die:
Quote from: Bren;797423As you said the lapse in judgement due to overconfidence is a big part. Not being superstitious, rather than a conspiracy by the Dice Gods, I suspect that the GM is less likely to pull any punches and more likely to look for challenges or opportunities for dramatic irony with Mr. All 18s than with a normal PC. Plus the fact that many people root for the underdog means that we are likely to remember the times that Supes gets his comeuppance - so a bit of confirmation bias added on to the other issues.
All of these are very sensible; I would add that probably the party expects Supes to be front and center versus the big monsters, because he has the best AC and the best HPs, if only by a small amount. And that can get a character killed more frequently than the wimpy guy hiding in the back row.
Quote from: tuypo1;797386well killing yourself to get out of low stats is pretty immature but then again why the hell does anybody still roll for stats its a pretty stupid thing to do.
Why?
Because Point Buy has its own inherint problems brought on sometimes by the exact same people as off themselves over low stats.
Because some find Arrays unsatisfactory or too cookie cutter for their likings.
Because with Roll in Order some like the challenge of a totally random character.
Because some like a little control over their character that you get from Roll and Assign or Roll and Swap Points.
Or whatever other variant.
Quote from: Old Geezer;797401I still roll for stats.
I like it.
Go fuck yourself with a broken beer bottle.
That seems like a measured response.
Quote from: TristramEvans;797470That seems like a measured response.
Only because beer bottles are premeasured.
A few years ago, we were playing a really awesome Marvel themed Tri-Stat Silver Age Sentinels game and I found that in the back of the book was an alternate chargen method that let you randomly roll up your character.
Somehow, I wound up with Flash + Solomon Kane, the Puritan Out of Time who wasn't as fast as much as able to Blink and Teleport in line of sight who fought with magic pistols.
It was mucho awesome and nothing I would have ever made on my own.
Quote from: Spinachcat;797476A few years ago, we were playing a really awesome Marvel themed Tri-Stat Silver Age Sentinels game and I found that in the back of the book was an alternate chargen method that let you randomly roll up your character.
Somehow, I wound up with Flash + Solomon Kane, the Puritan Out of Time who wasn't as fast as much as able to Blink and Teleport in line of sight who fought with magic pistols.
It was mucho awesome and nothing I would have ever made on my own.
Rolling up characters with MSH's Ultimate Powers handbook, while not recommended for actual gameplay, is a hella fun mini-game unto itself. IT would be great for juust a pure gonzo action game like one I'm thinking of running based on
DANGER 5 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z09bNgSeMI)
4e D&D GW is pretty much made of distilled random. You choose your name, gender, armor, and weapon. Everything else is random. And each long rest you powers and gear could end up randomized again. Oh, and they tacked on a CCG to get the rest of the gear and mutations. No one wanted to play it locally.
With Dragonstorm you got a random character too in each starter, usually a more than one. But you not only had some say in how you set up the character, the starter also gave a complete default to play if you lucked out or didnt like what you got. Trading at cons was the way to go really.
Some players thrive on total random. Others have thresholds where too much is too much.
Which can tie back into the stats perception. I've found that the less choice the player has in chargen, sometimes the less they care about stats. Others were the opposite.
Quote from: tuypo1;797403but i dont even like beer
although i guess that just makes it even more unplesent which is of course the aim
Spoken like a gentleman.
Some of us still like rolling for stats. It really doesn't matter, though, because there are countless ways of creating characters, including many different methods for D&D. Everyone should be able to find a method they like, and that does not restrict what others do in the slightest.l
Quote from: Tetsubo;797243An emotional investment is still an investment. I put effort and creativity into a character. I craft a back story. I want my character to be my choice, not the random outcome of the dice. Not to mention a party could end up with a set of characters completely unsuited to a campaign or adventure. The players could be borked before they ever started. Choosing a party mix is like choosing the equipment for an expedition. Choose wrong and you don't come home. I don't want someone handing me a random mix of gear if I am going to be climbing K-9. I want to choose *exactly* the gear I know will give me the best chance to succeed and return home.
But if you go that way you really are missing out on the fun of playing a different kind of character, or having to come up with new ways to overcome obstacles since no plan survives contact with the enemy. Sometimes the guy best suited/most important in the mission gets killed. Sometimes important gear is lost or destroyed. Do you just quit when those breaks go against you?
I'm not here to bust your chops over how you like to play. My earlier comments were more out of frustration with prima donna types who I find incredibly annoying. It's like someone saying "Sure I'll play football with you guys -as long as I get the ball every play and I always score".
Quote from: Elfdart;797539Do you just quit when those breaks go against you?
This post sparked an idea or analogy. What follows is not intended as a rebuttal, refutation, or argument with Elfdart's post per se.
Most people I know will concede a wargame once it reaches a point where the odds seem overwhelmingly against them rather than playing the game out attritionally to the very last piece on the board. And in complicated wargames there is frequently a feeling by the winner that the loser conceded just a bit too soon for the winner's taste. In part this stems from the winner not getting to see their long anticipated master stroke or strategic effort actually play out. However I seldom see anyone insist the the loser is somehow morally obliged to play the game out to the bitter end. And that is despite the fact that people frequently draw the line where they concede in different places.
Quote from: Elfdart;797539It's like someone saying "Sure I'll play football with you guys -as long as I get the ball every play and I always score".
I might be, if only football were anything like RPGs. Which it isn't.
Quote from: Kiero;797640I might be, if only football were anything like RPGs. Which it isn't.
OTOH, an RPG that's a mix of Blood Bowl + H.O.L. could be damn awesome.
Quote from: stuffis;791362would any well-adjusted grownup rather commit character suicide ('suicide' should not be a fucking verb) than just play the character?
If they're in character, no prob for me.
Quote from: Bren;797544However I seldom see anyone insist the the loser is somehow morally obliged to play the game out to the bitter end. And that is despite the fact that people frequently draw the line where they concede in different places.
You missed a brilliantly moronic discussion over on BGG several years back where a player was having problems with the group telling him that he HAD to help the current leader when he was loosing. And others were agreeing that yeah he was obligated to knuckle under and be the other players slave bot.
Theres allways going to be those types.
Personally Im the sort who will hang in there to the bitter end rather than concede. Risk 2210. Theres me on the last phase stubbornly trying to hold the Moon Id been pushed back to. And succeeding.
Quote from: Simlasa;791373I once got stuck playing a cleric (random roll) and kinda decided that he oughtta be a bit of a crazed zealot, picking fights and throwing himself into the deep end... mostly because I'd up till then disliked the idea of clerics and I figured he'd die off quick and I'd get to make a new character. But he kept on not dying and pretty soon I started to enjoy playing a cleric after all.
This reminds me of a game I played in years ago. The DM had us generate characters using the dreaded 3d6 in order; my best roll was an 11 in Strength but my worst two rolls were a 6 for Dexterity and a 5 for Intelligence. I wasn't initially excited about playing a dumb, clumsy warrior with slightly above-average strength so the play-style I adopted with this character wasn't exactly cautious. Wouldn't you know, that character just would not die and eventually he became one of mine and the party's favorites despite the fact that everything he involved himself in became an utter gong-show.
As far as random-roll vs point-buy, I think its like arguing cars vs boats: they both are vehicles but they fulfill two very different functions.
Random roll is great if a player has no idea what they want to play or dont care what they play, they just want to get down to playing.
Points buy or allocation is great if a player has a character concept in mind already and wants to model it.
Quote from: TristramEvans;798531As far as random-roll vs point-buy, I think its like arguing cars vs boats: they both are vehicles but they fulfill two very different functions.
Random roll is great if a player has no idea what they want to play or dont care what they play, they just want to get down to playing.
Points buy or allocation is great if a player has a character concept in mind already and wants to model it.
And then there's the orthogonal issue of balance. You can have random roll/balanced, or random roll/random total.
I ADORE Lifepath systems, and coming up with random characters boiling out of weird die rolls and charts.
I also enjoy games where you can make a character as you go (like Fate's Quick Start option), so that you can decide as you roll who your character is.
(I'd love to see more lifepath stuff. I'd make up 5e Lifepath stuff, but Lifepath takes an INCREDIBLE amount of work, and it's hard to make it interesting AND generic)
Trying to enlist a Traveller character in the Scouts without really caring if the result is death in chargen for the terribly rolled character or the awesome scout skill tables to make up for it if he does survive to retire, didn't seem uncommon back in the day :)
Beyond the Wall has some rather nifty life path character generation, or at least ability score generation tables for each playbook. I'd really like to try those out sometime for 5e (or make new ones) and see what happens.
Quote from: Will;798537And then there's the orthogonal issue of balance. You can have random roll/balanced, or random roll/random total.
The only instance of random roll/balanced I've ever seen is that used in NEMESIS, I think, where it controlled allocation, rather than the quantum of chargen resources. Though of course in play that allocation, even if equal in quantum for all characters, might not be balanced through some options being better than others.
It's trivial to create such things, though. I've offered several examples upthread.
For example, roll 3d6 in order, calculate how far you are off, then randomly remove points.
Or you can have 'standard array' (15 14 13 12 10 8) and randomly determine where the numbers go.
Or...
Quote from: Omega;798345Personally Im the sort who will hang in there to the bitter end rather than concede. Risk 2210. Theres me on the last phase stubbornly trying to hold the Moon Id been pushed back to. And succeeding.
In my experience the person who keeps playing to the bitter end is a rare one. And I love to have them as an opponent when I am winning. ;)
Quote from: Will;798537I ADORE Lifepath systems, and coming up with random characters boiling out of weird die rolls and charts.
(I'd love to see more lifepath stuff. I'd make up 5e Lifepath stuff, but Lifepath takes an INCREDIBLE amount of work, and it's hard to make it interesting AND generic)
I admit it, I'm an unabashed, unrepentant, absolute Lifepath WHORE. :D
I keep crossing my fingers and hoping Jennell Jaquays does a massive revamp of the old Central Casting books.
Another Lifepath fanboy here!
Quote from: CRKrueger;798684I admit it, I'm an unabashed, unrepentant, absolute Lifepath WHORE. :D
Agreed. The excellent lifepaths in Atlantis: the Second Age are one of the things that sold me on the game.
Quote from: Kiero;797640I might be, if only football were anything like RPGs. Which it isn't.
Both are games featuring group activity. The fact that you can't or won't grasp this obvious fact proves further why you suck as a player.
Quote from: Kiero;797640I might be, if only football were anything like RPGs. Which it isn't.
What, doesn't every group slap each other on the ass to celebrate victorious combat?
Quote from: The Ent;795932Will wins the freakin thread :rotfl:
Quote from: Omega;798345You missed a brilliantly moronic discussion over on BGG several years back where a player was having problems with the group telling him that he HAD to help the current leader when he was loosing. And others were agreeing that yeah he was obligated to knuckle under and be the other players slave bot.
Theres allways going to be those types.
Personally Im the sort who will hang in there to the bitter end rather than concede. Risk 2210. Theres me on the last phase stubbornly trying to hold the Moon Id been pushed back to. And succeeding.
I knew a guy who would get upset about other players' strategies in Risk - but in opposite ways depending on whether he was still in the game or eliminated. In other games (e.g. Catan) he could shift to a "get it over with" attitude even if he merely seemed far behind.
Another guy several times got so upset at thinking he was behind that he commplained greatly and 0turned to "spoiler" tactics meant to frustrate others despite being suboptimal for him - and still ended up winning!
Quote from: Elfdart;798753Both are games featuring group activity. The fact that you can't or won't grasp this obvious fact proves further why you suck as a player.
What, they both feature "group activity"? Wow, that's amazing, the fact that you think this makes them even remotely alike proves what a complete brainless moron you are.
Elfdart, I think we can be fairly sure that not only does Kiero suck as an rpg player, but he's also extraordinarily unlikely to have ever participated in a team sport.
In this latter respect he is not unusual amongst gamers, of course. But most of them get that an adventuring party is a team.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;798955Elfdart, I think we can be fairly sure that not only does Kiero suck as an rpg player, but he's also extraordinarily unlikely to have ever participated in a team sport.
In this latter respect he is not unusual amongst gamers, of course. But most of them get that an adventuring party is a team.
If anyone was going to double down on Elfdart's ignorant and rather pathetic
ad hominem attacks, I guess it would be you. So not only do you not have a clue about my RPGing history, despite liking to make speculations about it, you also don't know a thing about my sporting history, either. But thanks for playing.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;798955Elfdart, I think we can be fairly sure that not only does Kiero suck as an rpg player, but he's also extraordinarily unlikely to have ever participated in a team sport.
In this latter respect he is not unusual amongst gamers, of course. But most of them get that an adventuring party is a team.
Because we all know that real boys all play team sports and anyone who doesn't is a girl in disguise. Am I rite? :rolleyes:
Moss summing up my opinion on sports
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dEPoF3HS0e8/TsFATqWAVEI/AAAAAAABkrU/C_LyefBkc30/s640/tumblr_lrmr6v5ISM1qhhwp4o1_500.gif)
Quote from: TristramEvans;799020Moss summing up my opinion on sports
I just spent most of last night freezing my ass off cheering my alma mater at a college football game. And this picture still made me laugh.
Quote from: Bren;799016Because we all know that real boys all play team sports and anyone who doesn't is a girl in disguise. Am I rite? :rolleyes:
No, because most women have played a team sport, and more of them continue to do so as an adult. It's a social thing.
Obtuse "I'm a special snowflake" preciousness is not a behaviour displayed more or less by either gender, though each gender tends to display it in slightly different ways. It doesn't make much difference in rpg sessions. This is one of the issues with point-buy: you always get some dickhead who says they don't have enough points for their character concept. If you gave everyone straight 18s in every attribute, this player would want to be the one with straight 25s.
I think if you look through previous posts of mine you're unlikely to find any where I say that an undesireable behaviour or a failure to understand things is in some way
feminine. I call stupid things stupid, I don't call them "gay" or "girly" or bullshit like that. I spend a lot of time with strong women (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmluW4-DW8A), in fact it's my job. My job is to take people with shitty stats and help them get better and do awesome things.
I'm sure an intelligent reader could find plenty of things to attack me with from among the things I've
actually said. Only people with no intelligence, perception or patience need to make shit up to discredit others.
I was simply saying that comparing an adventuring party to a sports team works best for people who've
actually been on a sports team. But you can certainly have a sense of teamship without ever having done that - as I said, most gamers manage it. Kiero doesn't.
People who've done or followed team sports at all will understand that each player has their part to play. The linebacker isn't fast, but he doesn't have to be, that's the running back's job. The running back isn't big, but he doesn't have to be, that's the linebacker's job. Now if you are neither fast nor big you may be in trouble, but this is where rpgs differ from professional sports: it's a hobby. And in purely social sports leagues, there's a place for every player, however poor their abilities. The team will carry you.
A character with low stats, or one of lower level than the rest of the party, is just like a character who's been magically held, or knocked unconscious, or fallen in a deep pit - the rest of the party will help them out. A character who is excellent in one area may be shitty in another, but a second character's abilities will be reversed, so
together they are awesome.
And as I said, intelligent players will find a way to maximise their character's usefulness. Your Bend Bars/Lift Gates number is low? Carry a crowbar.
Thus, the shitty numbers are not as much of a hindrance as they first seem. You are not awesome or shitty because of the numbers on your character sheet, you are awesome or shitty because of
what you achieve. And what you achieve depends on your wits and luck much more than it does on numbers on your sheet.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;798955Elfdart, I think we can be fairly sure that not only does Kiero suck as an rpg player, but he's also extraordinarily unlikely to have ever participated in a team sport.
My mistake. You weren't chauvinist female bashing. You were engaged in the equally miindless team sport fan bashing of people who don't play team sports.
You can find plenty of problems in what Kiero actually writes without the need to engage in vacuous armchair psychobabble.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;799089Only people with no intelligence, perception or patience need to make shit up to discredit others.
The irony writes itself.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;799089I was simply saying that comparing an adventuring party to a sports team works best for people who've actually been on a sports team. But you can certainly have a sense of teamship without ever having done that - as I said, most gamers manage it. Kiero doesn't.
I have actually been on a sports team, and I find the rather vacuous attempt to compare it to playing RPGs risible and ridiculous. The two things have nothing meaningful in common.
The fact that you're now trying to lump in
watching sports with the actually playing them (which is again nothing like), speaks to how weak this analogy really is.
But then I seem to remember stupid analogies were always your thing.
It's also fishing for weakness.
You see it a lot in bad internet arguments... where people make a guess at qualities of their 'opponents.'
It works because if they happen to guess right, it makes an impression. If they guess wrong, it's forgotten in a day.
at least there not bitching about ad hominims
theres not much i hate more then people who misuse and abuse the concept
Your keyboard has a shift key. Try using it.
Having thoroughly enjoyed watching my alma mater get a win yesterday and finally break the nation's longest conference losing streak, I am quite sure that not a single member of the team has the equivalent of a 10 Strength or lower. This is the crappiest team in the division and every player would have some pretty damn good physical stats.
So what happens when someone gets a combination?
Say 3 good stats and 3 bad stats? Or 3 average and 3 bad?
Example from a players recent replacement character after her first halfling got et.
Standard 4d6 drop lowest.
STR:12 DEX:14 CON:9 INT:6 WIS:4 CHA:12
Pretty much the order rolled too, she just swapped the 9 CON and the 12 CHA, and swapped the places of the 4 and 6 because she didn't want to be outsmarted by someones pet. aheh... The 4 was three 1s and a 2. The 6 was three 1s and a 4. Had she been going straight 3d6 shed have been the first ever I've seen for someone rolling more than one 3 for stats. And the 9 would have been a 6 (two 1s and two 4s).
She says"Screw it! Im going back to Half Orc!" So 14 strength and 10 constitution. Fighter, archery path focusing on bows again with some new ideas based on the archer vs cantrip discussion here.
One player sees it as "unwinnable" and another sees it as a challenge. And someone else will see it as a boon. Jan points out that shes likely the last person in the group to be eaten by a mind flayer so nya...
Quote from: Omega;799147So what happens when someone gets a combination?
Say 3 good stats and 3 bad stats? Or 3 average and 3 bad?
Example from a players recent replacement character after her first halfling got et.
Standard 4d6 drop lowest.
STR:12 DEX:14 CON:9 INT:6 WIS:4 CHA:12
Pretty much the order rolled too, she just swapped the 9 CON and the 12 CHA, and swapped the places of the 4 and 6 because she didn't want to be outsmarted by someones pet. aheh... The 4 was three 1s and a 2. The 6 was three 1s and a 4. Had she been going straight 3d6 shed have been the first ever I've seen for someone rolling more than one 3 for stats. And the 9 would have been a 6 (two 1s and two 4s).
She says"Screw it! Im going back to Half Orc!" So 14 strength and 10 constitution. Fighter, archery path focusing on bows again with some new ideas based on the archer vs cantrip discussion here.
One player sees it as "unwinnable" and another sees it as a challenge. And someone else will see it as a boon. Jan points out that shes likely the last person in the group to be eaten by a mind flayer so nya...
Good attitude though interestingly when I first looked at that statline I thought Fighter or Rogue.....I would have chosen Rogue but I totally understand someone going Fighter with it.
Quote from: Omega;799147So what happens when someone gets a combination?
Say 3 good stats and 3 bad stats? Or 3 average and 3 bad?
Example from a players recent replacement character after her first halfling got et.
Standard 4d6 drop lowest.
STR:12 DEX:14 CON:9 INT:6 WIS:4 CHA:12
Pretty much the order rolled too, she just swapped the 9 CON and the 12 CHA, and swapped the places of the 4 and 6 because she didn't want to be outsmarted by someones pet. aheh... The 4 was three 1s and a 2. The 6 was three 1s and a 4. Had she been going straight 3d6 shed have been the first ever I've seen for someone rolling more than one 3 for stats. And the 9 would have been a 6 (two 1s and two 4s).
She says"Screw it! Im going back to Half Orc!" So 14 strength and 10 constitution. Fighter, archery path focusing on bows again with some new ideas based on the archer vs cantrip discussion here.
One player sees it as "unwinnable" and another sees it as a challenge. And someone else will see it as a boon. Jan points out that shes likely the last person in the group to be eaten by a mind flayer so nya...
Stout Halfling Paladin, Great Weapon Fighting Style with unmounted Lance. Trust me. Lucky & GW Style makes for fun re-rolls. And you get to go nova at level 2 with Smites. Hilarity will ensue.
I don't care much for speculating on posters' lives based on their posts, but I don't think Kiero comes here for the hunting, to quote the old joke.
Quote from: Kiero;799102The irony writes itself.
Better watch out he carries a crowbar and rock drill.
Quote from: Omega;799147So what happens when someone gets a combination?
Say 3 good stats and 3 bad stats? Or 3 average and 3 bad?
Kiero will have to find a way to kill half a character.
QuoteExample from a players recent replacement character after her first halfling got et.
Standard 4d6 drop lowest.
STR:12 DEX:14 CON:9 INT:6 WIS:4 CHA:12
Pretty much the order rolled too, she just swapped the 9 CON and the 12 CHA, and swapped the places of the 4 and 6 because she didn't want to be outsmarted by someones pet. aheh... The 4 was three 1s and a 2. The 6 was three 1s and a 4. Had she been going straight 3d6 shed have been the first ever I've seen for someone rolling more than one 3 for stats. And the 9 would have been a 6 (two 1s and two 4s).
She says"Screw it! Im going back to Half Orc!" So 14 strength and 10 constitution. Fighter, archery path focusing on bows again with some new ideas based on the archer vs cantrip discussion here.
One player sees it as "unwinnable" and another sees it as a challenge. And someone else will see it as a boon. Jan points out that shes likely the last person in the group to be eaten by a mind flayer so nya...
And here is how you can tell good players from average ones from well, Kiero.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;791471I get the impression that many gaming groups have far more jealousy, resentment, and internal competition than mine have. There seems to be a lot of concern that one person will get an 18 and another won't and that might generate ill feelings.
That's sad.
Yeah, I never know what to make of shit like this thread.
Quote from: Ravenswing;791652Nah, I just insulted you for being enough of an idiot to jeer at someone else for being wrong based on your single set of rolls. Seeing as you're still failing the reading comprehension test, I don't figure my opinion's changing any time soon.
Reading comp shot, and all blue text?
Yeah.
Quote from: Gib;799195Reading comp shot, and all blue text?
Yeah.
jeez taking a shot at the blue text thats pathetic sure it annoys me a little but i understand that he very much prefers it that way and i deal with it
When I was playing DnD and ADnD 2e, it was always 3d6 stats and I had some terrible character stats. But I never committed suicide because of low stats. In a world of rolling stats, you tend to be average heroes more often than Conan or a weak farmer. Law of averages. Average tends to be 10, which is a nothing stat in ADnD. Hopefully you have a few good stats and can do something with them to form a decent character.
Earthdawn and DnD 3.x were a bit better because we moved up to 4d6. Seemed like 13 was more likely there, so Step 6/D10 in Earthdawn or at least a +1 modifier in DnD.
I never really liked rolling stats, its why I prefer point buy like the purchase point system for Earthdawn, Savage Worlds attribute buy, etc.
It makes the heroes mostly feel more fair and balanced if they have the same points to distribute. Savage Worlds allows characters to invest their advances to make for better Attributes. But mostly this only helps hit Edge rank caps, and make for higher Skill caps. But still fair because the advances are lost which could have bought different skills or edges instead.