Quote from: Palleon on September 26, 2022, 09:27:26 PM
Going to racial modifiers was a mistake.  The AD&D approach of having minimum and maximum scores via random stat generation was the correct way.

How does that work?

Min-maxing exists no matter which method of ability score generation is used.

Nothing stops someone using point-buy to cap out their prime ability. Nothing stops someone putting the highest possible score for the race's maximum. Just like nothing stops someone from using a +2 racial adjustment to push a score beyond normal limits.

When it comes to racial ability score adjustments, that extra +1 (effectively +5%) to rolls that a +2 Ability adjustment provides is mostly negligible. The real issue with ability score adjustments (and I mentioned this in another thread) is that they are a poor way to capture what it actually means to play the race. Forcing a character to take a bonus or penalty on scores is meaningless when the player can put any value they want into that ability. It either incentivizes boosting a prime Ability, or cheapens the feel of playing against type by "sacrificing" high scores.

For example, a player rolls their abilities and they get a couple 14s, with a 16 being their highest roll. They'd put the 16 into INT for a half-orc wizard only to have it reduced to 14. By contrast, if the race instead imposed a maximum of 14 on INT, the player could use one of their rolled 14s and put that 16 somewhere else. PLUS, the maximum score better illustrates exactly where a half-orc falls, intellectually, compared to a human.

Inverse that for positive adjustments / minimum scores.

In summary... min/maxing is not all that game-breaking since the bonuses gained from it are negligible. Min/maxing is not the worst thing about racial ability adjustments.

Quote from: Effete on September 27, 2022, 02:05:30 AM
Min-maxing exists no matter which method of ability score generation is used.

Nothing stops someone using point-buy to cap out their prime ability. Nothing stops someone putting the highest possible score for the race's maximum. Just like nothing stops someone from using a +2 racial adjustment to push a score beyond normal limits.

When it comes to racial ability score adjustments, that extra +1 (effectively +5%) to rolls that a +2 Ability adjustment provides is mostly negligible. The real issue with ability score adjustments (and I mentioned this in another thread) is that they are a poor way to capture what it actually means to play the race. Forcing a character to take a bonus or penalty on scores is meaningless when the player can put any value they want into that ability. It either incentivizes boosting a prime Ability, or cheapens the feel of playing against type by "sacrificing" high scores.

For example, a player rolls their abilities and they get a couple 14s, with a 16 being their highest roll. They'd put the 16 into INT for a half-orc wizard only to have it reduced to 14. By contrast, if the race instead imposed a maximum of 14 on INT, the player could use one of their rolled 14s and put that 16 somewhere else. PLUS, the maximum score better illustrates exactly where a half-orc falls, intellectually, compared to a human.

Inverse that for positive adjustments / minimum scores.

In summary... min/maxing is not all that game-breaking since the bonuses gained from it are negligible. Min/maxing is not the worst thing about racial ability adjustments.

Are they just capped at 14 for life then? Or can they boost it later?

Also wouldn't that mean you'd need to adjust the races in some way because they aren't offering bonuses anymore?

I kind of want to try this.

I think OD&D got it right with level limits to offset the bonus abilities and increase to saving throws for the demi-humans. I also like 3d6 in order and the minimal reliance on ability scores.

My personal play style is to avoid min-max. It was fun when I was younger, but one of my more recent characters took the base 5e fighter and played it as a thief. From background to the selected proficiencies, I was able to be very effective.

Having said all of that, it doesn't bother me to have people want to min-max as long as it isn't crazy extreme. There is a default degree of it that goes with most ability score generation methods, for example, point buy and arrange to taste.

Plus in 5e, they get the option to add another couple points to ability scores every few levels. So I don't see a big deal if they grab elf for that initial bonus. By mid levels, most players have a 20 in an attribute. It goes with the game. I'd use 3d6 in order if it bothered me too much.

Quote from: FingerRod on September 27, 2022, 07:58:15 AM
I think OD&D got it right with level limits to offset the bonus abilities and increase to saving throws for the demi-humans. I also like 3d6 in order and the minimal reliance on ability scores.

Emphasis by me.  This.  A hundred times, this.  Especially the bolded parts. 

Now, exactly how you get there doesn't need to be done exactly how OD&D did it.  Other options could work towards the same goal.  Other games, a different strategy might make more sense, given different goals.  The Runequest or Dragon Quest versions are great--for those games, for example. Ability scores bite harder, and mean something within the setting an the game.  In all three cases, the method chosen reinforces the feel of the game.

WotC going to the +1 every 2 points was a classic case of Chesterton's Fence.  They tore something down that they didn't understand, and replaced it with something ostensibly cleaner--that along with changes in the rest of the system, turned the whole thing into nothing but an illusion over a treadmill.     

As for "min-maxing" itself, there's a fine line between outright min-maxing and making meaningful decisions within the context of the game.  You can go too far the other way, where everyone plays something bland to avoid the label.  Hmm, that seems to be what WotC is encouraging, too.

The idea that 3d6 in order magically stops minmaxing is ludicrous. A minmaxer will just look for the best race/class combo his rolls will allow and run with that.

The only actual difference is whether the players will actually be playing something they actually enjoy or looking for opportunities to "suicide" this thing they don't really want for another roll on the character creation wheel of fortune.

I get that many here feel that's a feature and not a flaw, but when your group only has so many hours in a month you can devote to actual play and we'd rather actually be enjoying ourselves playing what we want than fighting a system that's trying to teach us some sort of lesson we figured out on our own decades ago.

In my own system each species has an array it uses to generate average attributes, but attribute bonuses come entirely from your class. Wanna be fighter? Then you'll logically undergo strength training (among other things) which gives those stats bonuses compared to average members of your species. If you're a fighter you're going to be strong because that's what you've trained yourself to be.

The same for wizards. They're only going accept those with the intellect needed to memorize and reproduce arcane formulas and will help train those abilities in their apprentices.

And so on for the other classes. Basically, those who devote themselves to mastering something will become better at it than those who don't.

Personally, I don't care about min-maxing, and think people tend to bitch about it too much. I tend to min-max quite a bit myself, granted, I also like to take some picks based on how I imagine my character, so it's a mix.

The issue IMO isn't the min-maxing itself, but that racial ability modifiers work in such a way that they incentivize it. And like I explained in my long assed post they do a poor job at representing mid-range racial inclinations and averages, but work better to push the limits at the higher ends, which is where the min-maxing incentive sets in. And when you view your character mechanically and have min-maxing tendencies you can't ignore that kind of details. They just scream "MIN-MAX ME!" and you can't unsee it.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 27, 2022, 10:00:40 AMThe only actual difference is whether the players will actually be playing something they actually enjoy or looking for opportunities to "suicide" this thing they don't really want for another roll on the character creation wheel of fortune.

You don't even need to suicide a character, just take a few extra risks. Picking up that [obviously magical] shield covered in strange fungus or drinking from the pool of blue liquid. If you get lucky you have an extra magic item, if unlucky you get a reroll on your character's stats.

QuoteIn my own system each species has an array it uses to generate average attributes, but attribute bonuses come entirely from your class. Wanna be fighter? Then you'll logically undergo strength training (among other things) which gives those stats bonuses compared to average members of your species. If you're a fighter you're going to be strong because that's what you've trained yourself to be.

Bushido (FGU 1981) does this explicitly, giving ability score bonuses and penalties for each class.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 27, 2022, 10:20:53 AM
Personally, I don't care about min-maxing, and think people tend to bitch about it too much. I tend to min-max quite a bit myself, granted, I also like to take some picks based on how I imagine my character, so it's a mix.

The issue IMO isn't the min-maxing itself, but that racial ability modifiers work in such a way that they incentivize it. And like I explained in my long assed post they do a poor job at representing mid-range racial inclinations and averages, but work better to push the limits at the higher ends, which is where the min-maxing incentive sets in. And when you view your character mechanically and have min-maxing tendencies you can't ignore that kind of details. They just scream "MIN-MAX ME!" and you can't unsee it.

This is probably the only good point I've seen made against racial ability scores. Thanks.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 27, 2022, 10:20:53 AMThe issue IMO isn't the min-maxing itself, but that racial ability modifiers work in such a way that they incentivize it.

One way to minimize min-maxing as it relates to racial modifiers is to adjust each class such that they aren't reliant on a single ability score for everything. For example, if a wizard's success chance was based on INT, his max power based on CHA, and the number of spells castable per day was based on CON, then a bonus to INT wouldn't result in the best possible wizard, just one that focused on a certain part. The same with adjusting STR so it only provides damage bonuses and not to-hit bonuses.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 27, 2022, 10:00:40 AM
The idea that 3d6 in order magically stops minmaxing is ludicrous. A minmaxer will just look for the best race/class combo his rolls will allow and run with that.

The only actual difference is whether the players will actually be playing something they actually enjoy or looking for opportunities to "suicide" this thing they don't really want for another roll on the character creation wheel of fortune.

I get that many here feel that's a feature and not a flaw, but when your group only has so many hours in a month you can devote to actual play and we'd rather actually be enjoying ourselves playing what we want than fighting a system that's trying to teach us some sort of lesson we figured out on our own decades ago.

In my own system each species has an array it uses to generate average attributes, but attribute bonuses come entirely from your class. Wanna be fighter? Then you'll logically undergo strength training (among other things) which gives those stats bonuses compared to average members of your species. If you're a fighter you're going to be strong because that's what you've trained yourself to be.

The same for wizards. They're only going accept those with the intellect needed to memorize and reproduce arcane formulas and will help train those abilities in their apprentices.

And so on for the other classes. Basically, those who devote themselves to mastering something will become better at it than those who don't.

Pretty much all of this. I also don't get how OD&D racial level caps solve anything, other than to ensure that non-human characters become useless after a certain level—assuming the campaign even gets that far, on which case it does absolutely nothing to address balancing issues from the pitiful extra abilities that OD&D non-humans get.

But when I finally manage to get a group together, I want to play the character I want to play. Not force myself to like the crap character I rolled by rolling 3d6 in order. I do occasionally roll something interesting that way that sparks my imagination when not 100% sure what I want to play. But more often than not I don't like what I roll, and I don't like the massive discrepancies that result from random generation, with some characters being significantly better than others. I prefer to work with arrays or point distribution.

In my games I just give a standard array I set up for the game as a baseline, then let everyone just distribute an equal amount of points however they want. I also like the idea of giving bonuses based on class and background.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on September 27, 2022, 10:35:22 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 27, 2022, 10:20:53 AMThe issue IMO isn't the min-maxing itself, but that racial ability modifiers work in such a way that they incentivize it.

One way to minimize min-maxing as it relates to racial modifiers is to adjust each class such that they aren't reliant on a single ability score for everything. For example, if a wizard's success chance was based on INT, his max power based on CHA, and the number of spells castable per day was based on CON, then a bonus to INT wouldn't result in the best possible wizard, just one that focused on a certain part. The same with adjusting STR so it only provides damage bonuses and not to-hit bonuses.

I've considered doing something like this before, but using WIS for max spells per day. Also DEX for physical attacks rolls, STR for damage.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on September 27, 2022, 10:35:22 AM
One way to minimize min-maxing as it relates to racial modifiers is to adjust each class such that they aren't reliant on a single ability score for everything. For example, if a wizard's success chance was based on INT, his max power based on CHA, and the number of spells castable per day was based on CON, then a bonus to INT wouldn't result in the best possible wizard, just one that focused on a certain part. The same with adjusting STR so it only provides damage bonuses and not to-hit bonuses.

Yes.  You don't have dump stats if all the stats are meaningful to the characters.  Also takes some of the bite out of having a bad stat or two, if you've got compensation elsewhere.  This is an area where D&D started out fine (or at least in the ballpark of fine, depending on how you played it) but got slowly, steadily worse.  When the mechanics are fairly simple, and the GM takes your, say, Intelligence or Wisdom into account in the plans you have, and convincing people to help you is kind of important too--then it can work well enough.  And I get that some people didn't want to play that game.  However, you can't change the implementation and the design and cleave to the tradition of the stats and expect it to work. That's how you end up with abominations like mapping Wisdom to perception.  It's either one or the other.  Implement the design you have, and then play that.  Or do a different design, implement that, and then play that. 

If you are going to change the  way the stats map to the mechanics, then name them something appropriate and meaningful for the new mapping.  It cuts out a lot of problems from the beginning, not to mention makes the game more accessible.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 27, 2022, 10:00:40 AM
The idea that 3d6 in order magically stops minmaxing is ludicrous. A minmaxer will just look for the best race/class combo his rolls will allow and run with that.

The only actual difference is whether the players will actually be playing something they actually enjoy or looking for opportunities to "suicide" this thing they don't really want for another roll on the character creation wheel of fortune.

I get that many here feel that's a feature and not a flaw, but when your group only has so many hours in a month you can devote to actual play and we'd rather actually be enjoying ourselves playing what we want than fighting a system that's trying to teach us some sort of lesson we figured out on our own decades ago.

In my own system each species has an array it uses to generate average attributes, but attribute bonuses come entirely from your class. Wanna be fighter? Then you'll logically undergo strength training (among other things) which gives those stats bonuses compared to average members of your species. If you're a fighter you're going to be strong because that's what you've trained yourself to be.

The same for wizards. They're only going accept those with the intellect needed to memorize and reproduce arcane formulas and will help train those abilities in their apprentices.

And so on for the other classes. Basically, those who devote themselves to mastering something will become better at it than those who don't.

It's not quite that all or nothing.  I'm not wild about 3d6 in order in a system where attributes matter drastically and never change, for the reasons you listed.  However, having fun with what the game gives you as a starting place is its own kind of fun, too.  What leads to suicide of characters is when the character is so wrecked from the beginning that it seems like there is no other way out.  Only a few players enjoy that challenge. 

In early D&D, Hedge Hobbit's point is correct:  The way out in those games is accumulation of a lot of stuff--money, magic items, spells, followers, etc.  So take risks in pursuit of the stuff, and you'll get a resolution pretty darn quick. 

To the extent that the system aims for a more self-sufficient type of character play, then the mechanics needs to support similar options, such as these examples:

- ability scores improves.
- reroll all your hit points at each level, not just add a die.
- make it so that proficiency/skill take on more and more of the total competency as opposed to ability scores, despite the fact that ability scores improve.

If you want to mess with none of that, then by all means use fixed arrays, fixed hit points, etc.  Just realize that some people enjoy the fun of the random part of it, if the random eventually evens out, more or less.

I've always thought it odd that random ability score generation is conflated with random ability score placement. In my experience, players only find a character "unplayable" if the scores are too low overall, and not just because "that 17 is in the wrong place".

Am I the only one here who separates random placement from random generation? In my game, characters wind up with the same number of ability score bonuses, but with an arbitrary distribution of those bonuses. I find this system enjoys the advantages of random generation without the drawbacks that people attribute to it.