Quote from: Zalman on September 27, 2022, 11:34:38 AM
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.

I did that for awhile in my D&D 3E campaigns.  Works well, when that's what you want.  I even skewed it a little, with the random placement done first on the bulk of the points, then an opportunity to bump one score by 2 points or two scores by 1 point each, afterwards. 

My preference when the system allows is more along the lines of:

- Ability scores, race, culture, background, etc:  You've got limited control to guide the broad strokes of how this plays out, but not every detail.  I like some randomness in it.
- Class, template, framework, silos, etc:  You pick these, and they set the boundaries on how it is likely to play out as the character engages with the setting.  There may be some minor randomness in how it plays out (e.g. hit points gained), but mostly it's the player's choice.
- Proficiency, skills, specific ability options, etc:  Players decides, no randomness.

This reinforces my desire to focus players on what happens in play as opposed to the background.

Quote from: Effete on September 27, 2022, 02:05:30 AM
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.

Right. I don't know if this was clear from the original post, but it's this incentive that I was trying to talk about. It's not game-breaking, but it does push players to take the race that boosts their highest stat.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 27, 2022, 11:13:54 AM

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.

I haven't played with this in D&D, but in other systems, I feel that depending on multiple attributes makes all characters blend together more. Characters seem less differentiated, and I often like the feeling of specialists with strong strengths - like Fezzik and Inigo in The Princess Bride, or tiny hobbits in Tolkien.

Eh... I don't think the PC group should represent "average" dwarves or anything. The average dwarf/orc/etc. is in the MM. If an elf decided to become a mage he might have more intelligence than the average elf, and even the average human.

Drizzt is not an average Drow, Conan is not an average human, Elric is not an average melnibonean. The occasional dwarven mage adds spice to the game IMO.

I don't play with min-maxers, but I'm okay with letting PCs be "special". It fits the genre.

Anyway, here is something I've been experimenting with for my next book:

---
Elves
Requirements: Intelligence 9.
Ability Modifiers: +1 Dexterity, -1 Constitution. In addition, you can take -1 Strength and +1 Intelligence or Wisdom (high elf), -1 Intelligence and +1 Strength or Constitution (wood elf), or -1 Strength and +1 Intelligence or Charisma (drow), if you want.
---

TBH I'm considering even letting the +1 Dexterity, -1 Constitution optional.

Now, the requirements is something I can live without but it does its job well IMO. It means elves are smarter than human ON AVERAGE, but the average elf is probably not as smart as a smart human. OTOH I do'nt see why not allow a sickly dwarf with Con 6. It makes more sense than a fighter with Con 6, and THOSE are allowed.

Also considering this:
---
Ability Modifiers: Choose one or two:
•   +1 Dexterity, -1 Constitution (any elf).
•   +1 Intelligence or Wisdom-1 Strength (high elf).
•   +1 Strength or Constitution, -1 Intelligence (wood elf).
•   +1 Intelligence or Charisma, -1 Strength (drow).

Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2022, 01:13:31 PM
I haven't played with this in D&D, but in other systems, I feel that depending on multiple attributes makes all characters blend together more. Characters seem less differentiated, and I often like the feeling of specialists with strong strengths - like Fezzik and Inigo in The Princess Bride, or tiny hobbits in Tolkien.

Depends.  Multiple attributes can all be useful to some degree without all being equally useful to every character.  This is true in systems where characters are intended to be more alike, and also true in systems deliberately designed to produce more differences.  Of course, the useful boundaries will not be the same.

It can be a narrow line to walk in a design, but I find that I get the most variety of characters when both extremes are avoided.  "I'm a wizard, so strength is all but useless to me.  So I ignore it."  Or, "Chasing that last negative away is the best thing I can do as well all drive our characters towards the same thing."  Instead, I want the wizard to value strength enough to feel the lack of it, and maybe do something to take the edge off of the penalty, but not so much that he tries to get rid of the penalty altogether. 

This is why it's only a meaningful discussion in the context of the full design.  For example, the relative value of some strength is a much different proposition in a system that has encumbrance with teeth. 

Edit:  BTW, my experience of Fantasy Hero was that it was more prone to blandness than most versions of D&D, with one big exception: D&D characters started bland and got more interesting as they went, whereas FH characters were the opposite.  The way to stop this in FH was to set maximums for real and active points, as discussed in various Hero guides, but not to set them too tightly.  It is why, for example, running FH as a more powerful game, I found it better to set speeds in the 3 to 5 range instead of 2 to 4.  Because the latter meant most people had a 3, with a few getting the 4.  Whereas, with 3 to 5, it centered on 4, with an occasional dip into 3 or 5.  This worked so well, that in low point FH games, I simply changed the Speed formula to have a +1 SPD built in.  In Champions, already typically set in the 5 to 9 range or thereabout, such tweaks were completely unnecessary.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 27, 2022, 01:37:27 PM
Eh... I don't think the PC group should represent "average" dwarves or anything. The average dwarf/orc/etc. is in the MM. If an elf decided to become a mage he might have more intelligence than the average elf, and even the average human.

Drizzt is not an average Drow, Conan is not an average human, Elric is not an average melnibonean. The occasional dwarven mage adds spice to the game IMO.

I don't play with min-maxers, but I'm okay with letting PCs be "special". It fits the genre.

Anyway, here is something I've been experimenting with for my next book:

---
Elves
Requirements: Intelligence 9.
Ability Modifiers: +1 Dexterity, -1 Constitution. In addition, you can take -1 Strength and +1 Intelligence or Wisdom (high elf), -1 Intelligence and +1 Strength or Constitution (wood elf), or -1 Strength and +1 Intelligence or Charisma (drow), if you want.
---

TBH I'm considering even letting the +1 Dexterity, -1 Constitution optional.

Now, the requirements is something I can live without but it does its job well IMO. It means elves are smarter than human ON AVERAGE, but the average elf is probably not as smart as a smart human. OTOH I do'nt see why not allow a sickly dwarf with Con 6. It makes more sense than a fighter with Con 6, and THOSE are allowed.

From a mechanical perspective, as I've stated before -- If you have a particular character concept that revolves around an exception to the rule -- A sickly Dwarf whose constitution was destroyed by Necromancy, an Elf that has been blessed with tremendous strength by the Iron Gods of Crossfit -- Why not?

The game's mechanics were never meant to limit you from doing off-type things, but the rules themselves must define the type so that the exceptions have meaning. The tendency to try to homogenize the races mechanically doesn't actually make it any easier to play an off-type character, it just makes it harder to define what the purpose of having different races is at all.

When you look at a coherent setting like Tolkien, there are clear worldbuilding objectives that the different races have. Whereas with D&D-alikes, what's the purpose of Halflings? What's the purpose of Elves or Dwarves? Once you boil off the mechanics, these are just costumes. A human character can speak with a Scottish brogue as well.

What I want from a game rulebook is not a guideline on how to roleplay, because no game is going to teach that. What I want is a sense for how the mechanical choices will impact the game. If a player comes to me and says, "I want to play the world's smartest inventor. He's a bear." then I want the game to give me how to handle a PC with high intelligence but is also part of a race that is reasonably just always going to be stronger than a normal humanoid (regardless of number values). Give me the mechanical breakdown for constructing new races and what value you assigned to it, and then I can use my own judgement to figure out how to work it.

Quote from: Zelen on September 27, 2022, 02:41:35 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 27, 2022, 01:37:27 PM
Eh... I don't think the PC group should represent "average" dwarves or anything. The average dwarf/orc/etc. is in the MM. If an elf decided to become a mage he might have more intelligence than the average elf, and even the average human.

Drizzt is not an average Drow, Conan is not an average human, Elric is not an average melnibonean. The occasional dwarven mage adds spice to the game IMO.

I don't play with min-maxers, but I'm okay with letting PCs be "special". It fits the genre.

Anyway, here is something I've been experimenting with for my next book:

---
Elves
Requirements: Intelligence 9.
Ability Modifiers: +1 Dexterity, -1 Constitution. In addition, you can take -1 Strength and +1 Intelligence or Wisdom (high elf), -1 Intelligence and +1 Strength or Constitution (wood elf), or -1 Strength and +1 Intelligence or Charisma (drow), if you want.
---

TBH I'm considering even letting the +1 Dexterity, -1 Constitution optional.

Now, the requirements is something I can live without but it does its job well IMO. It means elves are smarter than human ON AVERAGE, but the average elf is probably not as smart as a smart human. OTOH I do'nt see why not allow a sickly dwarf with Con 6. It makes more sense than a fighter with Con 6, and THOSE are allowed.

From a mechanical perspective, as I've stated before -- If you have a particular character concept that revolves around an exception to the rule -- A sickly Dwarf whose constitution was destroyed by Necromancy, an Elf that has been blessed with tremendous strength by the Iron Gods of Crossfit -- Why not?

The game's mechanics were never meant to limit you from doing off-type things, but the rules themselves must define the type so that the exceptions have meaning. The tendency to try to homogenize the races mechanically doesn't actually make it any easier to play an off-type character, it just makes it harder to define what the purpose of having different races is at all.

When you look at a coherent setting like Tolkien, there are clear worldbuilding objectives that the different races have. Whereas with D&D-alikes, what's the purpose of Halflings? What's the purpose of Elves or Dwarves? Once you boil off the mechanics, these are just costumes. A human character can speak with a Scottish brogue as well.

What I want from a game rulebook is not a guideline on how to roleplay, because no game is going to teach that. What I want is a sense for how the mechanical choices will impact the game. If a player comes to me and says, "I want to play the world's smartest inventor. He's a bear." then I want the game to give me how to handle a PC with high intelligence but is also part of a race that is reasonably just always going to be stronger than a normal humanoid (regardless of number values). Give me the mechanical breakdown for constructing new races and what value you assigned to it, and then I can use my own judgement to figure out how to work it.

Now, this makes sense. This is why I leave ability modifiers there, even if I allow my players to switch them around as they like: "this is the rule, however the GM is free to make exceptions for players".

Yanno, I kinda feel like it's not necessarily a bad thing for it to not be equally easy for an ogre and a halflings to have the same strength score with equal luck, or to have somewhat different max potentials at start. It differentiates the species in fluff to have modifiers, even if the differences within groups outweighs those between groups if we have weak modifiers and also allow score assignment, that still tells us that on average an ogre has more strength. PCs don't have 10s in all base rolled attributes, so they aren't average by definition, but it still makes sense that even a PC gnome doesn't outwrestle a PC giant equally specialized into strength without some serious circumstances and a reasonable explanation. There I feel attribute modifiers either ought to be strong or point buy/species stat requirements put into place, to help make the mechanics jive with the world and story, which they have very real impacts on as written in most games that are played as intended.

On which note regarding the races create minmax claim, if you like having specialized archetypes and meaningful player choices/builds, ala princess bride, I am happy to say that allows for min-maxing as well. As does non-random stat/class/race assignment, not that I have anything against those. Because any system with meaningful player build choice where specialization can be achieved better in some way through certain choices has min-max potential. Such options can at times through rules bloat and difficulty of monitoring complex interaction lead to weaker balance, but they also give greater creative freedom and weight of choice.

Minmax is mostly a player choice thing that can't be avoided just by getting rid of species ability modifiers. Don't believe me? Tasha's in 5e made humans and half-elves less optimal by making attribute bonuses non species locked but thereby elevated other species in minmax with better species traits. I don't really like the idea of making all species identical faceless blobs or literal human sub races to deal with this, personally. And even if we did, stat assignment, class and subclass choice, and feat selection (which is basically the only thing differentiating one player's class and subclass combination from another besides luck in score rolling potentially, and hence a piece of player choice/identity I really wouldn't want to kill) still make minmax potential a very real thing. Because a weak barbarian with bad DEX and CON and questionable feat selection is usually gonna be suboptimal, go figure.

More to the point, minmax isn't the worst thing out there. What it means is specialization, minimizing weakness attributes to maximize strengths in a particular build direction. I like jack of all trades too, but not everyone can be one and still add the same level of flavor to a campaign. Also, some minmax builds aren't for solo combat. I've seen a lot of support, control, social, and even mental/investigative builds. Even the former if roleplayed well can be great, or even the best story choice in a combat focused campaign that lets them play and roleplay that build.

I dunno, I feel like this topic kinda felt like a bit of a nonsequitur to me, even if it was still a good one and gave me a lot of cool alternative approaches to species in ttrpgs. Hopefully this makes some sense and was roughly on topic.

Quote from: KindaMeh on September 27, 2022, 03:15:07 PM
...
Minmax is mostly a player choice thing that can't be avoided ...

^^THIS^^

A game designer or GM should not be looking to punish or inhibit min-maxing mechanically in the game system.

The goal should be designing a system that doesn't care if a player decides to min-max.

Quote from: KindaMeh on September 27, 2022, 03:15:07 PMYanno, I kinda feel like it's not necessarily a bad thing for it to not be equally easy for an ogre and a halflings to have the same strength score with equal luck, or to have somewhat different max potentials at start.

Strength is the outlier here because it is obvious to anyone that a larger person will be stronger than a smaller person all other things being equal. For this reason, I decided to make Strength proportional to size with the addition of a Size Die for each race.

For example, Hobbits are d6, Humans are d8, and Ogres are d10. This die is the damage that the race does with a single handed weapon (which ends up close to how it is in AD&D anyway). So, if all three characters have a +3 Strength modifier, the Hobbit will do d6+3 damage, the human d8+3, and the Ogre d10+3. This Size Die is also used in place of the d6 for strength checks such as open doors.

To compensate, smaller characters get a bonus to AC.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 27, 2022, 10:00:40 AM
The idea that 3d6 in order magically stops minmaxing is ludicrous.

Who said 3d6 magically stops minmaxing? You invented that idea. Nobody said that.

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.

Savage Worlds does a remarkable job of preventing dump-stats. Each attribute is useful in its own way, and a low stat can be exploited by your enemies. e.g. - a foe can "Test" the character's lowest attribute to cause them to become Distracted (penalty on actions), Vulnerable (easier to harm), or even Shaken (much easier to harm). So the stupid fighter who is armored to the gills can still fall for a simple trick, lowering his guard and opening himself up. It also means you don't need to be a great warrior to contribute meaningfully to a fight; just Test the opponent's weaknesses and make the fight easier for your allies.

Quote from: Zelen on September 27, 2022, 02:41:35 PM
When you look at a coherent setting like Tolkien, there are clear worldbuilding objectives that the different races have. Whereas with D&D-alikes, what's the purpose of Halflings? What's the purpose of Elves or Dwarves? Once you boil off the mechanics, these are just costumes. A human character can speak with a Scottish brogue as well.

What I want from a game rulebook is not a guideline on how to roleplay, because no game is going to teach that. What I want is a sense for how the mechanical choices will impact the game. If a player comes to me and says, "I want to play the world's smartest inventor. He's a bear." then I want the game to give me how to handle a PC with high intelligence but is also part of a race that is reasonably just always going to be stronger than a normal humanoid (regardless of number values). Give me the mechanical breakdown for constructing new races and what value you assigned to it, and then I can use my own judgement to figure out how to work it.

It's interesting. When you say a player comes to you with an inventor bear as a PC concept, I think of character design in universal systems like Fantasy HERO that I've played since the 1980s. For example, I ran a Middle Earth campaign using the Action! System (which is based on the HERO System).

From what you described, the GM is given race construction rules and then the GM works out new rules in advance for every possible PC race.

I don't think I've ever used race creation rules - but what I have often used is universal character creation rules that can handle multiple races. To take your example of the inventor bear PC. Let's say we're playing in the setting of Narnia. There are fauns, dryads, and other fairies - as well as dozens of talking animals. Rather than the GM creating in advance special rules that detail out badgers vs bears vs wolves and all other animals, I would just have general rules for claws, locomotion, and other attributes. That's how rules like the HERO System and the Action! System work. The player can then create a PC that fits with being a reasonable bear, and I as GM can approve it or ask for changes to reflect what I'd want for my campaign.

That's how I did my Middle Earth campaign. I didn't exhaustively create rules for all the race and background options. My players already knew Middle Earth - in some cases better than I did. So I just had them use the universal rules to create characters who were appropriate for the setting, including race. I think this works especially well in a background like Narnia where there are dozens of PC-appropriate races, and balancing them all with custom rules can be difficult. It can also handle cases where PCs may have unusual backgrounds in addition to race.

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.

Agreed. In my system, Fighters have the choice of using Strength or Reflexes for their primary ability (and every species can get a slightly above average score in one of those) and their choice of Endurance, Intellect, Presence or Wits for their secondary class ability.

These choices offer slightly different benefits (ex. Tactical/Intellect lets you use Aid Allies more easily, Wary/Wits gives you bonuses to notice details and initiative) which add up to every species having good Fighters, but every species also favoring some styles over others.

This extends to the spellcasting classes, which, while each has a specific primary casting attribute, the secondary can be any attribute (with variances like above with the fighter) and those will generally conform to the the metaphysical bent of each species (i.e. the Eldritch are going to be broadly be found more often using primal magic while the Dwarves are slightly favor Mechanist and Arcane magic) and the magic each can do is broadly comparable in the same was that the Str/Int fighter is broadly comparable to the Reflexes/Presence fighter).

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 27, 2022, 09:34:46 PMIn my system, Fighters have the choice of using Strength or Reflexes for their primary ability (and every species can get a slightly above average score in one of those) and their choice of Endurance, Intellect, Presence or Wits for their secondary class ability.

These choices offer slightly different benefits (ex. Tactical/Intellect lets you use Aid Allies more easily, Wary/Wits gives you bonuses to notice details and initiative) which add up to every species having good Fighters, but every species also favoring some styles over others.

This goes to a principle of tactical game design I've always remembered from an article by Brian Gleichman, where he notes that the key to making a tactically interesting system is to provide a variety of meaningfully different options, the challenge of which is to find the optimum combination for a specific opponent/challenge.  If a particular "combination of dissimilar assets" (to use the principle's full name) yields a superior advantage against all possible opponents/situations, it's no longer a tactical challenge because no more effort needs to be expended in selecting the best choice. (Xykon the sorcerer-lich, the villain of the Order of the Stick webcomic, acknowledges this same principle from what might be called the other side when he says, "In any battle, there's always a level of force against which no tactics can succeed.")

The whole point of min-maxing is that you select a character build that makes some of these decisions ahead of time, accomplishing increased effectiveness in a specialty area at the price of flexibility in addressing other areas/situations. Min-maxing becomes counterproductive when it produces characters who are unbeatable in their area of focus but completely useless anywhere else, because the impossibility of failure and the impossibility of success are equally boring. But if everybody's min-maxing in a different way, the same tactical range is preserved.